Proud to be a part of making history when the budget bill and trailer bills passed by an overwhelming majority, such brings about a raise for state employees, an end to the interest and dividend income tax, and provides $1.4 million to enhance security at the northern border. However, the governor will forfeit one of his pet measures if signed, which is to eliminate or reduce oversight of certain occupational and professional licenses. 

Numerous constituents were adamantly opposed to lowering standards to essentially allow practitioners to offer their services to consumers and employers without adequate education, training, and experience.  A landscape architect, radiological technician, and even a realtor protested the Governor’s ambitious plan, stating that it did not protect end users. 

Pushing aside political pressure, I wrote a letter to the Finance Committee describing my first-hand experience with a loosey-goosey regulatory scheme where licenses were issued as if from a PEZ dispenser — that without basic regulatory protections, certain practitioners were known to just “take the money and run”;  were so incompetent they left their clients financially and legally devastated, or put women and children at risk of harm. I’m hoping my testimony was given due consideration.

Speaking of the northern border, I spear-headed an amendment to SB132, the Anti-Sanctuary Act, which prohibited cities, towns, and law enforcement agencies from creating ordinances and policies that restrict law enforcement’s ability to communicate and cooperate with immigration officials regarding criminal aliens already in custody for the commission of a state crime. 

If determined to be removable by immigration officials, the bill would affect a controlled transfer of custody to ICE. Amendment 2131h, (gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/billinfo.aspx?id=914&inflect=2) changed the act’s title to the Secure New Hampshire Communities Act and addressed all the substantives of the opposition’s concerns about the underlying bill. 

Perhaps knowing the carefully crafted amendment would indeed fly, the opposition made a motion to table the bill. Speaking to the motion, the opposition’s representative parroted unsubstantiated threats of immediate lawsuits, a fear-mongering tactic promoted by the ACLU, despite the fact the fourth and fifth U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal held that these anti-restrictive policy bills were constitutional. 

Though not binding on New Hampshire, these holdings would likely be used by the courts as guidance precedents. SB132 is not unique, 11 states have passed similar, if not more stringent, bills. Unfortunately, the motion passed, thus allowing criminal aliens, some highly dangerous, to be released back into communities because these so-called welcoming policies prohibit law enforcement from fulfilling their duty to protect and serve, subsequently making communities less safe. 

It is disturbing to think that any community would encourage criminal aliens to reside within their jurisdictions and intentionally shield removable aliens from ICE’s detection. No matter, because after weeks of hard work, we now have a proposal that was honed to perfection, and ready to be filed for consideration in the future.