Susana Martínez Tells Police to Check Immigration Status in New Mexico
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez is ordering police to check immigration documents and she wants the state to stop allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses
New Mexico Gov. Susana Martínez is directing police to check the immigration status of people arrested for crimes. The Republican, who made headlines after the November elections when she became the nation’s first Latina governor, said she was eliminating an executive order by former Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat, that prohibited law enforcement officials from asking people about immigration status.
"This order takes the handcuffs off of New Mexico's law enforcement officers in their mission to keep our communities safe," Martínez said in a statement. "The criminal justice system should have the authority to determine the immigration status of all criminals, regardless of race or ethnicity, and report illegal immigrants who commit crimes to federal authorities."
However, Martínez said law enforcement working for state agencies will continue to be barred from asking about the immigration status of someone who is a crime victim, a witness to a crime or seeking police assistance. Richardson had ordered that in 2005.
Martínez’s order coincided with a bill introduced Monday that says that undocumented immigrants no longer could obtain New Mexico driver's licenses that serve as government identification, but they could still drive legally under a compromise bill introduced today.
Rep. Bill Rehm, R-Albuquerque, proposed revoking the licenses of foreign nationals, then requiring them to obtain a one-year permit that would be good for driving only. Rehm, a retired sheriff's deputy, said he wanted a stricter measure that would deny undocumented immigrants any driving permit or license. "That wouldn't make it through this Legislature," he said in an interview.
Martinez, a career prosecutor before being elected in November, has called on the Legislature to repeal the 2003 law in which people can obtain New Mexico licenses without providing proof of immigration status. Rehm's proposal HB 261, does not go as far as she wanted.
As for the governor’s executive order regarding police checking immigration documents, Scott Darnell, a spokesman for Martínez, said state police will not ask about immigration status of motorists stopped for traffic violations such as speeding. The administration's policy applies only when someone is arrested for a crime, he said.
Martínez's policy drew criticism from a civil rights group.
"This executive order invites racial profiling by giving an incentive to police to arrest people who look and sound 'foreign.' New Mexicans should not have to fear that a broken taillight or other pretextual stop will lead to their arrest because of the color of their skin," said Peter Simonson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in New Mexico.
Before her election as governor, Martinez was district attorney in Dona Ana County in southern New Mexico.
During last year's gubernatorial campaign, Martínez criticized Richardson for having a "sanctuary" policy on illegal immigration.
New Mexico legislators who pushed for allowing undocumented immigrants to obtain licenses said this would increase the number of drivers with auto insurance. Rehm said his plan for permits would still enable undocumented immigrants to buy insurance.
Eleven states once had laws allowing undocumented immigrants to receive driver's licenses. All but three have repealed those laws.
Utah issues permits for driving only. New Mexico and Washington state issue driver's licenses that also can be used as government identification, the type needed to board an airplane or enter a federal courthouse.
SOURCE
Australian Govt. has power to deport Afghan illegals to Afghanistan
The Federal government insists it does have the power to deport failed asylum seekers from Afghanistan under a new agreement with the Afghan government. Immigration Minister Chris Bowen signed the deal with Afghan Refugee Minister Jamaher Anwary earlier this month.
Mr Bowen hailed the deal as a major breakthrough in border security. But Dr Anwary appeared to back away from the deal in comments aired by the ABC on Tuesday. Dr Anwary says the deal does not allow Australia to involuntary deport failed asylum seekers back to Afghanistan and claims to the contrary are propaganda.
But Mr Bowen on Tuesday insisted otherwise. "Of course, it's the preference of the governments of both Australia and Afghanistan - and the United Nations High Commissioner - that these returns be voluntary wherever possible," Mr Bowen's spokeswoman said. "But the MoU does provide for involuntary returns."
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the agreement appeared to be unravelling after just two weeks. "Just like the never-never East Timor solution this is another foreign affairs mess in asylum policy," he said in a statement. "It remains an open question as to whether the government will now follow through, especially given the confusion surrounding the Afghan agreement."
The agreement, which is not legally binding, has been condemned by rights groups that fear returned Afghans will be put in danger.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment