NM AG issues guidance on immigration enforcement - By Source New Mexico
In response to a Monday night federal order that rescinded limited enforcement by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection in sensitive areas such as churches and schools, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez Wednesday issued guidance to community leaders regarding immigration enforcement that reviews the legal backdrop for such actions.
A news release from Torrez’s office notes that “removal of sensitive location protections overlooks the vital role spaces like schools and hospitals play in supporting families and children. Disruptions in these places can jeopardize access to education, healthcare, and essential services, leaving families in crisis without the stability and support they need.”
The guidance also responds to reported threats by the U.S. Department of Justice to local authorities who do not enforce the Trump administration’s immigration laws.
“Threatening state and local officials with federal prosecution not only distorts the law but stains the reputation of a once proud institution,” Torrez said in a statement. “As a former federal prosecutor who handled hundreds of immigration related cases, I know that this not only a distortion of our laws but a shameful departure from the proud traditions of an agency that is supposed to be dedicated to the advancement of justice.”
The information includes guidance to law enforcement leaders, which notes that “under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the federal government cannot ‘compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program,’ or force state employees to enforce federal law.”
The AG also provided information for leaders in: places of worship; district and magistrate courts; hospitals and other healthcare facilities; primary and secondary educational institutions; and higher education institutions. Each notes that the guidance is not intended as legal advice.
Justice department orders investigation of local compliance with Trump immigration crackdown - By Alanna Durkin Richer and Eric Tucker Associated Press, KUNM News
The Justice Department has ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials who they believe are interfering with the Trump administration's crackdown on immigration, saying they could face criminal charges, in an apparent warning to the dozens of so-called sanctuary jurisdictions across America.
The memo, from acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, signals a sharp turnabout in priorities from President Joe Biden's Democratic administration, with the Justice Department's civil division told to identify state and local laws and policies that "threaten to impede" the Trump administration's immigration efforts and potentially challenge them in court.
It also tells prosecutors in no uncertain terms that they will be on the front lines of an administration-wide effort to crack down on illegal immigration and border crime and that they are expected to carry out the policy vision of President Donald Trump's Republican White House when it comes to violent crimes, the threat of international gangs and drug trafficking.
"Indeed, it is the responsibility of the Justice Department to defend the Constitution, and accordingly, to lawfully execute the policies that the American people elected President Trump to implement," wrote Bove, who prior to joining the administration was part of the legal team that defended Trump against two criminal cases brought by the Justice Department.
"Sanctuary" has no legal definition, but the term encompasses a range of protection for immigrants, particularly those living in the U.S. illegally. Most often, the laws put legal limits on how law enforcement in those jurisdictions can cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Courts have repeatedly upheld most sanctuary laws, and legal experts said that while prosecutions are possible, they doubted the charges would have any traction in court.
"What would you charge these people with?" asked Robert J. McWhirter, a constitutional scholar and longtime Arizona-based immigration lawyer. "Nothing obligates local law enforcement to cooperate with federal law enforcement on any issue. Not even bank robbery."
Following Trump’s election in November, Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller told KUNM that he is committed to the city maintaining local control, including defending its sanctuary status against Trump administration policies. “I’ve seen the Trump show before and, more than most cities, we are prepared and I am prepared to stand up for the City of Albuquerque,” he said.
In Chicago, which has some of the strongest sanctuary protections nationwide, city leaders brushed off word of potential investigations. The nation's third-largest city has been a sanctuary city for decades, limiting cooperation between police and federal immigration agents.
"If the federal government is going to investigate, that is their prerogative," said Alderman Andre Vasqez, who is Mayor Brandon Johnson's handpicked chair of the City Council immigration committee.
Vasquez, the son of two Guatemalan immigrants, noted a 2016 campaign rally at the University of Illinois Chicago that Trump abruptly scrapped as crowds of boisterous protesters grew. The cancellation remains a badge of honor for many young activists in the Democratic stronghold.
"There will always be that kind of relationship between Chicago, President Trump and the Republican Party," said Vasquez. "I was born and raised in Chicago, in an immigrant family. It will take more than that to make me feel a little scared."
Across the country, cities and towns were sending out reminders about the delicate balance of sanctuary laws, which draw distinctions between not cooperating with federal immigration officials, particularly U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and actively undermining those federal officials.
New York's police department, for example, told employees in a memo that they are not permitted to "assist in any manner with civil immigration enforcement," but also said they must not "take any action that will interfere with or impede civil immigration enforcement undertaken by federal authorities."
In Denver, Mayor Mike Johnston said in a statement that the city "has been clear that we will coordinate with ICE on violent criminals," but added "we will not be bullied into doing ICE's job for them."
Bove's memo directs prosecutors to investigate for potential criminal charges against state and local officials who obstruct or impede federal functions. As potential avenues for prosecution, the memo cites a conspiracy offense as well as a law prohibiting the harboring of people in the country illegally.
"Federal law prohibits state and local actors from resisting, obstructing and otherwise failing to comply with lawful immigration-related commands and requests," the memo says. "The U.S. Attorney's Offices and litigating components of the Department of Justice shall investigate incidents involving any such misconduct for potential prosecution."
But in Colorado, where state law bars local law enforcement from helping federal immigration agents without a court order, the attorney general's office said it knew of no state or local officials obstructing immigration enforcement.
"The federal government—not local law enforcement—is responsible for enforcing federal immigration laws," the office of Phil Weiser, a Democrat, said in a statement.
The memo includes a series of directives beyond those related to sanctuary jurisdictions. It suggests there will be a spike in immigration cases under the new administration, instructing U.S. attorney's offices across the country to inform courts of its policy "and develop processes for handling the increased number of prosecutions that will result." Any decisions by federal prosecutors to decline to prosecute immigration violations must be disclosed to Justice Department headquarters in so-called urgent reports, which are used to update leadership on law enforcement emergencies or significant matters of national interest.
The memo also says the department will return to the principle of charging defendants with the most serious crime it can prove, a staple position of Republican-led departments meant to remove a prosecutor's discretion to charge a lower-level offense. And it rescinds policies implemented by Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland, including one designed to end sentencing disparities that have imposed harsher penalties for different forms of cocaine.
"The most serious charges are those punishable by death where applicable, and offenses with the most significant mandatory minimum sentences," Bove wrote.
It is common for Justice Departments to shift enforcement priorities under a new presidential administration in compliance with White House policy ambitions. The memo reflects the constant push-and-pull between Democratic and Republican administrations over how best to commit resources to what officials regard as the most urgent threat of the time.
The edict to charge the most readily provable offense, for instance, is consistent with directives from prior Republican attorneys general including John Ashcroft and Jeff Sessions, while Democratic attorneys general including Eric Holder and Garland have replaced the policy and instead encouraged prosecutorial discretion.
___
Associated Press writers Tim Sullivan in Minneapolis; Sophia Tareen in Chicago; and Colleen Slevin in Denver contributed to this report.
Republicans criticize Gov. Lujan Grisham’s legislative priorities - Hannah Grover, New Mexico Political Report
Public safety is a concern statewide, Senate Minority Leader Bill Sharer of Farmington said during a press conference Tuesday following Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s State of the State address.
During the press conference, Republican senators addressed priorities for public safety, education, the economy and more.
Sharer said that while the governor acknowledged the public safety issue, he said it needs to be addressed in a meaningful way.
“I’m not sure we got there today,” he said.
Sharer said Senate Republicans plan to address crime packages that tackle “real issues.” He described these as common sense solutions that have been rejected by the other side.
When it comes to crime, Sharer said first the porous borders need to be fixed, which he said President Donald Trump will address.
He said there needs to be certainty that if people commit a crime, they will go to jail. He criticized pre-trial detention policies.
Sen. Pat Woods, R-Broadview, said the state needs to focus on the causes of crime, such as the lack of behavioral health practitioners.
Woods also said jail should be a more relied upon option and the state needs to “quit the revolving door that’s been going on.”
Sen. David Gallegos, R-Eunice spoke about the issues at the Children, Youth and Families Department. He said Republicans will work to ensure there is a child’s advocate in the New Mexico Department of Justice.
He said there needs to be something to protect infants that are born into homes with drug abuse problems rather than sending the baby back to the family.
Gallegos also said there should be increased local control of education and school choice.
“We desperately need a state school board so that we can restore accountability to education,” he said.
During questions from the press, Gallegos said having a state school board will not fix everything, but he said it will help.
Republicans also criticized new policies to increase the number of new electric vehicles sold in New Mexico and building codes that require EV charging in new construction.
“An EV is a great car for a commuter car,” Woods said, but he argued that it is not the right vehicle for everyone and that only a small percentage of the vehicles sold in New Mexico now are electric vehicles.
Sharer said legislation that would have required manufacturers to provide a certain percentage of electric vehicles to dealers in New Mexico failed to pass last year, but the governor implemented those policies through rulemaking instead.
“We would like to come back and say no again,” he said.
EPA investigating City of ABQ and City Council for possible civil rights violations - Elizabeth McCall, City Desk ABQ
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced Friday an investigation into the City of Albuquerque and the City Council in response to a complaint that alleges possible civil rights violations.
The Mountain View Coalition and the New Mexico Environmental Law Center filed the complaint May 2024, alleging that the council violated the federal Civil Rights Act by discriminating against Mountain View, one of the city’s “low-income communities of color.”
The coalition petitioned the Albuquerque-Bernalillo County Air Quality Control Board to adopt a rule requiring “the local Environmental Health Department to consider these overburdened communities, and the disproportionate health impacts they bear, when reviewing an application for an air pollution permit.”
According to the complaint, Mayor Tim Keller’s administration and the council “intentionally interfered” with the rulemaking efforts, and its “intent to halt the rulemaking preceding” violated Mountain View’s efforts to be involved in the rulemaking process and discriminated “on the basis of race, color and national origin.”
Staci Drangmeister, a Keller spokesperson, told City Desk ABQ in a statement the mayor’s office previously expressed concerns about the council’s actions.
“We share the concern that our frontline communities are overburdened by pollution and warned that council’s interference would bring legal challenges,” Drangmeister said.
Council President Brook Bassan did not respond to a request for comment before publication.
Genevieve Chavez Mitchell, the president of the Mountain View Neighborhood Association said in a statement that the association is “very pleased that this issue is being addressed.”
“The Mountain View Community has two superfund sites, numerous brownfields, seven petroleum tank farms and miles of salvage yards,” Mitchell said. “We do not have a restaurant, grocery store, a public park, or green space. We worry about air quality, drinking water and soil pollution from years of industrial discharges. We would like a plan for industrial pollution clean up, a plan for mixed-use development and no more dirty industry. We want a healthy, thriving, beautiful community.”
According to the law center, the complaint specifically asked the EPA to do the following:
- Conduct an investigation into the city and the council’s alleged discriminatory conduct and interference in a rulemaking process
- Allow public comment on the matter
- If warranted, remove the city’s federal funding; and
- Take all other necessary actions, including a review to ensure the city and the council comply with the federal Civil Rights Act and EPA’s implementing regulations.
New Mexico cities boast several James Beard Award semifinalists - Santa Fe New Mexican, KUNM News
The James Beard Foundation announced the semifinalists for this year’s 2025 Restaurant and Chef Award today. They include eight from New Mexico.
The Santa Fe New Mexican reports five chefs made the shortlist for Best Chef in the Southwest region, which includes New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma and Nevada.
From Santa Fe, Cristian Pontiggia of Sassella Restaurant, Fernando Ruiz of Escondido, and Joseph Wrede of Joseph's Culinary Pub made the list. The foundation also named Albuquerque chefs Kattia Rojas of Buen Provecho and Sean Sinclair of Level 5 semifinalists in the category.
In the Outstanding Bakery division, Coda Bakery in Albuquerque’s International District, known for its bánh mì, made the cut.
The Albuquerque area also boasted semifinalists in two drink categories. For its Outstanding Wine and Other Beverages Program, Campo at Los Poblanos in Los Ranchos got a nod. Meanwhile, Kate Gerwin of Nob Hill’s Happy Accidents was honored for Outstanding Professional in Cocktail Service.
Finalists for each James Beard Award category will be announced in April, according to the foundation, and winners will be named in June.
Climate justice protesters blockade New Mexico Legislature on session’s opening day - By Austin Fisher, Source New Mexico
On the New Mexico Legislature’s opening day Jan. 21, climate justice protesters blockaded the street in front of the Roundhouse, demanding state lawmakers take immediate climate action.
Demonstrators parked vehicles on Old Santa Fe Trail, while a crowd of young people painted a clock on the pavement to show the urgency of the climate crisis and demand protection for stolen, sacred lands and of their futures.
The group escalated to a blockade after disrupting the governor’s State of the State address in 2024, and staging a die-in inside the capitol rotunda in 2023.
Protesters included members of Youth United for Climate Crisis Action (YUCCA), Pueblo Action Alliance, Southwest Organizing Project, the Santa Fe Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, Third Act New Mexico and students from United World College in Las Vegas, New Mexico.
YUCCA Policy Campaign Manager Ennedith López said since her organization was founded six years ago, lawmakers have largely ignored climate and environmental justice. Her group plans to support legislation focusing on human rights, housing, and specific proposals creating a one-mile buffer zone preventing oil and gas operations around schools, day cares, parks and playgrounds, and limiting ozone air pollution.
YUCCA plans to oppose Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s strategic water supply proposal, López said. That program would receive $75 million under a bill sponsored by Rep. Susan Herrera (D-Embudo) that would make the state government a middleman to solicit projects to develop treatments for salty water deep underground or oil and gas wastewater, and to create rules to regulate those projects.
“Knowing that there isn’t science to back safety for human consumption or even simply the Earth, it’s just too risky of an investment for our communities,” López said.
Today’s protest follows yesterday’s executive order from President Donald Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement. Gov Lujan Grisham, co-chair of the United States Climate Alliance, yesterday released a letter with Co-Chair New York Gov. Kathy Hochul to the executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change reiterating the Alliance’s commitment to its climate goals: “This is not the first time we’ve responded to this challenge in the U.S,” the letter noted. “Our coalition was launched after the President’s decision to withdraw our country from the Paris Agreement back in 2017. Since then, our reach, resolve, and impact have only grown.”
Climate change legislation during this year’s session includes The Clear Horizons Act, which would codify Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s 2019 executive order to reduce 2005 level emissions by at least 45% by 2030. The bill would set the goals of reducing emissions by 50% by 2040 and 100% by 2050, and charge the Environmental Improvement Board with inventorying progress towards the goals.
US adults want border security action but mostly oppose arrests in schools, churches: AP-NORC poll - By Amelia Thomson-Deveaux and Tim Sullivan, Associated Press
Many U.S. adults are on board with the idea of beefing up security at the southern border and undertaking some targeted deportations, according to a poll. But as President Donald Trump begins his second term with a series of sweeping executive orders on immigration, the findings suggest his actions may quickly push the country beyond the limited consensus that exists on the issue.
There is a clear desire for some kind of action on U.S.-Mexico border security, according to the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Half of U.S. adults think increasing security at the border should be a high priority for the federal government, according to the poll, and about 3 in 10 say it should be a moderate priority. Just 2 in 10, roughly, consider it a low priority.
The vast majority of U.S. adults favor deporting immigrants convicted of violent crimes, and the Trump administration's deportation efforts may begin there. But Trump's initial executive orders have gone far beyond that — including efforts to keep asylum-seekers in Mexico and end automatic citizenship.
And Trump, a Republican, is continuing to signal an aggressive and likely divisive approach, with promises to deport millions of people who entered the country illegally while declaring a "national emergency at our southern border." About 4 in 10 American adults support deporting all immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, and a similar share are opposed.
Most Americans think local police should cooperate with federal immigration authorities on deportations in at least some cases, but implementation could quickly become unpopular. On Tuesday, the Trump administration threw out policies limiting arrests of migrants in sensitive places like schools and churches, even though a shift to such arrests would be largely unpopular.
Some support for more immigration enforcement
Immigration was a key issue in the 2024 election, and the poll indicates that it's still a high priority for many Americans as Trump takes office.
Illegal border crossings soared under Trump's predecessor, President Joe Biden, with border arrests from Mexico reaching a record-high of 250,000 in December 2023. Despite Trump's claims of an immigrant invasion, crossings have plunged since then, amid increased Mexican enforcement and the Democratic Biden administration's June 2024 order that dramatically limited asylum claims at the border.
But memories of those rising numbers, and the chaos that ensued when migrants were bused by Republican governors to northern cities, may have helped shape American attitudes. The survey found that about half of Americans think the government is spending "too little" on border security, and the vast majority favor deportations of people who have been convicted of violent crimes.
"I want to see more people coming here legally," said Manuel Morales, a 60-year-old Democrat who lives near Moline, Illinois. He first came to America by crossing the border illegally from Mexico nearly 40 years ago. "But at the same time, I'm against all these caravans coming (to the border), with thousands and thousands of people at one time," said Morales, a technician for an internet provider.
He's deeply sympathetic to migrants who come to the U.S. to escape repression or poverty and feels that too many Americans don't understand the yearslong efforts required to enter the U.S. legally. Yet, he also believes the number of migrants has simply become too great in the past few years.
"We cannot just receive everybody into this county," he said.
Trump's most sweeping plans are less popular
Trump rarely gives specifics when he calls for mass deportations, but the survey indicates many Americans are conflicted about mass roundups of people living in the U.S. illegally.
Removing immigrants who are in the country illegally and have not committed a violent crime is highly divisive, with only about 4 in 10 U.S. adults in support and slightly more than 4 in 10 opposed.
And relatively few Americans, about 3 in 10, somewhat or strongly favor changing the Constitution so children born in the U.S. are not automatically granted citizenship if their parents are in the country illegally. About 2 in 10 are neutral, and about half are somewhat or strongly opposed.
Doug DeVore is a 57-year-old Republican living in southern Indiana who believes that immigration "went haywire during the Biden administration."
But the idea of large-scale operations to check people's immigration status makes him uncomfortable.
"I probably wouldn't be 100% against it," he said. "But there's that fine line" between gathering information on people living in the U.S. illegally and automatically deporting them, added DeVore, who works in a candy factory.
Local cooperation with immigration authorities is popular — but not arrests in schools or churches
As the Trump administration prepares to attack sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, the poll finds that the vast majority of U.S. adults think police in their community should cooperate with federal immigration authorities to deport people who are in the country illegally in at least some cases.
Only about 1 in 10 Americans say the local police should never cooperate with federal law enforcement on these deportations.
There's a divide, though, on whether cooperation should happen across the board or if it should happen only sometimes. About two-thirds of Republicans say local police should always cooperate, a view that only about one-quarter of Democrats share. But relatively few Democrats say local police should never cooperate and most, about two-thirds, say cooperation should happen in some cases.
And a wave of arrests could quickly spark a backlash, depending on how they happen. U.S. immigration agents have long abided by guidance that deters arresting parents or students at schools and other sensitive places, but some of Trump's rhetoric has raised questions about whether those policies will persist.
The poll finds that a shift toward arresting people in the country illegally at places like churches and schools would be highly unpopular. Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults somewhat or strongly favor arresting children who are in the country illegally while they are at school, and a similar share support arresting people who are in the country illegally while they are at church. Solid majorities, about 6 in 10, oppose these kinds of arrests.
Even Republicans aren't fully on board — less than half favor arrests of children in schools or people at church.
___
The AP-NORC poll of 1,147 adults was conducted Jan. 9-13, using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.