Bar Harbor Residents Demand Local Ordinance Against ICE

Mar 18, 2026

A woman holding two signs, one with a drawing of a man and the name 'Alex Jeffrey Pretti' and the other saying 'ICE Out for Good!' with images of ice cubes, standing in a snowy area near parked cars. — Previous protest by the town’s municipal building and Hannaford on Cottage Street this winter. File photo: Bar Harbor Story.

The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by First National Bank.

Banner announcing First National Bank as a sponsor for The Bar Harbor Story, featuring a photo of the bank's brick building.

BAR HARBOR—Three Bar Harbor residents stood before their Town Council, February 17, and explained that they want the town to adopt a local ordinance about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, the federal law enforcement agency under the direction of the Department of Homeland Security.

The ordinance would prohibit local law enforcement officers and Bar Harbor employees from indirectly assisting ICE agents.

On March 17, two of those residents came back and were joined by another.

John O’Brien again asked the council to support an ordinance. Gayle Leiser and Anna Durand both joined him in his appeal.

Speaking first, O’Brien told councilors that his proposal was for a local ordinance to define the relationship between the federal agency and local officers and town staff.

State law, LD 1971, is meant to clarify the relationship between local law authorities and federal immigration officials and will be enacted in June.

What those speaking at the Town Council meeting hoped for was an earlier implementation.

“We have been informed that these are restrictions already observed in the administrative policy of the town. But, why not go a step further? Why not enshrine that policy in law, now? Why not follow Bangor’s lead and approve an early implementation of 1971 by way of an order?” O’Brien asked.

Maine Legislature passed LD 1971 in June 2025. It will go into effect 90 days after the Maine Legislature adjourns.

It’s meant to clarify how local and state law enforcement agencies interact with federal civil immigration engagements and prohibits state and local law enforcement from performing the investigation, interrogation, detention, detection, stopping, searching or arresting “a person for [civil] immigration enforcement purposes.”

The Bar Harbor residents are also exploring a potential citizens’ initiative.

“How seriously do we take the threat that federal immigration enforcement poses to our community?” O’Brien asked.

He asked for a “rules-based approach.”

“Will staffing be a challenge when workers are fearful of returning to a community that lacks any serious effort to reassure them of the only safety that can be offered: our public refusal to cooperate in illegal enforcement actions?” O’Brien asked during public comment.

He also hoped for the town to make a public refusal about collecting citizenship status information.

Leiser said she’d asked in February to add an ordinance proposal that would codify LD 1971 locally as well as address indirect cooperation with federal immigration officials.

She thanked the four councilors who responded to the proposal and believes that something will be on the April 7 agenda, but worried that it was only going to be about a 2017 citizens’ resolution that declared the town a sanctuary city. She asked that the council also discuss passage of an order to immediately activate LD 1971.

“The 2026 tourist season is upon us, The temporary foreign workers who support our businesses are already arriving. The visitors from all around the world are right behind them.” Leiser said. “I believe that is vitally important that our community communicate clearly that we will protect the constitutional rights of all who live, work, and visit our town. An order to immediately implement LD 1971 would be an easy move in that direction.”

Bar Harbor and Mount Desert have both previously declared sanctuary status.

In 2017, after a citizens’ petition, Mount Desert voters declared 101-59 that the town would be a “sanctuary community.” The non-binding resolution hoped to “protect the independence of our local law enforcement by refusing to require police or town employees to serve as enforcers of federal immigration law.”

It was the first town in Maine to do so.

That same year, Bar Harbor residents voted 351-62 to support declaring that town a sanctuary community.

“We have not even followed through on the public posting of the Sanctuary Community Resolution promised by the Citizen’s resolution of 2017,” O’Brien said, Tuesday.

Anna Durand said she’d come before the council 1.5 years ago asking what the plan was for the town.

“No councilor got back in touch with me. The town manager didn’t get in touch with me. The police didn’t get in touch with me. It was not a rhetorical question,” Durand said. “So, here we are…. We all need to think ahead.”

Now it is time for a plan, she said, even though there may be logistical roadblocks to an ordinance.

“Without enforcement,” she said, “we’re kind of working on a hope and a prayer and I’m hoping and praying with you.”

During public comment at a Bar Harbor Town Council meeting in November 2024, Durand worried about the potential deportation of immigrants under the upcoming Trump presidency and how Bar Harbor would react.

“I hope you will think ahead to the coming executive orders that will try to ban sanctuary communities like ours,” Durand had said.

Bar Harbor and Mount Desert Police Chief David Kerns had sent a memo in late 2024 explaining that “the police department remains dedicated to its mission of upholding public safety while respecting constitutional rights. In accordance with our legal responsibilities, we enforce state and local laws within our jurisdiction. Matters related to federal immigration enforcement fall under the purview of federal agencies, and we are not authorized to act in that capacity. This clear division of responsibilities has long been part of our approach, ensuring adherence to our legal obligations and protecting the constitutional rights of all individuals.”

“The Sanctuary Community Resolution reflects our shared commitment to fairness, inclusivity, and respect for all individuals. These values continue to guide our efforts in fostering a safe and welcoming community,” Kerns wrote at the time.

WHAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE CURRENTLY WOULD DO

A document outlining the Town of Bar Harbor, Maine's ordinance regarding the relationship between Town officials and federal immigration enforcement, including definitions and regulations.

A document outlining an ordinance proposal on immigration enforcement operations, detailing restrictions on town employees' participation and cooperation with federal agencies in immigration matters.

An excerpt from an ordinance discussing the restrictions on requesting information about citizenship or immigration status by town employees and the separation of town operations from federal immigration enforcement.

The proposed ordinance would amend the town code.

It would define multiple terms within the ordinance including citizenship or immigration status, town department, town employee, contact information, federal agency, and immigration enforcement operation.

The three-page proposed ordinance says that “no person acting in their capacity as a town employee shall assist or cooperate with, or allow any town monies or resources to be used to assist, cooperate with or facilitate any federal agency in any immigration enforcement operation, except where legally required to do so by state or federal law or court order.”

It states the town would not give any ICE access to Bar Harbor-owned facilities for its immigration enforcement.

It also states that no Bar Harbor employee “shall support or assist any federal agency in immigration enforcement operations.”

That would include contact information, home or work address, custody status. It would not allow investigations or interrogations as part of an immigration enforcement operation; helping ICE establish traffic perimeter; being present and assisting or supporting an ICE operation.

It also states that Bar Harbor employees and departments couldn’t enter into contracts or agreements or arrangements with ICE that would allow it to “grant any federal immigration enforcement authority to a town department or its employees, including but not limited to agreements created under 8 U.S.C. § I 357(g); or authorize the custodial transfer or detention of a person in removal proceedings or for other immigration enforcement operation purposes, including but not limited to Intergovernmental Service Agreements, Intergovernmental Agreements, and ICE riders to Intergovernmental Agreements.”

Town employees shall not “stop, arrest, detain or continue to detain a person for immigration enforcement operation purposes, including pursuant to an immigration detainer; an administrative immigration warrant, any other immigration enforcement document, or information or suspicion that the person is not present legally in the United States, or that the person has committed an immigration violation.”

Except for human, sex, drug, or firearms trafficking, it also says that Bar Harbor employees or departments can’t allow ICE (or Customs and Border Patrol) to access people detained already by Bar Harbor, transfer anyone into ICE or CBP custody, or permit the agencies to use town facilities.