There’s no telling if the the latest lawsuit against the Trump administration by Democrat-leaning states — this time, challenging restrictions on food stamps for illegal immigrants — will find a sympathetic ear on the federal bench. Colorado’s Attorney General Phil Weiser sure hopes so; last week, he joined Colorado in that suit, too, alongside all the others.

So, let’s just agree there are bound to be more than a few U.S. district judges who will indulge Weiser and his fellow Democratic attorney’s general in 21 other states; who will split the hairs the AGs seek to split, and who will grant an injunction against the federal rules based on some technicality or another. Perhaps, to be overturned on appeal.

Then, let’s proceed to the real, underlying issue. Notably, how on earth did Colorado or any other state get to the point where it’s standard procedure to hand out food stamps or other tax-funded benefits — to those who have entered the U.S. illegally? And now that they’re on the dole, why is our state government willing to join a legal battle on their behalf?

As The Gazette reported, a directive from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, implementing congressional legislation passed last summer, narrowed the range of noncitizens eligible for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or “SNAP” benefits helping them buy groceries. 

The restrictions are sensible and overdue, of course.

Weiser and his cohorts contend some of the people deemed ineligible are now in the country legally — even if they had entered illegally. Many have crossed the border illegally and are caught at some point but “paroled” into the U.S. — essentially a temporary stay on their expulsion pending deportation hearings. Some apply for asylum. And some of those who get paroled also are able to apply for a “green card,” conferring-permanent resident status.

Those and other designations arcane to immigration law were developed for wide-ranging reasons, and some who seek to be paroled or granted asylum do so legitimately. Some fear for their safety in their home countries or need to remain in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons.

But the impolite truth is a whole lot of those who enter the U.S. illegally know how to game the system and exploit those same loopholes. They certainly shouldn’t be rewarded for it with public-assistance benefits.

Weiser and the other AGs are no doubt aware of that reality but conveniently overlook it in their legal filing.

The suit also seeks relief from what it says are “massive financial penalties” on states like Colorado for their error rates in overpaying SNAP beneficiaries. Under the new rules, a state with a high error rate — Colorado’s is almost 10% — must defray a share of SNAP benefits. Depending on their error rate, they would have to pick up 5% to 15% of the program’s costs.

Again, why did Colorado’s policymakers put our state in that position to begin with?

The changes to federal law couldn’t come soon enough. 

“The generosity of the American taxpayer has long been abused by faulty interpretations of 1996 welfare reform law,” Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said when the enabling federal legislation passed in July. “Today’s notice makes clear its intent — illegal aliens should not receive government dollars. This effort is one of many by the Department of Agriculture to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse of USDA’s programs and policies.” Exactly.

But Weiser is oblivious. Amid his run for higher office, his only focus is to woo his party’s open-borders fringe in advance of next year’s Democratic primary. 

As for all the Colorado taxpayers getting fleeced when benefits act as a beacon to illegal immigration? Weiser probably reasons they can take it up with the legislature. For all the good it would do.