Committee recommends Immigrant Safety Act to stop use of local governments in federal immigration detention contracts

House Bill 9, the Immigrant Safety Act, would instruct New Mexico public bodies not to enter into agreements that facilitate civil immigration detention and would prohibit leasing or selling public property to facilitate immigration detention. The Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee recommended the bill do pass by a reported vote (committee tally announced as 6 in favor, 1 opposed, with some excused), after testimony from immigrant‑rights and civil‑liberties organizations and from people who had been detained in New Mexico facilities.

Representative Jarvis (House sponsor) and Senator Nava joined in committee to explain the measure. The bill does not criminalize federal enforcement actions nor does it prohibit ICE from arresting people in the state; rather, it bars state and local public bodies from contracting with ICE or facilitating civil immigration detention through the use of public property. Representative Jarvis described the mechanism: "The federal government enters into no bid contracts with counties, which then enter into no bid subcontracts with out of state entities for an out of state for‑profit prison company... Passing the Immigrant Safety Act gets us out of the business of immigration detention and stops incentivizing ICE to place detention beds here."

Supporters included legal and immigrant‑rights advocates. Jessica Ines Martinez, director of policy and coalition building at the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center, testified: "Any reduction in the number of ICE detention beds in New Mexico will make our immigrant communities safer because data shows ICE is more likely to conduct arrests and raids closer to where it has existing detention beds." The ACLU's Rebecca Sheff said HB 9 is on "solid legal footing" and simply governs the conduct of New Mexico's public bodies rather than regulating the federal government.

Multiple community witnesses described conditions inside state detention facilities and urged legislators to end local government complicity. One former detainee testified about sanitation, medical care concerns and isolation; advocates and faith leaders said ending local participation in detention contracts would reduce the incentives that bring detention beds to the state.

Senators raised fiscal and employment questions. Committee members asked whether counties that host facilities would face bond or revenue impacts and what would happen to employees who staff existing facilities; witnesses said facilities could be repurposed and noted revenue bonds are revenue‑backed obligations for which investors assume risk.

After extensive testimony and questions, the committee recommended the bill do pass. The committee record shows a majority of senators supported the measure and one senator explained a no vote; the committee chair announced the do‑pass recommendation and the bill will move to the next step in the legislative process.