Gov. Lujan Grisham’s Bold Claims Against Trump’s Deportation Plan—Can She Stop It?

Subscribe for free to eliminate ads

Disclaimer: The article may include the author's opinions.

During a recent appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) voiced strong opposition to President-elect Donald Trump’s proposed plans for mass deportations, calling them “unlawful” and asserting that using the military for such actions is not legally permissible.

During the interview, host Jen Psaki directed questions to Governor Lujan Grisham regarding her position on resisting Trump’s immigration policies. It was noted that she had previously expressed her unwillingness to assist with Donald Trump’s aspirations for mass deportations, which resonated positively with many. Psaki inquired about the specific measures the governor might take to hinder his efforts moving forward, should he assume the presidency. This query set the stage for a deep dive into the governor’s concerns about Trump’s immigration agenda and the potential legal consequences.

The governor’s response was emphatic, with significant emphasis placed on the constitutional and legal challenges that such plans would inevitably face. She underscored that, as is widely known, the proposed actions would be unlawful, emphasizing that the use of the military for mass deportations is not permitted under U.S. law. In her view, any federal administration pursuing these measures should expect substantial pushback from states, particularly those with Democratic leadership. Governor Lujan Grisham went on to suggest that even some Republican governors might align with her stance, indicating that bipartisan opposition to the plan could materialize. Her remarks highlighted that the violation of both the Constitution and federal law would not be tolerated under any circumstances.

The governor also stressed that efforts should be redirected toward more pressing concerns, such as addressing violent crime and improving border security. She argued that the focus should be on ensuring the safety of all communities by stopping violent criminals and criminal activity, regardless of whether the individuals involved are U.S. citizens or undocumented immigrants. She pointed out that the bipartisan border security deal, which had previously held promise, was effectively “killed” by Trump — and not for the first time. This, she argued, illustrated the former president’s lack of interest in practical solutions and his preference for divisive, punitive policies.

Further criticism of Trump’s immigration policies was leveled by Governor Lujan Grisham, who described them as inhumane and harmful to both families and the economy. She stated that disrupting family structures and damaging the economy through cruel, unfair, and discriminatory policies is not only unacceptable but also detrimental to the nation’s long-term interests. Her critique extended to the legality of Trump’s proposals, asserting that these policies were illegal on their face and that any attempt to cooperate with such measures would be vigorously opposed by her administration.

However, some critics have pointed out the irony in Governor Lujan Grisham’s comments. While she criticizes Trump’s plans, immigration laws are already in place to regulate lawful entry into the United States. By this logic, crossing the border illegally is a violation of those laws, irrespective of humanitarian concerns. Governor Lujan Grisham’s remarks have sparked a broader debate about the balance between enforcing immigration laws and upholding humanitarian principles, a debate that is likely to intensify as the 2024 election approaches.

This debate continues to challenge policymakers to strike a balance between the need for border security and the values that define the nation, as public opinion remains deeply divided on how best to address immigration reform in a way that aligns with both legal standards and moral obligations.