Piñon Post

Radical climate plan dead, but sweeping gun ban surges forward

16 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Two of the most hotly debated bills of the session — one targeting emissions policy and the other unconstitutional sweeping gun regulations — triggered marathon hearings, sharp partisan divides, and dueling victory statements this week at the Roundhouse.

Clear Horizons Act Goes Down in the Senate

On Wednesday, the Senate rejected Senate Bill 18, the so-called “Clear Horizons Act,” on a 19–23 vote, with seven Democrats joining all Republicans in opposition. The measure, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Mimi Stewart, D-Albuquerque, would have placed into state statute emissions-reduction benchmarks first advanced under Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s administration.

According to reporting by the Santa Fe New Mexican, the bill’s defeat appeared likely even before the final vote, despite emotional appeals from supporters on the floor.

Following the vote, Senate Republicans declared what they called a “massive victory,” saying they “led the charge to defeat the highly-publicized and detrimental ‘Clear Horizons’ environmental initiative.”

“This proposal sought to codify an impossible-to-attain ‘zero emissions’ environmental mandate by the year 2050,” the caucus said in its official release.

In a joint statement, Senate Republicans added:

“Today is a great day for New Mexican citizens, employees, employers, industry leaders, small business owners, investors, and entrepreneurs. We are proud to stand united in our fierce opposition to radical and damaging policies like Senate Bill 18 that seek to destroy our state’s lifeline: our vital industries and businesses.”

Environmental groups sharply criticized the outcome. As reported by the Santa Fe New Mexican, Demis Foster of Conservation Voters New Mexico said lawmakers “chose to side with a fear-based disinformation campaign led by the state’s polluting industries.”

Supporters on the Senate floor framed the bill as a moral and practical necessity. According to the newspaper, Sen. Bill Soules, D-Las Cruces, warned that natural disasters are no longer hypothetical.

“Natural disaster, devastation on our communities, isn’t a matter of if. It’s a matter of when,” Soules said.

Sen. Harold Pope, D-Albuquerque, emphasized New Mexico’s role as the nation’s second-largest oil producer, arguing the state has a responsibility to lead on climate policy.

Despite those appeals, the coalition against SB 18 held firm, leaving the governor’s climate goals in executive policy rather than state law.

Gun Bill Advances After Hourslong Showdown

While SB 18 died in the Senate, another controversial proposal — Senate Bill 17, known as the “Stop Illegal Gun Act” — survived its first House test after an hourslong and often tense committee hearing.

The House Commerce and Economic Development Committee passed SB 17 on a 6–5 vote, sending it to the House Judiciary Committee. Rep. Janelle Anyanonu (D-Bernalillo County) was the only Democrat to vote with all Republicans against the measure.

The bill would impose unconstitutional new regulations on licensed gun dealers, require inventory tracking and security measures, restrict sales of magazines holding more than 10 rounds, and prohibit the sale of gas-operated semiautomatic firearms, including rifles such as AR-15s and AK-47s. Existing owners would be allowed to keep their firearms.

Democrat sponsors described the bill as a “commonsense” effort to reduce gun trafficking and violence. Rep. Andrea Romero, D-Santa Fe, said in a statement:

“SB 17 allows us to take commonsense steps to reduce gun violence and improve public safety by holding retailers more accountable for enforcing our existing laws, while prohibiting the sale of the most dangerous, military-grade weapons used in mass shootings.”

Opposition was swift and vocal. House Republicans called the bill “an outright assault on the Second Amendment and on the freedoms of responsible New Mexicans.”

“Instead of addressing the violent crime crisis plaguing our communities, Democrats are choosing to punish law-abiding citizens and small business owners. That is not public safety. That is political theater,” the caucus said in a statement.

Gun store owners warned the regulations could force closures. Amanda Flores of Zia Guns in Roswell said licensed retailers are already heavily regulated.

“We are trained to identify and stop illegal purchases,” Flores said. “We are not part of the problem, we are already part of the solution.”

Anthony Segura of the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association cautioned that magazine limits could endanger lawful gun owners.

“In a real self-defense situation, there is no way to predict how many rounds you may need to defend your life,” he said.

With SB 18 defeated and SB 17 advancing, the Roundhouse remains a battleground over energy, crime, constitutional rights, and the direction of public policy in New Mexico — with both sides signaling they are far from finished.

Radical climate plan dead, but sweeping gun ban surges forward Read More »

Another newborn killed in NM: Infant discovered in portable toilet holding tank

11 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A Las Cruces woman is behind bars after police say she gave birth to a baby girl inside a portable toilet and left the newborn in the holding tank, resulting in the child’s death.

According to authorities, 38-year-old Sonia Jimenez was arrested following an investigation that began late Saturday night. Around 10:30 p.m., staff at Memorial Medical Center contacted law enforcement after Jimenez arrived at the hospital appearing to have recently delivered a baby. Medical personnel quickly realized the newborn was not with her and alerted police.

Officers began questioning those connected to Jimenez, including her boyfriend, who told investigators the two had been at Burn Lake earlier in the evening. He said Jimenez had used a portable restroom at the location but claimed he was unaware she had gone into labor or delivered a child.

Police responded to the site and located the infant inside the portable toilet’s holding tank. Investigators believe Jimenez delivered the baby inside the unit, cut the umbilical cord herself, and placed the newborn into the chemical-filled tank. Authorities say the baby girl died after inhaling and swallowing the blue chemical solution inside. An autopsy conducted Monday ruled the cause of death as drowning.

Jimenez has been charged with a first-degree felony count of intentional child abuse resulting in death. She is currently being held without bond at the Doña Ana County Detention Center. Police have indicated that her boyfriend is unlikely to face charges, as investigators do not believe he knew a birth had occurred.

The tragic case has reignited painful memories of previous newborn deaths across New Mexico that shocked communities statewide.

In 2022, an Albuquerque teenager was charged after allegedly giving birth in a hospital bathroom and killing the newborn shortly afterward. That case sparked renewed debate over access to pregnancy support resources and the state’s Safe Haven law, which allows parents to legally surrender a newborn without facing criminal charges.

More recently, in Hobbs, authorities arrested a woman accused of throwing her newborn baby into a dumpster, where the infant was later discovered. That case drew national attention and once again raised questions about why some mothers do not utilize safe surrender options available across the state.

New Mexico’s Safe Haven Act permits a parent to relinquish a baby, typically within 90 days of birth, at hospitals, fire stations, and certain other designated locations without fear of prosecution. Despite these protections, tragic cases involving newborn deaths continue to occur.

The Las Cruces case remains under investigation. Law enforcement officials have not yet indicated whether additional charges could be filed as more evidence is reviewed.

If you or someone you know is experiencing a crisis pregnancy, resources are available through local nonprofits like Care Net, hospitals, healthcare providers, and confidential hotlines that can help ensure the safety of both mother and child.

Another newborn killed in NM: Infant discovered in portable toilet holding tank Read More »

NM schools still last, but state Senate panel votes to keep governor in charge

16 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A long-running effort to overhaul how New Mexico oversees its public schools came to an abrupt halt this week, leaving the governor with even greater control over an education system that continues to rank last in the nation — behind all 50 states and the District of Columbia — according to multiple respected national rankings.

The Senate Education Committee voted 6–2 on Wednesday to reject Senate Joint Resolution 3, sponsored by Sen. Bill Soules, D–Las Cruces. The proposal would have shifted authority away from a governor-appointed Cabinet secretary and restored oversight to an appointed state school board and superintendent.

Soules framed the resolution as an attempt to bring continuity and insulation from political swings, arguing it would stabilize education governance “regardless of which party is in power.” His push comes after years of rapid turnover at the Public Education Department (PED) under Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham — a pattern critics say has produced more disruption than reform.

With Lujan Grisham now entering the final year of her second term, the defeat of SJR 3 ensures that sweeping authority over education policy will remain concentrated in the executive branch, allowing the next governor to inherit the same centralized power structure despite decades of poor outcomes.

The chilly reception marked a reversal from last year, when a similar proposal cleared the same committee by a 7–2 vote before ultimately stalling. New Mexico operated under a school board and superintendent model until 2003, when then-Gov. Bill Richardson moved PED under the governor’s direct control through a Cabinet secretary. The change was billed as a way to improve accountability, but critics argue it has instead tied education policy to political cycles while student performance has continued to lag.

Only one senator besides Soules backed the resolution in committee. Sen. Gabriel Ramos, R–Silver City, said the current structure gives too much unchecked authority to whoever occupies the governor’s office.

“It alleviates the demanding spirit of whoever the governor is at that time,” Ramos said. “I think we need to do things differently.”

Opposition came not only from Democrats on the committee but also from the Public Education Department itself. Greg Frostad, PED’s assistant secretary for policy and technology, testified against the measure, warning it would “add to the bureaucracy” and weaken accountability by eliminating a single, centralized leader.

Soules countered that details of board appointments could only be finalized after lawmakers approved the resolution and voters passed a constitutional amendment. He outlined a potential framework that included representation from the governor, legislative leaders of both parties, teachers unions, Indigenous tribes, and the New Mexico School Superintendents Association.

Even so, several Democrats raised conflicting objections — some worrying the governor would still wield too much influence, others arguing the change would “hamstring” future governors. Cindy Nava, D–Bernalillo, acknowledged the instability caused by frequent secretary turnover but said she did not want to “punish future governors” by limiting their control.

Meanwhile, Sen. Ant Thornton, R–Sandia Park, voiced concern the overhaul could disrupt recent reforms, noting, “Not that PED has a good record based on the history of where we are right now,” but arguing the committee was beginning to steer the department “in the right direction.”

With SJR 3 defeated, that direction remains firmly under gubernatorial authority — a reality that persists even as New Mexico’s education system continues to post some of the worst outcomes in the country.

NM schools still last, but state Senate panel votes to keep governor in charge Read More »

Radical anti-gun bill advances: Dems push AR-15 ban to Senate floor

30 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A sweeping gun control proposal that critics say represents one of the most extreme assaults on the Second Amendment in New Mexico history is now headed to the Senate floor.

Senate Bill 17, which would ban the sale of a broad range of semi-automatic firearms and impose heavy new mandates on federally licensed gun dealers, advanced out of the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday night on a 6–3 party-line vote. An effort to strip out the bill’s semi-automatic firearm and standard-capacity magazine bans failed on a 4–5 vote, clearing the way for the legislation to move forward in largely intact form.

Under SB 17, the sale of commonly owned rifles such as AR-15s and AK-style firearms would be prohibited, despite their widespread lawful use for self-defense, sporting, and training purposes. The bill also introduces a new regulatory regime for gun dealers that includes employee age and background check requirements, detailed inventory and sales tracking mandates, and expanded security obligations—violations of which could result in criminal penalties.

Supporters framed the bill as a public safety measure. Rep. Andrea Romero, a Democrat from Santa Fe and a co-sponsor of the legislation, claimed the proposal merely asks firearms retailers to act responsibly.

“This bill will simply ask gun dealers to do what responsible business owners already do: secure their inventory, train their employees, track their sales and stop selling military-grade weapons designed for mass casualties,” Romero said.

Gun rights advocates and Republicans strongly disagreed, warning that the bill tramples constitutional protections and targets law-abiding citizens rather than criminals.

“We’ve seen a history in New Mexico passing some unconstitutional laws sent back to the state. And I predict this is going to be much like that. I’m not a lawyer, but I can read,” said Crystal Brantley, R-Elephant Butte.

Even some Democratic lawmakers acknowledged the bill’s legal vulnerability. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, D-Albuquerque, conceded the firearm ban portion could be struck down in court, but said she would still vote for it as a “very important policy.”

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Cervantes, D-Las Cruces, echoed concerns he previously raised about the constitutionality of banning specific firearms. Nevertheless, he voted in favor of the bill, citing support for the dealer regulation provisions.

Opposition testimony came from gun owners, Second Amendment advocacy groups, and elected law enforcement officials, including the sheriffs of Roosevelt and Guadalupe counties. National Shooting Sports Foundation warned the proposal would make exercising constitutional rights in New Mexico “impossible for citizens to achieve.”

The National Rifle Association also opposed the bill, alongside numerous small business owners who said the measure would drive gun dealers out of the state.

Meanwhile, the state Department of Justice raised red flags in a memo to lawmakers, warning that SB 17 is likely to trigger litigation if enacted. Attorneys noted that a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision places the burden squarely on the government to prove that gun restrictions are consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The memo further cautioned that SB 17’s definition of “gas-operated firearm” may be far broader than supporters claim, potentially sweeping in commonly owned handguns used for self-defense, including models from Smith & Wesson, Walther, and Desert Eagle.

In response, New Mexico House Republicans sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice requesting a formal opinion on SB 17’s constitutionality, citing comments from Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon questioning similar weapon bans in other states.

The New Mexico Shooting Sports Association summarized the committee action bluntly, noting that SB 17 advanced on a 6–3 vote and that efforts to remove the semi-automatic firearm and magazine bans were defeated. The group warned the bill now poses a direct threat to the civil rights of lawful gun owners statewide.

As Jim Townsend, R-Artesia, put it, SB 17 is “if not one of the most contentious, the most contentious bill” of the session—a sign that the coming Senate floor debate will be as legally fraught as it is politically explosive.

Radical anti-gun bill advances: Dems push AR-15 ban to Senate floor Read More »

Economically crippling anti-ICE bill heads to governor’s desk

15 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

In a move critics are calling reckless, ideologically driven, and economically devastating, New Mexico Democrats have fast-tracked House Bill 9 (HB 9)—the so-called “Immigrant Safety Act”—through the Legislature and toward the governor’s desk, setting the stage for what opponents warn could be mass job losses, municipal insolvency, and a collapse of rural economies in Otero County, Torrance County, and Cibola County.

The bill cleared the Senate late Tuesday night on a 24–15, near party-line vote after hours of heated debate. The House had already passed the measure earlier in the session after a lengthy debate led by Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo), who offered an amendment to make counties whole that was narrowly defeated. Rural communities are now having to brace for impact.

HB 9 bans local governments from contracting with the federal government to operate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities, prohibits renewals of existing agreements, and bars the use of public property for federal civil immigration detention. Supporters framed the bill as a moral stand against what they described as a “cruel” federal immigration system. But even lawmakers who oppose ICE policies acknowledged the bill’s severe economic consequences.

“This is going to devastate my community,” warned Sen. Ant Thornton, R-Sandia Park, whose district includes the Torrance County Detention Facility. Thornton unsuccessfully offered an amendment that would have reimbursed counties for lost taxes, jobs, and economic activity. “Estancia is going to turn into a ghost town,” he said.

Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, whose district includes Cibola County, voted against the bill and issued an even starker warning. “You want to see a town dry up like a tumbleweed and blow away—get ready,” Muñoz said, calling Grants a town “built on prisons.” He added, “We have to figure out how we’re going to help these people… and now it’s going to disappear.”

Those pleas fell on deaf ears. An amendment in the Senate that would have made affected counties whole was narrowly defeated by a single vote, in part because two senators—Jay Block and Craig Brandt of Rio Rancho—were absent for the vote, a procedural twist that sealed the economic fate of the three counties.

The stakes are enormous. In Cibola County alone, local officials estimate 180 direct job losses, with total economic impacts exceeding $20 million annually when payroll, secondary spending, and multiplier effects are considered. Village of Milan Manager Candi Williams warned lawmakers that her community of roughly 2,300 residents could lose population eligibility thresholds tied to federal grants. “I struggle when people ask me why it feels like the Legislature hates our little community,” Williams told senators.

Even lawmakers who supported the bill conceded the harm. Rep. Patricia Lundstrom, D-Gallup, said her region would lose jobs and tax revenue. “We need help. We need help,” she pleaded. House Speaker Javier Martínez responded by offering capital outlay funds—an ad-hoc gesture critics say does not replace permanent jobs or stabilize county budgets.

Opponents also argue HB 9 will not end detention, but merely export it to other states, stripping New Mexico of any oversight while separating detainees from families and attorneys. Sen. Jim Townsend, R-Artesia, put it bluntly: “We have no idea where they’re going… and we’ll have absolutely no way to ensure their lives.”

New Mexico House Republicans issued a forceful call for a veto, warning HB 9 undermines public safety, threatens jobs, and invites constitutional challenges. In a statement, Republicans said the bill “represents a dangerous step away from the rule of law” and emphasized that ending cooperation with federal authorities “makes it harder to remove individuals convicted of serious crimes.”

Calls to the governor’s office should be made to (505) 476-2200. 

Despite those warnings, Democratic leaders pushed HB 9 through at breakneck speed. With the governor poised to sign it, rural New Mexico now faces what critics describe as an economically dooming, morally performative, and profoundly destructive law—one that sacrifices working families and entire counties to make a political statement that won’t stop federal immigration enforcement, but will shatter local economies.

Economically crippling anti-ICE bill heads to governor’s desk Read More »

Power grab: McQueen pushes plan to silence the public and fast-track bad bills

14 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico lawmakers are poised to consider two sweeping and dangerous constitutional amendments that would permanently upend how the state Legislature operates — and critics warn the proposals would crush transparency, overwhelm citizen legislators, and ram through controversial policies with little public input.

House Joint Resolutions 6 and 7, sponsored by far-left Rep. Matthew McQueen of Santa Fe, would fundamentally rewrite Article IV, Section 5 of the New Mexico Constitution. Together, the measures would abolish the state’s long-standing 60-day and 30-day legislative session structure and replace it with two 45-day sessions every year, while simultaneously removing all subject-matter limits on what bills can be introduced in short sessions.

Under current law, New Mexico holds a 60-day session in odd-numbered years to address major policy issues, while even-numbered years are limited to a focused 30-day budget session. That balance exists for a reason: New Mexico’s Legislature is made up of unpaid, part-time citizen lawmakers with limited staff and resources.

HJR 6 would blow that structure apart.

Instead of focused sessions with clear guardrails, lawmakers would face nonstop 45-day sessions, beginning earlier in January and colliding with federal holidays like Martin Luther King Jr. Day — all while attempting to process hundreds, if not thousands, of bills.

Even worse, HJR 7 removes all restrictions on bills in even-numbered years, meaning lawmakers could introduce legislation on any subject — from tax hikes to gun control to sweeping regulatory mandates — during what was once a limited budget session.

Legislative analysts themselves warn this would dramatically increase workload pressures. Historically, sessions without subject-matter limits see nearly double the number of bills introduced, overwhelming committees, staff, and the public alike.

The resolutions would also make it easier for lawmakers to revive failed or vetoed legislation from prior sessions and push override votes long after the original debate has ended, further eroding accountability.

Despite claims that the changes would “balance out” costs, fiscal reports show taxpayers would still be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars per constitutional amendment for ballot printing, newspaper publication, voter guides, and expanded ballots statewide.

Perhaps most troubling, these amendments would permanently lock these changes into the state constitution, making them extremely difficult to undo — even if the experiment fails.

The House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee will hear HJR 6 and HJR 7 on:

Monday, February 2, 2026
8:30 a.m.
Room 305 (Roundhouse)

New Mexicans can also join remotely via Zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87880458384

Citizens concerned about transparency, legislative overload, and radical constitutional changes are urged to call and email committee members immediately and strongly oppose HJR 6 and HJR 7.

Once these amendments are in the constitution, there is no easy way back. It’s also worth noting that McQueen will be leaving the Legislature after this current session, so he would be crippling the current process for future lawmakers — fleeing a sinking ship of his own creation.

Power grab: McQueen pushes plan to silence the public and fast-track bad bills Read More »

Anti-ICE bill heads to House floor today, threatening rural economic collapse

14 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A sweeping and highly controversial piece of legislation that critics warn could devastate rural New Mexico communities is now headed to the New Mexico House floor, where it will be debated today beginning at noon, with a live webcast available on the Legislature’s website under the “Webcast” tab.

House Bill 9 (HB 9), misleadingly titled the “Immigrant Safety Act,” has already cleared the New Mexico House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee and the New Mexico House Judiciary Committee, despite mounting concerns from counties, bond experts, law enforcement, and constitutional scholars.

At stake is nothing less than the economic survival of entire rural counties, particularly Otero County, Torrance County, and Cibola County—communities that rely heavily on intergovernmental service agreements (IGSAs) with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to operate detention facilities that process individuals already in the federal immigration system.

A Bill With Massive Consequences

HB 9 would force counties to terminate existing ICE agreements, prohibit any future cooperation, and even bar the use or lease of public property for immigration detention purposes. While supporters frame the bill as a moral stand, critics argue it is an ideological weapon with catastrophic real-world consequences.

County-level analyses warn the bill could wipe out hundreds of jobs per facility, eliminate tens of millions of dollars in annual local revenue, and trigger defaults on outstanding revenue bonds tied directly to detention center operations. In Otero County alone, officials estimate the loss of approximately 284 jobs and the potential default on more than $16 million in outstanding bonds—a scenario that could plunge the county into fiscal crisis or bankruptcy.

“These aren’t abstract numbers,” one county official warned. “These are real families, real paychecks, and real public services that will disappear if this bill becomes law.”

No Backfill, No Plan, No Accountability

Notably, HB 9 contains no appropriation to offset lost revenue, no transition assistance for affected counties, and no economic development plan to replace the jobs it would destroy. Rural communities are simply expected to absorb the shock—despite already facing higher unemployment, limited tax bases, and fewer economic alternatives.

Even more troubling, analysts warn the bill could violate both federal constitutional principles and state law protections for bondholders, exposing New Mexico to costly litigation while further destabilizing local governments.

Public Safety and Due Process at Risk

HB 9 also raises serious public safety and due process concerns. By eliminating in-state detention capacity, individuals currently processed in New Mexico would likely be shipped out of state—farther from courts, attorneys, and families. District attorneys have warned this could undermine pending criminal prosecutions, delay justice for victims, and complicate coordination between state and federal authorities.

The bill would deport illegal aliens out-of-state to places like Texas, Florida, and others, where the detainees will be even farther away from family and legal connections, not to mention, the places they will be sent like Camp East Montana on Fort Bliss in El Paso are ad-hoc tent cities where modern conveniences are inaccessible to those being held. 

Rather than ending detention, critics argue the bill would simply export the problem, sending detainees to facilities in other states with less oversight while stripping New Mexico of any practical role or visibility.

A Defining Vote

With HB 9 now on the House floor, lawmakers face a defining decision: stand with rural New Mexico communities and working families—or sacrifice them on the altar of political ideology.

The debate is expected to be contentious, with far-reaching implications not just for immigration policy, but for jobs, public safety, constitutional governance, and the economic future of entire regions of the state.

New Mexicans can watch the proceedings live today beginning at noon via the NMLegis.gov webcast, as the Legislature considers a bill that critics say New Mexico simply cannot afford.

Anti-ICE bill heads to House floor today, threatening rural economic collapse Read More »

Gabe Vasquez goes full anti-ICE, smears federal agents in op-ed

23 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Far-left Democrat Gabe Vasquez is once again drawing sharp criticism after publishing an incendiary op-ed that demonizes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), echoes open-borders talking points, and casts federal law enforcement as rogue actors—while downplaying the real consequences of lax border policy on New Mexico communities.

In the Albuquerque Journal op-ed, Vasquez launches an extraordinary attack on ICE officers and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing agents of operating “with little to no regard for the law,” alleging they are “detaining American citizens and legal residents with impunity,” and claiming the agency has “violently” ended lives. He writes, “We would not tolerate this behavior from any other law enforcement agency,” a sweeping indictment that critics say smears thousands of federal officers who risk their lives daily to stop drug trafficking, human smuggling, and cartel activity.

Vasquez’s rhetoric relies heavily on emotionally charged anecdotes while offering no substantiated evidence of the systemic abuses he alleges. He describes DHS as a “rogue agency” propped up by what he calls a “$150 billion slush fund,” and he derides enforcement tools such as border barriers, sneering that “billion-dollar walls…can be beaten with $4 work gloves.” The language mirrors long-standing progressive hostility toward border enforcement, framing any meaningful increase in ICE resources as inherently suspect.

Despite representing a district that spans roughly 180 miles of the U.S.–Mexico border—an area ravaged by fentanyl trafficking, cartel smuggling routes, and repeat border crossers—Vasquez voted against additional ICE funding and used his op-ed to justify that vote. He admits Congress considered a spending bill that would have provided ICE with $10 billion, but complains it lacked “substantive reform,” including mandates on agent attire and expanded oversight provisions. In other words, rather than prioritize enforcement capacity, Vasquez demanded ideological conditions that critics say would further hobble an already overstretched agency.

This posture is consistent with Vasquez’s broader record. As previously reported, he has repeatedly sided with the progressive wing of his party in opposing border enforcement measures while supporting policies that expand legal pathways and reduce detention—policies critics argue functionally reward illegal entry and encourage further migration surges. While Vasquez insists he opposes “open borders,” his proposals align closely with national Democratic plans that emphasize legalization, reduced enforcement, and bureaucratic oversight over deterrence.

In the op-ed, Vasquez attempts to inoculate himself from criticism by listing border-related experiences—claiming he has “walked the border,” “ridden horseback” in the Bootheel, and convened stakeholder meetings. Yet he simultaneously dismisses the very agents tasked with enforcing the law in those areas, accusing them of “lawlessness and disregard for American rights.” That contradiction has not gone unnoticed by ranchers, law enforcement, and border residents who say the congressman’s words undermine morale and embolden criminal networks.

Vasquez also uses the piece to attack Trump administration officials, calling for the removal of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and blaming her for “chaos” in American neighborhoods. He even drags unrelated issues into the argument, alleging failures in disaster response in Texas and Ruidoso—claims critics say are designed to inflame rather than inform.

Ultimately, the op-ed underscores a familiar pattern: when given a choice between backing law enforcement or appeasing the activist left, Vasquez chooses the latter. While he claims Americans shouldn’t have to choose “between open borders or the horrific violence from ICE,” his policy prescriptions—expanded legal pathways, reduced detention, and increased oversight—amount to the same failed approach that has produced record crossings, overwhelmed border communities, and historic drug flows.

For many New Mexicans, the question is no longer whether the system is broken—it is whether their congressman is willing to enforce the law. Vasquez’s op-ed suggests he is not.

Gabe Vasquez goes full anti-ICE, smears federal agents in op-ed Read More »

Call to action: Oppose job-killing anti-ICE bill today in NM House committee

23 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Thursday, January 22, at 1:30 p.m. (or 15 minutes after the House floor session, whichever is later), the New Mexico House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee will meet in Room 317 to hear House Bill 9 (HB 9)—a sweeping, far-left proposal that would effectively shut down Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention operations across New Mexico.

Branded by its sponsors as the “Immigrant Safety Act,” HB 9 goes far beyond symbolic politics. If enacted, it would prohibit counties and other public bodies from cooperating with federal authorities on civil immigration detention, force the termination of existing agreements, and invite litigation by empowering the attorney general or district attorneys to sue local governments for non-compliance. In practice, that means closing or dismantling ICE processing facilities where criminal aliens are lawfully detained and processed before removal—regardless of the devastating economic and public-safety consequences for local communities.

Jobs, Revenues, and Entire Communities at Risk

HB 9 would directly threaten thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in local economic activity in rural New Mexico—particularly in Otero County, Cibola County, and Torrance County. These counties—represented by both Democrats and Republicans—host detention facilities that serve as economic anchors in regions with few comparable employers.

According to county-level analysis, Otero County alone stands to lose approximately 284 direct jobs, along with $3.9 million annually in economic contributions and state tax revenue. Across all three counties, losses could reach into the tens of millions of dollars per year, triggering layoffs, reduced public services, and even defaults on outstanding revenue bonds tied to detention facility operations. State law explicitly prohibits legislation that impairs existing bond obligations, raising serious legal and fiscal red flags.

There is no appropriation in HB 9 to offset these losses. Counties are offered no replacement funding, no transition assistance, and no economic development plan—only the hollow promise that rural New Mexico should somehow “figure it out” after the state pulls the rug out from under them.

Public Safety and Constitutional Concerns

HB 9 would also put New Mexico on a collision course with federal law. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and Supreme Court precedent makes clear that states may not obstruct or undermine federal immigration operations. Legal analyses warn HB 9 could spark costly litigation under the Supremacy Clause and intergovernmental immunity, draining taxpayer dollars while creating chaos in federal-state relations.

Even more troubling, shutting down in-state facilities does not end detention. It simply forces detainees—many with criminal histories—to be transferred out of state, farther from courts, attorneys, and families. That outcome undercuts due process, increases federal costs, and removes New Mexico’s ability to oversee conditions—while doing nothing to improve public safety or humanitarian outcomes.

Take Action Now

This bill is not about safety. It is about ideology—and rural New Mexico will pay the price.

The House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee needs to hear from you. Respectfully urge members to vote NO on HB 9 and stand with working families, local governments, and the rule of law.

Committee Hearing Details

Email Committee Members

  • Rep. Joanne J. Ferrary (Chair): joanne.ferrary@nmlegis.gov
  • Rep. Angelica Rubio (Vice Chair): angelica.rubio@nmlegis.gov
  • Rep. John Block: John.Block@nmlegis.gov
  • Rep. Stefani Lord: stefani.lord@nmlegis.gov
  • Rep. Andrea Romero: andrea@andrearomero.com
  • Rep. Liz Thomson: liz.thomson@nmlegis.gov

Tell them: HB 9 will kill jobs, crush rural counties, invite lawsuits, and make New Mexico less safe—without solving a single real problem. Oppose HB 9.

Call to action: Oppose job-killing anti-ICE bill today in NM House committee Read More »

Juvenile crime crackdown gains steam, but MLG’s gun agenda ignites division

12 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

In her final State of the State address Tuesday, Michelle Lujan Grisham laid out an expansive agenda for the 30-day legislative session, pitching it as a call for bipartisanship while reviving some of the most divisive proposals of her two terms — including a renewed push to restrict firearms in a state already grappling with violent crime.

Lujan Grisham, serving the final year of her second term, urged lawmakers to “go big” during what she said is not a “victory lap,” but a final opportunity to cement her legacy. “We’re not slowing down — we’re pushing forward,” she told a packed House chamber.

While the governor’s speech drew applause across party lines on certain issues, her call for an assault weapons ban and expanded “gun dealer accountability” legislation once again exposed deep divisions at the Roundhouse.

Republicans argued the proposal targets law-abiding New Mexicans while doing little to stop violent offenders. “In the middle of a crime crisis, taking away families’ right to defend themselves is dangerous and wrong,” said Rep. John Block, adding that House Republicans will not support policies that “punish responsible gun owners instead of holding violent criminals accountable.”

Even as Democrats applauded the gun control portion of the speech, GOP lawmakers emphasized that the governor’s own remarks underscored a central contradiction: New Mexico’s public safety crisis is driven by repeat violent offenders, not lawful firearm ownership.

Where consensus did emerge was on crime — particularly violent crime and serious juvenile offenses. Lujan Grisham called for tougher penalties for felons in possession of firearms, stricter pre-trial detention for violent suspects, and reforms aimed at severe juvenile crime.

“Dangerous, violent crimes and the persons who commit them must be held accountable without hesitation and without exception,” the governor said. “Until everyone is safe… we’re just not done.”

That emphasis was welcomed by Republicans, who have long pushed for stronger enforcement and detention tools. Senate Minority Leader William Sharer said Republicans are “on the same page” with the governor when it comes to keeping violent offenders off the streets and fixing a juvenile justice system many say has failed both victims and offenders.

Health care policy also emerged as an area of genuine overlap. Lujan Grisham called for “real, meaningful medical malpractice reform,” a line that drew loud applause from Republican lawmakers who argue New Mexico’s liability environment is driving doctors out of the state.

“We want to collaborate on real solutions,” Sharer said following the address. “Bring doctors to New Mexico, and keep the bad guys off the street.”

The governor also pushed for interstate medical licensing compacts, expansion of the University of New Mexico’s medical school, and eliminating the gross receipts tax on medical services — proposals broadly supported across party lines.

Still, Republicans cautioned that cooperation will falter if the session becomes dominated by ideological fights over firearms, climate mandates, and universal taxpayer-funded child care, which carries a projected $160 million annual price tag.

Despite repeated appeals to bipartisanship, applause patterns during the speech suggested unity will be selective. When Lujan Grisham called for an assault weapons ban, only Democrats stood. When she called for malpractice reform and tougher crime penalties, Republicans were among the first to rise.

As the 30-day session begins, lawmakers appear poised to work together where policy meets reality — particularly on violent crime and health care — while preparing for familiar battles over gun rights that could again overshadow areas of real agreement.

Juvenile crime crackdown gains steam, but MLG’s gun agenda ignites division Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 98
Scroll to Top