Republican efforts to revive a law that once allowed local law enforcement officers to cooperate with federal immigration agents failed on Tuesday, when Democrats killed the proposal that effectively sought to undo Colorado’s “sanctuary” laws.

The debate over the proposal, which died in a 2-3 vote following a five-hour debate in committee, is occurring at a time when illegal immigration occupies front and center of the American psyche. President Donald Trump, who campaigned in Colorado, has promised a crackdown called “Operation Aurora,” which he said would go after criminals.        

Senate Bill 047 — sponsored by Sen. Mark Baisley, R-Roxborough Park, and Reps. Chris Richardson, R- Elizabeth, and Max Brooks, R-Castle Rock — would have reenacted a 2006 law that required law enforcement officers to report any arrests of individuals believed to be in the country illegally to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It also allowed law enforcement to hold that individual for up to 48 hours to allow ICE to act on an “immigration detainer.”

Gov. John Hickenlooper and the Colorado General Assembly repealed the law in 2013.

SB 047 offered an important distinction from the 2006 law. Its language is permissive — law enforcers “may” report individuals to ICE, instead of “shall.” 

It would have retained a key aspect of the old law that barred local governments from adopting any policy that prohibits the police or local government employee from communicating or cooperating with federal agents about a person’s immigration status.   

Notably, the proposal would have repealed the laws barring Colorado law enforcement from complying with federal immigration detainers, preventing state agencies and law enforcement from sharing certain personal information with immigration authorities unless compelled by the courts, and stopping state or local entities from contracting or paying for immigration detention facilities.

While the two Republicans on the Senate State, Veteran and Military Affairs Committee voted in favor of the bill, the three Democratic members opposed it. In voting against it, Sen. Matt Ball, D-Denver, said immigration has been “weaponized” as a political issue and the country is now ” trapped in political theater.” 

Baisley, one of the sponsors, said the idea for the bill came to him from Sheriff Jason Mikesell of Teller County, which had the only department in the state that complies with ICE under the 287(g) program, under which state and local law enforcement officers to collaborate with ICE to enforce federal immigration laws.

In 2022, the ACLU sued the Teller County Sheriff’s Office over its practice of detaining individuals suspected of being in the country illegally longer than state law required while waiting for ICE to pick them up. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in the ACLU’s favor, and, late last month, Mikesell agreed to stop the practice.

The bill does not authorize law enforcement to participate in roundups of suspected illegal immigrants or ask for identification papers, Baisley clarified. Instead, he said, it allows them to communicate with ICE about people they have detained.

‘Why is the state of Colorado getting in their way?’

El Paso County Sheriff Joe Roybal argued that the purpose of the bill is to ensure violent criminals are off the streets and sent back to their country of origin. That, he said, should not be a point of contention for anyone.

Roybal accused criminals of taking advantage of Colorado’s status as a “sanctuary” state to “escape” prosecution.

The measures of the bill would only apply to individuals in police custody, he said, such as an immigrant who was charged with raping three young girls in El Paso County. According to Roybal, the man was charged and arrested but bonded out and was never seen again. Had the department been able to act on an ICE “detainer,” he could’ve been transported back to his home country, Roybal said.

An immigration detainer is a notice issued to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies informing the latter that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual who is no longer subject to the former’s detention.

By prohibiting law enforcement from acting on ICE detainers, Roybal argued, “not only are we allowing these perpetrators to revictimize the communities we are trying to protect through legislation on immigration, we’re allowing those to avoid prosecution and victimize and punish those same communities.”

Douglas County Undersheriff David Walcher said ICE officers are only trying to do their job.

“Why is the state of Colorado getting in their way?” he asked. “We want to help our federal partners and do what we do — keep us safe in our respective jurisdictions. We don’t enforce immigration law, but we can certainly assist them to accomplish their mission.”

Walcher also accused people of letting politics stand in the way of public safety, adding the state needs to take its “handcuffs” off local and state law enforcement agencies so they can work with federal immigration enforcers in the same way they do with other federal agencies.

‘A chilling effect that decreases public safety’

Sophie Shea of the Colorado Fiscal Institute said immigrants are essential to Colorado’s economy, as they make up 11% of the state’s workforce and contribute $2 billion annually in state and local tax revenue.

Recently, many immigrant workers and students have been afraid to attend work or school because they’re afraid immigration agents will come for them, said Shea.

A CFI study conducted the year before the 2006 law was repealed found the state spent more than $13 million a year to enforce federal immigration laws.

Shea argued that more impactful than the financial cost of these policies was the toll they take on “law abiding” immigrants whose trust in law enforcement had nearly entirely deteriorated at that point.

“This bill creates a chilling effect that decreases public safety, increases fear, and leaves communities less safe and less strong,” she said.

Nayda Benitez of the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition (CIRC) called the bill draconian, adding the 2006 law generated “unimaginable fear and trauma” for mixed-status families like her own. While supporters of this year’s bill maintained that it only targets criminals, Benitez said it has the potential to harm all of Colorado’s immigrants, whether directly or indirectly.

According to a 2012 survey conducted by the group, about 60% of Colorado’s ICE detentions under SB 090 resulted from minor offenses, such as traffic infractions. The organization led efforts to repeal SB 090 in 2013. Benitez claimed that, even over a decade after the law was repealed, its effects are still palpable in Colorado’s immigrant communities.

“This bill actually makes our communities less safe,” Benitez argued because, she said, immigrants may be too afraid of interacting with law enforcement to report crimes. “Instead of investing in their communities, SB 47 would require local governments to waste enormous amounts of money separating families for traffic infractions and settling racial profiling lawsuits.”

George Marlin, a Creek County Commissioner who also chairs the Counties and Commissioners Acting Together, said the bill would severely erode the trust he and his colleagues had worked so hard to build between local governments and residents.

“We want people to answer the door when a police officer knocks,” he said. “That officer might be trying to share or acquire information that could save a life. It’s hard for any reasonable human to get to yes on those questions if they think the person on the other end of the line might be checking their immigration status or referring their name to ICE because they suspect an immigration status.”

The fear is ‘misplaced’

District Attorney George Brauchler of the 23rd Judicial District, which includes parts of Elbert, Lincoln and Douglas counties, said the conversations about fear and distrust among the immigrant community are legitimate but argued that the fear is misplaced.

The bill is not about all immigrants, he said, just the ones suspected of being in the country illegally who have committed crimes.

“Is there fear? Sure, but it’s misplaced,” he said. “The people that we do want to have fear are the people that are here illegally committing crimes against the rest of the community, whether that community be here legally or illegally.”