By Rocky Mountain Voice Staff
In a move that’s drawing outrage from conservatives and constitutional advocates alike, Colorado Senate Democrats passed Senate Bill 25-276, a sweeping immigration “protection” bill, after rushing through five major amendments on third reading—sidestepping standard legislative norms and undermining federal immigration enforcement in the name of “civil rights.”
Democrats hailed the bill as a firewall against what they call “mass deportation policies” under President Trump. But critics argue it’s the most pro-illegal immigration legislation in Colorado history—and that it was pushed through without transparency, proper debate, or concern for the rule of law.
“We are proceeding into debate around a very important bill,” said Sen. Paul Lundeen (R) during the third reading. “These amendments are substantial in nature and should be laid over. The process matters—especially when you’re talking about fundamentally changing how Colorado deals with federal law.”
Despite Senate rules (Rule 25K) requiring a delay when substantial amendments are introduced on third reading, Democrats rammed through all five, claiming the changes were minor—even though they rewrote major sections of the bill.
What SB25-276 Actually Does
While headlines paint it as a “civil rights” bill, SB25-276 ties the hands of local law enforcement, blocks cooperation with federal ICE officers, and forces public institutions—including schools and hospitals—to adopt policies shielding illegal immigrants from lawful detention.
Key provisions include:
- Banning ICE from accessing jails, schools, libraries, and hospitals without a federal warrant
- Prohibiting sheriffs from holding anyone for ICE—even temporarily—without a signed warrant
- Expanding post-conviction relief for non-citizens, allowing past guilty pleas to be vacated
- Repealing affidavit requirements for in-state tuition and driver’s licenses
- Creating penalties up to $50,000 for state or local employees who cooperate with immigration enforcement
- Requiring charter schools and other public institutions to comply with these policies—with no opt-out
Senator Lundeen, whose family legally immigrated to the United States, didn’t hold back in his criticism.
“I’m the grandson of immigrants who came through the golden door and became citizens in a nation of laws,” he said. “This bill goes too far.”
During debate, Democrats invoked everything from Pope Francis to poetry readings to justify the bill’s passage. Sen. Mike Weissman even read a Langston Hughes poem on the floor.
In response, Lundeen read “The New Colossus”—the famous poem at the base of the Statue of Liberty—reminding his colleagues that immigration must still respect the laws and process of citizenship.
SB25-276 passed the Senate 22-13. But it wasn’t without controversy—even from within Democratic ranks. Sen. Kyle Mullica, a Democrat from Thornton, broke ranks to vote “no,” citing concerns about the last-minute amendments and lack of review time.
“I want the opportunity to digest these amendments,” Mullica said on the floor.
According to the hearing transcript, some lawmakers were blindsided by the amendments, which included new privacy definitions, expansions to detention policy, and broadened penalties for state employees who cooperate with federal immigration efforts.
“We must never forget the people who are at home working, raising families, and trusting us to follow process,” Lundeen added.
What Happens Next
The bill now heads to the House, where similar concerns over procedure and public safety are expected. Conservatives are urging citizens to speak out before SB25-276 becomes law.
“This bill won’t just make Colorado a sanctuary state—it could make it a shield for criminal behavior under the guise of civil rights,” said one GOP strategist familiar with the legislation.
Meanwhile, national attention is already mounting. Immigration watchdogs, law enforcement associations, and constitutional advocacy groups are warning that SB25-276 sets a dangerous precedent—placing political activism above public safety and eroding the sovereignty of local governments.