Brothers in (Dis)Unity: Taking Down Sanctuary Laws in Colorado and Denver
Opinion Pieces |
Jumping right into the thick of things, the battle over "sanctuary laws" in Colorado and Denver between the U.S. Department of Justice and local authorities appears to be championed by faulty premises.
Let's kick things off with Yaakov M. Roth's misleading opening statement, as acting assistant attorney general for the DOJ, claiming:
However, according to the available intel, no such official statement has surfaces attributing the incident to Tren de Aragua.
Moving on, let's shake things up and delve into the background of this hip-tangle:
- Lawsuit origins: The U.S. Department of Justice initiated a lawsuit against Colorado, Denver, and a host of local officials, including Gov. Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and Denver Sheriff Elias Diggins. The main gripe? The lawsuit claims that Colorado and Denver's "sanctuary laws" are adverse to federal immigration enforcement and violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Nosy parkers like us might also want to know about the specific laws under fire:
- House Bill 19-1124: Police can't honor ICE detainers unless they have a judicial warrant.
- Senate Bill 21-131: Agencies can't share biometric and immigration data with ICE.
- House Bill 23-1100: Local governments can't sign new contracts with ICE for immigration detention.
- Denver Ordinance 940-17 and Executive Order 142: City employees can't help with civil immigration enforcement or allow ICE into jails without a judge's approval.
Now, let's turn up the heat on the DOJ's claims:
- Federal Enforcement: The DOJ fumes that these laws block federal officials from enforcing immigration laws properly, using events like the alleged takeover of an Aurora apartment complex by a Venezuelan gang as a flame-thrower of evidence.
- Supremacy Clause Violation: In simple terms, the lawsuit alleges that Colorado and Denver's policies contradict federal law, violating the Supremacy Clause, which attributes top billing to federal law over state and local statutes.
Finally, let's round things off with the rebuttals from the officials in question:
- Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, amongst others, affirm that the DOJ has "no grounds" for the lawsuit, standing firm that Denver will defend its policies.
- Other Denver City Officials believe they've got a solid defensive game plan ready for court, arguing that their actions comply with all appropriate laws.
So there you have it, folks. The DOJ's lawsuit against Colorado and Denver over their "sanctuary laws" - a fierce contest of opinions, filled with sparks and snarls. But keep your eyes peeled for more updates, as this rodeo ain't over till the fat lady sings! :wink:
- The claim made by Acting Assistant Attorney General Yaakov M. Roth about Tren de Aragua seizing control of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado, is questionable, as no official statement supporting this attribution has been found.
- The U.S. Department of Justice sued Colorado, Denver, and several local officials, including Governor Jared Polis, Attorney General Phil Weiser, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, and Denver Sheriff Elias Diggins, over their alleged adverse impacts on federal immigration enforcement and potential violations of the Supremacy Clause.
- House Bill 19-1124, Senate Bill 21-131, House Bill 23-1100, Denver Ordinance 940-17, and Executive Order 142 are some of the specific sanctuary laws under fire in the lawsuit, which aim to limit interactions between local law enforcement and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
- The DOJ accuses Colorado and Denver of obstructing federal enforcement of immigration laws, citing instances like the Aurora apartment complex takeover by a Venezuelan gang as evidence. They also argue that these policies contradict federal law and violate the Supremacy Clause.
- Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, along with other city officials, has declared that the DOJ has no grounds for the lawsuit, affirming that Denver will defend its sanctuary policies in court and believes they comply with all relevant laws.
