Senators consider SB 71 to bar local sanctuary policies; testimony split over public safety and local control

Sen. Bill Gannon introduced Senate Bill 71 to prohibit municipal or county “sanctuary” policies that limit communication or cooperation with federal immigration authorities. “It is our responsibility to the residents of New Hampshire to make it known that the only immigration New Hampshire welcomes…is legal immigration,” Gannon said when introducing the measure.

Proponents framed SB 71 as an anti‑sanctuary statute that would keep local jurisdictions from enacting ordinances or policies that impede federal immigration enforcement. Supporters told the committee they had repeatedly heard public safety concerns at the door and cited ICE and other enforcement data. Rep. Janine Nader and Sen. Tim McHugh offered testimony describing visits to the southern border and local law‑enforcement experiences; McHugh described the bill as “vital” to close perceived gaps and cited ICE reporting that identifies some counties as limited cooperators.

Opponents said the bill would interfere with local control and could be read as a mandate rather than a narrow prohibition on obstructing federal law. Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU said the bill’s language is ambiguous and could be interpreted to require police departments or jails to hold people at federal request; he warned the proposal would strip municipal authorities of oversight and could impose uncompensated fiscal burdens. Grace Kondekke of the New Hampshire Immigrant Rights Network and other advocates argued the state already has mechanisms for law enforcement cooperation when appropriate and that the bill would harm trust between policing and immigrant communities.

Sherry Rendell of FAIR told the committee sanctuary policies “shield individuals” and that some New Hampshire jurisdictions had policies she characterized as welcoming ordinances; she urged passage to ensure communication and cooperation with federal authorities. FAIR presented fiscal and crime‑reporting studies to support its position.

Committee members questioned whether the bill adds legal clarity (immigration enforcement is already federal), whether penalties or enforcement mechanisms are needed, and whether localities already lack legal authority to obstruct federal enforcement. Witnesses and senators discussed potential fiscal consequences if local jails are required to hold people for ICE without reimbursement and whether the attorney general’s office would be tasked with enforcement. Several lawmakers asked whether “sanctuary county” designations cited in testimony reflected state or federal determinations and requested source documentation.

No amendments or votes occurred at the hearing. The committee will decide whether to revise statutory language to clarify whether the bill is an enabling measure, a prohibition on obstruction, or a mandate, and to identify enforcement and fiscal consequences before reporting the bill out of committee.