Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 287g Immigration Cooperation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears testimony on SB 62, which would allow local agencies to participate in federal 287(g) immigration programs
Summary
SB 62 would prohibit New Hampshire state or local entities from preventing law enforcement agencies from applying for federal 287(g) agreements; testimony ranged from witnesses citing ICE enforcement data to civil‑liberties groups warning the bill could read as a mandate and raise fiscal and oversight concerns.
Sen. Bill Gannon introduced Senate Bill 62 as a measure to ensure state and local agencies in New Hampshire “shall not prohibit or impede any State, county, or local law enforcement agency from applying for or entering into an agreement with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to participate in a federal 287 program,” as he read in the bill’s summary to the Judiciary Committee.
The 287(g) program, created in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, permits ICE to enter memoranda of agreement with local law enforcement to delegate certain immigration‑enforcement authorities to trained local officers. Supporters argued the program adds tools to track and detain criminal noncitizens; opponents said the bill is unnecessary, could be read as a mandate that overrides local oversight, and raises fiscal and civil‑liberties concerns.
Sherry Rendell of the Federation for American Immigration Reform said 287(g) partnerships allow local officers to identify and remove criminal aliens and cited ICE encounter statistics and a 2022 ICE report summarizing program results: “287G officers encountered 8,842 aliens…1,895 were convicted criminals and 4,999 had pending criminal charges,” she said. Rendell argued the program expands federal interior enforcement capacity.
Opponents included Gilles Bissonnette of the ACLU of New Hampshire and Grace Kondekke of the American Friends Service Committee. Bissonnette told the committee that no legal prohibition currently prevents local departments from applying to 287(g), and he recommended that, if the Legislature wished to enable such participation, the bill be written as a clear discretionary enabling statute rather than with language that could be read as a mandate. “There is no legal bar,” he told the committee, and adding statutory language could be unnecessary and potentially misread as requiring cooperation rather than permitting it.
Kondekke testified the bill would “undermine local control” and could preempt oversight that local governing boards exercise over police departments. She urged the committee to leave local policies and relationships intact and described risks to immigrant communities if local police are directed into formal immigration‑enforcement roles.
Senators sought clarification about the bill’s purpose and scope. Some members characterized SB 62 as a preemptive permission structure—Gannon said the measure would make clear that New Hampshire allows local agencies to apply for 287(g) training and agreements but does not compel participation. Questions focused on whether any New Hampshire county or municipality had been refused the opportunity to participate in 287(g) and whether the bill would change existing practice; witnesses said the program is a voluntary federal program, currently used by some U.S. jurisdictions, and that awareness of 287(g) has increased in recent years.
ACLU testimony also raised practical concerns about detainers and the potential for local agencies to be asked to hold individuals for ICE without compensation. Several committee members and witnesses noted that a local jail might absorb housing and legal costs if asked to detain people for federal removal processes.
No formal vote occurred. The committee will consider language clarifications and fiscal and oversight implications if it advances the bill to committee work sessions.
