Contact
Subscribe
Guv candidates share views on Arizona immigration law
- At an immigration reform rally in Washington.
NMPolitics.net asked New Mexico’s six candidates for governor what they think of Arizona’s new, controversial immigration law. Here’s what they had to say:
Allen Weh
Republican Allen Weh said Arizona’s law “compels us more than ever to enforce existing law, or risk becoming an even bigger magnet for illegal immigrants and criminals.”
“As governor, I’ll immediately rescind the executive order put in place by the Richardson-Denish administration that bars state police from reporting illegal immigrants that they stop or apprehend,” Weh said. “I’ll also do what it takes to stop issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, because New Mexico has become a portal for illegal immigrants to obtain official documentation that helps them burrow into the United States.”
Weh also said New Mexico is “currently a very weak link in our homeland security, and I will change that.”
Susana Martinez
Adam Deguire, campaign manager for Republican Susana Martinez, said the responsibility to deal with immigration has been left to states because the federal government has failed to adequately address the issue.
“Susana Martinez supports the right of any state to ensure the security of its citizens, and today, that means dealing directly with immigration and border concerns,” Deguire said. “In New Mexico, Martinez believes we must implement fundamental reforms such as revoking driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, opposing free tuition through taxpayer-funded lottery scholarships for those in the country illegally and end the sanctuary policy that prevents state police from inquiring about the immigration status of criminals.”
Deguire said Martinez is “the only candidate with deep experience on immigration issues as her office prosecutes over 600 cases related to border security every year and works with various law enforcement agencies to secure convictions against members of Mexico’s most violent drug cartels.”
Pete Domenici Jr.
Republican Pete Domenici Jr. said it “may be possible to tailor appropriate provisions of Arizona’s recent law for New Mexico.”
“As governor, I will oppose sanctuary status in New Mexico, will secure our borders, and will enhance law enforcement tools, while recognizing New Mexico’s heritage and protecting individual rights,” he said. “… Waiting for Congress is not sufficient.”
Diane Denish
Democrat Diane Denish said it’s clear that “our immigration laws are broken and that we must do more to secure our borders, but racial profiling is wrong – plain and simple – and the new Arizona law goes too far.”
“Here in New Mexico, we value our diversity,” Denish said. “It’s ingrained in our culture and it strengthens us as a people. While I do believe we must secure our borders and pass a comprehensive national immigration reform bill, we cannot give government a free pass to racially profile and infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens. We’re better than that here in New Mexico.”
Janice Arnold-Jones
Republican Janice Arnold-Jones said Arizona’s law “is a state response to federal inability to control our border and enforce federal law.”
“Arizona made violation of federal law a violation of state law, enabling local authorities to act – an essential step towards securing our borders, addressing narcoterrorism, limiting human trafficking and assuring jobs,” she said.
Doug Turner
Republican Doug Turner said states “are crying for help and looking for answers to stop illegal immigration and the associated gang and drug related crime.”
“I oppose components of this bill that may legitimize racial profiling,” Turner said of Arizona’s new law, “but am optimistic that the law will force the federal government to finally take action on the issue.”
|
Share
Tweet
|
Advertisements
|
10 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
An illegal just shot an Arizona Deputy Sheriff about 70 miles south of Phoenix…time to make these laws even stricter.
Sparky:
No matter how well intentioned a law may be, it must comply first and foremost with the Constitution of the United States. For the reasons I stated in my first comment, the Arizona law does not. Not only is the law unconstitutional, it is going to lead to innocent people being hassled and arrested by the police.
I’ve read the full text of SB 1070. I know what’s in there. In effect, it changes nothing, except it gives Arizona police officers another excuse to pull people over. If an Arizona police officer lawfully detained a person for a suspected criminal offense before and then suspected that person was present illegally, the officer could contact federal authorities and have them investigate further. That’s what we do in New Mexico–I’ve represented many people who were pulled over for speeding or something else only to have the officer contact Border Patrol and have them come and investigate further. It’s tough, but it’s legal. Also, the Border Patrol will regularly check the population of the local jails run by the State and charge those detainees that were arrested under a state charge and who are here illegally. Again, perfectly legal.
Arizona is setting themselves up for a huge problem. SB 1070 directs that all persons arrested under that law shall be transferred to federal custody. What if the Feds don’t want to accept custody? Then what? Then the Arizona government will have to make a decision of holding that person indefinitely (and paying for food, shelter and medical care) and becoming a Gitmo microcosm or releasing the person back into the general population. Arizona can’t bring people to the border and repatriate them because people can only be repatriated by the Federal government pursuant to treaty. Not only that, it’s not just Mexicans who are caught up in this. It’s other people from Central and South America and other parts of the world. They can’t go to Mexico, only back to their country. Arizona can’t send them back to Nicaragua or Guatamala.
I am a Libertarian. Generally, I rail against the Left wing for violating the Constitution, such as the recent health care debacle. However, the Right wing is perfectly capable of violating the Constitution as well, as this Arizona law demonstrates. It’s important to stand up against those that would subvert and twist the Constitution. And we can’t let politicians take advantage of a political emergency for their own political ends, as Ms. Martinez, Mr. Domenici and the others are doing. That’s how people like Hitler came to power.
The law like that passed in Arizona and those who support that kind of action demonstrate that the terrorists have won. Look at the rhetoric of each candidate and decide which ones are saying “get in the bunker with me! We’ve got incoming!” and which ones are delegating and directing the course of the battle. That analysis will show which candidates place their values on fear-mongering over a more rational approach to our security.
Geez, C.J. McElhinney, you would think by your post that Arizona just reinstituted slavery. ALL the Arizona Immigration Law does is ban sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration laws, stiffen penalties against illegal alien day laborers and their employers, makes it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to complete and carry an alien registration document, and allows the police to arrest immigrants unable to show documents proving they are in the U.S. legally. SO, if people are in the country LEGALLY, all they have to do is be able to produce a document to show they are in the U.S. legally with an alien registration document. THAT IS ALL.
“Racial profiling” is being discussed because it will inevitably come into play. Look at Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He is known to have contempt for constitutional principles, why would he avoid racial profiling? I’m not pro-illegals, I’m just pro-keeping my rights in effect so the govt doesnt decide it can come harass me someday.
Ms. Martinez and Mr. Domenici, as the only attorneys in this race for either party, should be ashamed of themselves for putting their own political interests above the United States Constitution. Shame on both of you.
The Arizona law is unconstitutional as only the Federal government can make rules and regulations for naturalization (Article 1, Section 8). The 10th Amendment does not apply because the Constitution expressly gives the Federal government and Congress the authority and power to make these types of regulations.
All candidates who support the Arizona bill are, in my opinion, unfit for the office of Governor because they are supporting a violation of the Constitution, which is the document they will swear to uphold and enforce if they are elected Governor.
And, Mr. Molitior and politicalguy, do you think white people are going to be stopped and asked for their proof of citizenship? Imagine you are a police officer who has to enforce this law–what facts are you going to use to determine if it is reasonable to suspect a person is violating this law? If you don’t think that racial profiling will be used as a basis for making investigatory detentions, then you are simply choosing to ignore reality. There will be a flood of lawsuits against the State of Arizona and its officers who will be forced to enforce this unconstitutional law. It should not, and most likely will not, ever be a mistake that New Mexico will make.
Mr. Molitor, as someone who standing for political office, you should research the law and make a decision as to what the Constitution stands for, not what you think it should stand for, and not based on political expediency. Anyone who is considering voting for you should take a serious look at what you are saying in deciding whether you are the right person to hold office.
For Turner to jump on the “racial profiling” bandwagon is nonsense and somewhat baffling. Race is not mentioned in the bill, but that won’t stop liberal critics from bringing it up as a smokescreen for their ineffective approach to immigration at the federal level.
Mr. Molitor, I couldn’t agree more. You will be a great asset in the Roundhouse. Arizona could use the same law and all of it’s ramifications for lily white Canadians that would like to venture down this way.
It is comprehensive immigration reform that will provide states with much of the needed savings they need to govern. New Mexico needs to follow suit of it’s sister state, Arizona. Maybe putting “General” Allen Weh on the border with his “baseball bat” would scare alot of illegals from crosssing. This would be a much more effective use of him than as Governor.
The Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Arizona has exercised its 10th Amendment rights in SB 1070.
I have read SB 1070 and nowhere does it say “racial profiling” or “ethnic profiling” or define either, so why are these terms being discussed in the context of this bill?
The government census form clearly states that “Hispanic” is not a race. So is there a law against ethnic profiling? Isn’t this in fact what is used in airports around the world for terrorists? Why don’t they use the proper words here, because “racial” is far more negative and emotive?