Shortly after she won the New Mexico governership, Susana Martinez (R) told Univision that she did not support bringing Arizona’s tough immigration law, SB-1070, to her state. “No, no, I don’t want that for New Mexico,” said Martinez. However, Martinez has come under some sharp criticism for issuing an executive order which has caused some opponents to claim that the governor has “created an SB 1070-like policy.”

Martinez’s order rescinds a policy by former Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) which prohibited state law enforcement from asking about a person’s immigration status only for the purpose of determining whether the individual was in violation of federal immigration laws. However, it appears Martinez is going a few steps farther by actually directing state law enforcement to ask about a person’s immigration status upon arrest:

WHEREAS, when a person, regardless of race, is arrested for a crime, state law enforcement officers shall inquire into the criminal suspect’s immigration status, and report relevant information to federal immigration enforcement authorities

I spoke with Melissa Keaney today, an attorney at the National Immigration Law Center who expressed some serious concerns about Martinez’s directive. To begin with, the executive order doesn’t specify at what point during the process of being arrested a person’s status should be checked. Given the fact that a lot of times victims and witnesses accidentally get arrested before it is clear who committed a crime, it makes a big difference whether a person is asked about their immigration status upon being booked in jail or at the time of conviction. Keaney also pointed out that the Secure Communities program — which allows police to identify undocumented immigrants by screening their fingerprints against immigration databases — is already used in 97 percent of the state. That means that Martinez is essentially adding yet another layer of police involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law.

However, despite these troubling issues with Martinez’s executive order, Keaney affirmed, “I could not say this is an SB-1070 copycat by any stretch of the imagination.” Brittney Nystrom, Director of Policy and Legal Affairs at the National Immigration Forum agrees. She pointed out to me that while SB-1070 allows for a warrantless arrest as soon as there is probable cause that the individual committed a deportable offense, Martinez’s order appears to be be limited to asking questions about immigration status and then reporting that information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). “No arrest power is set forth for New Mexico law enforcement officers,” stated Nystrom. Read more

After Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak declared that he would “die on its [Egypt's] land” yesterday, it became clear that he wasn’t going to go down without a fight.

The clashes in Egypt today reflect a last push to stay in power. The “pro-government protesters” are clearly pro-government agents not protesters, as they include members of the police force that suddenly melted away days ago. The pro-Mubarak agents have surrounded Tahrir square blocking all the exits for the anti-Mubarak protesters, thereby preventing them from leaving even if they wanted to. The anti-Mubarak protesters, who have peacefully protested for days, are now under siege. Molotov cocktails have been raining down on the anti-Mubarak protesters, as the Egyptian army has completely passively stood by. This is no doubt a critical juncture.

The Mubarak strategy seems clear, if not desperate: split the opposition by announcing you will step down and permit elections in an attempt to look reasonable and appease the international community and fence sitters within Egypt. Then when the protests don’t disperse, create violent chaos by deploying thousands of “pro-Mubarak protesters” and hope that the anti-Mubarak crowd gets blamed for the unrest. The next step would seem to involve the Army inserting itself to “restore order,” but the prospect that would entail the end of the anti-government protests has to concern the opposition. With order restored, Mubarak slowly initiates some reforms, none of which result in him going anywhere.

With Mubarak pushing to hang on, attention is shifting to the response of the Obama administration. President Obama’s call last night that the transition to democracy begin “now” seemed to serve as a direct rebuttal to Mubarak’s speech yesterday. But Mubarak has directly shunned Obama, as today’s violence indicates. The White House says it was blindsided by today’s events and says it told Mubarak it wanted a peaceful transition. That call has clearly been defied. Middle East expert Steven Cook of the Council on Foreign Relations, who was interviewed by Josh Rogin of FP, explained:

Now there’s a strategic game going on between the Obama administration and Mubarak… Either the administration has some other strategy or they didn’t realize that there’s the potential for Mubarak to take the opportunity of the next few months to manipulate the political process to favor whomever he wants to follow him… I can’t believe they thought this would satisfy the crowds.

The ball is now back in Obama’s court. With the events of today, there is almost no chance the US could maintain a close relationship with an Egypt ruled by Mubarak. To do so would inflict a tremendous cost on the image of the US in the region and the world. There is no going back to the past status quo. That’s gone. Since there is now no going back in relations with Mubarak, it is time for the White House to go further and finally call for Mubarak to leave.

Today, countless thousands of Egyptian pro-democracy protesters remain in the streets, uncertain of their government’s future after Egyptian leader Hosni Mubarak declared that he would not be running for re-election in September. One of the major figures who has emerged as a leader of the movement is former international weapons inspector and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Mohamed ElBaradei. While ElBaradei is widely admired across the globe, he has often raised the ire of American neoconservatives, who essentially blame him for being right about Iraq and undermining their case for a war against Iran.

Yesterday, two major Republican figures lashed out at ElBaradei and essentially accused him of either secretly working for radical Islamists or allowing himself to be used by them. During a debate with former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) last night, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R) said that it would be a “disaster” if ElBaradei was named the interim president of Egypt, and said that he would be “absorbed” by the Muslim Brotherhood. Gingrich seemed to be much more open to a military government that would engage in a “slow transition towards exploring democracy”:

GINGRICH: I think that ElBaradei, if he ends up being the head of government, would be a disaster. Would be weak. Would be rapidly absorbed by the Muslim Brotherhood. I think you’re likely to get a military leader, or somebody who is acceptable to the military. And you’re likely to get a relatively slow transition towards exploring democracy, greater openness, civil society. But I think you would have to be very worried if we’re willing to allow the kind of confusion that would allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take over.

On Sean Hannity’s show last night, Sen. John McCain (AZ) ludicrously told the Fox host that “ElBaradei is not a friend of the United States.” The senator then went on to suggest that ElBaradei may be a “figurehead” for the Muslim Brotherhood because he has “no real following in Egypt”:

HANNITY: I listened very closely to the president’s remarks tonight. And as he was praising the demonstrators, and showing his support for the demonstrators, he didn’t — and talking about full participation even though opposition parties, the thing that struck me most about this, is does he not realize that if the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now creating a coalition with ElBaradei get in power, that could mean another Iranian style theocracy?

MCCAIN: Well, first of all, ElBaradei is not a friend of the United States. Second of all, he could be a figurehead for the Muslim Brotherhood since he has no real following in Egypt. He has lived most of his life outside of Egypt. Second thing is, the Muslim Brotherhood we ought to recognize is an organization that wants Sharia law, is tied up with Hamas has been by any definition a radical Islamic organization. Although, they may be portraying themselves as somewhat different. And finally, now we have to make sure that a new election is free, fair, open, honest and that radical Islamic candidates or platforms are exposed for what they are. This is a very tough time ahead.

Watch it:

First of all, there is simply no evidence that ElBaradei isn’t a “friend of the United States.” He spent much of his life in the United States, studying and teaching at New York University; he is also the recipient of numerous major awards and honors from universities and organizations around the country. He has no history of anti-American rhetoric, and it is likely that McCain seems to think that opposing the war in Iraq and a future war in Iran makes someone as unfriendly to the United States — a definition of anti-Americanism that most Americans would fall under.

Secondly, there’s no evidence that ElBaradei is secretly in cahoots with radical Islamists, nor that he has “no real following in Egypt.” The former IAEA head served in multiple Egyptian administrations and is considered by many to be a leading political figure in the country; last week, he was greeted with applause by hundreds of thousands of people in Tahrir Square — which was mostly filled with younger, progressive Egyptian demonstrators, not radical Islamists. He has become the “most visible spokesman” for the anti-Mubarak movement.

Lastly, ElBaradei has wisely brought the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood — a nonviolent Islamist political movement that hasn’t committed any acts of violence in more than three decades — into his coalition, getting their backing to be interim president and then for free and fair elections. Doing so does not mean that he is on the payroll of radical Islamists nor does it validate any other McCain-Gingrich conspiracy theory. Rather, it shows that he has the wisdom to understand that the best way to defuse the more radical elements of Islamism is to incorporate moderate Islamist parties into a democratic political process so that they are not radicalized and turned violent.