The Pittsfield Police Department has entered into a federal immigration enforcement contract, becoming the first agency in Merrimack County and in the capital region to partner with ICE.
The contract, called a 287(g) agreement, was signed on May 12, according to a list of participating agencies kept by ICE.
Pittsfield’s contract is not yet public, but the agreements generally authorize local police carrying out their standard operations to arrest and interrogate people for warrants on or suspected immigration violations. They can also issue immigration detainers and hold custody of people arrested locally or by ICE, as well as transport them to ICE-approved detention centers.
Police Chief Joe Collins did not return a request for an interview prior to deadline.
Police in Kingston, Milton and Newton also signed on as participating agencies this month, bringing the statewide total to 20, as listed by ICE on May 19. That includes New Hampshire State Police, three county sheriff’s offices and 16 municipal police departments.
These agencies have made at least 51 immigration arrests since September, as reported by NHPR.
The Grafton County Sheriff’s Office recently exited its agreement with ICE, citing a strain on resources although the department hadn’t directly participated in immigration enforcement activities, according to reporting by the Upper Valley news station WCAX. Sheriff Jillian Myers told the Monitor last month that the department had not received any money from the partnership.
Meanwhile, immigration justice advocates are planning their response. Organizers of New Hampshire’s so-called “sanctuary communities,” a grassroots effort that seeks to monitor and document ICE activities in New Hampshire, prepared an “Anti-287(g) Advocacy Toolkit” with talking points and letters for residents to send to local officials.
Larry Brown, a Lancaster resident who heads up the group, said he was surprised to see four new departments sign those contracts this month but that ICE is “dangling the promise of money” to towns. He counts Grafton County’s withdrawal as win, though officials haven’t attributed that to public pressure.
“We’ve done the most that we could to try to empower local activists to pressure town officials not to sign these agreements,” Brown said.
