The show’s over for Chris Louras.

“VICE News Tonight” followed the former Rutland mayor Monday as he prepared for his last day in office. He lost his reelection bid March 7 to David Allaire by a big margin: some 776 votes.

The HBO show captured Louras packing up his things inside city hall, exchanging a hug with a colleague and driving off into the sunset in his Smart car (which bears an “I Love Rutland, VT!” bumper sticker).

Much of what he told Vice News during the four-minute clip echoed what he told Seven Days reporter Mark Davis. His loss was a referendum on his decision to relocate refugees to Rutland, he said, and he never saw it coming.

A bill that would insulate Vermont authorities from being commandeered to enforce federal immigration law drew wide support in the House on Tuesday even as some members raised red flags.

The bill, which passed the Senate unanimously last month and has the backing of Republican Gov. Phil Scott, moved forward in the House with a 110-24 vote.

The legislation is intended to gird against President Donald Trump’s immigration-related executive orders. It would preclude Vermont police from being deputized to enforce federal immigration law without the governor’s permission and bar the state from knowingly providing information that could be used to establish a religious registry.

Rep. Ron Hubert (R-Milton) peppered Rep. Chip Conquest (D-Newbury), vice chair of the House Judiciary Committee, with questions about possible unintended consequences.

Vermont Attorney General T.J. Donovan has joined a court challenge to President Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigration from six predominantly Muslim countries and temporarily suspending the United States’ refugee program.

Trump issued the new order on March 6 after his original travel ban was struck down by a federal appeals court a month earlier. Trump had initially vowed to fight on but eventually decided to drop the case and prepare a substitute ban.

The state of Hawaii was the first to file suit against the revised executive order, which was tailored to survive expected legal challenges.

On Monday, Donovan and nine other state attorneys general filed an amicus brief in support of Hawaii’s suit. “Vermont has a tradition of standing up against discrimination and I believe this is an appropriate role for us to play,” Donovan said.

Rutland Mayor Chris Louras didn't utter the word "refugee" during his reelection kickoff speech, and tried desperately to make the campaign about more than just the resettlement debate that roiled his city for the past year.

But Wednesday, as he processed his lopsided defeat to Alderman Dave Allaire, the chief opponent of his plan to bring 100 Syrian and Iraqi refugees to the city, Louras said he had been wrong on two key points:

One, the refugee issue was the only one that mattered to voters. And two, he was apparently mistaken in his oft-stated belief that the refugees' supporters outnumbered their opponents in the community.

On the eve of a Town Meeting Day that will see several Vermont communities consider declaring themselves "sanctuary cities," Attorney General T.J. Donovan released legal guidelines for local officials that present nuances to the debate.

On Tuesday, Plainfield, Hartland, Calais and East Montpelier are scheduled to debate curtailing local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, while officials in Richmond also expect discussion on the issue. Montpelier, Winooski, Burlington and South Burlington are also considering sanctuary status, but are not making any decisions on Town Meeting Day.

The model policies Donovan released Monday are meant to help those communities, concerned about President Donald Trump's ongoing attempts to crack down on potentially unlawful immigration, shape their strategies on the issue.

This could be ... awkward.

Gov. Phil Scott is headed to visit President Donald Trump, a day after the state’s Senate unanimously voted for a bill that would insulate Vermont from enforcing controversial immigration edicts touted by the commander in chief.

Scott, who has said he didn’t vote for his fellow Republican, enthusiastically joined legislative leaders in backing the Vermont immigration bill, which his staff helped write.

“This is about what I see as federal overreach in terms of our Constitution,” Scott said of the bill. “I feel this puts us on a pathway to giving some relief to Vermonters and to calm down the rhetoric and anxiety.”

About a dozen students from the Burlington High School International Club watched Thursday afternoon as the Vermont Senate unanimously passed a bill meant to reassure them, and other immigrants, that they are welcome.

“I think we’re doing something really special here today,” said Senate President Pro Tempore Tim Ashe (D/P-Chittenden). “It really does send a different kind of message ... Whether you look different or pray differently or whatever it is, you’re welcome in this place that respects differences.”

The Senate voted 30-0 in favor of the bill, which was written in response to President Donald Trump’s recent immigration orders.

Lawmakers said the legislation seeks to do two things: prevent the federal government from deputizing local police to enforce immigration law, and bar the state from providing residents’ personal information to be used for a religious registry.

Richmond neurologist Andy Solomon and his family had participated in marches in Washington, D.C. and Montpelier, called their elected officials, and tried to find as many ways as possible in recent weeks to protest President Donald Trump's administration.

They were contemplating what to do next when Solomon saw a report from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that left him aghast.

Fadwa Alaoui, a Moroccan-born Canadian citizen who is Muslim, her two children and an adult cousin were turned away at the border last week as they tried to go on a shopping trip to Burlington. Alaoui's parents live in Chicago, and she'd visited the U.S. on several occasions previously. But American border guards inspected her cellphone, quizzed her about Trump and her faith — and then wouldn't allow her in the country after waiting four hours to enter Highgate Springs, she told the CBC.

"He said, 'Do you practice? Which mosque do you go to?" she told the news outlet. "What is the name of the imam? How often do you go to the mosque? What kind of discussions do you hear in the mosque? Does the imam talk to you directly?'"

Legislative action began Friday on a bill that would bar local law enforcement agencies from taking an active role in President Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration enforcement.

Gov. Phil Scott has rejected Trump’s request that state and local law enforcement assist in the federal crackdown. Senate bill 79 would bar local authorities from making their own arrangements with the feds.

The bill received its first hearing at a joint meeting of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, which heard largely positive testimony with a couple of caveats. No votes were taken; another hearing is scheduled for next week.

“This bill creates consistency and transparency,” said Attorney General T.J. Donovan. “It draws a bright line, complying with federal law while protecting the rights of Vermonters.” Donovan is a member of the governor’s civil rights cabinet, which formulated the legislation.

A pair of Northeast Kingdom lawmakers, Rep. Gary Viens (R-Newport) and Rep. Janssen Willhoit (R-St. Johnsbury), were concerned with the potential for harming relationships between local and federal agencies. In the Kingdom, Willhoit noted, local law enforcement is thin on the ground, and the Border Patrol is an invaluable partner. Viens and Willhoit were reassured by Public Safety Commissioner Tom Anderson.

“My overriding concern in examining this bill was to protect those partnerships,” Anderson said. “That’s why I attempted to draw it as narrowly as possible.”

Indeed, the bill is narrowly drawn. It addresses one very specific aspect of the Trump orders: the request for assistance from state and local law enforcement.
Even as lawmakers act, the limits of the state’s power have been on display at the Canadian border, where five Canadians of Moroccan descent have been denied entry into the U.S.

The current situation also brings to mind the Border Patrol’s claim that it can stop and search anyone within 100 miles of the Canadian border — an area that includes more than 90 percent of Vermont’s population. As recently as 2014, the Border Patrol mulled establishment of a permanent checkpoint on I-91 in the Upper Valley, where it had frequently set up temporary checkpoints.

A pair of concerns went unanswered at the S.79 hearing.

Rep. Selene Colburn (P-Burlington) noted that the bill gives the governor sole authority to block a federal and local agreement, but what about the reverse? “Could the governor mandate that a local jurisdiction should enter into a federal agreement?” she inquired.

Senate Judiciary Chair Dick Sears (D-Bennington), the primary sponsor of S.79, indicated that the question would be addressed when the bill undergoes “mark-up,” the fine-tuning process that occurs before a committee vote.

The other concern came from a pair of county sheriffs — Roger Marcoux Jr. of Lamoille and Bill Bohnyak of Orange. They pointed to a section of S.79 that barred local agencies from creating databases that might be used by the feds in immigration enforcement, and questioned whether it was at odds with a state requirement that local law enforcement collect race-based data on traffic stops.

That mandate was part of an effort to limit bias in law enforcement. Marcoux and Bohnyak mulled the “unintended consequence” of the requirement. “We could be inadvertently setting up a registry with the race data,” Marcoux noted.

Bohnyak sees S.79 as an opportunity to overturn the mandate. “I was against collecting the data, I was forced to do it and I did it,” he said. “And now, when they start pushing with the immigration, they say, ‘Stop, we’re not going to create [databases for the feds].’ So let’s just not do it at all.”

Marcoux favors the race data initiative, but he says there’s a potential conflict with S.79. Members of the two committees promised to consider their concerns.

Aside from the questions from Colburn and the sheriffs, there was broad consensus among committee members that the bill will move forward quickly. Members of both parties agree on the merits of S.79 as, if nothing else, a symbolic stand against what Scott has called “federal overreach.”

It’s likely to become law before too long, and it may have precious little impact. Marcoux noted that there’s little interest among his colleagues in helping federal authorities; they have more than enough on their own plates.