HB1609

House · 2026 sessionDemocraticKilled in House

Restricting funds for immigrant detention

Bars state, county, and municipal funds and property from being used to construct, sell, donate, or operate immigrant detention facilities, particularly those run by private entities, while allowing continued cooperation under 287(g) agreements.

limiting the use of state, county, and municipal funds and property for construction and operation of certain immigrant detention facilities.Official record

State GovernmentCountiesMunicipalities

Division of testimonyComputed by this site

2,270 submissions

Neutral 0

Hatched = form letter ··

Status

Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 13, 2026

✓Introduced
✕House
Senate
Governor
Law

Sponsors, hearings & roll-call votes

Argument digest

from 248 of 1,195 written submissions

HB1609 would restrict New Hampshire state, county, and municipal funds and property from being used to construct, renovate, or operate immigrant detention facilities, particularly those run by private entities. The large majority of submitters registered in support of the bill, arguing that public funds should not subsidize ICE detention given documented due-process and civil-rights concerns, inhumane conditions, and the diversion of limited local resources away from education, healthcare, and housing, with many pointing specifically to a proposed facility in Merrimack. A smaller number of submitters registered opposition to the bill; a few explicitly argued the state should cooperate with and help fund federal immigration enforcement, while many others tagged as opposed nonetheless raised concerns about ICE conduct and taxpayer funding similar to those made in support.

ICE conduct violates due process or civil rightsSupport71 of 248 reviewed
Supporters argue that ICE enforcement and detention practices involve documented violations of due process, civil rights, and constitutional protections, and that New Hampshire should not use public funds to enable such conduct.
- “For the first time in my lifetime we have a secret police force which continues again and again to violate the rights of US citizens and does not appear to be accountable to any authority who will reign in their power.”
  — Gus Emmick, Manchester · #536338 — read full submission →
- “I have watched our federal government commit crimes against civilians in violation of our laws and their oaths of office.”
  — Debora Hatcher, Dover · #531358 — read full submission →
Public funds should go to community needs, not detentionSupport65 of 248 reviewed
Supporters argue that limited state and local tax dollars should be spent on priorities such as education, healthcare, housing, and infrastructure rather than on constructing or operating immigrant detention facilities.
- “New Hampshire property taxpayers are already under significant financial strain due to unfunded state and federal mandates being pushed onto local property tax bills.”
  — Steven Snelling, Charlestown · #538607 — read full submission →
- “Private detention centers often rely, directly or indirectly, on public funding. By halting their establishment, HB 1609 ensures that taxpayer dollars remain focused on essential community services”
  — Jenn Zocco, Nashua · #532341 — read full submission →
Detention facilities are documented as inhumaneSupport32 of 248 reviewed
Supporters cite documented reports of unsafe or inhumane conditions in immigrant detention facilities, including family separation and detention of people with no criminal record, as reasons the state should not help fund such facilities.
- “Detention facilities separate families, disrupt communities, and often detain individuals who pose no threat to public safety.”
  — Enrique Mesa Jr, Manchester · #538633 — read full submission →
- “ICE detention centers are places where people—many of whom have not been convicted of any crime—are held in inhumane conditions.”
  — Sarah Doolan, Windham · #538860 — read full submission →
Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibilitySupport25 of 248 reviewed
Supporters argue that immigration enforcement and detention are federal functions, and that New Hampshire state and local governments have no obligation to use their land, funds, or facilities to carry out a federal responsibility.
- “Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. When state and local governments are drawn into assisting ICE, it diverts resources from their core missions and undermines trust in public institutions.”
  — Seana Hallberg, Dover · #529911 — read full submission →
- “While immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, the State of New Hampshire is not a subsidiary of Washington, D.C. We have no constitutional or moral obligation to use our state lands or local tax dollars to facilitate federal detention operations.”
  — Melissa Wisniewski, Manchester · #539385 — read full submission →
Public funds shouldn't subsidize private detention operatorsSupport25 of 248 reviewed · 25 via form letter
Supporters argue that public funds and property should not be diverted to construct or operate detention facilities run by private, for-profit entities, framing this as protection of public funds and local control against outside agreements.
- “Stops Private Detention: The bill aims to halt the construction and operation of private immigrant detention centers within New Hampshire, preventing local taxpayer money from supporting them.”
  — form letter, submitted 25 times · #532129 — read full submission →
Cites local impact of a proposed Merrimack facilitySupport20 of 248 reviewed
Supporters point to a specific proposed detention facility in Merrimack, describing it as announced without local consultation and as the focus of large community protests, to argue the state should not enable such facilities.
- “Town officials and state legislators were not consulted before Merrimack was named in federal plans for a detention facility that could hold up to 1,500 people.”
  — Megan Schaller, Merrimack · #538597 — read full submission →
- “Please recall that approximately 1,000 Granite Staters gathered in Merrimack last week to express their disapproval of a proposed ICE processing center.”
  — Antonia Massinger, Manchester · #539963 — read full submission →
Cites specific violent or fatal ICE incidents as evidenceSupport16 of 248 reviewed
Supporters cite specific reported incidents of violence or death involving ICE, including the death of a named individual, as evidence that the state should not fund or support ICE detention operations.
- “In just these past few weeks, we have seen the extreme, unjust abuses ICE agents have committed across the country, with violent attacks on protestors exercising their civil rights, unlawful kidnappings and detainments, and, of course, the callous murder of Renee Nicole Goodman.”
  — Rachel Kent, Lebanon · #539184 — read full submission →
- “I think this bill is particularly important given ICE's recent unprovoked murder of 37 year old Renee Good and the administration's unrepentent gaslighting of the American public.”
  — Bill Black, Hanover · #532312 — read full submission →
Compares detention expansion to historical atrocitiesSupport15 of 248 reviewed
Some supporters invoke historical comparisons, such as Nazi Germany or the WWII internment of Japanese Americans, to characterize the moral stakes of expanding immigrant detention infrastructure in the state.
- “What the Trump ICE agents are doing is no different than what the Gestapo did in Germany 80 years ago.”
  — Laura Deming, Salisbury · #537349 — read full submission →
- “Did we not all learn about the Japanese internment camps in World War II as a moment of shame in our nation's history? Did we not all learn about the Holocaust as a horror to never be repeated?”
  — Janet Ebsen, Nashua · #538778 — read full submission →
Bill preserves lawful federal cooperationSupport6 of 248 reviewed
A number of supporters emphasize that the bill does not block lawful cooperation with federal authorities under existing 287(g) agreements and still allows health and safety services to be provided to detainees, presenting it as a measured approach rather than a total ban.
- “Just as important, the bill does not block lawful cooperation with federal immigration authorities under existing 287(g) agreements, and it does not stop local or state entities from providing health and safety resources to detained individuals. That balance matters.”
  — Vanessa Saunders, Laconia · #538863 — read full submission →
- “At the same time, HB 1609 keeps reasonable guardrails. It does not interfere with existing lawful cooperation under 287(g) agreements, and it preserves the ability to provide necessary health and safety resources to people who are detained.”
  — Ryan Poirier, New London · #537336 — read full submission →
Object to ICE conduct or funding despite opposing the billOppose60 of 248 reviewed
A large share of submitters recorded as opposing HB1609 state in their testimony that New Hampshire tax dollars, property, or facilities should not be used to support ICE detention, citing due-process violations, unconstitutional conduct, or harm to immigrant communities — reasoning that parallels arguments made in support of the bill.
- “I believe our public funds should reflect our values. Detention centers are not neutral infrastructure — they are part of a system that separates families, detains people without criminal convictions, and causes documented physical and psychological harm.”
  — karen steuer, lyndeborough · #535013 — read full submission →
- “given the brutal and demonstrably homicidal indifference ICE agents have repeatedly demonstrated, and given the inept bordering on criminal leadership that directs ICE activities, I do not want my tax dollars in any way supporting this agency.”
  — Randall Neukam, Amherst · #536081 — read full submission →
State should support federal immigration enforcementOppose2 of 248 reviewed
A small number of submitters opposing the bill argue that New Hampshire should fully back federal law enforcement and assist ICE in detaining and deporting people who are in the country illegally, rather than restricting funds and cooperation.
- “I do not support this bill, the state should fully back our federal law enforcement and federal laws and assist them in detaining and deporting people who have entered the US illegally.”
  — Lee Lamontagne, Manchester · #538832 — read full submission →

Generated by claude-sonnet-5 (claude code agent) on Jul 20, 2026. Quotes are verbatim excerpts, verified against the cited submission before publication. Summaries are AI interpretation of the record, not part of it.

Form-letter campaigns

25 of 1,195 written submissions (2%)

25 submissions match a shared template; 1,170 are individually written.

Halt Private Immigrant DetentionAI-generatedSupport25 submissions on this bill
This legislation seeks to prevent the use of local and state funds for the construction or operation of private immigrant detention centers.
The letter · submitted 25 times
Stops Private Detention: The bill aims to halt the construction and operation of private immigrant detention centers within New Hampshire, preventing local taxpayer money from supporting them. Protects Public Funds: Supporters argue it prevents the diversion of state and local funds, which could otherwise be used for community needs, towards private detention. Supports Local Control: It restricts local governments from entering into agreements that might conflict with state policy, ensuring towns and counties aren't forced to support private immigration facilities. Aligns with Humanitarian Values: Organizations like the American Friends Service Committee support it, suggesting it aligns with principles of compassion and preventing harmful detention practices

Detected by text-similarity clustering — that part is arithmetic. The name describing each template is written by a model.

The record · every submission as filed