Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Citizen Petition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents sharply divided at Select Board public comment over immigrants' rights petition
Summary
At a crowded public comment period, speakers both urged and opposed a petitioned advisory question affirming constitutional protections for residents regardless of immigration status; arguments ranged from appeals to compassion to objections about federal preemption and unclear language.
Public comment at the March 24 Select Board meeting featured extended testimony both supporting and opposing a petition that would place a nonbinding advisory question on the ballot about whether residents “support the constitutional rights of all Yarmouth residents…regardless of nationality, citizenship, or immigration status.”
Chris Hammond, a long-time resident, described the petition’s intent as a simple, local expression of caring for immigrant neighbors and said the organizers are a small, local group. He told the board he hoped the question would “send a message of caring to our immigrant, law-abiding neighbors who are terrified of being hauled out of their car or their home.”
Opponents argued the language is misleading and could create confusion about federal authority on immigration. Cheryl Ball said the wording amounts to “political theater” and that the petition “is a setup” used to push a broader political agenda; others warned the town has no authority to change federal immigration law.
Select Board members heard both positions before voting 4–1 to include the petitioned nonbinding advisory question on the ballot; the board highlighted the distinction that the advisory question is nonbinding and that any statutory or legal contradictions remain governed by state and federal law.
