OPINION: Six Questions About Scarborough’s Anti-ICE Frenzy

Like most people, I was saddened to learn of the death of a Biddeford resident during an Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation in July.  And I remain deeply disappointed that the details surrounding the incident have not been adequately shared with the public.

Despite these concerns, I have several questions concerning the anti-ICE sentiment that some individuals suggest is widely held by Scarborough residents.

1. What evidence is there that “the clear majority of the town” wants the removal of the ICE facility at 40 Manson Libby Road?

There certainly is a small group of vocal and highly motivated activists who are committed to a range of anti-ICE objectives, including full elimination of the agency which secures the nation’s borders.  But there is no evidence that a strong anti-ICE sentiment is shared by most or even many residents as the Town Council and others appear to have concluded.

The petition signed by 175 residents for the Town Council to take action against ICE is generally cited as evidence of the groundswell of opposition to the presence of ICE in Scarborough.  While it is a meaningful number, more than twice as many residents signed the petition asking the Council to hold a referendum on the Downs TIF/CEA in 2018.  (That petition, incidentally, was rejected by the Council.)  If the Council is aware of a valid survey of resident sentiment on the removal of ICE, they should share it with the public as soon as possible.

2. How does an ICE facility in Scarborough reflect badly on the town and its residents?

The ICE facility on Manson Libby Road is not there because of any invitation or decision made by the residents or the Council.  It is there because the federal General Service Administration (GSA) leased a portion of a building from a private owner.  As long as the landlord and tenant are in compliance with all applicable laws and ordinances, we have absolutely no reason to burden ourselves emotionally with responsibility for any actions of ICE. 

Those who feel Scarborough is somehow stigmatized by having a lawful agency of the U.S. Government occupy space in private property should not assume or expect that all other residents share their feelings.

3. Is it appropriate for a member of the Town Council to publicly interfere with the business of a Scarborough property owner?

In an August opinion piece in the Portland Press Herald, Town Councilor Jonathan Anderson called on the owner of the 40 Manson Libby Road building, Joshua Soley, to contact the GSA and ask them to find a way to relocate a tenant (ICE) from his building.  

While Anderson signed his op-ed as a chair of the Scarborough Democratic Town Committee, his role as a Town Councilor is undoubtedly well-known to Soley. How is it appropriate for a sitting Town Councilor to publicly ask a property owner to interfere with the owner’s relationship with a tenant?  Doesn’t this send a signal to current and prospective commercial property owners that their leasing choices are somehow subject to scrutiny by town officials?  What standards or political tests must owners meet to assure they have selected “acceptable” tenants… or risk a public scolding?

4.  How does preventing local police from cooperating with ICE personnel improve public safety?

It’s an unfortunate reality that bad people exist, and both local and federal police have to deal with them every day. The bad guys often have guns.  Isn’t it better for all the good guys to be working together to minimize chances for things to go wrong in critical situations?

Also, isn’t demonizing every one of the 20,000+ ICE employees, as some anti-ICE zealots do, the worst kind of profiling.

5.  To what extent is the Town Council willing to pursue the demands of the anti-ICE activists?

Portland, Oregon, San Francisco and Seattle are often mentioned as role models for the anti-ICE movement since public officials there have spared no expense in trying to close down ICE facilities.  If we are striving to be an East Coast version of one of them, we should carefully consider the costs of an all-out anti-ICE campaign in terms of legal fees and staff time.  Is such a major commitment of town resources a priority?

6. How does moving the ICE facility out of Scarborough address any of the concerns that protestors have with their underlying issue — that ICE is evil?

“Getting ICE out of Scarborough” is the single most often stated goal of the local anti-ICE movement.  Relocating the facility to Buxton or Westbrook would apparently resolve the issue for many.  As long as the assumed blot on Scarborough’s name is erased, they’re good.  Doesn’t this sound a lot like NIMBY in action?

*****

The Town Council currently appears to be reacting to the residents’ petition with emotion and political expediency based upon the outcry of a limited number of residents.  Emotion is not a good basis for developing town policy and ordinances.  The current situation deserves a much better understanding of the broad consensus of town residents on any action taken in response to the immigration enforcement issues and how those responses may impact public safety in Scarborough.

Steve Hanly, September 21, 2026