A third sheriff's office in New Hampshire is looking to partner with ICE on federal immigration enforcement
A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox.
Enter Email
Sign Up
While critics of these arrangements argue they could stoke fear among immigrant communities and undermine local law enforcement priorities, Republican Governor Kelly A. Ayotte has encouraged police agencies to cooperate with ICE, and she has called for state lawmakers to prohibit municipalities from adopting local policies that seek to impede such cooperation.
Advertisement
New Hampshire is a regional outlier. It's the only New England state in which any sheriff's office or state police force has applied for the ICE task force model. While six municipal police departments in New Hampshire (Colebrook, Gorham, Ossipee, Pittsburgh, Troy, and Candia) have pursued such agreements, only one elsewhere in New England (Wells, Maine) has done so, and it has
Advertisement
Major Christopher Bashaw, of the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office, said his team supports Ayotte's position on this topic. If approved, then up to 30 deputies would be able to receive immigration-related training and aid in enforcement, he said.
Bashaw said the impact on day-to-day operations is expected to be minimal, as deputies anticipate going about their normal duties and holding people who are found to have active immigration detainers.
'We do not anticipate any changes to our current duties and have no intention of pursuing detainees solely based on immigration status detainers,' he said.
The aggressive immigration crackdown being pursued by the Trump administration has recently resulted in high-profile errors. American citizens have been wrongly detained in
Bashaw said he doesn't see the sheriff's office as being involved directly in the deportation process itself.
'Our understanding is that the ICE detainers are the mechanism to bring the individuals before the courts to ensure they receive due process related to their matter,' he said. 'If at any time the Rockingham County Sheriff's Office takes issue with the manner with how the program is being implemented, we can discontinue our partnership and participation.'
This article first appeared in Globe NH | Morning Report, our free newsletter focused on the news you need to know about New Hampshire, including great coverage from the Boston Globe and links to interesting articles from other places. If you'd like to receive it via e-mail Monday through Friday,
Advertisement
Steven Porter can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's challenge to Democrats on school choice: Put up or shut up
On Independence Day, President Trump signed into law the biggest expansion of universal private school choice in American history. In its reporting, the New York Times inexplicably characterized a last-minute amendment limiting Education Savings Accounts only to states that opt-in as a ' win for Democrats and teachers' unions,' because blue states would presumably choose not to participate. Although American Federation of Teachers president and recently resigned DNC member Randi Weingarten may view the denial of school choice to blue state parents as a 'win,' I doubt working class voters would agree. In fact, that 'win' represents a political landmine for Democrats. I am skeptical about the wisdom of Trump's Education Savings Accounts plan, but I must admit that I am only typing this sentence because of a scholarship I received to attend a private school many years ago. When I was 16, my alcoholic father committed suicide. I vividly remember going to school the first day after my dad's funeral feeling overwhelmed, numb and embarrassed. And I remember how my teachers made me feel safe and seen in a way that altered the trajectory of my life. My younger brother wasn't so lucky. He went to a different school when our dad died and joined a gang after dropping out. I have seen firsthand the impact of education dancing on the razor's edge of a child's life. That's why I do what I do. So I respect leaders like Democrats for Education Reform chief Jorge Elorza, who are driving the voucher debate. But I have a healthy skepticism about the public policy implications of scaling a wild-west national Education Savings Account plan with few regulatory guardrails to ensure educational quality — not to mention separation of church and state red flags or my belief in the promise of public education. Policy concerns aside, voters now face a stark color-coded national split-screen. In red states, you get free money for the school of your choice. In blue states, you get what you get and you don't get upset. Listening to teachers union leaders like Weingarten and her allies, you'd think charter schools were created in an underground right-wing laboratory as part of a secret plot to ' privatize ' public education. In fact charter schools were originally proposed in 1988 by her own American Federation of Teachers predecessor Al Shanker. I worked in the White House for President Bill Clinton, who proudly ran on charter schools when only one existed in America. President Barack Obama later scaled high-quality charters as part of his bold Race to the Top agenda. Charters are public schools, which means they are free and secular, cannot have admission requirements, and have strict regulatory controls on educational quality. That doesn't sound like a Republican plot to destroy public education to me. I am a longtime public school parent. My daughters have attended our great neighborhood Los Angeles Unified School District school, as well as multiple high-quality public charters. But we literally had to win a lottery to get into their charter schools. That's because California caps charter growth, since many charters are not unionized, as a Democratic Party favor to teachers unions. Amongst progressive issues outside education that Weingarten and I agree upon is that Trump is a threat to democracy. That's exactly why the time is now for a Democratic moonshot to translate 'high-quality public schools' from a soundbite into a civil right. In debating this abundance moonshot, the onus is on Democrats like me who are skeptical about Education Savings Accounts to articulate a compelling alternative that can win back working class voters. Weingarten, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have rightly championed universal preschool, free community college and student loan relief. But the entire K-12 experience of a child is conveniently missing from that agenda. In addition to scaling high-quality public school choice, our moonshot must span preschool to post-secondary, pivot from 'equity' to 'quality,' and put parents — not party interests — at the center. This begins with eliminating school attendance boundaries that trap children in failing schools; expanding high-quality career and technical education; universal tutoring for the COVID generation; endorsement of science of reading; and finishing the job of Brown v. Board of Education by codifying high-quality public schools as a civil right for all children in America. The good news for my party is that Democrats have a strong bench of national leaders with a record of challenging party orthodoxy. That was a feature — not a bug — of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama's success as the only two-term Democratic presidents since Franklin Roosevelt. The bad news is that while Democrats have dithered for a decade under Biden, Harris and Weingarten, Republicans have been formulating a bold vision for American education with obvious appeal for the same working class voters Democrats need to win back. The ball is decidedly now in our court. Democratic leaders must volley with a viable vision that speaks to the urgent needs of working-class parents — not just to do the right thing for kids, but also to win back power. For the sake of American democracy, Democrats must not concede education Independence Day to Trump.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Faced with geopolitics and trade war, US companies in China report record-low new investment plans
WASHINGTON (AP) — American companies in China are reporting record-low new investment plans for this year and declining confidence in profits, while uncertainty in U.S.-China relations and President Donald Trump's tariffs have become their top concerns, according to a business survey released Wednesday. The companies are also challenged by China's slowing economy, where weak domestic demand and overcapacity in local industries are eroding profitability for the Americans. 'Businesses in China are less profitable now than they were years ago, but risks, including reputational risk, regulatory risk, and political risk, are increasing,' said Sean Stein, the president of the U.S.-China Business Council, a Washington-based group that represents American companies doing business in China, including major multinationals. The survey, conducted between March and May and drawing from 130 member companies, came after the two countries clashed over tariffs and non-tariff measures, including export controls on critical products such as rare-earth magnets and advanced computer chips. Following high-level talks in Geneva and London, U.S. and Chinese officials agreed to pull back from sky-high tariffs and restrictions on exports, but uncertainty persists as the two sides are yet to hammer out a more permanent trade deal. Kyle Sullivan, vice president of business advisory services at the USCBC, said more than half of the companies in the survey indicated they do not have new investment plans in China 'at all' this year. 'That's a record high,' Sullivan said, noting that it is ''a new development that we have not observed in previous surveys.' Around 40% of companies reported negative effects from U.S. export control measures, with many experiencing lost sales, severed customer relationships, and reputational damage from being unreliable suppliers, according to the survey. Citing national security, the U.S. government has banned exports to China of high-tech products, such as the most advanced chips, which could help boost China's military capabilities. Stein argued that export controls must be very carefully targeted, because businesses from Europe or Japan, or local businesses in China would immediately fill the void left by American companies. Silicon Valley chipmaker Nvidia won approval from the Trump administration to resume sales to China of its advanced H20 chips used to develop artificial intelligence, its CEO Jensen Huang announced on Monday, though the company's most powerful chips remain under U.S. export control rules. While 82% of U.S. companies reported profits in 2024, fewer than half are optimistic about the future in China, reflecting concerns over tariffs, deflation, and policy uncertainty, according to the survey. Also, a record high number of American businesses plan to relocate their business operations outside of China, Sullivan said, as 27% of the members indicated so, up from 19% the year before. In a departure from past surveys, concerns over China's regulatory environment, including risks of intellectual property misuse and lack of market access, didn't make it to the top five concerns this year. That's likely a first, and not for a good reason, Stein said. 'It is not because things got dramatically better on the Chinese side, but the new challenges, often coming from the U.S., are now posing as much of a challenge,' Stein said. Almost all the American companies said they cannot remain globally competitive without their Chinese operations. A survey from the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China in May found that European companies were cutting costs and scaling back investment plans in China as its economy slows and fierce competition drives down prices.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Democratic Women's Caucus demands probe of treatment of women in ICE detention
The Democratic Women's Caucus is demanding an investigation into the treatment of women in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, accusing the Trump administration of 'medical neglect' in cases that include the loss of one woman's unborn child. The Trump administration recently rescinded Biden-era guidance on treatment of migrants in detention, including those detailing guidelines for pregnant women. 'We are deeply concerned about women's access to health care, especially maternal health care, in ICE detention,' the caucus wrote in a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Joseph Cuffari. 'The reported assaults, medical neglect, and overall mistreatment of women by ICE agents and contractors demands immediate and thorough oversight and accountability, and this abuse must stop immediately,' They continued. 'We request an immediate and in-depth investigation into the violations against women while in ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody.' DHS and Cuffari's office did not immediately respond to request for comment. The letter cites the case of Iris Dayana Monterroso-Lemus, who delivered a stillborn after being detained in immigration custody in Tennessee. According to an account she gave to the Nashville Banner, she pleaded for medical care for three days after feeling pain and no fetal movement. 'After multiple transfers and too many pleas, she was finally admitted to a hospital on April 29th, where she delivered a stillborn baby. The doctors noted that her loss was a result of not receiving prenatal care — the care she asked for repeatedly,' the caucus wrote. 'We demand a full, transparent investigation into the pregnancy loss of Iris Dayana Monterroso Lemus's and the broader mistreatment of pregnant and postpartum women in ICE and CBP custody,' the lawmakers continued. 'We request a report that outlines the incident, accountability, and corrective actions.' The letter also asks what steps the administration has taken to protect women in custody. Under the Biden administration, immigrations enforcement officers were encouraged not to put pregnant or nursing women in custody absent extraordinary circumstances. It also required that pregnant women 'be held in 'facilities suitable for their medical and mental health needs.' Similar guidelines were also put into place by U.S. Customs and Border Patrol. In May, the Trump administration rescinded the CBP guidance, ending requirements for lactation accommodations, and supplies like diapers and baby formula. 'Your disregard for women's health and safety is not just a one time instance, the abuse and neglect are part of a larger, systemic failure to treat women with dignity, compassion, and basic medical care,' the lawmakers wrote.
