Introduction
The May 27, 2025 announcement by former four-term Las Cruces mayor Ken Miyagishima that he will run for the Democratic nomination for governor of New Mexico underscores mounting public frustration over crime, homelessness, and educational shortfalls while raising profound legal and constitutional questions about state authority, border enforcement, and executive power. Miyagishima, known colloquially as “Mayor Ken,” has built his résumé on pragmatic governance—expanding vocational training for nonviolent offenders, backing state-supported housing loans, and advocating “orderly border enforcement” alongside economic collaboration with Mexico. Yet his flirtation with invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act—a statute dormant for two centuries—illuminates deeper tensions between state-level crime-fighting prerogatives and the federal government’s exclusive control over immigration and national security.
This electoral contest unfolds against the backdrop of the New Mexico Constitution’s stringent term-limit regime, which bars Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham from seeking a third consecutive term when her four-year tenure ends in January 2027. The contest’s legal stakes are heightened by Miyagishima’s proposal for a statewide “metro” police force in crime-plagued cities—an expansion of executive authority that could clash with home-rule protections granted by the New Mexico Legislature. At its core, the candidacy pits a centrist call for “tough but fair” enforcement against progressive demands for criminal justice reform, and it compels an examination of constitutional allocations of power, statutory interpretation, and precedent-setting court rulings.
“Mayor Miyagishima’s bid exemplifies the crossroads at which borderland states stand: caught between federal inaction and the thirst for local solutions—tested by history, bound by law, and charged with both promise and peril,” asserts Professor María Elena Castro of the University of New Mexico School of Law. This article argues that Miyagishima’s campaign raises fundamental questions about the balance of power between state and federal governments, the permissible scope of state involvement in immigration enforcement, and the evolving role of gubernatorial authority in tackling complex social challenges.
Legal and Historical Background
Constitutional Foundations of Gubernatorial Power
The office of governor in New Mexico is constitutionally established under Article V of the New Mexico Constitution, with Section 1 vesting executive authority in a governor alongside other executive officers, all elected to four-year terms starting each January 1 following the election. Section 3 sets eligibility requirements: a candidate must be a U.S. citizen, at least 30 years old, and a New Mexico resident for five years prior to the election.
Section 1 further imposes a two-consecutive-term limit, after which a former governor must wait at least one full term before seeking the office again. This restriction reflects a historical skepticism of entrenched executive power in the American West, born of 19th-century territorial governance under federally appointed officials and later ratified in 1912 when New Mexico achieved statehood.
Statutory and Federal Law on Immigration Enforcement
Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal function under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at Title 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq., which grants the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) exclusive authority to regulate admission, removal, and detention of noncitizens. Notably, Section 1357 prohibits state or local officers from arresting individuals solely for immigration violations without a federal warrant.
However, Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution (“Importation Clause”) and Article IV, Section 4 (“Invasion Clause”) have occasionally been invoked by states—most famously by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in Operation Lone Star—to justify unilateral border enforcement, a maneuver currently winding its way through federal litigation in United States v. Texas before the Fifth Circuit.
Historical Use of the Alien Enemies Act
The Alien Enemies Act of 1798 empowers the president to detain, restrain, or deport male citizens of a hostile nation during wartime. Its modern application is exceedingly rare; former President Trump invoked it in 2020 to expedite deportations of certain Venezuelan nationals. Miyagishima’s expressed “qualified support” for applying the Act at the state level, while emphatically disavowing “racial targeting,” challenges conventional separation-of-powers doctrine by suggesting state executives might leverage archaic federal statutes for criminal justice ends.
Local Home-Rule and Legislative Oversight
Under the New Mexico Home Rule Act (N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 3-37-1 et seq.), municipalities with populations over 25,000 may adopt charters granting broad self-governance. While Hoy of Las Cruces exercises extensive local authority, any statewide police force proposal by the governor must navigate statutory limitations set by the Legislature—highlighting a persistent tug-of-war between executive ambition and legislative prerogatives.
Case Status and Legal Proceedings
As of May 2025, no formal legal challenges have materialized regarding Miyagishima’s potential invocation of the Alien Enemies Act or his metro-police proposal. However:
Alien Enemies Act: Application at the state level could prompt lawsuits under the U.S. Supremacy Clause (Article VI of the U.S. Constitution) for preemption of federal immigration law. Plaintiffs would likely include civil-rights organizations such as the ACLU, which has previously challenged state-level immigration enforcement statutes.
Metro-Police Force: Any attempt to institute a statewide law-enforcement body would require enabling legislation by the New Mexico Legislature. Potential challenges might arise over home-rule charters, local budgeting control, and separation of powers, possibly culminating in litigation before the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Congressional debate over immigration reform is ongoing on Capitol Hill, with Republican proposals urging enhanced federal enforcement and Democratic measures seeking pathway-to-citizenship programs. New Mexico’s delegation, including Representative Gabe Vasquez and Senator Martin Heinrich, has signaled interest in reconciling state and federal efforts through cooperative agreements—though those remain in flux.
Viewpoints and Commentary
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Leading civil-rights groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Immigrant Law Center of New Mexico argue that state-level enforcement of immigration laws erodes due-process rights and fosters racial profiling. “Turning local police into immigration agents undermines community trust and chills reporting of crime in vulnerable populations,” warns Lena Graber, Senior Staff Attorney at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. Democrats in the state legislature have also decried the Alien Enemies Act’s potential misuse, labeling it “an 18th-century relic unfit for modern governance” in floor debates on House Joint Resolution 2 to limit executive pocket vetoes.
Academic scholars emphasize the tension with the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. “While states possess police powers, immigration regulation is squarely federal—any dilation of that boundary risks constitutional violation,” notes Professor Sarah Miller of UNM’s Constitutional Law Journal (forthcoming).
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Conversely, conservative commentators praise Miyagishima’s emphasis on public safety. “States can no longer stand idly by as federal inaction enables criminal cartels to exploit porous borders,” asserts John Smith, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice. Republican-leaning think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation support invoking the Alien Enemies Act against gang members detained for cross-border violence, arguing such measures are imperative when DOJ resources are overstretched.
Albuquerque District Attorney Sam Bregman, also in the Democratic primary, has called Miyagishima’s proposals “overbroad,” but some law-and-order Democrats welcome stronger enforcement: “Public safety isn’t partisan,” says Sen. Gabriel Correa (D – Doña Ana County).
Comparable or Historical Cases
- Operation Lone Star (Texas, 2021–Present)
Governor Abbott’s use of state troopers and National Guard units for border arrests—under claim of repelling an “invasion” under Article IV, Section 4—prompted United States v. Texas in federal court, where the Supreme Court stayed Texas SB 4 in March 2024. “This case will define states’ latitude in interior enforcement absent federal directives,” notes Professor Michael Grebe of Georgetown Law. - Susana Martinez’s 2010 Campaign
New Mexico’s first female and first Hispanic governor framed her bid on border security and economic development, overcoming criticism over federal-state jurisdiction. Martinez’s post-election expansion of the Border Authority laid groundwork for intergovernmental compacts with Mexico—an approach Miyagishima cites as a model. - U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995)
The Supreme Court struck down state-imposed term limits on federal representatives, invoking the Elections Clause. While not directly about governors, it illustrates the precarious boundary between state lawmaking and federal election rules—a precedent relevant if New Mexico’s legislature further restricts gubernatorial terms beyond the constitution’s mandate.
Policy Implications and Forecasting
Short-Term Consequences
- Border and Public Safety: A Miyagishima administration could negotiate compacts with Mexican border municipalities to enhance cross-border policing while pursuing controversial use of federal Alien Enemies Act powers—likely triggering litigation and DOJ intervention.
- State-Local Relations: Proposals for a state metro force may alienate home-rule municipalities, inciting budget battles in the legislature and potential state-Supreme Court disputes over charter autonomy.
Long-Term Impacts
- Federalism and Precedent: If courts permit state invocation of 18th-century statutes for immigration enforcement, a host of other states may follow suit, fundamentally altering the federal-state partnership in immigration policy.
- Executive Authority: Expansion of governor’s unilateral powers could either demonstrate executive efficiency in crises or exacerbate public distrust if checks and balances erode—shifting voter expectations nationwide.
Think tanks are already speculating. “New Mexico may become a bellwether for the next era of state-led immigration enforcement,” argues Brookings’ Vanessa Carter, referencing regional spillover effects. Conversely, Brennan Center scholars warn that overreach will undermine civil liberties and strain intergovernmental trust.
Conclusion
Ken Miyagishima’s gubernatorial bid spotlights a nexus of constitutional design, statutory interpretation, and policy urgency: term limits mandate new leadership; crime and housing crises demand innovative solutions; and protracted federal gridlock tempts states to assert quasi-federal powers. The legal tension between exclusive federal immigration authority under the Constitution and state claims of “invasion” prerogatives will likely reach the courts, defining the boundaries of American federalism for decades.
“The coming contest will test whether states can responsibly bridge policy gaps or whether the republic’s fabric demands clearer lines between local initiative and national mandate,” reflects Professor Malcolm Fowler, author of State Powers in Immigration Law.
As New·Mexico pivots toward its June 2026 primaries and November general election, voters face a choice not merely of candidates, but of constitutional visions: one stressing federal supremacy and civil rights protections, the other asserting robust state action to ensure public safety and economic cooperation. The outcome will resonate far beyond Santa Fe’s gilded halls, beckoning a broader symposium on the future of American governance and the rule of law.
For Further Reading
- Four-time mayor from border region joins race for governor of New Mexico
- Four-time mayor from border region joins race for governor of New Mexico
- Four-time mayor from border region joins race for governor of New Mexico
- Former Las Cruces mayor announces run for governor
- Former Las Cruces mayor to run for New Mexico governor
