This week, we asked readers: Should New Hampshire require local police to work with ICE—or should Gov. Ayotte push back to protect them?
Here’s what they had to say…
“No. Local police need to stay in their lanes: Focus on local crime issues and assisting the community as needed. That’s what we taxpayers pay their salaries for—community safety. Let ICE deal with immigration issues—that’s THEIR lane, despite how horribly ICE has acted since the Trump 2.0 regime.” — Denise Clark
“Gov. Ayotte should support New Hampshire’s local police by asking them to do their job to support and protect those who live in and visit New Hampshire. It is not their job to help ICE with their illegal and draconian tactics.” — Jane Duggan
“No, state and local law enforcement definitely should not be working with ICE in any way. They work for the taxpayers/people of NH and should not be engaged with the corrupt and lawless ICE agenda in any way. My trust in NH law enforcement has already been seriously undermined because of their association with ICE. Kelly Ayotte needs to dig deep and find some integrity, ethics and basic humanity.” — Mary Langdon
“ICE in our cities is not about illegal immigrants, it’s about intimidating Americans who oppose Trump. With no due process they can and have and will continue to illegally detain American citizens. ICE is Trump’s Gestapo. I know that sounds extreme, and it is, but it is also true. They are ignoring our US Constitution and violating our rights. Literally murdered American citizens in the street. Believe your eyes not the lies.” — Mike Tranchemontagne
“New Hampshire should not require local police to work with ICE. Instead, NH should distance itself as far as possible from ICE and what has been described as the “The most powerful crime syndicate in history.” — Bill Black
“The governor should focus on growing the state and not let ICE into any part of the state. Being a puppet for Trump is not what the state needs. ICE is mismanaged and has killed people —it’s time to wind it down. No one is illegal on stolen land!” — Tammi Day
“Our local police departments have more than enough to do to maintain law and order within our municipalities. They work hard to develop and maintain trust of the citizens they work for. There is no reason our polices should break that trust by aligning with ICE, who have shown themselves to be less than law abiding, poorly trained, and sent out with conflicting assignments. An agenda many follow seems to combine greed and bravado, not caring what methods they use to they achieve questionable commands. No, our police departments should not be involved in ICE.” — Barbara Spike
“If ICE were chasing CRIMINAL violations of immigration law, I could accept that. But they are pursuing very few criminal prosecutions. Instead they’re enforcing civil violations. So it’s the equivalent of using police to enforce cleanliness rules in restaurants—a waste of taxpayer funds. Also, they’re dumping detainees into what, according to not infrequent reports, are cruel, unhealthy, and dehumanizing processes and facilities. I’m certain that support for participating and paying for that is slim.” — Keenan Pawley
“No, they should not be working with ICE in any form. Expecting Kelly Ayotte to push back, however, is a lost cause as NH has become the most Trump-friendly state in New England thanks to Ayotte and the NH Senate. Anything approved by the current corrupt administration is something that Ayotte also approves.” — David Masters
“Not only should New Hampshire not require local police officers to work with ICE, it should be forbidden. It destroys the trust between local law enforcement and community members. This is another misuse of tax dollars. I have called a local sheriff’s department to express my upset and was told I would receive a call back. It never happened. Our tax money. They work for us. Shameful.” — Deborah Rosa
