Immigration Policy: Choices and Implications for New Hampshire
How might the Trump administration's actions on immigration affect New Hampshire? Our February speaker is Dr. Julia Gelatt, Associate Director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute. Dr. Gelatt will provide a framework for understanding the U.S. immigration system, including which responsibilities fall to the federal government and which roles state and municipalities can play. She will highlight the policy choices states have on immigration topics—related to immigration enforcement, public benefits, inclusion of immigrants in the workforce, and other arenas—and describe how New Hampshire’s policies compare to those of other states. Finally, she will give an overview of some of the Trump administration's recent executive orders and subsequent policy changes and analyze their implications for New Hampshire agencies, service providers, and communities.
Watch the Video
U.S. Immigration: Federal and State Roles
Julia Gelatt is Associate Director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute. Her work focuses on the legal immigration system, demographic trends, and the implications of local, state, and federal U.S. immigration policy. The Migration Policy Institute is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to improve immigration and integration policies through authoritative research and analysis, opportunities for learning and dialogue, and the development of new ideas to address complex policy questions.
Dr. Gelatt previously worked as a Research Associate at the Urban Institute, where her mixed-methods research focused on state policies toward immigrants; barriers to and facilitators of immigrant families’ access to public benefits and public prekindergarten programs; and identifying youth victims of human trafficking. She was a Research Assistant at MPI before graduate school.
Dr. Gelatt earned her PhD in sociology, with a specialization in demography, from Princeton University, where her work focused on the relationship between immigration status and children’s health and well-being. She earned a bachelor of the arts in sociology/anthropology from Carleton College.
How has the balance of federal, state, and local authority over immigration changed over time?
In our country's early history, states controlled immigration, deciding who could enter and who could be removed. That changed in the 1880s when Congress asserted federal authority over who can enter and remain in the United States. Since then, states have had limited say over admission and removal but significant discretion in how immigrants are treated within their borders.
In the late 2000s and early 2010s, states became more active again following unsuccessful federal immigration reform efforts. Some passed enforcement-focused laws, like Arizona's SB 1070, while others moved to expand access to public benefits like health coverage. Both trends continue today; some states emphasize enforcement while others adopt more pragmatic policies aimed at reducing costs and stabilizing communities.
How do states weigh fiscal pressures against the economic contributions of immigrants?
Expanding benefits like public health insurance can carry upfront costs; however, it can offset other emergency costs. Given aging populations and declining birth rates, immigration becomes increasingly important for economic and labor growth. States have to weigh short-term fiscal pressures with long-term workforce and demographic needs.
What is the relationship between immigration and housing availability?
Immigrants contribute to housing demand, and there isn't enough housing to keep up with the population growth. At the same time, immigrants make up a significant portion of the construction workforce, which is essential for building new housing units. In many areas, housing supply constraints stem more from permitting and zoning policies than immigration levels. In New Hampshire, housing policy decisions may have a greater effect on supply and cost than the immigrant population does.
How does New Hampshire compare to other New England states on cooperation with ICE?
In New England, several states have adopted policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. States that prohibit sanctuary policies are more commonly found in the Southwest and parts of the West.
For those interested in exploring state-by-state differences, the Immigration Law Resource Center maintains an updated state policy map.
Are we seeing major shifts in ICE enforcement practices?
Given the efficiency, ICE often works through local law enforcement, taking custody of individuals already arrested. Community-wide enforcement operations require more resources and planning.
Notably, arrest does not equal deportation. Individuals have the right to contest removal and seek asylum or other protections. Outcomes vary significantly based on individual circumstances.
Immigrants vs. unauthorized immigrants
A participant noted the importance of distinguishing between immigrants and unauthorized immigrants.
Dr. Gelatt clarified that most immigrants in the U.S. are here legally. Much of her policy discussion focused on unauthorized immigrants because many state-level decisions center on that population. Legal immigrants generally have similar rights to U.S. citizens, and state policy questions often relate to workforce development and economic opportunity. States can also advocate for federal visa reforms to better meet labor market needs.
Do enforcement efforts spill over onto legal immigrants?
Yes. Public concern about unauthorized immigration can and has impacted broader public sentiment toward immigration in general. Rhetoric emphasizing crime or costs may blur distinctions between legal and unauthorized immigrants, affecting how both groups are perceived in communities and policy debates.
Are asylum seekers in the U.S. legally while their claims are pending?
Individuals who apply for asylum are generally allowed to remain in the United States while their cases are being processed. Many claims take years to resolve due to significant backlogs in the system. Even if someone initially crossed the border illegally, filing an asylum claim allows them to stay during the adjudication process.
How realistic are expanded detention plans?
Congress funds 41,500 ICE detention beds. Expanding detention capacity would require additional funding, and proposals to increase resources are under consideration. Even with expanded capacity, the federal government does not have the infrastructure to detain the majority of unauthorized immigrants in the country.
What are the impacts on children and the foster care system?
Roughly five million U.S.-born children have at least one unauthorized immigrant parent. Enforcement can therefore have significant spillover effects on children.
If a parent is detained or deported, families can often choose whether children will accompany them or remain in the United States. In cases where both parents are detained, children may enter the child welfare system. Because of these risks, it is important for mixed-status families to have clear contingency plans, designating temporary guardians and clarifying intentions.
How do tensions between state mandates and local control play out?
Local law enforcement agencies weigh multiple considerations: public safety, community trust, constitutional questions, and fiscal pressures. Some departments prioritize cooperation to address repeat offenders, while others worry that close collaboration with ICE may deter immigrant communities from reporting crimes.
Many agencies prefer discretion rather than state or federal mandates, arguing they are best positioned to balance these factors within their communities.
