Gov. Bill Richardson will be on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday (9 a.m., channel 4) to talk about our neighboring state’s new law.
The governor also said he’s “deeply concerned that New Mexico residents traveling in Arizona could be subject to detention and investigation.” Richardson ordered the state’s Division of Human Rights to immediately assist New Mexicans traveling in Arizona. The division will offer info on avoiding unlawful detention and help with legal action when necessary.
Sen. Bingaman also asked U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to look at how New Mexicans in Arizona would be affected by the law. The Department of Justice is reviewing its legality.
Somos un Pueblo Unido, an immigrant rights group in Santa Fe, says we should boycott Arizona.
Sen. Udall opposes the law and is calling for national immigration reform.
Reps. Heinrich, Teague and Lujan say the same.
Four of five Republican candidates for governor support the bill to some degree. Republican Doug Turner and Lt. Gov. Diane Denish, the race’s only Democrat, stand against it.
Tomorrow in Santa Fe Somos un Pueblo Unido and protesters will meet at 1:30 at the De Vargas Mall (Corner of N. Guadalupe and Paseo de Peralta) to march against Arizona’s SB 1070.
In Albuquerque, there is a Day of Action event planned by El Centro de Igualdad y Derechos at the Plaza de Encuentro (714 Fourth Street SW, between Coal and Bridge). It’s a concert, vigil and party that calls for national immigration reform this year. The event will go from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
If anyone knows of anything else happening this weekend, please post it here.
when the federal law states the exact same provisions?
I tried editing that and it came out nasty.
What I meant to ask is, since there is already a federal law in effect that essentially mirrors SB 1070, why is there suddenly now a reaction from the mass populous?
is there a federal law requiring law enforcement to question suspected illegal immigrants?
It requires ALL state officials, including the police, to do their job. If DURING their normal duties, they come to the conclusion someone is here illegally, they have to follow up. This means if the police pull someone over for a traffic violation, and the occupants can't explain exactly where they are going, or what they are doing, then the police might suspect they are engaged in human trafficking, and they will then ask about immigration status. The far left have blown this up into an issue, when it shouldn't be. Stops based simply on race would be thrown out on appeal, as being invalid under the 4th amendment. The police know that and wouldn't waste their time.
In fact, this is what our own NM police should be doing. It's a valid aspect of an ongoing investigation.
The more worrying part is that poll officials might be encouraged to ask about this; and that could lead to profiling. Everyone going to the polls should take ID - I always do, even though it isn't required in NM. Then they can ensure they are not disenfranchised.
The example cited is, to say the least, pretty lame. “If the police pull someone over for a traffic violation, and the occupants can’t explain exactly where they are gong, or what they are doing, then the police might suspect they are engaged in human trafficking, and they will then ask about immigration status.”
By this logic, teenagers (and young adults) who cruise, can’t explain “exactly” where they are going, so immediately they will be suspected of human trafficking? Really?
The real problem with this is that it has long been recognized that it is the Federal Government’s jurisdiction to determine and enforce immigration laws, not a state’s right. Because some officials in a particular state government may be unhappy with what the Federal Government does (or does not do) in areas reserved for the Federal Government, it is a violation for them to pass any laws usurping Federal authority.
Attempting to give the police at the state level the responsibility to guess with reasonable cause one’s immigration status is a far cry from the police questioning lawful or unlawful behavior. The law is a thin veil to target ethnic groups, particularly Hispanics, and this is racial profiling, regardless of how it is “packaged”.
Conservatives are fond of yelling “Foul”, when government (at any and all levels) interferes with individual rights. However, these same individuals have no opposition to interference that does not affect them personally. Their view is that individual’s rights are unalienable don’t apply, such as with this law, or the right of two gays to marry. What about their rights?
Gee: What ever happened to Dubya's 750 million dollar 50 foot border wall that was built to stop all of this?
Oh I forgot... Building a billion dollar 50 foot wall doesn't stop some wiseass from making a 20 dollar 51 foot ladder on the other side. The legend of George strikes again.
My best friend sits in jail today.
He will be there until 12/31/10.
When he is released, we will take him to Vegas and he will absorb every possible pleasure life has to offer.
He was in a car that was pulled over for a seatbelt violation. Everyone in the car had to show an ID (papers - stupid term). He had a warrant for his arrest over a DWI at .05% (figure that out...?)and he couldn't control his drinking through the probation process.
He was ILLEGAL and the courts certainly stuck it to him. He's Hispanic of course - that is why he can't seem to get out of the court system - every violation multiplies the penalty.
Why does an illegal Mexican get treated better or differently than my dear friend James, who is among the kindest men I have ever known? His blood has been in NM for probably ten generations, yet he is essentially scorned by the system. Tears are welling in my eyes as I write this.
I won't hire illegal people of any country to work on my roof or cut my weeds. I WILL hire young Hispanics to do this work if they are willing. Those young Hispanics are the real victims in this stupid game.
I salute the AZ governor for this courageous decision.
Regards
Mike
NM does not require gun registration. That comes under federal law, the National Firearms Act of 1934. So if I'm cruisin' down the camino w broken tail light and my machine gun on the seat next to me, APD has no right/interest during the stop to ask to see my papers for "Tommy", that being a matter of federal law? The state of CA can't pass a law banning "assault weapons", that being a matter of federal law?
Considering even unarmed illegal immigrants have killed waaaay more people than registered machine guns since 1934 (oodles v less than 5), the states interest might be considered "compelling"? If it saves just one life, isn't it worth it?
I do hear ya though. This law invites abuse, but I suspect 5 judges on the SCOTUS might think it's reasonable anyway.
