Reports of ICE operations in Santa Ana, California, have resurrected issues of government overreach, lack of openness, and the growing part private contractors in public law enforcement activities. Though not directly connected to these particular immigration raids, Haliburton, a worldwide firm with a long history of working for the US government, brings up unsettling issues about the identity of those in charge of them and the motivation for some of the participants to conceal their identities.

Following accusations that city leaders were aware of prior ICE raids this year, the Santa Ana City Council recently acknowledged concerns about immigration enforcement. These statements suggest growing discomfort among inhabitants who feel they are being unfairly targeted under federal immigration legislation. Using hidden identities and unknown operatives throughout enforcement actions just makes the public more skeptical and erodes trust in the system.

Although Halliburton is most well-known for its energy and defense contracts, such as its contentious interactions throughout the Iraq War, it has not been immediately linked to immigration enforcement activities. But it’s understandable that some would speculate about its role when anonymity becomes a characteristic of police operations given its long history of operating under limited public oversight and its long-standing ties with the U. S. government.

Personnel may be obliged to wear face coverings during ICE activities for operational or safety reasons, but this practice feeds into the impression of an opaque, unchecked power without openness or accountability. Democratic oversight is impossible when people lack the knowledge of the people enacting the law. This concern is made worse when private contractors—who report to corporate boards rather than citizens—are thought to be involved in law enforcement.

Top concern ought to be openness. Whatever Halliburton or other contractor is assisting ICE, the American people should be informed of who is conducting these operations, what surveillance systems are in place, and how law enforcement tactics are decided upon. The people of Santa Ana and all communities affected by immigration enforcement should receive answers, not ambiguity.

Watchdogs and legislators have to decide whether the boundaries between the public and private sectors are becoming too indistinct in important local activities and if existing protections are sufficient to uphold civil rights. Anything less than democracy fosters mistrust, fear, and strife; on the other hand, democracy thrives in the open.