Home » Opinion » Editorials
April 07. 2012 11:09PM
Obama's secret police: Arrests in NH are 'private'
The Obama administration announced last week that it had made America safer by arresting 3,100 illegal immigrants who have criminal records or are immigration fugitives or immigration violators. Twenty-four of that number were right here in New Hampshire.
If it is true, that is great news. We are all for getting illegal bad guys off the street. But since the federal government refuses to give us the names of the supposed bad guys, we can’t tell if it is true. Indeed, having the power to whisk people off the streets without identifying them is more than a little chilling.
We are told by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement announcement that among the 13 men and women arrested in Manchester is a Dominican national convicted of manufacturing marijuana, carrying a dangerous weapon and receiving stolen property.
He also had been charged with illegally re-entering the country.
But, again, since we don’t know the man’s name, we don’t know if any of this is true, nor do we know what becomes of such people. Are they put in a truck and headed for the nearest border? Are they put in a box and sent out to sea?
And why are we not told their names? ICE spokesman Ross Feinstein said it is “privacy policy.”
Whose privacy? Supposedly illegal immigrants with serious criminal records are entitled to privacy but the public isn’t entitled to know anything?
That is pretty novel. We wonder why the agents of Stalin, Hitler and other despots didn’t use that line when they were having Jews, homosexuals and people who looked at them cross-eyed simply disappear.
The Obama administration did this same act a year ago, announcing with great fanfare the arrest of 2,900 illegals across the country, with six of these “privacy policy” cases alleged to have occurred in the Granite State,
The Union Leader and Sunday News are suing ICE in federal court to force it to provide the names of those it claims to have arrested. We believe the taxpayers and citizens of New Hampshire have a right and a need to know when people are arrested here, for whatever reason.
If it is true, that is great news. We are all for getting illegal bad guys off the street. But since the federal government refuses to give us the names of the supposed bad guys, we can’t tell if it is true. Indeed, having the power to whisk people off the streets without identifying them is more than a little chilling.
We are told by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement announcement that among the 13 men and women arrested in Manchester is a Dominican national convicted of manufacturing marijuana, carrying a dangerous weapon and receiving stolen property.
He also had been charged with illegally re-entering the country.
But, again, since we don’t know the man’s name, we don’t know if any of this is true, nor do we know what becomes of such people. Are they put in a truck and headed for the nearest border? Are they put in a box and sent out to sea?
And why are we not told their names? ICE spokesman Ross Feinstein said it is “privacy policy.”
Whose privacy? Supposedly illegal immigrants with serious criminal records are entitled to privacy but the public isn’t entitled to know anything?
That is pretty novel. We wonder why the agents of Stalin, Hitler and other despots didn’t use that line when they were having Jews, homosexuals and people who looked at them cross-eyed simply disappear.
The Obama administration did this same act a year ago, announcing with great fanfare the arrest of 2,900 illegals across the country, with six of these “privacy policy” cases alleged to have occurred in the Granite State,
The Union Leader and Sunday News are suing ICE in federal court to force it to provide the names of those it claims to have arrested. We believe the taxpayers and citizens of New Hampshire have a right and a need to know when people are arrested here, for whatever reason.
- Voter restrictions: Who will govern us? - 26
- School board papers: Beaudry gets left behind - 1
- Data overreach Are programs really justified? The weak case for PRISM. - 11
- A Medicaid reduction? That is not likely - 8
- Border security? Maybe, some day, perhaps. Or not - 35
- Priority profs: University system tops HHS - 5
- Recognizing father: Not PC, but still OK - 1
- Closing Hanover St.: Not a 'free market' move - 6
- Step into the past: Discover old NH this weekend - 0
Tax credit math: Who owns your money?
READER COMMENTS: 6- Apology issued for naming of Boston bomber as a victim of gun violence at Concord rally - 10
- UPDATE: Salem student receives minor injuries in bus crash - 0
- 21 in Concord wake to find their tires slashed - 0
- House proposes special session to decide Medicaid expansion - 3
- NH man to be tried in $13 million mortgage fraud scheme - 0
- UPDATE: Elderly Nashua couple were stabbed to death - 9
- UPDATE: Police say man found dead outside Wall Street Towers jumped - 4
- House, Senate at standoff over vaccines, voter registration bill - 1
- Rochester parents called to court to answer for truant children - 2
Senate, House negotiators struggling with key insurance bill
READER COMMENTS: 0
Sorry, no question available



