By Heidi Ganahl | Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
Despite Colorado Gov. Jared Polis’ assertions to the contrary, the state has increasingly been adopting policies and laws that align with the characteristics of a sanctuary state, significantly limiting the enforcement capabilities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) within its borders.
Discussions have been vibrant on the topic of whether Colorado should be considered a sanctuary state, given the state’s legislative actions over the past few years.
One of the most significant pieces of legislation is HB23-1100, which fundamentally restricts local governments’ ability to contract with ICE for the detention of immigrants in local jails. This bill also bans the establishment of private immigration detention centers in Colorado, a move that critics argue hinders ICE’s operational effectiveness. This law directly impacts how and where ICE can detain individuals who are in the country illegally, particularly those with criminal convictions or pending charges.
Complementing this, HB17-1230 goes further by preventing law enforcement from making arrests based solely on civil immigration detainers, unless these are backed by a judicial warrant. This piece of legislation essentially requires a higher threshold for ICE’s involvement in local law enforcement activities, which many see as a protective measure for immigrants but a hurdle for federal immigration enforcement.
Moreover, SB21-131 adds another layer of complexity by restricting the sharing of personal information with federal immigration authorities unless there is a legal order mandating such action. This bill aims to safeguard the privacy of individuals, yet it simultaneously blocks one of the primary methods through which ICE identifies and locates deportable individuals within the state.
These legislative measures collectively aim to reduce ICE’s enforcement capacity in Colorado, creating an environment where federal immigration laws are harder to enforce. The signing of these bills into law by Gov.r Polis has led to claims that Colorado operates as a de facto sanctuary state, despite official denials from his office.
On the local level, the impact is palpable. The Denver County Sheriff’s Office, for instance, will notify ICE before releasing inmates, but will not hold them beyond their scheduled release time, even if ICE issues a detainer request. This practice effectively means that individuals might be released back into the community before federal authorities can take custody, potentially allowing those with deportation orders or criminal backgrounds to evade federal law enforcement.
In Arapahoe and Adams Counties, the situation is similar; there is no tracking of ICE notifications, and detainers are not honored because of state laws that do not recognize such practices. This local non-compliance with federal requests has been a point of contention, showcasing a clear divide between state and federal immigration priorities.
Perhaps most telling is HB19-1124, which explicitly prohibits law enforcement from detaining individuals based solely on ICE detainers, leading to releases without transfer to federal custody. This law has been pivotal in shaping Colorado’s image as a sanctuary state, where local law enforcement’s cooperation with federal immigration enforcement is significantly curtailed.
In conclusion, while Governor Polis and his administration might resist the label, the accumulation of state laws and local government practices paints a picture of Colorado as a sanctuary state. These policies have real-world implications, affecting how federal immigration laws are enforced within Colorado, and sparking a broader debate on states’ rights versus federal authority in immigration matters.