As a lifetime New Hampshire resident I support this bill and I hope, you our elected officials will as well. This bill supports our state's best interest in the following ways; 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.
HB1609
House · 2026 sessionDemocraticKilled in HouseRestricting funds for immigrant detention
AIBars 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.
Status
Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · March 13, 2026- ✓Introduced
- ✕House
- Senate
- Governor
- Law
Division of testimony
2,270 submissionsHatched = form letter · 25 of 2,270 written submissions (1%) came from organized campaigns
Argument digest · AI-generated
from 248 of 1,195 written submissionsHB1609 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.
- 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.
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 DetentionSupport25 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; campaign names are AI-generated.
Imagine 25 years ago and someone told you masked men in unmarked cars would be kidnapping people off the street and you were paying for it. You’d be incredulous. But here we are. Due process. Nah. Warrants. Nah. This is not a healthy democracy and funding ICE in its current form fuels our further descent into authoritarianism.
Please keep an ICE facility out of New Hampshire. The treatment of immigrants and US Citizens is horrific. I don't want our state to validate that treatment by opening a facility to house anyone.
In honor of my Swedish and Costa Rican ancestors, who came for a better and safer life in a time when the rules were different. Furthermore, the following comes to mind: “I was a stranger and you invited me in… Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.”
People should not be harmed and/or harassed by ICE.
New Hampshire should not support ICE detention. ICE is inhumane and infringes on human rights. It is detrimental to communities and families. New Hampshire should not be providing funds for such operations as the ones ICE carries out. Its funds should be used to strengthen communities and help people, rather than harm them. Public schools, food stamps, and financial assistance for low-income families and individuals are a few examples that would be much better places to send these funds.
I strongly support this bill!
ICE is breaking laws, injuring civilians, and running around unchecked. I dont support the use of force against individuals who protest/dissent/speak up. Live free or die is our state motto and its time to live up to that.
To the Honorable Chair and Members of the Committee: I am a City Councilor in Keene and I ask you to support this bill. New Hampshire does not need to spend its money on incarcerating people who have not been charged with any crimes or given due process. That would be egregious enough, but even more so when the New Hampshire Supreme Court has ruled that New Hampshire public schools are constitutionally underfunded and the state is cutting tax revenues left and right. Please pass this bill and do not allow any of our tax dollars to go to building facilities for interning immigrants. Best, Molly Ellis
Ice and the administration are completely out of control- they are trashing the constitution
ICE agents' actions have become dangerous and divisive. Please ensure no NH money goes toward ICE facilities or processing.
I am a dedicated community member and Manchester resident. I hereby write in favor of HB1609. This bill would ensure that public property and resources are not used toward the construction or operation of certain immigrant detention facilities. Funding can instead be directed toward other public goods for Granite Staters, such as education and public health matters. Please recall that approximately 1,000 Granite Staters gathered in Merrimack last week to express their disapproval of a proposed ICE processing center. In contrast, only a small handful of people gathered that same day in support of the proposed facility. Voting yes appears, therefore, to be a common-sense decision. Thank you for your consideration.
I do not want my tax dollars going to ICE. I believe immigrants help our economy and fill many of the needed care-taking jobs we need filled. I'd prefer my tax dollars support public schools or local law enforcement efforts.
I strongly support this bill and appreciate what it means for those living in our state.
Given how I.C.E. under the Trump administration has murdered 2 US citizens in the course of its "duties," along with 32 people dying in their custody, the last thing NH needs is another concentration camp for these masked criminals to use. When President Roosevelt gave Executive Order 9066, it led to the mass abduction and relocation of 120,000 Japanese-Americans, 60,000 of whom were US citizens. They were held in 10 camps for 4 years. Over 1,000 people died in those camps, and not a single spy of Japanese descent was discovered. Much like ICE's own records show that the majority of the people they're persecuting are not violent or dangerous in the least.
Please pass this bill. I do NOT want my hard earned tax money being spent on ICE detention in NH.
Ice does not belong in our communities. Family should have the chance to live in New Hampshire without fear of deportation. Many of our industries, especially tourism and restaurant are powered by immigrant work. Immigrants are diversity and perspective to our communities, forcefully removing them is violent and unnecessary.
Our public funds are meant to uplift and benefit our communities. The ICE raids are damaging to the individuals involved and to the whole fabric of our communities. The immigrants are our neighbors and valued members of our communities. The raids induce trauma. We are not safer because of the anti-immigrant policies, we are vastly LESS safe.
I and my family support passage of this bill and respectfully request that the Committee vote in favor of it.
State and local funds should NOT be used for immigration detention!
I do not want NH to use tax money towards ICE
The Trump administration is making a travesty of our Constitution by among other things rounding up thousands of people who are supposed to be "the criminals" that he campaigned should not be in our country. I have not seen any evidence of criminality. in the people rounded up most inappropriately. I do not want my tax money to be used to build structures to house these people. I doubt many are criminals because the administration has not been able to provide that evidence. Angela Nicoletti
ICE is terrorizing people and communities, immigrants and US citizens. I do not want them in our state, and I do not want our state's taxpayer dollars facilitating their work. In NH we can, and should, approach things much differently than the way ICE is doing.
I am writing in support of HB 1609 to limit the use of state, county, and municipal funds to create detention centers for immigrants. The practice engaged in by our current federal administration in the name of enforcing immigration laws is unlawful, inhumane, racist, and counter to what has made our country great for these past 80 years. Countless Americans have paid the ultimate price to stand against such practices on foreign lands, and New Hampshire must not agree to participate in these current fascist practices on our very own soil. US citizens, legal refugees, legal immigrants, and peaceful, productive members of our communities are being terrorized and traumatized by an ill-prepared, unprofessional, corrupt, law-breaking, and racist department of our government. We must look back on our actions one day and be proud of taking the steps we did to stand against evil in our beloved country. New Hampshire must stand firm and save our hard-earned taxes to better people's lives and run a respectable state. I urge you, members of this Committee, to vote "ought to pass" on HB 1609. Thank you, Gwen Citarella, Stratham, NH
Arguments for Supporting HB 1609: 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