Anti-sanctuary bill passes N.H. House nearly unanimously and without discussion
There was no discussion of the measure on the House floor Thursday, but ahead of the votes Democrats worked with Republicans to narrow the bill's scope. The amended legislation applies to people already in custody for an alleged criminal violation. The original bill language said 'a law enforcement agency shall use best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law.'
Get N.H. Morning Report
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
HB 511 requires law enforcement agencies to comply with immigration detainers of inmates and it bans sanctuary policies that 'prohibit or impede' the enforcement of federal immigration law. Local law enforcement would not be allowed to enact a blanket policy against compliance with immigration detainers, and they could not restrict use of inmate immigration information.
Advertisement
But the bill also includes a provision barring New Hampshire law enforcement from investigating an inmate's citizenship status.
'It essentially codifies the practices that existed in New Hampshire municipalities, but ensures they're being followed,' said Representative Alissandra Murray, a Manchester Democrat, who worked on the amendment.
Representative Jonah O. Wheeler, a Peterborough Democrat, called it 'a really hard vote,' and said Democrats will still support the state's immigrant communities.
'I think you can support immigrants without having to say that we're going to not follow the direction of the federal government, which could put the state in a seriously risky position,' he said. He said the amendment makes sure local law enforcement won't be responsible for enforcing federal immigration law, while at the same time ensuring local cooperation with federal immigration law.
The amendment was pitched to Democrats as a 'harm reduction measure,' since Republicans, which have a 44-seat majority in the House, had the votes to pass the original, broader bill, according to Wheeler. That's how Representative David Meuse, a Portsmouth Democrat, also described it in a post on
Advertisement
On Friday, the committee I serve on, the NH House Criminal Justice & Public Safety committee voted unanimously to...
Posted by
'The amendment to the bill makes changes to the language that make it less harmful and narrow the scope of the bill to already incarcerated people,' Meuse wrote. 'Without the amendment, NH police would have been required to hand over to ICE any undocumented immigrant they encounter with an immigration detainer out on them—even those who have not committed a crime."
Meuse did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the House vote.
While there's no legal definition of a sanctuary city, it's become a political shorthand for places that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities and detain someone based solely on immigration status.
In New Hampshire, there's no state-wide sanctuary policy, although after President Trump began his first term in 2017, several local communities began enacting policies regulating how local police cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The Cheshire County Sheriff Eli Rivera, who in 2017
Lebanon, N.H., enacted a '
Advertisement
It also stops local agents from helping or participating in immigration enforcement actions, and it stops local authorities from permitting federal immigration authorities access to someone who has been detained locally.
Karen Liot Hill, a Lebanon Democrat now serving on New Hampshire's powerful Executive Council, chaired the task force that created the ordinance after residents voted on a ballot measure asking elected city officials to do so.
She said the aim was that local police officers should not do the work of federal immigration agents.
'We did not want our local resources to be co-opted by the federal government,' she said. 'Federal resources should be used to implement federal law.'
Hill said she anticipates the city will review the ordinance in light of state legislation, but she doesn't anticipate major changes will be necessary.
'There might be some minor tweaks that are needed but we'll get to the bottom of those and address those as needed,' she said.
In the five years since the welcoming ordinance took effect there have been around 5,000 arrests, and only three involved people with 'questionable immigration status issues,' according to City Manager Shaun Mulholland.
Amanda Gokee can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
27 minutes ago
- CNBC
Some lawmakers in both parties question the legality of Trump's Iran strikes
WASHINGTON — Several members of Congress in both parties Saturday questioned the legality of President Donald Trump's move to launch military strikes on Iran. While Republican leaders and many rank-and-file members stood by Trump's decision to bomb Iran's major nuclear enrichment facilities, at least two GOP lawmakers joined Democrats across the party spectrum in suggesting it was unconstitutional for him to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. "While President Trump's decision may prove just, it's hard to conceive a rationale that's Constitutional," Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who usually aligns with Trump, said on X. "I look forward to his remarks tonight." Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said in response to Trump's social media post announcing the strikes: "This is not Constitutional." Massie introduced a bipartisan resolution this week seeking to block U.S. military action against Iran "unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific authorization for use of military force against Iran" passed by Congress. In brief remarks from the White House on Saturday night, Trump defended the strikes but did not mention the basis of his legal authority to launch them without Congress' having given him that power. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., reacted in real time during a speech in Tulsa, Oklahoma, slamming Trump's actions as "grossly unconstitutional." "The only entity that can take this country to war is the U.S. Congress. The president does not have the right," Sanders told the crowd, which broke out in "no more war!" chants. Some Democrats called it an impeachable offense for the president to bomb Iran without approval from Congress. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., said Trump's move is "absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment." "The President's disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," she said on X. "He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations." Rep. Sean Casten, D-Ill., said on social media: "This is not about the merits of Iran's nuclear program. No president has the authority to bomb another country that does not pose an imminent threat to the US without the approval of Congress. This is an unambiguous impeachable offense." Casten called on House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., to "grow a spine" and protect the war powers reserved for Congress. Johnson said Trump respects the Constitution as he sought to lay the groundwork to defend his decision to act unilaterally. "The President fully respects the Article I power of Congress, and tonight's necessary, limited, and targeted strike follows the history and tradition of similar military actions under presidents of both parties," he said in a statement. Johnson's remarks, along with support for Trump's move offered by Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., indicate that Trump may have sufficient political cover to avoid blowback from the Republican-controlled Congress. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said Trump "failed to seek congressional authorization for the use of military force and risks American entanglement in a potentially disastrous war in the Middle East." But he stopped short of labeling the military action illegal or unconstitutional. House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, D-Mass., was more direct on the legal question. "The power to declare war resides solely with Congress. Donald Trump's unilateral decision to attack Iran is unauthorized and unconstitutional," said Clark, the No. 2 Democrat. "In doing so, the President has exposed our military and diplomatic personnel in the region to the risk of further escalation." Appearing Saturday night on MSNBC, Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who co-authored the resolution with Massie, wondered whether the anti-war voters who support Trump would back his move. "This is the first true crack in the MAGA base," he said, noting that Trump's rise in the 2016 primaries was aided by his move to slam President George W. Bush for the Iraq war.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Senate releases major changes to Trump's tax bill as negotiations heat up
WASHINGTON — The Senate Finance Committee released the long-awaited tax portion of its reconciliation bill on Monday, setting the stage for drawn-out negotiations with their House colleagues after changing several key provisions in the 549-page bill. The text release starts the clock for senators to finalize the package, get it approved by the Senate parliamentarian, and vote on the measure before the end of next week to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline of July 4. The parliamentary process could take several days as each provision must be reviewed by the Senate adviser to ensure they adhere to the strict rules of reconciliation. Once the package passes the Senate, it will then be returned to the House for consideration. From there, Republicans will likely need to convene what is known as a conference committee between House and Senate leaders to negotiate a compromise package in order to avoid a legislative tennis match. That could be easier said than done as there are several provisions in the Senate version that have already angered House Republicans who spent weeks negotiating with GOP leaders to include their priorities. Here are some of the changes that could be the biggest sticking points for House Republicans: As expected, the Senate text aims to eliminate hundreds of billions of dollars previously approved under former President Joe Biden and criticized by some conservatives as 'Green New Deal subsidies.' However, the Senate text appears to shift the timeline for when many of those clean energy tax credits could be phased out, giving business owners who benefit from the credits more time to adjust. 'The legislation also achieves significant savings by slashing Green New Deal spending and targeting waste, fraud and abuse in spending programs while preserving and protecting them for the most vulnerable,' Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said in a statement. Under the House resolution, the credits are each given specific expiration dates whereas in the Senate version they are given a certain number of days after enactment. For example, the elimination of tax credits for residential clean energy could be eased under the Senate bill, softening the blow for the repeal of renewable energy sources such as solar panels, solar water heaters, geothermal heat pumps, and more. While the House bill would eliminate those credits by the end of 2025, the Senate version would expire the credit six months after the bill is signed — giving the credits a moving deadline and a slower phaseout. The Senate text also appears to change the timeline for several tax credits incentivizing the usage of clean vehicles, including credits for purchasing used clean energy vehicles; new clean vehicles; commercial vehicles; and more. Many of those provisions were set to expire by the end of the year under the House proposal, but now would also expire between 90-180 days after the bill is signed. The bill would ease the expiration of tax credits on fueling equipment for alternative vehicles such as electric cars. Similar to other language, the Senate text would implement a more flexible phaseout to eliminate the tax credit one year after the bill is signed rather than at the end of this year, which is the date currently proposed in the House version. Those eased timelines, along with others tucked in the bill, were likely included to win over Republicans in the Senate such as Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, who pushed for relaxed phaseouts. If the tax credits were eliminated immediately, Curtis and others argued, it could cause a surge in utility prices. However, it's not clear how that will go over with fiscal conservatives in the House, who have called for the immediate elimination of clean energy credits. The Senate Finance Committee summary does tout provisions to boost nuclear energy and support 'consistent energy sources' to reduce market distortions. It also includes language that 'stops penalizing fossil fuels in favor of intermittent green energy.' The Senate tax portion made a number of significant changes to the House language on Medicaid, including one controversial proposal to help pay for Republicans' proposed tax cuts. In the newly released text, Republicans are proposing to lower the Medicaid provider tax to 3.5%, far below the current 6% tax. That could raise concerns among some lawmakers who have already voiced concerns about reduced funding for Medicaid in some states. Medicaid provider taxes are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. The bill would also implement stricter requirements for eligibility screening and verification as part of an effort to ensure undocumented immigrantss cannot be approved for benefits. For the most part, Senate Republicans left much of the language in the House surrounding Medicaid untouched. For example, the language maintains provisions establishing new work requirements for able-bodied adults without dependents, requiring at least 80 hours a month or some other activity, such as community service. The bill would also maintain restrictions introduced by the House to ban Medicaid funds going toward abortion procedures or gender transitions. One of the most politically potent issues tucked into the reconciliation bill is the proposed expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. The Senate version includes language to extend the current deduction cap, which sits at $10,000 per household. That proposal has already set off a firestorm among blue-state Republicans in the House who have demanded a much higher limit — even going so far as to threaten voting against the full package if a higher deduction is not included. House Republican leaders offered to increase the current deduction cap to $40,000 for individuals who make $500,000 or less a year. The cap would then increase by 1% every year over the next decade and remain permanent after that period. That proposal was met with skepticism in the Senate, prompting many fiscal conservatives to push for a lower number to reduce costs. The $10,000 proposal is meant to be a starting point for negotiations, Senate aides say, but it has already been met with anger from SALT proponents in the House. 'That is the deal, and I will not accept a penny less,' Rep. Mike Lawler, R-N.Y., said of the House-negotiated deal. 'If the Senate reduces the SALT number, I will vote NO, and the bill will fail in the House.' Other New York Republicans called the deal 'insulting,' arguing it is a 'slap in the face' to the blue-state Republicans who handed the GOP a majority in the House. 'If we want to be the big tent party, we need to recognize that we have members representing blue states with high taxes that are subsidizing many red districts across the country with constituents who benefit from refundable tax credits despite paying zero in taxes,' Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., said in a statement. House Republican leaders have warned for months not to make drastic changes to SALT policy, warning it could be tough to sell anything less than what was already negotiated — especially with only a three-vote margin in the House. 'I'm very concerned about what they might do on the SALT number and any number of other provisions in the bill,' House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told the Deseret News last week. 'I've been very consistent publicly and privately. They need to hopefully modify it as little as possible, but I also understand that, you know, it's a separate chamber, and they're going to do their thing.' Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Republicans balk at changes to Trump tax bill as deadline nears
WASHINGTON — Senate Republican leaders are in crunch time as they attempt to get all corners of their party to agree on key provisions of President Donald Trump's signature tax bill. The Senate Finance Committee released its long-awaited tax portion of the reconciliation bill on Monday, making a number of changes to the version passed by their House colleagues last month. However, those changes have not been met with open arms by several in the GOP conference — which could threaten its passage if Senate leaders bring it to the floor for a vote next week. One of the thorniest issues tucked into the latest iteration is a proposal to lower the Medicaid provider tax to 3.5%, far below the current 6% tax. That has raised concerns among some lawmakers from states they say rely on that tax to provide health coverage. Medicaid provider taxes are taxes placed by states on medical providers like hospitals and clinics that then boost reimbursement from the federal government. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, has been a vocal opponent to paring back the tax, although she declined to elaborate on her current stance. However, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., expressed his frustration with the proposal, arguing it would disadvantage rural hospitals. 'I've talked to our leadership constantly about this. And I was told, we've got a fix on the provider tax issue, we're gonna help rural hospitals,' Hawley told reporters on Tuesday. 'There's nothing in here for rural hospitals. In fact, what they're doing is lowering the provider tax to make it even worse.' It's not clear if that language will be amended before it's voted on. Senate Finance Chair Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, said on Tuesday they are 'vetting' the text. Dr. Mehmet Oz, the administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, met with Senate Republicans during their weekly lunch on Tuesday to assuage any concerns on proposed cuts. When asked if there is any chance Republicans will change language related to the provider tax, Oz brushed off those concerns. 'Well, the details of the language are up to the leadership, but the specifics, the framework of addressing the legalized money laundering with state-directed payments and provider taxes must be in this bill,' Oz said. 'It should be in this bill.' Vice President JD Vance also attended the lunch, telling reporters they would 'work through' any concerns with the current language related to Medicaid. 'If we can't address that concern in your preferred way, is there another way that we can fix it,' Vance told reporters. 'That's just part of the legislative process' Meanwhile, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, predicted: 'I don't think it's going to stay in this form.' One of the other politically potent issues tucked into the reconciliation bill is the proposed expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. While House Republicans proposed increasing the cap to $40,000 — with some income limits — the Senate lowered that number to just $10,000, which is the cap currently in place. That provision has already been rejected by the SALT Caucus in the House, which has enough lawmakers to tank the bill if they don't get their requested amount. Crapo said those provisions would continue to be worked out in the Senate and the House, acknowledging 'that's a very big piece, obviously.' 'We will work it out,' Crapo said. Republican leaders must also deal with Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who has said he would vote against the package so long as it contains language raising the debt ceiling. The Senate version includes language to raise the debt limit to $5 trillion, even higher than the $4 trillion ceiling proposed by the House. 'We roll around to 2026 elections, what are they going to say? 'Oh Democrats, you know, they're for borrow and spend,'' Paul said on Tuesday. 'But now the Republicans will have joined the Democrats in being for borrow and spend.' The text release starts the clock for senators to finalize the package, get it approved by the Senate parliamentarian, and vote on the measure before the end of next week to meet Republicans' self-imposed deadline of July 4. The parliamentary process could take several days as each provision must be reviewed by the Senate adviser to ensure they adhere to the strict rules of reconciliation. Once the package passes the Senate, it will then be returned to the House for consideration. From there, Republicans will likely need to convene what is known as a conference committee between House and Senate leaders to negotiate a compromise package in order to avoid a legislative tennis match.
