SANTA FE — A contentious proposal that would force New Mexico to sever all ties with federal immigration detention facilities cleared its first legislative hurdle Thursday, but not before a heated confrontation in the House Consumers and Public Affairs Committee.
The Republican minority slammed the measure, House Bill 9, also known as the “Immigrant Safety Act,” as an ideological experiment that threatens public safety and local economies. Despite the outcry, the Democratic-led committee advanced the bill on a party-line vote.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Eleanor Chávez (D-Albuquerque) and others, seeks to prohibit state and local governments from entering into or renewing contracts to detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations. If enacted, the law would mandate the immediate termination of existing agreements, a move that critics say would devastate rural counties that rely on the revenue and jobs provided by these facilities.
Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo) delivered a scathing rebuke of the bill, focusing on the direct impact it would have on his constituents in Otero County, home to one of the state’s primary detention centers. “This isn’t about safety; it’s about a political agenda that targets my community,” Block said during the hearing. “In Otero County, this bill doesn’t just eliminate a facility—it eliminates hundreds of jobs and millions in revenue that fund our schools and local services. You are effectively telling my neighbors that their livelihoods don’t matter in your pursuit of a sanctuary state.”
The hearing was marked by testimony from a parade of progressive activists and “expert” witnesses from organizations like the ACLU of New Mexico and the New Mexico Immigrant Law Center. Critics pointed out that the testimony frequently veered away from the technical merits of the policy, instead focusing on highly charged personal beliefs and emotional rhetoric.
Advocates compared New Mexico’s facilities to “pipelines to Guantanamo Bay” and accused the state of “complicity in inhumane systems.” However, they struggled to address how the state would handle the sudden influx of released detainees or the resulting vacuum in federal law enforcement cooperation.
Rep. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) criticized the lack of focus on the rule of law, characterizing the testimony as a collection of personal grievances rather than a serious policy discussion. “We are hearing a lot of opinions today and very little about how this actually makes New Mexicans safer,” Lord said. “By forcing these facilities to close, you aren’t stopping immigration enforcement; you’re just pushing it into the shadows or into other states while leaving our local law enforcement with fewer tools to manage the crisis at our border. This is an emotional response to a complex federal issue.”
The bill now moves to the House Judiciary Committee, where it is expected to face further scrutiny regarding its legal standing and the potential for federal preemption challenges. Supporters argue the bill is a necessary stand for “human dignity,” while opponents warn that New Mexico is signaling to the world that federal law no longer applies within its borders.
