New Hampshire: A recent error by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) briefly caused confusion and concern in two New Hampshire communities after they were mistakenly labeled as “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The listings appeared in a DHS report but were removed soon after officials realized the mistake. Local leaders and residents expressed relief, while also demanding answers.
This incident has sparked fresh discussions about what qualifies as a sanctuary jurisdiction, how DHS collects such data, and how government labeling can affect local communities.
What Is a Sanctuary Jurisdiction?
A sanctuary jurisdiction refers to a city, county, or state that limits its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. These areas typically enact policies that prevent local law enforcement from inquiring about a person’s immigration status or from honoring certain federal immigration detainers.
Although this is a highly debated topic in national politics, sanctuary policies are often designed to build trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement to ensure public safety.
Learn more about what sanctuary cities are and how they operate.
Which New Hampshire Communities Were Mistakenly Listed?
The communities affected by the brief listing were Lebanon and Durham, both known for their academic and progressive environments. Lebanon is home to Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center and many healthcare professionals, while Durham hosts the University of New Hampshire.
The inclusion of these cities raised eyebrows, especially since neither community has publicly declared sanctuary policies. Local officials in both cities said they were not contacted by DHS before being listed.
“We were stunned,” said Durham Town Administrator Todd Selig. “Durham is not, nor has it ever been, a sanctuary community.”
DHS Removes Names, Cites Internal Review
After the release of the report, the DHS removed the names of Lebanon and Durham from its website within 48 hours. According to a brief statement, the listings were the result of a clerical or data processing error during the department’s quarterly report update.
A DHS spokesperson stated, “The listings of Lebanon and Durham, NH, were not accurate representations of sanctuary jurisdictions as defined by DHS standards. We have corrected the error.”
You can read the full DHS statement here.
Local Leaders Demand Accountability
Despite the correction, local leaders have not let the issue rest quietly. Several elected officials in New Hampshire called for more transparency on how these lists are compiled and what checks are in place to prevent such errors.
“This kind of labeling has real consequences,” said State Representative Rebecca Perkins Kwoka. “These errors damage public trust and invite unnecessary tension between residents and law enforcement.”
Officials worry that such mislabeling could lead to increased scrutiny, misinformation, or even federal funding implications. Some also fear it may influence public perception, particularly in politically divided regions.
Community Response: Relief and Concern
While residents expressed relief at the quick correction, the community also voiced concerns about broader implications. In Lebanon, residents took to social media, questioning whether the listing could have long-term reputational effects on the city.
“Even though it’s been fixed, the damage is done for some people,” said James Riley, a Lebanon resident. “When people see your town’s name on that kind of list, it sticks in their mind.”
Others are using the event to call for better immigration education and dialogue. “This shows how little people understand about sanctuary policies,” said University of New Hampshire professor Maria Lopez. “It’s time for informed conversation, not fear-based narratives.”
Immigration Experts Weigh In
Immigration policy experts have pointed out that the error reveals deeper problems with federal reporting processes.
According to David Bier, an immigration policy analyst with the Cato Institute, “The fact that DHS could mistakenly list communities shows the lack of a clear and consistent definition of what constitutes a sanctuary jurisdiction.”
Many such reports have come under fire in the past for including outdated or inaccurate information. You can read more about related concerns in this policy review by the ACLU.
Political Reactions to the Error
The misstep has also ignited debate among politicians. Democratic officials in New Hampshire used the moment to criticize federal overreach and misinformation. Meanwhile, some conservative figures argued that the confusion reflects the need for stronger state-federal coordination on immigration matters.
“This is exactly why immigration enforcement must be accurate and fair,” said Senator Jeanne Shaheen, calling for oversight into the listing process.
Meanwhile, Governor Chris Sununu issued a brief statement supporting transparency, adding, “We are glad the error was corrected quickly but expect DHS to ensure this doesn’t happen again.”
Looking Ahead: Policy and Trust
The incident has left a lasting impression on the people of Lebanon and Durham. While the removal of their names from the list brought some closure, questions about accuracy, policy transparency, and public trust remain.
In an age of fast-moving digital information, a single error can snowball into national headlines. This situation illustrates the importance of accurate data management, especially when dealing with sensitive topics like immigration.
For further understanding of federal and local immigration policies, visit National Immigration Law Center.
Conclusion
The Department of Homeland Security’s brief mislabeling of two New Hampshire towns has not only been a technical error but a cautionary tale about the power of federal reporting. In a time when immigration remains a central political issue, even a small clerical mistake can have a large ripple effect.
Lebanon and Durham may have been removed from the sanctuary jurisdiction list, but the conversations they sparked may continue for months to come.
Also Read – Foley Joins National Butterfly Effort as Alabama’s First Monarch City
