Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 01/23/2026 11:16:33 AM PST by CedarDave
A woman shot in the head by a federal agent, widespread protests, families separated and American citizens unlawfully detained.
State Rep. Eleanor Chavez, D-Albuquerque, described these scenes before introducing House Bill 9, which could shutter immigration detention centers in New Mexico.
“Now is the time more than ever to pass the Immigrant Rights Act,” Chavez said before the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee on Thursday.
Located in rural Cibola, Torrance and Otero counties, New Mexico's detention facilities have a combined detainee population of more than 1,500 people, according to recent estimates.
Though the bill would not directly close all three detention centers, it would forbid local governments from contracting with private prison companies, effectively forcing the largest of the three facilities to shut down.
Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham voiced support for the bill in an executive message Tuesday, adding momentum to legislation that is expected to move quickly through both chambers.
If the Otero Processing Center in Chaparral closed, Rep. John Block, R-Alamogordo, said it would be economically devastating to his district and result in the loss of 300 jobs.
Rep. Stefani Lord, R-Sandia Park, also said she would vote no on the bill, citing economic impacts to Torrance County. Lord said the detention center amounted to $30 million, or 40% of the county’s budget.
“Would you support an amendment so we don’t go broke?” Lord asked Chavez. Chavez said she would not support such an amendment.
Another bill sponsor, Rep. Angelica Rubio, D-Las Cruces, refuted economic arguments, saying that New Mexico must prioritize morality over an economy “built on cages.”
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I listened to part of the committee's discussion yesterday and the four Dems touted out their horror interpretation of ICE activities in Minnesota verbally citing the so-called wrongs by ICE and saying they will not let it happen in NM. The vote was 4-2 to pass with the two Pubs opposing. Below is a link to the bill text:
https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/26%20Regular/bills/house/HB0009.html
Text of the bill:
SECTION 1. [NEW MATERIAL] SHORT TITLE.—This act may be cited as the “Immigrant Safety Act”.
SECTION 2. [NEW MATERIAL] DEFINITION.—As used in the Immigrant Safety Act, “public body” means a state or local government, a sheriff’s department, an advisory board, a commission, an agency or an entity created by the constitution of New Mexico or any branch of government that receives public funding, including political subdivisions, special tax districts, school districts and institutions of higher education. “Public body” includes an entity or individual acting on behalf of or within the scope of the authority of the public body.
SECTION 3. [NEW MATERIAL] PROHIBITING PUBLIC BODIES FROM ENTERING INTO AGREEMENTS USED TO DETAIN INDIVIDUALS FOR FEDERAL CIVIL IMMIGRATION VIOLATIONS AND REQUIRING PUBLIC BODIES TO TERMINATE ANY SUCH EXISTING AGREEMENTS.—
A. A public body shall not enter into, renew or otherwise agree to be a party to an agreement to detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations, including an intergovernmental services agreement to detain individuals for civil immigration violations.
B. A public body that is a party to an existing agreement that is used to detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations shall, upon the effective date of the Immigrant Safety Act, terminate the agreement upon the earliest date permissible under the terms of the agreement, with respect to all provisions that relate to the detention of individuals for federal civil immigration violations.
C. A public body shall not sell, trade, lease or otherwise dispose of any real property to be used for the detention of individuals for federal civil immigration violations.
D. A public body shall not impose or continue in effect any law, ordinance, policy or regulation that violates or conflicts with the provisions of the Immigrant Safety Act.
E. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the ability of law enforcement personnel to detain individuals or to perform brief investigative stops as permitted by state law.
SECTION 4. [NEW MATERIAL] ENFORCEMENT.—
A. The attorney general or a district attorney may institute a civil action in district court if the attorney general or district attorney has reasonable cause to believe that a violation of the Immigrant Safety Act has occurred or to prevent a violation of that act from occurring.
B. In an action brought under Subsection A of this section, the court may award appropriate relief, other than monetary damages, to include declaratory and temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief.
SECTION 5. [NEW MATERIAL] SEVERABILITY.—If any part or application of the Immigrant Safety Act is held invalid, the remainder or its application to other situations or persons shall not be affected.
With regard to Section 3.A, could the bill be interpreted as broad enough to prohibit sheriffs or local or state police from cooperating with ICE to detain an illegal immigrant? Would the result be the same as in Minnesota where local and state police will not help ICE in arresting a criminal illegal?
They support the drug and human cartels.
NM list PING!
I may not PING for all New Mexico articles. To see New Mexico articles by topic click here: New Mexico Topics
To see NM articles by keyword, click here: New Mexico Keywords
To see the NM Message Page, click here: New Mexico Messages
(The NM list is available on my FR homepage for FR member use; its use in the News Forum should not be for trivial or inconsequential posts. Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from the list.)
(For ABQ Journal articles requiring a subscription, you may be allowed a number of free article views.)
Pretty sure they can’t interfere with federal law enforcement. But they can and will try. If they’re not getting bribe money from the cartels I would be surprised. They should get paid for doing the cartel’s dirty work.
Time to start arresting Dem public officials.
Sounds like an insurrection.
Half of New Mexico is federal land. The Feds will just build facilities on some corner of the various bases dotted throughout NM and the locals will lose the revenue. Better though would be to close Los Alamos, Sandia Labs, and Kirkland AFB, and watch Albuquerque and Santa Fe die on the vine.
Cut all federal funding to the state of New Mexico.
“”“Now is the time more than ever to pass the Immigrant Rights Act,” Chavez said””””
Now is the time more than ever to STOP GIVE THEM ANY FEDERAL FUNDS.
The democrats could surround those federal facilities to prevent supplies and food reaching the personnel and shell them if the feds don’t depart.
Typical Liberal habit of shooting one toe off and then reloading and shooting 6 more off. The feds don’t need the moron legislature’s permission to lock up illegal immigrants. They can put them in a tent on 5 acres of the millions of acres the federal government already owns in New Messico.
About 32% is owned by the feds.
Don’t forget Cannon AFB and Holloman AFB and White Sands.
Close the Aerospace Data Facility-Southwest of the NRO while they are at it. It really isn’t needed anyway.
New Mexico relies on military and intelligence funding plus tons of welfare to stay afloat.
American citizens unlawfully detained. I read 40 out of nearly 600,000. And none were unlawfully detained. They were all released relatively fast.
What is a little hyperbole amongst friends lol. It wouldn’t be FR if I looked things up first.
I left Cannon, Holloman, and White Sands off since they are in conservative areas of the state, and you could technically commute to them from Texas.
You might have been remembering that the BLM holds about 55% of that federal total.
Nevada is 80.1% federally owned, that is amazing, Utah 63.1%, Idaho 61.9%, California 45.4%, Texas 1.9%.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.