New Hampshire Jails in Talks with ICE Over Detainee Housing Revenue

Hillsborough County leaders have halted plans this year to prepare the Valley Street Jail for an ICE contract, even as federal officials expand detention across New England and press local agencies to play a larger role in immigration enforcement. In June, the county delegation rejected a proposed $734,781 budget line that would have readied the jail for housing immigration detainees, a vote that followed weeks of public testimony from residents, lawyers, and faith leaders. Without that money, officials say it will be far harder for the jail to pursue an ICE contract in 2025, despite federal reimbursement offers for early assessments.

The decision comes amid a broader push-and-pull between Washington and New Hampshire counties over where and how immigration detainees are held. While no new county-run jail contracts have been finalized in New Hampshire this year, federal authorities have already begun placing people in the federal prison at Berlin (FCI Berlin), which advocacy groups and leaked documents say could hold up to 700 detainees with plans for more than 500 beds in use. Local critics argue that moving people far from their families, lawyers, and community support makes it harder to fight their cases and increases the risk of harm.

Hillsborough County finds itself at the center of this fight. County Department of Corrections Superintendent Joseph Costanzo has said the jail operates at about half capacity and could, if an agreement were signed, hold 30 to 96 detainees—likely in medium- to high-security units and potentially including people transferred from other states. Supporters within county government frame the proposed arrangement as a way to bring in revenue without raising taxes, especially during tight budget cycles. Opponents say the plan would expose the county to legal risk and undermine community trust.

Public pressure and community response

Public pressure proved decisive. Dozens of residents urged their elected delegates to block funding, citing past reports of poor conditions in immigration detention, high medical costs, and a chilling effect on immigrant families who already fear contact with law enforcement.

• Immigrant advocacy groups, including the ACLU of New Hampshire and the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project, urged county officials to resist federal requests and focus on community-based support.
• Their arguments stressed that any ICE contract would outlast political cycles and could draw Hillsborough County into federal operations that the public cannot easily supervise.

“Any ICE contract would outlast political cycles and could draw Hillsborough County into federal operations that the public cannot easily supervise.”
— Summarized from local advocates’ statements

At the same time, law-and-order voices in the State House are pushing counties the other way. Governor Kelly Ayotte and Republican leaders have encouraged local agencies to sign 287(g) agreements, which allow trained deputies to perform certain federal immigration tasks within jails or on the street.

• Hillsborough County’s sheriff’s office signed a 287(g) pact in late May, joining Belknap, Grafton, and Rockingham counties.
• Under 287(g), local officers receive ICE training, then can check immigration status, detain people for suspected civil violations, and hand them to federal custody.
• The county expects the program to become operational about 60 days after signing, once training and supervision are in place.

Federal growth and regional implications

National policy is moving in the opposite direction from Hillsborough County’s budget vote.

• ICE held more than 48,000 people as of April 2025, up about 20% since January.
• The agency has a contracted capacity of 62,913 beds nationwide.
• Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has confirmed increased arrest targets for field teams.
• Analysis by VisaVerge.com indicates federal planners are aiming for larger-scale detention, with a long-term goal reportedly as high as 100,000 detainees.

This approach has pushed ICE to look beyond private prisons and purpose-built centers to places like FCI Berlin and county jails in Northern New England.

• In Maine, the Cumberland County Jail reported 79 people in ICE custody in February.
• In New Hampshire, Strafford County Corrections continues to hold ICE detainees and provides a public contact line at (603) 742-3310 for families and attorneys to coordinate visits and calls.

Hillsborough County remains under pressure because it has available bed space, central transportation links, and a large county jail that could be adapted quickly—if county leaders were willing to fund the upgrades.

Arguments for and against a local ICE contract

Supporters’ points:
– Partnering with the federal government could stabilize the county budget, using unused jail capacity to generate revenue via per-bed, per-day reimbursements.
– A local arrangement might allow county leaders to insist on specific medical and oversight standards rather than relying on distant prisons.
– Keeping detainees nearby could, in supporters’ view, allow local officials to respond to complaints, provide language access, and maintain family visitation.

Opponents’ concerns:
– Once a detainee enters federal custody, the county has limited control over conditions and transfers.
– Partnership risks include exposure to civil rights lawsuits, costly litigation over conditions of confinement, and ties to a system strained by rising intake and frequent transfers.
– Families may stop reporting crimes and avoid public services when they fear county cooperation with ICE—especially after 287(g) activation—eroding trust and harming public safety.

What could happen next

Although the budget line failed, Hillsborough County continues to weigh its options. The 287(g) agreement moves forward independently of any ICE contract to house immigration detainees, meaning local enforcement capacity will expand even if the jail does not accept federal transfers.

If county leaders revisit detention in late 2025 or 2026, the process would likely follow several steps:

1. Needs assessment to evaluate space, staffing, medical care, and transportation.
2. Budget vote to fund physical upgrades, new posts, overtime, and training.
3. Contract talks with ICE over daily rates, maximum headcount, and security protocols.
4. Training for jail staff under the 287(g) framework and ICE standards.
5. Implementation if approved, including build-outs and initial transfers.
6. Ongoing oversight to track compliance, grievances, and costs.

As of mid-September 2025, none of New Hampshire’s county jails has completed this full chain of steps for a new agreement this year, largely due to public resistance and delayed funding votes. That hasn’t stopped ICE from expanding in the state using federal facilities. The Berlin prison’s higher capacity signals a preference for large, centralized sites that can take people quickly, often including transfers from other regions.

For detainees and families, this often means:
– Longer drives and fewer in-person legal visits.
– A tougher time finding pro bono counsel.
– Greater difficulty maintaining family connections.

Local impacts and human costs

Local voices worry that the combination of 287(g) expansion and a growing federal footprint will change daily life in Hillsborough County.

• Defense lawyers expect more time contesting arrests that begin with routine traffic stops or jail bookings, then shift into ICE holds once 287(g) checks are complete.
• Social workers anticipate more families seeking help with childcare and rent when a breadwinner is detained.
• Clergy and community groups are planning translation, bond fundraising, and mental health support.

These are the quiet, human costs that rarely appear in budget projections.

Federal officials say the changes will improve public safety and speed the removal of people with final orders. State leaders backing 287(g) argue the program enforces the law and targets threats. Critics counter that many people in ICE custody have no criminal record or were picked up for low-level offenses, then struggle to fight their cases from detention.

Practical barriers and outstanding questions

For now, Hillsborough County’s no-vote on the budget item is the practical barrier to any new ICE contract. That break gives local officials time to analyze potential liability, medical needs, translation services, and the cost of transporting detainees to immigration court.

Important outstanding questions for the county and community:
– If the jail took 30 to 96 people, who would handle legal orientation?
– Would the county set clear grievance timelines?
– How would families arrange visitation, especially if detainees are moved to or from FCI Berlin?

The debate has already reshaped local politics. Democrats cite the budget vote as proof that county leaders listened to community concerns. Republicans argue that rejecting federal dollars leaves money on the table when taxpayers are already stretched. Both sides acknowledge the fight isn’t over: if national detention numbers climb and federal planners look for more beds, Hillsborough County will likely face renewed pressure.

Resources and next steps for families

Residents looking to understand the 287(g) program can review the official overview from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the ICE 287(g) Program. That page explains how the program works, the types of agreements available, and how ICE trains and supervises local officers.

Practical tips for people with loved ones in custody:
– Call Strafford County Corrections during business hours or contact the Berlin prison to confirm transfers.
– Coordinate with local legal aid for representation.
– Keep key documents ready: ID, A-number (if available), and medical records.
– Log all calls with facility staff and document communications.

Hillsborough County leaders say they will continue to monitor federal actions, state policy, and jail capacity before taking any new steps. With the jail at about half capacity and the sheriff’s 287(g) program coming online, the county sits at a crossroads. Whether it remains a bystander to federal expansion or becomes a direct partner will depend on future votes, community pressure, and how county officials weigh promised revenue against the lived reality for immigration detainees and their families.