Charles Lockwood

My name is Charles Lockwood, and I am a New Hampshire resident. I am writing in opposition to HB 1561-FN, which would prohibit “PRC nationals” from attending New Hampshire higher education institutions and would impose sweeping penalties on students, faculty, staff, and schools. I oppose this bill for five reasons. First, it creates a blanket ban based on nationality and treats people as presumptive threats without individualized evidence. HB 1561-FN does not target specific conduct. It targets a category of people. The bill’s findings assert that PRC nationals who are not U.S. citizens pose a “presumptive risk” and an “existential threat,” then imposes an across-the-board prohibition on enrollment, research participation, employment, and even access to campus facilities beyond public events. This is collective suspicion as state policy. It is not a serious security standard. Second, the bill is vague and overbroad in ways that invite arbitrary enforcement and mistakes. The definition of “PRC national” includes not only “any citizen” of China who is not a U.S. citizen, but also any “agent” with “direct and compromising ties” described through an open-ended list such as “financial links,” “pledged allegiance,” or “acting on orders.” Those terms are not administrable for colleges, admissions staff, or individual faculty. The bill also creates a “presumption of hostile intent” based on a person’s failure to withdraw within 90 days, which is not a reliable indicator of intent and is not due process. Third, HB 1561-FN is likely to conflict with federal law and expose New Hampshire institutions to civil rights and preemption litigation. Civil rights. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal financial assistance. New Hampshire colleges and universities commonly rely on federal student aid and other federal funds. A state mandate that forces institutions to exclude students based on national origin will predictably generate Title VI risk for schools and the state. Federal primacy in immigration and alien regulation. The bill repeatedly pulls state enforcement into federal immigration outcomes (referrals to federal authorities, visa revocation, deportation exposure) while creating state-level prohibitions and penalties tied to noncitizen status. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that significant parts of state immigration schemes can be preempted when they intrude into areas occupied by federal law. Fourth, it imposes substantial, recurring administrative burdens and costs while reducing higher education revenue. The bill requires notarized affidavits from all applicants and current students and requires institutions to file them with the Department of Education within five business days. In practice, this means a new compliance bureaucracy with ongoing notary costs, document retention, and reporting work that is unrelated to education quality or safety. Public testimony will reasonably focus on the bill’s fiscal note. It anticipates material revenue loss and increased compliance costs for USNH and CCSNH. Fifth, the “bounty” provision encourages harassment and weaponized reporting. HB 1561-FN would pay 10 percent of recovered funds to people who provide “actionable information” about alleged violations. That incentive structure invites bad-faith accusations and targeted intimidation on campus. It pushes institutions toward over-enforcement to avoid large fines and criminal exposure for staff. If New Hampshire lawmakers want to address espionage or improper foreign influence, there are narrower, evidence-based approaches that do not discriminate by nationality, such as strengthening research security practices, funding cybersecurity, improving export-control training and compliance, and requiring transparent reporting of certain foreign gifts and contracts using clear, objective thresholds. A blanket educational exclusion policy is not a serious tool for counterintelligence. It is a civil rights and governance problem. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to recommend Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB 1561-FN.