Two New Hampshire laws aimed at banning “sanctuary city” policies will take effect Jan. 1, though state officials and advocates disagree about how much the measures will change policing and immigration enforcement in the Granite State.
Gov. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican, signed Senate Bill 62 and House Bill 511 on May 22 in a public ceremony in the N.H. Executive Council chamber. The laws prohibit local policies that limit cooperation with federal officials enforcing immigration laws. Supporters say the bills are needed to reduce illegal immigration and prevent violent crime. Opponents say the legislation risks inflaming anti-immigrant sentiment and shifts federal immigration responsibilities onto local law enforcement.
The new laws arrive even as the U.S. Department of Justice’s published list of “sanctuary jurisdictions” does not include any state, city or county in New Hampshire. The story notes that the absence of New Hampshire jurisdictions from the federal list is one reason the laws’ practical impact is being debated.
At the May signing, Ayotte emphasized both immigration enforcement and her campaign messaging about New Hampshire distinguishing itself from Massachusetts. “I said from the beginning that we won’t let our state go the way of Massachusetts and their billion-dollar illegal immigrant crisis,” Ayotte said, according to the account of the event. “Today, we’re delivering on our promise by banning sanctuary cities and supporting law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. New Hampshire will never be a sanctuary for criminals, and we will keep working every day to remain the safest state in the nation.”
Both bills include language prohibiting “sanctuary city” policies that limit local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The story points to Peterborough as an example of an existing local ordinance that touches on immigration-related interactions. A 2017 Peterborough ordinance says town officials “shall not inquire into the immigration or citizenship status of an individual except when the inquiry relates to a legitimate law enforcement purpose that is unrelated to the enforcement of a civil immigration law.”
House Bill 511, however, contains language that the article describes as limiting certain inquiries by law enforcement. The bill “prohibits New Hampshire law enforcement agencies from investigating an inmate’s citizenship status unless subsequent to an alleged violation of New Hampshire law or pursuant to an authorization by law,” the story says.
HB 511 also includes a provision requiring law enforcement agencies to comply with immigration detainers when someone is being held in jail as part of a criminal investigation, according to the article.
Senate Bill 62 includes similar wording, the story says, and also authorizes county jails to hold people subject to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention orders for up to 48 hours after their state charges are resolved.
The measures moved through the Legislature amid partisan division. The story reports that Sen. Tara Reardon, a Democrat from Concord, spoke against both bills before the Senate passed them along partisan lines and sent them to Ayotte.
Reardon argued that the federal immigration crackdown under President Donald Trump has sidestepped core principles, according to the article. “We’re seeing families separated, U.S. citizens being deported, people being sent to detention centers far from home and people sent to countries they are not from and where they face real danger,” she said.
The story also reports that opposition testimony during the legislative process included representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Roman Catholic Church, the N.H. Association of Counties and the N.H. Municipal Association.
Supporters of the legislation, according to the article, argue that reducing illegal immigration is a legitimate priority and cite high-profile cases of violent crime committed by people without legal status in the United States. Opponents counter that the bills do not address the underlying complexity of immigration enforcement and place responsibilities on local police agencies funded by local taxpayers, while also contributing to “dangerous anti-immigrant sentiment,” as described in the story.
With the laws set to take effect at the start of the year, the immediate question is how they will be implemented by local and county agencies and whether any existing municipal policies will be revised to comply. The story frames the coming months as a test of whether the measures lead to measurable changes in practice in a state that is not listed by the Justice Department as having a sanctuary jurisdiction. As this policy change unfolds, it reflects broader challenges facing New Hampshire as Washington politics affect local communities, with state leaders navigating the intersection of federal priorities and local governance.
