New Mexico's Governor Wants to Weaken Border Security

New Mexico's Governor Wants to Weaken Border Security Just as President Trump is Winning the Fight

By Senator Crystal Brantley and Vince Torres

Last November, the American people sent a clear message at the ballot box: they want secure borders, strong immigration enforcement, and leaders who put the safety of our citizens first. Under President Donald J. Trump's leadership, we have begun delivering on that mandate, building the most secure border in decades, dismantling cartel networks, and restoring law and order at the southern border.

But instead of standing with the American people and the President's historic gains, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is moving in the opposite direction. Her latest proposal would ban local and state governments from contracting with federal immigration authorities for detention services. On paper, she calls it "compassion." In reality, it is a direct assault on public safety, economic stability, and the progress we have fought so hard to achieve, especially in our southern New Mexico border communities.

The intent behind this proposal isn't hard to see. By eliminating contracts with federal agencies, the governor is effectively attempting to shut down immigration detention facilities in New Mexico entirely. Because these facilities are typically privately operated under federal contracts, banning them would end our ability to detain those who violate immigration law, including individuals with serious criminal backgrounds. 

Earlier this year, during a targeted week-long operation in Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and Roswell, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrested 20 illegal immigrants charged with or convicted of homicide, sexual assault, aggravated battery, drug trafficking, burglary, and drunk driving. These are violent criminals who threaten the safety of our neighborhoods and rural towns. Yet the governor's plan would make it harder, if not impossible, for ICE to detain and remove them. And let's be clear: this isn't about "fixing" detention. It's about eliminating it altogether.

The activist groups cheering this proposal, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Immigration Lawyers Association, oppose all forms of detention. They oppose ankle monitors. They oppose expedited removal. They oppose deportations, period. Their vision for immigration "reform" is a system with no enforcement, no consequences, and no deterrent to illegal entry.

We have seen where that leads. Before President Trump took office, the border was in chaos. Cartels trafficked children, fentanyl poured into our communities, and local law enforcement was overwhelmed. Through stronger enforcement, enhanced partnerships with local agencies, and targeted operations, this administration turned the tide. Illegal crossings have plummeted, cartel networks have been disrupted, and human traffickers are being arrested and prosecuted. The governor's proposal would undo much of this progress and send a dangerous signal that New Mexico is retreating from the fight.

Even setting aside its reckless impact, the measure likely wouldn't survive in court. In 2023, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California's attempt to ban immigration detention contracts, ruling it unconstitutional. More recently, the Third Circuit overturned New Jersey's version. Both courts agreed: states cannot interfere with federal immigration enforcement. Even President Biden's Justice Department agreed. When California passed its detention ban, the Biden Administration chose to defend the Trump-era lawsuit against it because immigration detention remains an essential tool for national security. 

Locally, in rural counties like Torrance, Otero, and Cibola, detention centers are more than just facilities—they are economic lifelines. According to our state's own fiscal analysis, banning ICE contracts would jeopardize hundreds of well-paying, steady jobs in these areas where employment options are limited. Closing them would also strip tens of millions of dollars from local economies each year—money that supports small communities and keeps small businesses afloat. For a governor who claims to care about rural investment, this proposal is an astonishing act of economic sabotage.

This debate is really about priorities. President Trump has prioritized the safety of the American people, the enforcement of our immigration laws, and the protection of rural economies that depend on these partnerships. The governor's plan prioritizes open-borders ideology and partisan politics over the safety of New Mexicans.

The choice before us is simple: stand with President Trump and the vast majority of Americans who demand border security, or side with activists who want to dismantle it entirely.

State-federal partnerships are critical to keep our communities safe. We oppose this proposal because New Mexico deserves leadership that protects our communities, respects the rule of law, and puts our citizens first. 

We cannot afford to turn back the clock on border security. President Trump is delivering results. It's time for New Mexico to get on board.

Senator Crystal Brantley represents State Senate District 35, which includes much of the borderland between New Mexico and Mexico. She has long championed legislation to secure the border, impose stricter penalties on drug traffickers, and support law enforcement.

Vince Torres serves as the Executive Director of the America First Policy Institute's New Mexico state chapter. He previously served as Deputy Chief Clerk of the New Mexico Senate, Legislative Liaison for the former Lt. Governor of New Mexico, and Chief of Staff for the Senate Republican Caucus.