It doesn’t take a Colorado native to recall when the Centennial State was better known for things besides harboring illegal immigrants. Just a few years ago, it seems, our mountain splendor and outdoor rec still were among the first images that came to mind for out-of-staters. Of late, however, even skiing has been nudged out of the limelight on the national stage — and maybe it’s not just because of a winter that wasn’t.

No less than the U.S. president very publicly pillories our state as a sanctuary to the rest of the world. That hurts no matter where you stand on the Trump administration. It stings all the more when our reputation as a sanctuary spreads to Congress and the rest of the political firmament.

What stings most of all is our state’s politicians keep giving them the ammo.

This week’s inquiry by Republicans in Congress into another one of Colorado’s growing list of sanctuary policies is just the latest example of such national scrutiny — and of our state’s self-inflicted embarrassment.

As reported Tuesday in The Gazette, U.S. House Republicans sent a letter requesting information from Colorado’s court administrator about a new requirement for attorneys to certify they will not use court data for immigration enforcement. Attorneys must agree to the demand by our state government before they may file court documents online. 

The law was passed by the legislature last year and signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis — like a succession of other state and local laws enacted by ruling Democrats in the past few years to hamper enforcement of federal immigration laws in our state.

The congressional letter, signed by U.S. Reps. Jim Jordan, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Tom McClintock, chairman of its Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, charges the policy imperils public safety and free speech.

“This certification, made under penalty of perjury, obstructs federal law and prevents federal officials from using Colorado state court information to enforce federal immigration law,” the letter states. “It also hijacks the private practice of law to fulfill the political goals of the state of Colorado and undermines attorneys’ ethical obligations, all to ensure that illegal and criminal aliens in Colorado can remain in the state indefinitely.”

Of course, ours is also the state whose legislature passed — and governor signed — laws curbing cooperation between local authorities and federal immigration agents. One of those laws explicitly prohibits state agencies and political subdivisions from sharing or inquiring into anyone’s personal identifying information to enforce immigration laws. The law imposes a civil fine of $50,000 for each violation.

And Colorado is the state whose capital city and its mayor rolled out the red carpet for an unprecedented wave of Venezuelans who had stormed across the southern U.S. border and headed straight for the Mile High City, lured by its welcoming reputation. Mayor Mike Johnston spent $80 million sheltering the wave of Venezuelans he dubbed “newcomers” and made local taxpayers — most of whom presumably reside legally in the U.S. — pay for the hospitality. That included cutting hours at the city’s DMV offices and rec centers.

It has become politics as usual in our state to scoff at federal efforts to secure the nation’s borders. And we’re paying for it in more ways than one. 

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration’s chief in Colorado noted recently to our editorial board that Latin American drug cartel operatives he arrests refer to our state as “un santuario.” 

That’s Spanish, of course, for sanctuary — but most Americans just say, “Colorado.”