The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of New Mexico debunks Governor Martinez’s Real ID Scare Tactic

 
ALBUQUERQUE, NM—Today, Governor Martinez released a statement informing the public that the state practice of issuing drivers’ licenses to undocumented residents could prevent New Mexico licenses from complying with REAL ID standards by the deadline of January, 2013. This statement is misleading at best.
 
REAL ID is dead. Americans have already rejected large parts of this ill-conceived attempt to unite state drivers’ licenses into a national ID card. Thirty-six states—including New Mexico—currently do not fully comply with this unpopular, unfunded mandate. In fact, twenty-five states have passed resolutions rejecting REAL ID, and in fifteen states (more than 20% of the U.S. population), it is illegal for state officials to comply with the law.
 
Just as we saw in 2008, 2009, and then 2011—all previous deadlines for compliance—the Department of Homeland Security will almost surely kick the can further down the road and extend the deadline again. The government cannot afford to ban 20 percent of the total population from entering a  federal building or boarding a plane back home from winter holidays.
 
Today’s statement from the Governor is a scare tactic meant to advance her agenda of dismantling New Mexico’s drivers’ license law. The Governor should not use the practically defunct REAL ID law to make baseless accusations about a drivers’ license law our legislature passed to improve public safety.
 
This statement may be attributed to Peter Simonson, Executive Director of the ACLU of New Mexico.
 

###

Date

Wednesday, October 10, 2012 - 4:35pm

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

Standard with sidebar
Rev. Dr. Lee Albertson


On Wednesday, September 26th, the Albuquerque Journal published an opinion piece by Doug Mainwaring, a cofounder of the National Capital Tea Party Patriots, supporting the petition effort to repeal the law passed in Maryland that gives gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry. Mainwaring asserts that gay and lesbian people should accept the ‘separate but equal’ status of civil unions. Although he  is a gay man, I can assure you that Mainwaring’s  views do not represent the majority of same-sex couples here in New Mexico. He also does not represent the views of the majority of Americans who support fairness in marriage. Carving out a separate legal status for a group of people, solely because of who they love, is wrong for Maryland, wrong for New Mexico and wrong for America.
 
The fact is, most gay and lesbian people treasure marriage for the same reasons any person does. They want to establish and protect a family, make a lifetime commitment in the same way other couples are able to, and to have that special commitment recognized and respected by their government.
 
During my 39 years as an ordained minister, I officiated countless marriage ceremonies for parishioners, friends and family members. I believe that there is something intrinsically honorable and good about marriage. Two human beings making a lifelong commitment to love and care for one another, through good times and bad, in front of friends, family and community—it’s something special. For me, no other event can replace marriage on that level. Marriage says “we are family” in a way no other word does.
 
Family is something we know a lot about here in New Mexico. It’s important to us; it’s part of who we are. So let us not forget that every gay or lesbian person is a member of someone’s family—a son or a daughter, a brother or sister, a cousin, aunt or uncle. No member of anyone’s family, gay or straight, should have to face discrimination because of who they are or who they love.
 
Sadly, because discrimination still exists, I cannot marry the person I love. My partner and I have shared many wonderful years together and, like other gay and lesbian couples, we are already doing the hard work of marriage in our daily lives. We share hopes and dreams, care for our families, worry about making ends meet or the possibility of losing a job, plan for retirement and growing old together—all without the recognition, respect and protection that marriage provides.
 
My partner and I are already committed to one another in our hearts, but like I said, marriage is special. We want to get married and make that public, lifelong commitment here in New Mexico, our home.
 
It really just comes down to the Golden Rule: treat others as you would like to be treated. Most straight people wouldn’t like anyone telling them they couldn’t marry the person they love, and when they think about it, many say they wouldn’t want to deny it for anyone else. It is time to stop turning our backs on our gay and lesbian family and friends, and invite them to become full partners in the joys of marriage.
 
Rev. Dr. Lee Albertson
Retired United Church of Christ minister,
Albuquerque, NM

Date

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 - 10:46am

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

LGBTQ+ Rights

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

Standard with sidebar

            Border Patrol agents work in dangerous situations which can lead to tragic consequences like the shooting death and wounding of agents in Arizona this week.  There is no justification for such violence targeting law enforcement officers.  Yet there is also a crisis regarding use-of-force by Customs and Border Protection that is severely damaging the agency’s integrity (CBP is the Border Patrol’s parent and includes officers who work at ports of entry).  The many recorded incidents of CBP fatalities and abuses demand a comprehensive, independent investigation of CBP policies and practices, as requested by members of Congress, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.  A permanent, arm’s-length oversight commission for CBP must also be created.
It’s not every day that the President of Mexico implies that an American law enforcement agent committed criminal homicide.  This past weekend, the Wall Street Journal asked “how many Americans have heard of Guillermo Arévalo Pedroza?  He was killed [in September] by a bullet fired from a U.S. Border Patrol boat while picnicking with his wife and two young girls on the south side of the Rio Grande, near Laredo, Texas.  ‘Nothing happened in the legal institutions of this country,’ [Mexican President] Calderón says with evident restraint, noting that another 14 Mexicans have been killed in roughly similar ways this year alone. ‘This father was not trying to cross the border, he was trying to pass a good day with his kids.’”
The Border Patrol agents claimed rocks were being thrown at them from the Mexican side of the Rio Grande, although “[a] video posted online by a Nuevo Laredo news organization showed the shooting, but didn’t show any rock throwing.”  Reports from Laredo are that Mr. Arévalo died in the arms of his 9-year-old daughter.  Disputed facts aside, a cross-border shooting seems an inappropriate and unnecessary escalation of force.
Fatal Border Patrol shootings have occurred with dismaying frequency; others reported extensively include Juan Pablo Pérez Santillán (near Brownsville, Texas on July 7, 2012); U.S. citizen Carlos Lamadrid, 19, shot in the back three times while allegedly fleeing to Mexico (near Douglas, Arizona on March 21, 2011); and 15-year-old Sergio Adrián Hernández Guereca (near El Paso, Texas on June 7, 2010).
CBP can’t ignore systemic use-of-force problems because of pending confidential investigations into individual cases.  The agency must instead engage with the public and make clear whether or not it abides by best law enforcement practices, such as training agents to prioritize de-escalation techniques and equipping agents with protective gear that reduces their risk of injury and corresponding need to use potentially deadly force.  Moreover, CBP should explain in detail what disciplinary actions it takes for violations of use-of-force policies and what plans it has to install officer, hold room, and dashboard-mounted cameras to record its operations.  If CBP use-of-force policies and investigation protocols differ from best practices, these differences must be publicly justified.
CBP’s credibility is on the line: while the agency stays the course of silence its questionable use-of-force cases keep accumulating.  Last weekend, in San Diego, an American citizen mother of five was shot dead by a plainclothes Border Patrol agent.  The Border Patrol’s public reaction is that the agent “was carried several hundred yards [on the hood of the car] before he discharged his weapon through the windshield of the vehicle.”  Multiple published witness accounts contradict this version of events; for example, “[w]itness Ashley Guilbeau told KMFB-TV that the plainclothes agent walked toward the front of the car shooting ‘about 12 times’ without identifying himself: ‘Without her even able to say a word, I didn’t hear anything, [he] just came across and just shot at the windshield many times.’”
Earlier this year, PBS’s Need to Know featured the death in May 2010 of Anastacio Hernández Rojas, who left behind a widow and five U.S.-born children in San Diego.  PBS obtained eyewitness video of what are alleged to be five Tasings by CBP officers of a man handcuffed and surrounded by about a dozen agents, one of whom appears to have his knee on the man’s neck. The words “quit resisting” are heard over the prone man. The coroner’s office classified Mr. Hernández Rojas’s death as a homicide, noting in addition to his heart attack: “several loose teeth; bruising to his chest, stomach, hips, knees, back, lips, head and eyelids; five broken ribs; and a damaged spine.”  CBP’s version of events described a “combative” person: force was needed to “subdue the individual and maintain officer safety.”  It took two years – and PBS’s broadcast of the video – for a grand jury to be convened.
Americans don’t know what really happened in any of these cases.  The ACLU is certain, however, that use-of-force incidents like those described must not be swept under the carpet without full CBP transparency.  CBP proudly declares itself to be the largest law enforcement agency in the United States; that mantle carries responsibility to be accountable to the American public.
 
Chris Rickerd
ACLU Washington Legislative Office

Date

Thursday, October 4, 2012 - 10:15am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Police Practices

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

Style

Standard with sidebar

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU of New Mexico RSS