Bill would bar sanctuary policies and require local cooperation with federal immigration detainers; hearings spotlight jail costs and local control

Representative Joe Sweeney introduced HB 511, a measure the sponsor described as outlawing sanctuary policies in New Hampshire and directing law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and to honor lawful immigration detainers.

Representative Joe Sweeney (Rockingham District 25) told the committee, “If you are here illegally, you are not welcome in New Hampshire,” and urged support for legislation that would require local agencies to comply with federal immigration law and detainer requests. He said the measure includes protections for victims and witnesses of serious crimes while emphasizing cooperation with federal authorities.

Public testimony was strongly divided. Supporters argued the bill promotes public safety and ensures that local jurisdictions do not shield people subject to federal removal. Michael Lambert and others urged passage, framing immigration enforcement as necessary to protect communities and to preserve the rule of law.

County jail officials and municipal representatives raised operational and fiscal concerns. Tim Lethbridge, superintendent of the Grafton County Jail and a spokesman for the New Hampshire Association of Counties, said many jails already cooperate with ICE but warned the bill as written could impose costs and liabilities on counties that lack housing and operational capacity to hold civil immigration detainees. Lethbridge cited examples of high marginal costs: he told the committee that Strafford County recently incurred approximately $31,000 in officer manpower costs to provide security and life‑flight support for one ICE detainee who required medical evacuation. He urged the committee to limit any mandatory obligation to jails that have executed agreements with ICE so that ICE would be responsible for associated costs and legal defense.

Local officials and residents also warned of policing consequences. Linda Field, a resident of Peterborough, described her town’s local decision to limit police interaction with ICE and said the community is concerned about due process and the treatment of working people; other testifiers urged the committee to respect local control. Opponents argued that mandatory cooperation could chill trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, making communities less safe.

Supporters of the bill countered that local ordinances which restrict cooperation with federal authorities undermine statewide public‑safety policy. Representative Ross Berry, a cosponsor, urged adding the judiciary to the list of entities that cannot impede federal enforcement after citing instances he said showed local actors enabling avoidance of federal detainers.

Why it matters: The bill touches on competing priorities — enforcement of federal immigration law versus local discretion, community trust in policing, and the financial and liability burdens on county jails. Testimony highlighted that many counties already cooperate with ICE but that holding civil immigration detainees raises distinct classification, housing and liability issues.

Committee status: The hearing record included extensive testimony from sheriffs and jail superintendents, municipal officials and local residents; no committee vote is recorded in the transcript provided.

Ending: The committee concluded the hearing after wide-ranging testimony; several county officials recommended narrowing any mandate to facilities that have executed formal agreements with ICE to ensure federal cost and liability sharing.