New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session

New Hampshire House Bill HB438

Introduced
1/10/25  
Refer
1/10/25  

Caption

Relative to immigration detention facilities.

Impact

By regulating the operation of immigration detention facilities and requiring Executive Council approval before deploying the National Guard to such facilities, HB 438 represents a significant shift in the state’s approach to immigration enforcement. The bill emphasizes the importance of civil rights for immigrant detainees, explicitly prohibiting practices such as mass deportation and unjust segregation based on gender identity. If enacted, it could reshape the operational landscape of immigration enforcement by making it more amenable to human rights considerations and reducing reliance on profit-driven models of detention.

Summary

House Bill 438 aims to establish comprehensive regulations surrounding the operation of immigration detention facilities within the state. A key provision of the bill prohibits the state or any political subdivision from entering into contracts with private corporations for the profit-driven detention of immigrants during civil proceedings. The intent behind this legislation is to ensure that all immigration detention operations are conducted under civilian control and regulated by the state, promoting transparency and accountability within the detention system. Furthermore, the bill establishes guidelines that require contracts to adhere to specific detention standards, including ensuring access to legal representation and medical care for detainees.

Sentiment

The discussion around HB 438 has been largely supportive among advocacy groups focused on immigrants' rights and civil liberties. Proponents of the bill argue that it sets a necessary precedent in protecting vulnerable populations from exploitation and mistreatment in detention facilities. Conversely, opponents may view the restrictions placed on private detention contracts as hampering state responsiveness to immigration enforcement needs. The divide highlights broader societal debates about immigration policy and state-level authority in enforcing federal immigration laws.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 438 include concerns over the feasibility of enforcing strict regulations on private contractors and the potential impact on state resources. Critics may argue that prohibiting profit-driven contracts could lead to increased costs for the state, especially if the state becomes the primary operator of immigration detention facilities. Additionally, the provision requiring Executive Council approval for deploying the National Guard can create delays in responses to urgent situations at detention facilities, raising questions about the operational efficiency of addressing immigration enforcement.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

CA AB1146

Cities and counties: legal services: contingency fee contracts.

LA SB731

Authorizes the attorney general to enter into certain contingency fee contracts. (8/15/10) (RE1 SEE FISC NOTE GF EX See Note)

WV SB543

Clarifying oversight by Attorney General of political subdivision’s hiring of private attorney under contingency fee or contract to sue

OK HB1685

Attorney General; private attorney contracts; effective date.

CA AB690

Criminal procedure: indigent defense compensation.

OK SB984

Legal representation; modifying requirements for contracting for certain legal representation. Effective date.

CA AB1091

Health Care Consolidation and Contracting Fairness Act of 2023.

OK HB3547

State government; Attorney General; modifying reporting on certain contracts to fiscal year; adding information to report; effective date.