In Durham, most of our work is practical: balancing budgets, clearing roads, making sure someone answers when a resident calls 911. I don’t write immigration policy in Washington. But together with the Durham Town Council and our public safety officials, I have to live with how that policy shows up in our community. Today, the federal government’s approach to immigration enforcement is too heavy‑handed. It’s doing more harm than good, and its effects reach far beyond the people and places it targets.
In recent weeks, residents have reached out to councilors and to me, not about taxes or snow plowing, but about fear. People are unsettled by reports of federal agents conducting ICE operations. They’re worried their families, co‑workers or friends could be caught up in confusing encounters. When concerns like these reach town hall, it means something deeper in the community has begun to change.
The unease is visible. Last Friday afternoon, townspeople gathered at the corner of Route 108 by the old Durham courthouse to protest ICE tactics. It wasn’t a large or loud demonstration. It was residents who felt compelled to speak up. In a town like ours, people don’t give up part of their day to stand by the roadside unless they believe something has gone seriously wrong.
What we have seen in Minneapolis reinforces that feeling. There, thousands of federal agents have been deployed in a large‑scale operation using aggressive tactics and a confusing mix of federal units. A local community has become the backdrop for a national political display. On television it may look like firm leadership. From here, it looks like confusion, fear and a city on edge. When that level of force arrives, the unease spreads to everyone, not only those without documentation.
Nearly two centuries ago, Sir Robert Peel set out nine principles of ethical policing. He began with a simple truth: policing works only through public approval and willing cooperation, not compliance through fear. The greater the reliance on force, the less cooperation police will receive. The success of law enforcement, Peel said, is measured by the absence of crime and disorder, not by the display of power.
Federal immigration enforcement, as practiced today, violates that wisdom. From the perspective of someone responsible for public trust, these operations are deeply flawed. When agents arrive in unfamiliar uniforms and vehicles, residents don’t distinguish between agencies, they just see “the police.” If a shooting or rough arrest follows, our local officers bear the loss of trust for actions they never controlled. It undermines Peel’s idea that “the police are the public, and the public are the police.”
That’s the first problem: erosion of trust. Durham’s police work hard to earn confidence through professionalism and steady presence. They walk downtown, visit schools and build relationships. When unaccountable federal actions occur, that trust can vanish overnight. It’s not good government, and it’s not good policing.
The second problem is the confusion these tactics create about the limits of government power. Residents hear stories of masked federal officers entering homes on administrative warrants or blocking state investigators from shooting scenes. They begin to wonder whether long‑standing legal safeguards still matter.
The third problem concerns everyday safety. Public trust is essential to effective policing. It relies on residents’ willingness to call an officer, report a concern, or testify in court.When the public image shifts to heavily armed agents breaking down doors, silence feels safer. That undermines not only immigration enforcement but local response to domestic violence, substance‑use cases and property crime.
In New Hampshire, state law sharply limits how far municipalities can distance themselves from federal immigration enforcement. We cannot direct our police to ignore federal programs. Yet when federal actions spark protests and distrust, it’s local officials — the town council or selectmen, police chief and staff — who must answer the calls and repair the damage. Decisions are made elsewhere, but the consequences land locally.
The point is not that immigration laws should be ignored, nor that real threats don’t exist. The point is that how we enforce the law matters as much as what it says. A responsible federal approach would rediscover Peel’s principles: prevent real harm, use the least force necessary, and cultivate cooperation. Intensive tactics should focus on individuals with serious criminal records. Broad sweeps should be rare.
From our seat in Durham, it’s clear that the country would be better served by stepping back from displays of toughness and examining the long‑term effects of this enforcement style. A strategy that drains trust, blurs legal boundaries and leaves local governments to pick up the pieces is not strength. It’s a short‑term show of force that yields a long‑term mess.
We can do better. We can uphold immigration laws without turning our towns and cities into stages for federal operations. We can protect the border without teaching children to fear a knock at the door. If we care about community health, and about the founding idea that safety rests on trust and cooperation, then this course correction cannot come soon enough.
Todd Selig is the long‑time town manager for the Town of Durham.