Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers like You >> Nash: This week on New Mexico in Focus, the Trump administration is suing New Mexico and Albuquerque over immigration enforcement, arguing new local laws are standing in ICE's way.

We hear from the law's sponsors.

>> Baca: It's our job to create policies that protect our citizens.

>> Chavez: So these are not places that we want to be operating in New Mexico, because those aren't the values of New Mexico.

>> Nash: Also, as the war in Iran continues to prop up oil prices, we discuss the impact on New Mexico's bank account and how it's playing out on the campaign trail.

New Mexico in Focus starts now.

Thanks for being here, I'm Nash Jones.

Global oil prices rose yet again this week, as the US military hit Iranian missile sites and boats.

As the second largest oil producer in the country.

New Mexico's wallet feels those fluctuations, no matter how it's all Democratic statewide officials feel about President Trump's war in Iran.

Tonight, we're going to hear from the utmost expert on New Mexico's budget, Charles Sallee, about how the war and traffic through The Strait of Hormuz are affecting the state's bottom line.

He'll be joined by Tripp Jennings, Executive Director at the nonprofit newsroom New Mexico in Depth, who can help us understand how the political tensions surrounding this windfall are showing up in the state's primary elections, including that Democratic contest for governor.

Then reporter, Cailley Chella returns with a look at a shelter for veterans in south central New Mexico that's recovering from a fire that one of its residents is accused of setting.

She speaks with the owners of the Forget Me Not Veterans Park outside Socorro, along with fellow vets who helped to build back the burned out buildings.

But we begin tonight with a lawsuit that the U.S.

Department of Justice filed this month against the State of New Mexico and City of Albuquerque over how they█re legislating their roles, or lack thereof, in immigration enforcement.

We gathered the co-sponsors of the state and city laws that the DOJ say infringe on the federal government's authority to discuss their reactions and next steps.

A little later, we're going to hear from Democratic State Representative Eleanor Chavez, who carried the state's Immigrant Safety Act across the finish line in February.

But first, I sit down with Albuquerque City Councilor Joaquin Baca, co-sponsor of the Safer Community Places Ordinance, which Mayor Keller signed just last month, to learn about what it does, why Baca felt it was needed, and how he feels now that the feds are pushing back.

>> Nash: Councilor Baca, welcome.

Thanks for being here.

>> Baca: Thank you, thanks for having me.

>> Nash: So, Albuquerque already had an immigrant-friendly city policy in place that prevented city resources from being used for immigrant enforcement.

Why was this additional policy needed?

>> Baca: I think the -- just the situation -- throughout our nation has changed drastically.

It used to be the -- you would have ICE you'd have law enforcement and now you have a situation where people are being -- snatched off the road.

People are being killed, essentially.

And so this isn't -- we're no longer in normal times, >> Nash: The initial -- the immigrant-friendly city policy.

It's a resolution.

This was an ordinance.

So, did this codify certain parts of the immigrant-friendly policy and did it add anything new?

>> Baca: So the policy already existed, of course, the ordinance this is adding to it.

Part of it is mirroring what the county has already done, codifying what the mayor had previously done as an executive order and just putting that into into law.

>> Nash: Can we get into some specifics?

What does it do?

>> Baca: So, this one -- two main things, essentially one, can't use city resources to assist ICE.

So, essentially parking lots, buildings, they can't use them for staging and directs the city to create policies on what that looks like -- and how staff have to deal with that.

The other part is directing businesses to also create signage for if ICE comes to check employees or what their rights are and so forth.

>> Nash: Okay, and now, last year, the US Attorney General, at the time, Pam Bondi, put Albuquerque on a list of so-called Sanctuary Jurisdictions and basically announced an intent to sue these jurisdictions.

The council, I imagine, you would say, knew that this was coming, this lawsuit -- >> Baca: Right.

>> Nash: So -- was passing this ordinance -- especially when you already had the resolution, the immigrant-friendly policy in place, unnecessarily antagonistic to the Trump administration.

If you knew that this threat was sitting there?

>> Baca: I wouldn█t say necessarily antagonistic.

I think the Trump administration, by coming out and saying, we're going to file suit against all these cities, regardless, lumping our immigrant-friendly -- saying it's essentially the same as “Sanctuary,” which it's not, technically.

I think that was a little forward on their part.

Maybe not a little, a lot, for our part, it is, you know -- Albuquerque hasn't had to deal with, like, Minneapolis or Portland, of course.

And I, for one, think we don't need to be -- we don't need to get out there and be assertive in that sense.

But it is important for us to protect our citizens, to protect our constituents, to make sure that people can go to school, can go to work, can call 9-11 and not be afraid.

Or -- it is our job for the welfare of citizens of Albuquerque.

And so, at least creating those tools and those spaces and clarifying our own policies I think is important.

>> Nash: And so for you, you don't feel like this ordinance was assertive in the sense that -- you█re talking about, that you don't feel like was necessary for Albuquerque to do.

>> Baca: I think we it's our job to create policies that protect our citizens, to keep, you know, to keep the fear out of them.

Given this change in the political climate and what the Trump administration is doing.

I think it's important for us to -- be proactive for our people.

>> Nash: All right, well, let's get into the Trump administration's complaint a little bit.

I'll mention, it doesn't name you.

It does mention -- names the city of Albuquerque and Mayor Tim Keller when it comes to this city ordinance, that aspect of the suit.

It argues the policies, quote, “not merely a political disagreement or passive abstention.

It is deliberate, disruptive action that jeopardizes the public safety of all Americans.” What's your reaction to that statement?

>> Baca: I mean, talking about, ridiculous -- aggression, so to speak.

it's not -- we're just saying -- we're following what we already do, right?

Our immigrant-friendly policy already states that we will not provide resources.

Doesn't say we're going to fight you.

It doesn't say we're going to stop you.

It simply says, we're not collecting data.

We're not going to be helping you.

This is just adding a little bit to that saying -- our city properties are not for use in this manner, which the city is completely within their legal right to do.

>> Nash: What's your take on, “the deliberate disruptive action”, piece of that?

>> Baca: How disruptive are we if we're not saying -- you can -- ICE can still do its job and they are doing their job in Albuquerque, even though it's not like other places.

And we're not stopping that.

We're simply saying you're not going to use our resources to do those activities.

>> Nash: That█s one of the arguments that they made, that you're stopping it, basically.

the Justice Department makes a few different arguments about why the policy is unconstitutional in their opinion.

I'd like your reaction to them to cite the Supremey Clause, which is what states that the federal law trumps -- [Nash laughs] pardon the pun, the local laws.

[Baca laughs] The DOJ argues that a local regulation can't create an obstacle to Congress's objectives and can't regulate the federal government, which they argue, in this case, you're doing by controlling the property and resources available to ICE.

So, was standing in ICE's way, from doing its job, one of your goals?

And if so, why should the city be able to do that?

Why are you in your right to do that?

>> Baca: Right, so A: the Supremacy Clause only counts if it is not violating the Constitution.

Arguably, denying people their Due Process rights is denying the -- is violating -- >> Nash: If the federal law isn█t violating the Constitution, is that what you're saying.

>> Baca: Correct.

>> Nash: Okay.

>> Baca: Yes, so -- does the federal government have standing in this case?

I would argue no.

But also, we're not stopping them from doing their job.

They can still go -- do what they're tasked to do, and they are doing that.

We're simply saying we're not using our resources.

And the city is more within its right to control its property, its departments and its money.

So we're not disrupting them.

We're not stopping them.

They're still doing it.

And they are.

We're just not letting them use our resources.

>> Nash: Well, the federal government, in addition, is alleging discrimination because the ordinance singles out federal law enforcement for, quote, “worse treatment than the state and local law enforcement officials.” What's your take on that?

[Baca laughs] >> Baca: I think it's laughable.

>> Nash: Now, why█s that?

>> Baca: Discriminating against the federal government?

I think there's been cases in the past that have shown that you can't discriminate against federal government.

That said, on their own -- thing, you know, they've talked about these are voluntary agreements between their law enforcement, our law enforcement to create public safety.

You know, voluntary by definition means we're agreeing to work on something, but we don't have to work on something.

It's based on what we voluntarily agree to.

So, in this case, you can't discriminate against someone if I█m voluntarily saying, I'm going to step away from a voluntary agreement.

>> Nash: I think part of the argument is that the ordinance singles out federal law enforcement officials, saying, an ICE agent can't use this property to stage, but our State Police could or our APD could.

And so, how is -- if that's the argument, how is that constitutional, to say that federal agents are different from state law?

>> Baca: They are different, right?

I mean, APD is funded and regulated by the city of Albuquerque, right?

Period.

And -- we can voluntarily work with agencies as we see fit, to protect our constituents and citizens.

That's fundamental.

So -- saying we're not going to add support is different from saying we're going to have them obstruct you.

And in this case, we're not obstructing them.

They're still doing what they need to do.

>> Nash: So, it's a jurisdictional difference between the federal agents and otherwise.

>> Baca: Correct.

Similar to somebody private property.

You can't just go on somebody's private property to tell someone what to do with their private, including the federal government.

It's the same thing.

>> Nash: Speaking of kind of treatment of federal agents here in Albuquerque, District Attorney Sam Bragman, Bernalillo County district attorney who's also running for governor.

He said that he would prosecute Ice agents who detain people without legal justification.

What do you make of his argument to do that?

And would you support Albuquerque police?

Arresting an Ice agent if they had a warrant?

>> Baca: Right.

I think one, I think nobody should be violating the law.

Myself included.

Right.

If I violate the law, that I should be held accountable.

Our federal employees, because that's what they are, whether they're whichever agency they are, should be held accountable.

Can District Attorney Bregman actually do that?

I don't have the answer to that.

I do support him, though.

I'll say that when you see images of TV, of people just being taken off the streets without any kind of identification, without any warrants, I mean, clearly their due process rights are being violated.

And that's not even talking about the humanitarian issues here.

I mean, it's just ridiculous that that we exist in this world.

You know, especially when you see video now of people being shot on the streets.

So those people should be held accountable.

Absolutely.

>> Nash: You support Bregman█s approach.

Would you support Albuquerque police seeing through those warrants?

>> Nash: Those are those are two different questions.

I also as a person as just walking.

Baca yeah, absolutely.

I would as a city councilor, we got to follow the law and we need to stick with that.

So that's a different question.

>> Nash: What about enforcement of the city ordinance?

>> Baca: We're not enforcing it yet.

I mean, the bill said we had 90 days to come up with those policies which were not there yet.

Me personally, do I think we should enforce it?

Yes.

As a counselor that has to follow the law.

We're not-- we're not yet at a point where we can enforce it.

We haven't yet come up with those rules and policies.

But for the city and businesses, >> Nash: What█s a realistic timeline despite the lawsuit for that to- >> Baca: Well, for ordinance 90 days to come up with the rules then of course working with community and city staff.

So you're looking at, you know, government moves slowly.

Add another 60 days to the 90 days.

So 5 or 6 months out.

>> Nash: Okay.

If this lawsuit were still playing out at that point, would you would like to see it enforced while the lawsuit plays out?

>> Baca: I would I personally would.

>> Nash: Does this feel like the beginning?

I mean, you mentioned at the beginning of our conversation that Albuquerque has not seen what Minneapolis, for instance, has seen.

Does this feel like the Trump administration's eye is now turning to Albuquerque, turning to New Mexico?

Could this be the beginning of something more substantial?

>> Baca: I don't know if I'd go that far.

I mean, if we recall the first Trump administration, they actually did send law enforcement beyond that was very, very visible.

We're nowhere near that.

I don't know.

I think public opinion towards the Trump administration in general is changing drastically, which I think will affect how they how they behave.

We've got the midterms coming up.

We'll see how that plays out.

So are they eyeing Albuquerque more?

Maybe I don't see a lot of changes outside of- >> Nash: This doesn't feel like a flare to pay attention to- >> Baca: Me personally.

No That that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

>> Nash: What are you hearing from your constituents?

if anything?

>> Baca: Now we hear quite a bit Supportive of our actions.

Hoping- Wishing we would do more to protect citizens.

You know, this is Albuquerque's demographics are predominantly people of color.

You know, something like 50% Hispanic.

You know, very large immigrant communities here.

I think Democrat wise, were party wise, were Democrat by far.

So, you know, broad appeal for us to do actions such as these.

>> Nash: What are you hearing from folks who are in Albuquerque without legal status?

And what would you like to say to them in light of this lawsuit?

>> Baca: There is fear, of course.

You know, fear of being, just being able to go to work.

Fear, just going to school.

You know, we're here.

My job and the job of the city, of the other city officials is to protect our citizens, make sure they can go.

Just just live a normal life where I go to school, go to work, take care of your kids.

Call 911 if there's an emergency.

That's our job.

And we're doing everything we can within the bounds of the law to do that.

>> Nash: What's your message to them if they're feeling scared?

>> Baca: Reach out to us.

100 percent, call my office.

We're are working with a lot of groups, a lot of attorneys to protect our folks.

>> Nash: Do you see the need -- I mean, you mentioned that your constituents are calling for it.

Do you see the need for additional regulation having to do with immigration enforcement?

>> Baca: I think we█re -- getting there.

We can always be proactive.

It's our job to be proactive.

Given the state of affairs.

I think we're there and working with our county and state partners as well to kind of be in line, which I think we've done.

Do we- >> Nash: Right, because in some ways, this ordinance was -- getting into alignment with not only the Bernalillo County version of it, but also the Immigrant Safety Act at the state level.

>> Baca: Exactly, exactly.

We were not -- as much as -- it's just Albuquerque.

We work with others, other entities, other governmental entities And so it's important to work together.

You know, we're -- we█re New Mexico.

>> Nash: Any specific ideas of where there are gaps that you would like to see filled?

>> Baca: No, I don't have anything on that just yet.

We'll see how see things go as things progress, maybe we find more gaps, or maybe there is something we need to do.

But as of right now, I don't have.

I don't have anything.

>> Nash: All right.

City Councilor Joaquin Baca, thank you so much.

>> Baca: Thank you, I appreciate It.

>> Cailley: For years, the founders struggled to get the veterans at the park to interact or work together.

But the fire gave them a common cause.

>> Medaris: To get them to fight for their community, to get them to pull together, to get them to do something other than sit back and watch everything happen was amazing.

Now, I'm not sure what God's plan was, you know, burning down his own house, but it did something out here that we couldn't do for three years.

>> Nash: Stick around for that story from in Focus█ Cailley Chella, in about 15 minutes, and thanks to Albuquerque City Councilor Joaquin Baca for coming on the show.

The City of Albuquerque and Mayor Tim Keller have company as defendants in the DOJ's recent lawsuit over local immigration policies.

The state and Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham are right there along with them, because of a statewide law passed and signed earlier this year called the Immigrant Safety Act.

So, is State Attorney General Raul Torres, you may be familiar with the law, which we've covered quite a bit on this program.

It bars local governments in New Mexico from contracting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, to detain people in the U.S.

without legal status.

The law also bans agreements that authorize local law enforcement to serve ICE warrants on people held in local jails.

It went into effect just last week.

We invited lead sponsor, Democratic Representative Eleanor Chavez, to the studio to discuss the lawsuit and how counties and prison companies worked to get around the law before it was even enacted.

>> Nash: Representative, welcome to the show and thanks for being here.

>> Chavez: Thank you for having me.

>> Nash: So, in the complaint, the DOJ says the Immigrant Safety Act, quote, “seeks to eliminate decades of old voluntary agreements between localities and the federal government that are critical to federal immigration law enforcement.” And it says that the law intentionally obstructs federal law enforcement.

What was your intention?

Was that your intention as the lead sponsor of this bill?

>> Chavez: Right, so, you█re speaking about the 287G agreements.

And so, no, that was not our intention.

It's the federal government's job to enforce immigration laws.

It's not localities -- of state and local police█s job to do that.

>> Nash: And 287G█s, these are -- agreements that enable local law enforcement to enact immigration enforcement.

Is that right, can you clarify?

>> Chavez: Right, they█re agreements between -- the federal government, ICE and localities to participate in enforcing immigration laws.

And again, that's not their job to do.

Their job is to enforce state and local laws and to keep our community safe.

>> Nash: They also speak to these voluntary agreements between localities and the federal government.

Would that not also apply to the Detention Centers where the counties have contracted with ICE?

>> Chavez: The detention centers -- Yeah, well -- so basically, the intent of the law in terms of the detention centers was to align New Mexico values with with our law.

We did not want to see the detention centers continue to have contracts with localities to provide detention for civil immigration detention.

that's the federal government, again, that█s the federal government's job to do.

We do not believe that the detention centers -- there's three of them in New Mexico.

We did not support the contracts continuing because of the fact that we've heard so much coming out of those detention centers in terms of abusing prisoners, lack of water, lack of medical care, lack of access to legal advice, raw sewage -- and we've all heard the stories nationally in terms of immigrants who have either committed suicide or who have died because of lack of medical care or because of abuse by the guards inside of those detention centers.

>> Nash: And so that was the intent behind the law?

If -- as the DOJ says, under the Supremacy Clause, state laws can't obstruct Congress's objectives.

How is what this law does constitutional?

>> Chavez: So, basically, the law is not obstructing what the federal government's role is in immigration.

We are simply not participating in it.

So, that's the difference.

And as I understand it, the 10th Amendment protects state rights in terms of doing that.

We don't -- If there's a situation like this, where the state decides that, we're not going to participate in, for example, enforcing immigration law, we don't have to participate.

We don't have to use our resources to do the federal government's job.

That's their job.

They can do it.

We're not interfering in it.

>> Nash: Okay.

The DOJ is also alleging the law discriminates against the federal government, since it bars contracts solely for federal immigration enforcement and not other purposes, and doesn't apply to local law enforcement agencies.

You're quoted in the complaint as saying, “we want to create a situation where it's consistent throughout the state, where public entities are not cooperating with ICE enforcement.” What's your take on their discrimination claim, and why should the state, as you're arguing already be able to target ICE contracts and cooperation?

>> Chavez: One, we're not discriminating.

When we looked at the legislation before we introduced it, we made sure that it was constitutional, that it would stand up to any kinds of constitutional claims.

We had very expert attorneys looking at that legislation, giving us advice in terms of, what would be good, what would not be good.

And so, basically our position is that it is constitutional.

Our position is that it does not interfere with the federal government's role or job in enforcing their immigration laws.

We're simply not going to do their job, plain and simple.

>> Nash: And allow went into effect just last week -- >> Chavez: Yes, the 20th.

>> Nash: Right -- as this lawsuit plays out, Attorney General Raul Torres has said he won█t enforce two Otero County contracts that it would apply to.

But for the other two counties that -- have had contracts with ICE for immigrant detention, that would be Torrance and Cibola counties.

It no longer actually applies to those prisons because the private prison company that owns those facilities, CoreCivic went ahead and contracted directly with ICE, so kind of got around the county middleman.

So how impactful would the law really be on this detention center piece?

Even if it were being enforced across the board?

>> Chavez: So if it were being enforced across the board, we believe that it would be impactful.

A couple of things that I was told, during the time that we were getting ready for the legislation is that there are fewer -- arrests made by immigration if they don't have detention facilities close by where they can take people to.

So it was our belief that the number of arrests and the kind of -- for lack of a better word, terrorizing of communities that ICE is doing, would go down.

Our intent, in terms of this law, was to protect our community, to keep our immigrant sisters and brothers safe, so that they would be able to, for example, go to school, go to work -- go to the hospital without fear of being detained by ICE.

>> Nash: If that's the case, if those prisons -- if there isn't somewhere nearby to take detainees -- but there are still, right?

If CoreCivic has contracted directly with ICE, these prisons in Cibola and Torrance counties will remain open, will continue to hold ICE detainees.

So is that effort going to actually come from this law?

If they've been able to maneuver around it?

>> Chavez: Right, and when we introduced the legislation, we knew that there was a possibility that they would do that.

And really, when you think about it, if you really think about what CoreCivic and some of these out-of-state corporations are doing, it's not about any kind of public safety that some people talk about.

It's not about protecting people from criminals, really, it's about making profit off of this.

It's $1 billion industry in this company.

And when Trump decided that he was going to go after immigrants and began to lock them up, the stock prices of those entities, those corporations actually went up.

So this is really about profit.

And that's what these corporations care about, right?

And that's why they did an end run around the law.

>> Nash: Should the three counties that house these detention centers, face consequences for their efforts to maneuver around the law?

>> Chavez: I think they should.

Unfortunately, I don't believe -- and I'm not an attorney, I'm not the AG.

I don't know what those consequences might be, but definitely there many who are thinking about -- future legislation in terms of what that might look like.

>> Nash: Okay.

Is there anything more that you and your colleagues in the roundhouse could do to see an actual end to immigrant detention in New Mexico?

Or if this is between now private companies in the federal government?

Are your hands tied?

>> Chavez: I think there's a lot that we can do.

And again, those are some of the things that we're exploring.

I don't have any specifics right now because -- we did, you know, we had a sense that they may do an end run, but we're really looking at what are those possibilities, and it's not for us.

You know, this isn't the end of it.

We're going to continue to pursue this issue.

>> Nash: So, no specifics yet.

But are you having those conversations with your colleagues?

>> Chavez: We are.

>> Nash: Okay.

Since retaking office, President Trump has instructed the DOJ to find state and local policies not unlike this one that he feels like impede the federal government's efforts to enforce and crack down on immigration enforcement.

So I imagine this suit isn't surprising, but maybe I shouldn't assume that is this suit surprising to you?

>> Chavez: No, it's what the AG needed to do.

>> Nash: All right, well, if that's the case, how -- the AG's suit isn't surprising to you.

Is this federal DOJ lawsuit surprising to you?

>> Chavez: Well, I was -- to be honest, I was a little taken aback by it.

But really thinking in retrospect, it's not.

I mean, this is kind of, you know -- the federal government under this administration does, right?

They'll sue to basically, I think to see how far they can get.

and really, maybe pressure us into not moving forward with what we said that we█re going to do what the law says it should be doing.

And I think that -- we're standing strong on that piece.

>> Nash: And with this federal government lawsuit coming down and CoreCivic working quickly around the law, does it still feel worthwhile to have passed it, even if it brought upon this lawsuit?

>> Chavez: Absolutely.

I think one of the things that we need to remember is that this isn't the first time the law was introduced.

It had been introduced many times before -- this is the second time that I had actually sponsored the legislation.

But before me, there were many legislators, who had introduced it, so this was a long time coming.

The community had been organizing around it for many years.

And I think that, you know, this time -- it was sort of, you know, its time had come, right?

The community wanted it, lawmakers wanted it.

We got it through both chambers.

The governor signed it.

And I don't think that -- I think that there was a lot of positive that came from this.

And like I said, we're going to continue to work on this issue because we don't want detention centers and we don't want our local law enforcement cooperating with the federal government.

>> Nash: Okay, Representative Chavez, thanks for your time.

>> Chavez: You're welcome.

>> Sallee: When we have high prices, we're going to not put that into the main budget.

We█re going to save that for the next generation, essentially So every change in the dollar of price of oil means an additional $57 that goes into the Trust Funds, assuming that dollar is sustained for the entire year.

So we're looking at between 850 to $1 billion, depending on how high these prices stay over the next year.

>> Nash: Stay with us for a discussion about the impact of skyrocketing oil prices on New Mexico and the political implications in just about ten minutes, and a big thanks to Representative Eleanor Chavez for dropping by.

A place built on the promise of hope and a hand up for those who served in the US military, is focused on recovery.

On February 12th, a fire tore through the Forget Me Not Veterans Homeless park in Socorro County, destroying critical facilities.

But as our reporter, Cailley Chella found out, the smoke hadn't even cleared before the community began to rally.

Proving that for these veterans and their supporters, the founder's motto, Failure is not an Option, is far more than a slogan.

It's a way of life.

and a warning, this story includes discussions of suicide.

>> Cailley: It was 4:00 AM when the call came in, a project that had taken 3 years and thousands of hours of sweat equity to build, was going up in flames.

>> Medaris: We looked at maybe 3 to 4 thousand hours of work, and probably upwards of $200,000 in damages going up right in front of us.

>> Cailley: The fire wasn't an accident, but a tragedy born from a mental health crisis.

It's something the founders of Forget Me Not Veterans Park witnessed first hand when they say one resident, Thomas Pounds, intentionally set their park ablaze.

>> Medaris: The day before, we got notification from Tom Pounds█ mother, and she said, you know, he makes a lot of threats.

But he sent me an email saying he was done.

Nobody listens to him and that he will burn this place down with him inside.

>> Cailley: When sheriff's deputies confronted him, Pounds allegedly said he had five gallons of gas inside and threatened to light up his own home with him in it.

>> Medaris: It's very, very difficult to know what the many, many, many triggers are that can set them off.

A lot of times we can help talk through issues, but you can't always fix it, you know, regardless of what others think.

And this is sometimes what happens.

>> Cailley: Pound█s story underscores a grim reality.

Statistics show that veterans are 1.5 times more likely to die by suicide than civilians, and that despair is only amplified when vets lack the security of a home, according to 2024 numbers.

Veterans made up more than 6% of New Mexico's homeless population.

>> Medaris: Every single veteran signed their name on a blank check, telling the government of the United States that we will fight for the rights of this country.

And that check was made payable up to and including their life.

We think that this country owes every veteran.

A debt of gratitude.

>> Cailley: Forget Me Not was built to be their sanctuary, but as the fire spread to their church, it felt like the mission itself was going up in smoke.

Yet even as the fire reached its peak, Medaris saw a different kind of light reaching through the darkness.

>> Medaris: I was so upset, but in the background I hear my wife and she is corralling these guys.

No, don't go get this.

Pull that hose over here.

Let's get that out of the way.

And then I hear the guys rallying together and my anger went immediately to, maybe this is what the good Lord's trying to show us.

>> Cailley: That spirit of unity was on full display during this year's VFW National Day of Service.

>> Medaris: I've got stories to keep you here the whole time, but I need you to paint >> Cailley: Over 30 volunteers from as far as Roswell, including 13 from the local bank in Socorro, came out to the park to help rebuild.

>> Burke: Well, we take this personally.

That's what it means.

It's personal to us.

These men and women that are, you know, that are staying here, out here at forget me not Park.

These are our brothers and sisters.

>> Cailley: The park doesnt take any money from the government.

They're funded almost entirely by donations.

So the founders say they're free to be selective about who they take in.

They try to screen out those with felonies or serious mental illnesses that they say they aren't equipped to handle.

>> Medaris: We need a counselor, and we're working on that now with the Department of Veterans Services.

>> Cailley: As for the location, the founders chose a remote plot of land on the Pedro Armendariz land grant south of Socorro, and they say the isolation was intentional.

It allowed them to avoid the red tape of bureaucracy that can stall government run programs.

>> Medaris: The regulation is not as extensive with the tiny homes, and I've got people that will jump in and help build it.

>> Cailley: And the park's mission isn█t limited to those living on these 22 acres.

They also serve housed veterans.

>> Gomez: I'm a veteran and I live down the street from here, and I'm working on getting a VA rating for an injury, so I'm not working.

And if it wasn't for this place -- like I get water here free, I can do laundry, we can use the kitchen and all the services that the vets who live here get to use.

>> Cailley: Much of their outreach happens at their volunteer only office in the city of Socorro.

There, founders say they've helped over 350 vets.

>> Medaris: So what we try to do through the office is get their paperwork in order, get them a driver's license, find their Social Security information for them, find out and get them into the VA system so that they have a doctor.

>> Cailley: The office and the park itself are funded largely by the Forget Me Not thrift store in Socorro.

Co-Founder Roxanne Scott says the store's success is a testament to the town's heart.

>> Scott: My community.

I'm so blessed with the thrift store because of what we do.

Our donations are like double and triple what the other thrift stores get in Socorro.

>> Cailley: In many ways, forget me not.

Park is a mirror of Socorro itself, a community weathered by loss, fighting to survive.

>> Medaris: A town has lost hope They've lost most of their businesses.

Smith's food king.

We had four pizza places there, down to one that that shows that the town is getting some hope back.

We can't just fix one area.

We got to fix this town and then New Mexico and then the rest of the country.

>> Cailley: For years, the founders struggled to get the veterans at the park to interact or work together, but the fire gave them a common cause >> Medaris: To get them to fight for their community, to get them to pull together, to get them to do something other than sit back and watch everything happen was amazing.

Now, I'm not sure what God's plan was, you know, burning down his own house, but it did something out here that we couldn't do for three years.

>> Cailley: Even with the community's help.

The road ahead is steep.

The next major project is a new shower and laundry facility, which they're estimating will cost $60,000 and takes 60 days to build.

>> Medaris: We're in the hope business.

We're going to keep doing this one veteran at a time.

>> Cailley: Pounds is awaiting his jury trial, which is currently scheduled for September 28th while the legal case moves forward.

Pounds is charged with felony arson over $20,000.

The people here aren't looking back.

They're focused on the future and the fresh coats of paint for New Mexico in Focus, I'm Cailley Chella reporting.

>> Nash: Thanks to Cailley and everyone who spoke with her for that story.

If you or someone you know is considering suicide, call or text the New Mexico Crisis and Access Line at 988.

This time last year, the price of a gallon of gas was under $3.

Flash forward to today and you are feeling lucky if you can find a gallon for four bucks.

The price of oil has skyrocketed this year due to the Trump administration's ongoing war in Iran and fraught access to the critical Strait of Hormuz And while New Mexicans have been feeling the squeeze at the gas station, the state of New Mexico has been quietly reaping millions in new revenue as the nation's second highest producer of crude oil, adding to an already bulging state budget surplus.

It also prompts a new question for elected officials what should the state do with this newfound wartime money?

It's a difficult puzzle for the primary elections crop of Democratic candidates who oppose the war, and it's one we wanted to dissect.

We invited Charles Sallee, director of the Legislative Finance Committee, and Tripp Jennings Jennings, Executive Director of New Mexico in Depth, to discuss the budgetary and political pieces at play with these new funds.

>> Nash: Charles, Tripp thanks so much for being here.

>> Sallee: Thank you.

>> Nash: So, Charles, for years oil and gas revenue is made up nearly half of the state budget.

Where is that revenue spent?

What buckets does it go into?

>> Sallee: Well -- the main spending pots are for public schools, higher education and health and human services.

You know, education alone makes up about 60% of the spending.

But what I think is important is where that money comes from and the kind of impact it has on spending for the last 40 plus years.

So rewind, you know, oil and gas is making up 35% to 50% of our revenue stream.

It is a very volatile revenue source.

And going back to the early 80s, New Mexico would produce about 70 million barrels of oil a year.

This year, we're likely to produce over 800 million barrels of oil.

So it's driving a huge increase.

But as you see from the daily prices, it's very volatile.

>> Nash: Yeah.

And I'm going to get into what that looks like today, as these prices are rising.

But Tripp, New Mexico in Depth published a story last month about what the oil and gas industry and how it's supporting candidates, how it's funding campaigns.

How is the industry wading into this year█s governor's race in particular?

>> Jennings: You know the -- according to the last reports that my colleague, Marjorie Childress looked at, the campaign finance reports is what I'm talking about at the end of April, they had given $2 million.

Several companies had.

And if you look at the direct -- to candidates, there is a a lean towards Republicans by the old and gas industry.

>> Nash: Sure, I mean, I think the Republicans would generally be considered to be having the more oil and gas family policy.

>> Jennings: That's exactly right -- >> Nash: And yet, we don't have any statewide Republicans in office in New Mexico.

>> Jennings: No, no, and let me say this all too.

If you look at the committees they give to -- between Republicans and Democrats, Republicans are getting a greater percentage there too.

So and this is not necessarily uncommon.

This is -- they do spend this way every four years on the governor's race.

>> Nash: Are they spending more on the three Republican candidates?

>> Jennings: They're really backing Doug Turner right now.

He's -- according to the last reports, he received close to $170,000.

That's the greatest amount of any candidate.

It appears right now.

I think Gregg Hull, who is a Republican, is getting -- if my memory serves, It's probably a less than $5,000.

And Duke Rodriguez, according to the last report, it was zero.

>> Nash: What about the Democratic governor's race between Deb Haaland and Sam Bregman?

>> Jennings: So with Bregman, he's getting more money than Deb Haaland.

But -- it doesn't even approach what Doug Turner is getting.

But yes, they are -- They seem to be backing Sam Bregman in this race more than Deb Haaland.

>> Nash: And Missy Currier, the president of the Oil and Gas Association, was in North Dakota recently and encouraged folks to vote for Bregman.

Is that right?

>> Jennings: That is because her belief is, you know, she said it out loud that she doesn't believe that a Republican can win in the general election.

So they need to actually do their work in the primary and try to keep Deb Haaland out of office, because, you know, she was Interior Secretary and there were battles over where where oil and gas can move and all this kind of stuff -- >> Nash: Is that a shift for their strategy in terms of campaign support -- to be supporting a Democratic candidate in that way?

>> Jennings: I mean, I think what they're doing is they're playing the role of smart money, which is they're trying to get their guy, their person in.

So in the general, they'll know what they can work with.

If Sam Bregman were to win the the primary and then go on to win the general, there is a sense from the contributions that he█s -- Deb Haaland█s getting a lot of small contributions.

There are some big ones, but Bregman is getting larger contributions -- more -- more a greater number of larger contributions from out of state.

>> Nash: Going back to what you were talking about with the fluctuations in the oil prices since the war in Iran started, the price of oil has increased by 30%.

What did the state expect to bring in this year in terms of oil and gas revenue, and how has the war changed that near-term forecast?

>> Sallee: So let me back up, because the legislature has made major policy changes over the past 7 or 8 years with how it treats oil and gas money coming into its main discretionary account that we call the general fund.

When you buy something, you pay gross receipts, taxes, personal income taxes that comes into the general fund,as well as some direct oil revenue from drilling activity that occurs in the state, comes into our general fund every time we'd have high prices going back for 40 years, the legislature would make policy changes to its tax code as an example, or spending.

It would cut taxes and by default become more dependent on.

And we've seen this boom and bust cycle for a long period of time.

And what the legislature has done now is said when we have high prices, we're going to not put that into the main budget.

We are going to save that for the next generation, essentially, and set up a series of trust funds.

The biggest one right now is the Early Childhood Trust Fund.

So basically when we get windfall excess revenue from oil and gas like we're getting right now, that money will flow directly into the trust fund.

And there's a series of other ones that the legislatures create- >> Nash: What are those?

>> Sallee: The severance tax permanent fund is the next largest one, and that will spin off interest and come back into the general fund.

There's the new behavioral health trust fund and a medicaid trust fund.

The important thing for these trust funds is they are spinning off money back into the budget at levels that mean that we don't have to tax our population as high to support the level of government services that state provides.

>> Nash: How much more money are they getting with this, this rise in prices?

>> Sallee: So every change in the dollar of price of oil means an additional $57 that goes into the trust funds, assuming that dollar is sustained for the entire year.

So we're looking at between 850 to $1 billion, depending on how high these prices stay over the next year flowing into these trust funds.

>> Nash: Okay and Trip, how is this influx of new cash affecting proposals that candidates or elected officials are coming up with?

>> Jennings: I mean, can I say this to, I want to piggyback on what Charles said, and he may have to help me on this, but they established the Early Childhood Fund, Trust Fund a few years ago with like 300 million.

I think they were expecting to have a billion within a couple of years.

I think it's north of- >> Sallee: It█s 11 billion.

>> Jennings: It's 11 billion now which gives in a sense of like how much money is flowing in because of this historic peak period that we're going through.

You know, we have all kinds of proposals from from, you know, governors on the Democratic side.

You know, they're the thing about governors is they have to do a dance with it.

Well, and gas industry, because actually, as Charles laid out, they really- that industry contributes a lot to the state budget, the general fund.

So you have, you know, Sam Bregman talking about rebates to New Mexicans because there's so much money flowing in there.

I think and gas industry is a little worried about Deb Haaland because she was interior secretary.

And so she's talking about being really fierce with the industry and focusing on renewables.

And this, you know, moving the state towards the goals that were passed under this governor and the legislature, moving away from fossil fuels, petroleum and whatnot.

>> Nash: Does her environmental stance and her opinion on the war in Iran, do those create some political awkwardness in terms of wanting to to use these new funds while also maybe not supporting the means by which the state is earning them?

>> Jennings: You know, I, I think it creates awkwardness.

And what I might do is, is talk about a story, a national story from the Associated Press that basically came out a couple of weeks ago, that it was like, hey, New Mexico.

The framing was that New Mexico was the only ol and gas state, and they're really befitting all these old.

And gas states are really benefiting, controlled by progressive Democrats.

And so they're they're basically because Wyoming is not you know, Texas is not these other oil and gas states.

So they're basically doing what Charles has said is spending money to, you know, basically help Medicaid.

I think what's going to happen if a Democrat is elected is they're going to pursue trying to help New Mexicans as the effects of the big, beautiful bill come down from Washington DC, Medicaid, Snap and all this kind of stuff.

>> Nash: Speaking of the one big beautiful bill.

Last December, the Legislative Finance Committee released a report that showed New Mexico's economy is, quote, treading water but not at risk of recession.

A primary reason was some economic changes that that bill created in terms of how the state collects corporate income taxes.

What changed in how the state collects those income taxes?

And does the price of oil have any impact on that?

>> Sallee: Yes, because corporations, oil companies are paying them.

And so there was a huge revision down in the amount that we expected to collect in corporate income taxes as a result of softening of the economy, as well as the changes at the federal level, that our state law was tied to, so much so that we saw in certain months last fall the state was actually paying refunds out, as opposed to collecting corporate income taxes.

And the revenues were coming in so soft that we were worried we weren't going to have enough cash to balance the budget through the end of the current fiscal year, which ends in June.

Since the war started and prices have spiked.

We saw a unanticipated increase in corporate income.

Taxes start to flow into the treasury of the spring and we█ll be fine with our main budget account, but that has been a contributing factor to to helping balance this year's budget.

>> Nash: And elected officials have long been warned not to lean too heavily into whale and gas revenue.

Kind of what you were talking about earlier in terms of not spending it down if it's going to bust again, and then being stuck with without those funds.

Back in 2023.

A report from the Consensus Revenue Estimating Group cautioned just that.

We've discussed those short term projections.

What about the long term?

Would a spike like we're seeing today affect how reliant New Mexico can be on and gas long term?

>> Sallee: Well, that's where the policy changes that the legislature has put into place, where they've essentially capped how much money can go into the general fund and all of those higher prices, even if they're over the next couple of years, will flow into the permanent funds.

And what's important about that is taking the the excess amounts that we're projected to get or that we're getting and putting them into permanent funds is is important.

But as important, last May, prices were falling and the economy was pretty jittery.

And I was looking at internal revenue forecast of losing billions of dollars.

And I slept like a baby.

How did I do that?

It was because those losses would hit the permanent funds and the trust funds first, before they hit the school budget, before they hit the Medicaid budget, where we would have to come in and make painful cuts.

So it's had a huge insulating effect from both the upside and the downside.

>> Nash: Will that change that caution that lawmakers are given to not rely so much on oil and gas money if it's being saved and can be tapped over time?

And it's not this we're not as we're not writing that roller coaster as much.

Does that mean that long term New Mexico can rely on oil and gas because it's been sucked away?

>> Sallee: Yes.

And I think, you know, if we play our cards right by the end of the decade, our investment income from these savings will be the second largest revenue stream to the general fund and overtake personal income taxes and come in right behind.

And to overtake how much oil and gas contributes to the general fund and overtake personal income taxes as well?

>> Nash: Well, these prices have made New Mexico richer, but it's actually quite painful for New Mexicans who are paying these exorbitant prices at the gas pump.

The average cost for a gallon of gas in New Mexico right now is $4.36 a gallon.

Compare that to a year ago when it was less than three bucks.

That's a $1.40 difference.

That makes a huge difference for a lot of New Mexicans.

Trip.

You mentioned Bregman idea for a rebate, but do other candidates who are running this election cycle for governor or otherwise have plans to use some of this money to support New Mexicans at the gas pump?

>> Jennings: You know, one thing that that Doug Turner, Republican who's running for governor, has talked about is giving a holiday on the state gas tax that would relieve New Mexicans.

I back in the day, I think it was like 19 or $0.20.

I can't remember what it is.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay.

And so that would do that.

But the important thing to remember is, is that, that the state gas tax helps fund the transportation fund that actually goes to maintaining and building roads around the state.

So there's something that's he's wanting to push that Bregman is wanting to push the rebates.

>> Nash: So when you say that it goes to fund the roads, then that money would have to come from somewhere else where the roads wouldn't be.

>> Jennings: Yeah, yeah, someplace else.

And given all the money that's coming in the legislature, if that is what he pushes and the legislature buys that proposal, if Turner is elected, then they would have to make some decisions on where that money comes from.

I- in my experience, of reporting on the legislature.

I think that would be a very hard sell, though.

Is taking this the state giving a holiday on the state gas tax, although people, New Mexicans are feeling a lot of pain.

And I know in the past, Bill Richardson in 2005 gave a rebate to New Mexicans because they were riding high in the old and gas industry at the time the state was and there were high costs, energy costs.

So the rebates have been done before the state gas tax holiday.

I don't remember when that's ever been done, I don't remember.

>> Nash: Okay, guys, thanks so much for breaking all this down.

Appreciate it.

>> Nash: Thanks to Trip Jennings and Charles Sallee for that conversation and everyone else who contributed to the show.

Before we go, a reminder that Primary Election Day is this coming Tuesday.

You can continue to vote early through tomorrow, Saturday.

And if you're still holding on to an absentee ballot at this point, you're going to want to drop that off rather than mail it in.

Near the top of the ticket for both parties is the race for governor.

We spoke with all five primary candidates in that contest, and you can watch those interviews on the New Mexico and focused YouTube channel or the PBS app.

But you are going to find plenty of other consequential races down the ballot as well.

If you're voting in the Democratic primary, Public Lands Commissioner is a big three way race between Matthew McQueen, Jonas Moya and Juan Sanchez the third.

Additionally, the race for Secretary of State, New Mexico's top elections official is between Katherine Clark and Amanda Lopez Askin.

The League of Women Voters, Santa Fe County, conducted forums with the candidates in both of those races that you can watch on their website.

If you're still sorting out who to support on the Republican side.

Beyond the contest for governor, there are several uncontested races, but there are a few important ones for you to weigh in on as well.

Like who will go up against Representative Gabe Vasquez for Congressional District 2 in Novemeber, Greg Cunningham or Jose Orozco?

Also, the GOP race for Lieutenant Governor is three candidates deep between Aubry Blair Dunn, David Gallegos and Manny Lardizabal The winner of that race will face the Democratic candidate, who comes out on top between Maggie Toulouse Oliver and Harold Pope Jr.

Election day is Tuesday, and remember, if you█re registered as an independent or declined to state, you get to vote in this year's primary like never before.

When you arrive at the polls, simply tell the worker who checks you in, which of the two ballots you want, and you can cast your vote without ever changing changing your registration.

For New Mexico PBS, I'm Nash Jones, until next week, stay focused and vote!

Funding for New Mexico in Focus is provided by: Viewers like You