Contact
NM leaders: Feds need to reform immigration system
This photo was taken at an immigration reform rally in Washington, D.C. (naritheole/flickr.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law won’t mean much for policy in New Mexico, according to the Albuquerque Journal. In the meantime, most members of the state’s delegation in D.C. and the governor said the ruling points to the need for federal immigration reform.
What will the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s controversial immigration law mean for policy in New Mexico? Not much, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
The newspaper reported that “immigrants’ rights advocates say lawmakers (in New Mexico) have avoided a punitive approach.” From the newspaper:
“But civil rights activists say the high court’s failure to strike down Arizona’s ‘show me your papers’ provision has troubling implications.
“‘We remain particularly concerned for New Mexicans… traveling through the state of Arizona who might be subject to racial profiling and prolonged detention,’ Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, said Monday.
“And the high court’s ruling revived calls from some activists for Republican Gov. Susana Martinez to rescind her 2011 order that State Police ask about the immigration status of those they arrest.
“That’s not about to happen: Martinez says it’s a border-related public safety issue.
“Nor is Monday’s ruling going to change procedures in New Mexico’s largest city, where Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry started a policy in 2010 requiring an immigration status check of everyone arrested.
“Berry — a Republican who also described his policy as a public safety matter — said the high court ruling ‘validates our pragmatic approach’ of having federal officials check the immigration status of criminal suspects.”
The court on Monday tossed three provisions in Arizona’s law but left the most controversial provision intact – the piece requiring state and local police officers to ask about immigration status during a traffic stop if they have reasonable suspicion that the person might be in the United States illegally. The court essentially sent this part of the case back to a lower court for further consideration based on how the law is applied.
NMPolitics.net asked all five members of New Mexico’s delegation in Washington, D.C. and the governor for comment. Here’s what we got:
U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, Democrat
“The Supreme Court struck down three major aspects of the Arizona law, but said it was too early to decide whether a fourth controversial aspect of the law is constitutional until it could see how the state would implement it. On balance I think it was a well-reasoned decision that affirms that immigration policy is in the province of the federal government,” Bingaman said.
U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, Democrat
“The Arizona ruling rightly clarifies the federal government’s broad authority over immigration policy. Until Congress passes comprehensive immigration reform, we’re inviting states to enact a patchwork of poorly conceived laws, like Arizona’s, that may infringe on citizens’ civil rights and encourage racial profiling,” Udall said.
U.S. Rep. Steve Pearce, Republican
Pearce’s office hasn’t responded to a request for comment, but the congressman was quoted by the Journal as saying, “Until we get serious about immigration reform in Washington, these states will be forced to continue fending for themselves while Washington keeps their hands tied behind their back.”
U.S. Rep. Martin Heinrich, Democrat
“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law, but I’m concerned that the ‘show me your papers’ provision that is still intact casts a wide net over all people of Hispanic descent, and will undoubtedly snare honest, hardworking Americans in a misguided attempt to deport undocumented immigrants,” Heinrich said.
“Arizona’s legislation was the wrong reaction to a very real issue. Passing laws that institutionalize racial profiling is no solution,” he said. “I am proud that here in New Mexico we value our diverse heritage. Congress must rise to the challenge and fix this broken system at the federal level once and for all.”
U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Luján, Democrat
“While the Supreme Court decision struck down a number of the provisions of SB 1070 and reaffirmed that immigration requires a solution at the federal level, I do have concerns with the part of the law that was left in place,” Luján said. “This decision serves as yet another reminder of the importance of passing comprehensive immigration reform at the federal level that fixes our broken system.”
Gov. Susana Martinez, Republican
“I have always maintained that immigration reform should take place at the federal level, and that is consistent with the Supreme Court ruling today,” Martinez said. “While I never supported an Arizona-style law in New Mexico, I understand the frustration felt by Arizonans, given the federal government’s failure to address the immigration issue.”
“In New Mexico, we have tackled public safety issues relating to border security in responsible ways, such as ending the sanctuary state policy that prevented state police from checking the immigration status of those arrested for crimes and seeking to repeal the law that gives driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants,” she said.
4 comments so far. Scroll down to submit your own comment.
Leave a response
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dr. J, My life is going pretty well, thank you.
Here’s a simplifying thought for us all on the subject of aliens among us.
Leviticus – Chapter 19
33: If you have resident aliens in your country, you will not molest them.
34: You will treat resident aliens as though they were native-born and love them as yourself; for you were once aliens in Egypt. I am Yahweh.
For many, including me, this is an emotional topic. I’ll try and return to more tangible facts and arguments, but it is interesting to note that this is truly a timeless topic.
Respectfully,
Michael J. Flynn
I do wish my world were as simple as yours Mick,
Paz
Dr. J., Sometimes things really are quite simple. The Republican Party, and some elements of the Democratic Party, enjoy the fruits of cheap labor. Thoughtful minds in the Republican Party, including George Bush, Ronald Reagan, and John McCain, tried for a humane policy, but, with the exception of Reagan; no luck.
The current Republican Party uses two thoughts to keep the current status quo. (1) First we need to secure the border. (2) We need a Guest Worker Program. Let me add a third: (3) We can’t have Work Place ID, nor enforcement sanctions for violators because that would just be job killing. Let me add a forth: (4) If Guest Workers became Citizens they would be brainwashed by those damn Democrats and they would all become lefties. [The 4th reason is also why Washington DC and Puerto Rico and other US Territories are 2nd Class Citizens.]
Those four items are all fallacies. Congress has had all the years since Reagan’s Amnesty to fix things. They didn’t. They don’t want to.
God Bless the President. Curse the Congress.
Guest Worker is just another name for Indentured Servant. It disgusts me when some farmer or other predator of cheap labor says, “You just can’t find Americans to do this kind of work.” We all know that’s a lie. Someday, they might just outsource agriculture, then where will we be?
Social justice = Christian ethics.
Peace.
Michael J. Flynn
My thoughts about this keep coming back to why the Executive branch of our government will not do what the Constitution demands of it, enforce the laws of the land. I would agree the feds have the responsibility to enforce immigration laws, as they are federal in nature, and local governments can’t over-ride that. But if the federal government, the executive branch, won’t enforce the laws as written, or want to issue executive orders changing those laws without Congress involved, who make the laws under the constitution, not the executive branch, then why is it that the executive branch can’t be brought up on charges of engaging in unconstitutional activity? I really think the key to this is to first stop the executive branch from it’s unconstitutional activities, throw some people in it in jail, and at the same time allow Congress to do its’ job and establish laws that correct the problems of the existing laws. You would think a “Constitutional Scholar” like we allegedly have in the White House, would know these things.