Contested hearing on bill to strip tax‑exempt status from nonprofits that 'settle' undocumented migrants

House Bill 635 — as introduced by Representative Travis Corcoran — would change the state’s criteria for nonprofit status by disqualifying organizations that, by statute, "settle or resettle" undocumented migrants in New Hampshire. The bill prompted lengthy, often heated testimony and a request by committee members for follow‑up legal review.

Sponsor remarks. Representative Corcoran framed the bill as an administrative change restricting state tax privileges to organizations he said pursue prosocial activities that the state wishes to encourage. He told the committee he was concerned about a network of large nonprofits that receive significant public funds and, in his view, provide services that encourage illegal immigration. Corcoran argued nonprofit status is a policy tool and the state may choose not to extend that advantage to organizations that habitually settle undocumented individuals.

Opposition and concerns. Testimony opposing the bill came from a mix of nonprofit leaders, service providers and residents who said the proposal would criminalize ordinary charitable actions and interfere with religiously motivated assistance. Rick Menard, executive director of Building Community in New Hampshire, described federally managed refugee resettlement contracts and said those organizations are paid to deliver services to legally admitted refugees under federal programs. Menard and others asked the committee to distinguish between federally authorized refugee resettlement and services provided to others without documentation; they urged the committee not to restrict charities' work or tax status based on controversial or vague definitions.

Many residents testified in favor of the bill, arguing taxpayers should not subsidize entities that, in their view, facilitate the presence of undocumented migrants and citing examples or news accounts of crimes committed by noncitizens. Supporters urged the legislature to tighten oversight and consider denying state tax exemptions to organizations that intentionally assist undocumented migrants. Several speakers framed the issue as fiscal — asking why limited public funds should support settlement programs — and as a matter of rule of law.

DRA testimony and implementation questions. Jennifer Ramsey, tax policy counsel at the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA), told the committee the bill’s language would require careful implementation. DRA staff indicated that, depending on the bill's final wording, the department could investigate organizations to determine whether their activities meet the new statutory threshold and treat them as taxpayers if the law required it; DRA also noted that implementation would rely on tax‑administration processes the department already uses to investigate potential unpaid taxes, and that the bill as drafted did not include material cost estimates.

Constitutional and legal concerns. Committee members raised constitutional questions about potential effects on religious organizations and whether the bill created a content‑based restriction on charitable activity. Several members urged the committee and Legislative Services to analyze how the bill would interact with federal immigration law, existing criminal statutes (8 U.S.C. provisions), and free exercise concerns for religiously motivated aid.

Next steps: Committee members signaled they would circulate the bill for drafting changes and requested input from Legislative Services and DRA on implementation detail, constitutionality and administrative feasibility. Several members said the bill raised complex legal issues that require staff analysis before the committee could take action.

Ending: The hearing closed after more than two hours of testimony with no committee vote. Members asked for legal and administrative follow‑up; some members said they expected a work session before deciding on any recommendation.