I moved to New Hampshire permanently at the end of May. My wife, Sue, has been here since 2022. As a Latino new to the state, I wanted to understand the issues facing Latino residents here, and a local reporter generously sat down with me over coffee and gave me some background.
Let's try this one more time, but with feeling. Come on, CDS, do your journalistic, 1st Amendment duty, print this:
As an apparently educated person, I’m simply astounded that you managed to pack up your life, cross state lines, and plant yourself in New Hampshire without the faintest clue about the local politics. But sure, let’s pretend that’s plausible for a moment. And of course your very first instinct was to run straight to a local reporter. Because nothing says “neutral newcomer seeking understanding” quite like volunteering to be a convenient source for someone else’s narrative—or, pure coincidence I’m sure, advancing your own.
Next, you’re terrified that local cops might actually talk to federal agents and, heaven forbid, help enforce the law. How shocking. Apparently cooperation between law-enforcement agencies is now a crisis instead of, you know, their job. Meanwhile, New Hampshire has stubbornly refused to turn its police into political props the way the rest of liberal New England has. Imagine that—actual common sense surviving in the Northeast. And somehow we’ve even managed to keep ourselves from being completely overrun by the endless wave of Massachusetts refugees fleeing the very policies they keep voting for. Miraculous.
Your oh-so-sincere claim that this cooperation “erodes trust between immigrant communities” is truly revealing. Because clearly those communities are just desperate to live surrounded by lawlessness and criminals—far preferable to boring old public safety. And the hand-wringing over “real costs to taxpayers” from enforcement is adorable, especially while completely ignoring the already-astronomical bill taxpayers are footing for our “newest visitors” (illegal aliens, for those who still use adult words) in schools, hospitals, housing, and every other public service.
Finally, as a brand-new resident, you thoughtfully suggest we all just vote Democrat so New Hampshire can enjoy the same roaring success as the state you fled. How generous, how presumptive. An out-of-state liberal arriving to instruct the natives on how to vote—classic.
Sorry, but that’s a hard pass. We can see exactly where your party is steering the bus, and we’re not particularly interested in the scenic route through open borders, gun confiscation, socialism, communism, or radical Islamism right now.
That’s the actual choice on all the ballots this November, and it goes beyond the usual, expected, scrubbed campaign advertising. We shouldn’t be fooled by the Democrats’ predictable shift to “normalcy” or their suicidal empathy tugging at your heartstrings. It’s all a calculated lie. Just cast your gaze toward Virginia and recall the Spanberger debacle.
I agree that we need ICE. ICE has existed since 2003. It’s only recently that unqualified people have been added to ICE with little to no training. Having them work with our local well trained police implies that they are trained as well. When ICE shoots someone there is little investigation, if any. No so if a local police officer uses their gun. I expect ICE to be trained and treated the same as our police officers are in similar circumstances. When ICE joins with our police they are not just picking up people they deem to be here illegally, if asked they will work with our police on local police issues. They are not trained for that. They are a danger to legal US citizens.
These are basic expectations for any agency that sends armed officers into public spaces. ICE should have stronger rules about the use of body cameras and strict boundaries for when its agents become involved in local law-enforcement matters. It should more rigorously enforce its use-of-force standards. When a federal officer shoots and kills someone, there should be public reporting of what happened and temporary removal from field duty for the agent involved while the facts are examined. Those safeguards are not anti-law enforcement. They protect the public, responsible officers and the credibility of the agency itself.
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism
that is degrading to another person. Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness
accounts, the history behind an article.
(2) comments
Let's try this one more time, but with feeling. Come on, CDS, do your journalistic, 1st Amendment duty, print this:
As an apparently educated person, I’m simply astounded that you managed to pack up your life, cross state lines, and plant yourself in New Hampshire without the faintest clue about the local politics. But sure, let’s pretend that’s plausible for a moment. And of course your very first instinct was to run straight to a local reporter. Because nothing says “neutral newcomer seeking understanding” quite like volunteering to be a convenient source for someone else’s narrative—or, pure coincidence I’m sure, advancing your own.
Next, you’re terrified that local cops might actually talk to federal agents and, heaven forbid, help enforce the law. How shocking. Apparently cooperation between law-enforcement agencies is now a crisis instead of, you know, their job. Meanwhile, New Hampshire has stubbornly refused to turn its police into political props the way the rest of liberal New England has. Imagine that—actual common sense surviving in the Northeast. And somehow we’ve even managed to keep ourselves from being completely overrun by the endless wave of Massachusetts refugees fleeing the very policies they keep voting for. Miraculous.
Your oh-so-sincere claim that this cooperation “erodes trust between immigrant communities” is truly revealing. Because clearly those communities are just desperate to live surrounded by lawlessness and criminals—far preferable to boring old public safety. And the hand-wringing over “real costs to taxpayers” from enforcement is adorable, especially while completely ignoring the already-astronomical bill taxpayers are footing for our “newest visitors” (illegal aliens, for those who still use adult words) in schools, hospitals, housing, and every other public service.
Finally, as a brand-new resident, you thoughtfully suggest we all just vote Democrat so New Hampshire can enjoy the same roaring success as the state you fled. How generous, how presumptive. An out-of-state liberal arriving to instruct the natives on how to vote—classic.
Sorry, but that’s a hard pass. We can see exactly where your party is steering the bus, and we’re not particularly interested in the scenic route through open borders, gun confiscation, socialism, communism, or radical Islamism right now.
That’s the actual choice on all the ballots this November, and it goes beyond the usual, expected, scrubbed campaign advertising. We shouldn’t be fooled by the Democrats’ predictable shift to “normalcy” or their suicidal empathy tugging at your heartstrings. It’s all a calculated lie. Just cast your gaze toward Virginia and recall the Spanberger debacle.
I agree that we need ICE. ICE has existed since 2003. It’s only recently that unqualified people have been added to ICE with little to no training. Having them work with our local well trained police implies that they are trained as well. When ICE shoots someone there is little investigation, if any. No so if a local police officer uses their gun. I expect ICE to be trained and treated the same as our police officers are in similar circumstances. When ICE joins with our police they are not just picking up people they deem to be here illegally, if asked they will work with our police on local police issues. They are not trained for that. They are a danger to legal US citizens.
These are basic expectations for any agency that sends armed officers into public spaces. ICE should have stronger rules about the use of body cameras and strict boundaries for when its agents become involved in local law-enforcement matters. It should more rigorously enforce its use-of-force standards. When a federal officer shoots and kills someone, there should be public reporting of what happened and temporary removal from field duty for the agent involved while the facts are examined. Those safeguards are not anti-law enforcement. They protect the public, responsible officers and the credibility of the agency itself.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.