Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Detention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Broad public opposition as NH committee weighs ban on public support for immigrant detention facilities
Summary
Representative David Muse proposed HB 16‑09 to bar state, county and municipal funds or property from being used to build, renovate, sell or otherwise support privately owned immigrant detention facilities; dozens of constituents, elected officials and advocacy groups testified in favor, citing humane, fiscal and public‑safety concerns.
Representative David Muse opened the hearing on House Bill 16‑09 by saying the measure would prevent New Hampshire state, county and municipal funds or property from being used to construct, renovate, repurpose, sell, donate or otherwise subsidize privately owned immigrant detention facilities. "The bill before you today is about two things, the future of mass incarceration of immigrants in New Hampshire and fiscal responsibility," Muse said.
Why supporters back the bill: Dozens of witnesses — elected officials, veterans, faith groups, immigrant‑rights organizations, nurses and residents — urged the committee to pass the bill. They described national reports of poorly run private detention centers, recounted alleged abuses and treatment problems, and argued that state and local resources should not underwrite facilities critics say are linked to human‑rights concerns. Several speakers noted local mobilizations opposing a proposed Merrimack facility and said state action is needed to prevent local coercion.
Fiscal and local‑control arguments: Sponsors and supporters emphasized the federal nature of immigration enforcement and argued New Hampshire taxpayers should not subsidize private detention infrastructure. Several witnesses said use of public land or subsidies would shift costs and public‑safety burdens (police, EMS, legal access) to host communities. Representative Wendy Thomas said the bill would prevent coercive repurposing of local assets and reduce the strain on municipal services.
Opposition and clarifying points: Witnesses raising caution included those who asked for definitions and scope (e.g., who is covered by 'immigrant') and whether the measure would unintentionally limit lawful local cooperation with federal authorities. Sponsor said the bill exempts 287 agreements (local jails holding detainees under existing compacts) and is intended to stop new, large private facilities and subsidies.
Next steps: The hearing closed after extensive public testimony. The committee did not vote at the hearing; members discussed statutory definitions and requested clarifying language and potential fiscal implications.
