enforce their own immigration laws when their voters
decide the federal laws and practices are insufficient?
Bill Richardson
U.S. national interest demands a uniform approach to
immigration and foreign policy.
enRique De la oSa/ReuteRS
When the arizona legis-
lature decided to crack down on il-
legal immigration, it forced its state
and local law enforcement agencies
to enforce immigration law—or at
least arizona’s version. But what if
arizona’s new law drives more ille-
gal immigration to the three remain-
ing border states? How would those
states react?
imagine that legislators in califor-
nia pass a law that denies business
licenses to companies suspected of
hiring undocumented immigrants.
What if texas sets up its own immi-
gration inspections on state high-
ways? and what would happen if new
Mexico passes a law that closes the
international ports of entry along the
new Mexico–Mexico border?
Sounds far-fetched, doesn’t it? But
it’s easy to see how one state’s actions
related to a federal issue—immigra-
tion—could turn into the equivalent
of an arms race among neighbor-
ing states.
the fact is, immigration and con-
trol of our international borders are
federal issues for a reason. it is in
america’s national interest to have
a uniform approach to an issue that
affects foreign policy and national
security.
(continued on page 21)
that doesn’t mean states should ignore the effects of illegal immigration
or violence at the border. as governor,
i have consistently taken state action
to deal with the public safety of new
Mexicans living near the border.
ironically, while the arizona bill
may have been prompted by drug-related border violence, this law does
nothing to solve the problem. in fact,
the law may actually hurt law enforce-
