Colorado sheriff: Executive order an ‘attempt to federalize, by intimidation' local law enforcement
DENVER (KDVR) — Outgoing San Miguel County Sheriff Bill Masters issued a statement Friday against an executive order signed by President Donald Trump aimed at strengthening federal immigration law enforcement.
Masters, who is retiring from his position at the end of May, said his office received a notice from the National Sheriffs' Association about the executive order on Friday.
DOJ sues Colorado, Denver for so-called 'sanctuary laws'
The order, signed on April 28, directs Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, within the next 30 days, to publish a list of states and local jurisdictions 'that obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws (sanctuary jurisdictions).'
On Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state of Colorado and the city of Denver, as well as specific officials, arguing the jurisdictions operate under 'sanctuary laws' designed to impede federal immigration efforts. Both the mayor of Denver and the governor of Colorado have said they do not have sanctuary laws on the books.
Masters said the notice from the NSA 'strongly encouraged' agencies to enter into a '287(g) program — whether under the Jail Enforcement Model, Task Force Model, or Warrant Service Officer Model' before the list is published. Colorado law prevents local and state law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration laws, allowing officers to focus on state or local statutes.
The Immigration and Customs Enforcement website says that through the 287(g) program, specific immigration officer duties are delegated to local or state law enforcement 'to protect the homeland through the arrest and removal of aliens who undermine the safety of our nation's communities and the integrity of U.S. immigration laws.'
Each model has different delegated duties, such as identification and processing of removable undocumented immigrants 'with criminal or pending criminal charges' who were already arrested, enforcing limited immigration authority with ICE oversight during routine police duties, or serving and executing warrants on undocumented immigrants in the agency's jail.
Trump endorses Rep. Gabe Evans for re-election, calls him 'an America First Patriot'
'I strongly support the investigation of and arrest of all persons, regardless of their citizenship or immigration status, who commit serious crimes. Over the past 50 years, I have arrested dozens of undocumented persons and at times their human smugglers, sometimes by the van load,' Masters said in a post on the sheriff's office Facebook page.
He said the San Miguel County Sheriff's Office cooperates with federal law enforcement partners within the confines of Colorado law.
'This executive order is an attempt to federalize, by intimidation, the San Miguel County Sheriff's Office to do the current administration's bidding on their political cause of the day,' Masters wrote. 'Not since the Runaway Slave Act of 1850 has the Federal Government attempted to federalize and use local peacekeepers to fulfill its political objectives. Many Sheriffs of that era refused to enforce (even under penalty of law) the Runaway Slave Act.'
Masters said he's concerned about the potential federalization of local law enforcement agencies because it could lead to a slippery slope.
'I also see this current attempt as opening the door for future administrations to consider requiring local Sheriffs to enforce federal laws to arrest firearm owners, political opponents, protestors, etc.,' Masters wrote. 'Although I am Sheriff of this great county for only another 30 days, I want to assure our local residents that during my short remaining tenure, I will follow Colorado law and not permit the federal government to use my office for political purposes.'
Not all are on the same page. Rep. Gabe Evans, a Republican who represents Colorado's 8th Congressional District and who was recently endorsed for re-election by President Trump, introduced a federal act that he says would 'fix Colorado's immigration and crime problems.' Weld and El Paso county sheriffs spoke in favor of the measure in a recent email sent from Evans' office.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The Ideological Schism Fueling the Trump-Musk Fight
Amid the fallout of the messy public feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk, it is instructive to think back to Dec. 26, 2024. That day marked the start of another intra-GOP skirmish that nearly fractured the elite core of the MAGA coalition. The December brawl — which, like the latest one, unfolded primarily online — pitted two high-profile factions of the Trumpian right against one another over the issue of high-skilled immigration. The nationalist-populist right, led by MAGA strategist Steve Bannon, urged the incoming administration to end the H-1B visa program as part of a broader crackdown on immigration. The so-called tech right, led by Musk, wanted Trump to defend the program on the grounds that high-skilled immigration is integral to spurring economic growth and fueling 'American dynamism.' Ultimately, the tech right carried the day, with Trump intervening in the online spat to defend the H-1B program. After the feud, the two sides struck a tentative peace, and the contretemps quieted down as Trump reentered office. But the renewal of hostilities between Trump and Musk this week shows that the underlying ideological disagreement between the two factions was never really resolved. And despite all the current bluster about the 'big, beautiful' spending bill, the Epstein files, the ballooning national debt and Musk and Trump's overlarge egos, that divide still runs straight through the same issue that carved up the factions back in December: immigration. That may seem counterintuitive, given that the latest blow-up between Trump and Musk is ostensibly over the fiscal consequences of Trump's megabill — and specifically Musk's contention, supported by independent analyses but rejected by the Trump administration, that the bill would add significantly to the federal debt. But when you strip away all the salacious controversies swirling around the 'BBB,' the fight over the legislation ultimately boils down to the question of whether cracking down on immigration should stand alone as the Trump administration's guiding priority. In the eyes of the MAGA populists, the $155 billion that the BBB appropriates for immigration enforcement and Trump's mass deportation efforts more than justify its passage, whatever its fiscal shortcomings might be. As Stephen Miller, the populist right's go-to immigration hawk, recently put it, the bill includes 'the most significant border security and deportation effort in history' — a fact which 'alone makes this the most important legislation for the conservative project in the history of the nation.' That immigration is at the center of the administration's pitch for the bill should come as no surprise. Since 2016, the issue has been the ideological keystone around which Trump has built his protean and sometimes unwieldy coalition. During the 2024 campaign, Trump and his running mate, JD Vance, proposed solving practically every issue that was thrown their way — from the housing shortage to inflation to 'wokeness' — by tying it back to their promised immigration crackdown. Once in office, the president's first acts included claiming unprecedented emergency authority to carry out his plan for mass deportations. But the centrality of immigration created tension as Musk and his fellow travelers on the tech right began to enter MAGA fold in the leadup to the 2024 election. The tech right threw its weight behind Trump's proposed agenda on immigration, but it was never the group's top priority. Much more important for MAGA's tech faction was taming the federal deficit, which Musk and others moguls — notably Marc Andreessen and Peter Thiel — continue to view as an existential threat to the country's future. Their anxiety about the federal debt is rooted as much in their libertarianism as it is in their self-interest: every dollar the federal government spends servicing the federal debt is a dollar that it does not invest in the supposedly revolutionary technologies — backed by their firms — that they believe will lead to true 'American dynamism.' The misalignment between the priorities of the populist right and the tech right was clear from the start. It was apparent to Miller, who just this week raged that 'you will never live a day in your life where a libertarian cares as much about immigration and sovereignty as they do about the Congressional Budget Office.' It was also apparent to Vance — a perceptive observer of the coalitional dynamics within the MAGA movement — who dedicated an entire speech earlier this spring to arguing that immigration restriction and technological innovation could be mutually-reinforcing goals. 'This idea that tech-forward people and the populists are somehow inevitably going to come to a loggerhead is wrong,' said Vance, identifying himself as 'a proud member of both tribes.' Vance, it turns out, was wrong. To the contrary, the Trump-Musk schism is proof that MAGA loyalists can't have their cake and eat it too. They must choose — a maximalist immigration crackdown, or something else. The vengeance with which the populist right has turned on Musk since his spat with Trump is proof of what happens when a Trump ally — even the richest man on Planet Earth — chooses something else. That the fight really hinged on immigration became clear from the commentary coming out of the populist right. 'Debt is BAD. The migrant crisis is orders of magnitude worse,' posted the activist Charlie Kirk in the midst of the blowup. 'I've never seen debt hold an apartment building hostage,' added another conservative commentator, referring to reports of gang-occupied apartment buildings in Colorado. Then there was Bannon himself, who responded to the feud by suggesting — what else? — that Trump should deport Musk. The near-term consequences of the Trump-Musk schism remain to be seen. Whispers of peace talks between Trump and Musk flitted around Washington on Friday, and Trump has publicly downplayed the significance of the skirmish. At this point, no other big names on the tech right have followed Musk in breaking from Trump. And even if Musk were to actively challenge Trump's GOP — by funding primary challenges to Republican incumbents or even trying to start his own party, as he hinted at on Thursday — the consequences would likely be less dire for the future of the MAGA movement than he might think. Vance, the presumptive heir to the MAGA throne, has been building his own independent fundraising network since 2022, which could insulate him from any Musk-related financial aftershocks. Vance 2028 would certainly like to have access to Musk's campaign dollars, but it's not reliant on them. In the long run, though, the Trump-Musk feud will cement immigration as the critical litmus test for membership in Trump's GOP. The critical ideological fault line within the MAGA movement runs between people who view immigration restriction as a means to an end and those who see it as an end in themselves. The thrashing of Elon Musk is a warning to anyone who finds themselves on the wrong side of that divide.
Washington Post
2 hours ago
- Washington Post
#TeamTrump vs #TeamMusk: A tenuous relationship in its twilight
The breakup of a once-powerful allyship between billionaire Elon Musk and President Donald Trump has forced even the pair's most ardent supporters to pick sides. Conservatives watched this week with a mixture of bemusement and horror as the men publicly fought on social media, sharing explosive allegations, threats and more than one ridiculing meme.
Fox News
3 hours ago
- Fox News
What that citizenship contest reality show gets right
It's not clear that "The American," the proposed reality TV show in which immigrants would compete to become naturalized U.S. citizens on the steps of the Capitol, will gain the cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security or ever see the light of day. But that hasn't stopped it from being cast in a negative light. As the New York Times described it: "Under Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, the (Department of Homeland Security) has often focused on publicity and reality-TV tactics to showcase President Donald Trump's hard-line immigration policies." In other words, it's being cast as citizenship Hunger Games – though all the contestants would wind up on the fast track to naturalization. But that misses what's fundamentally positive about it: the focus on citizenship itself as the goal. It's a focus that's been missing in all the attention rightly paid to the illegal and undocumented – the fact that citizenship is on offer to those who work hard and play by the rules and should be encouraged, just as it was once the case a century ago, when America assimilated its last big wave of newcomers. This would not and should not require some sort of amnesty for illegals. According to the Pew Research Center, there are 13.5 million fully legal immigrants who are not citizens but could be – yet we've averaged only 730,000 naturalizations a year. A citizenship drive would help not just the new citizens but America. To become a citizen, one must swear to "support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America "and to bear arms to defend it." One must have some knowledge of what the Constitution says, in order to pass a written test – which is offered only in English. A wave of naturalization would make also our elections more fair. Per the Constitution, all congressional districts are based on their number of residents, not the number of citizens. That means that many Democrats from districts with large concentrations of noncitizen legal and illegal immigrants, have far fewer eligible voters in their districts than Republicans. In Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's 14th District in New York, a whopping 46% of residents are foreign-born – and only 192,000 votes were cast in 2024. In Ohio Republican Jim Jordan's 4th District, 96% of voters are native-born; 399,000 votes were cast last year. Keep in mind: noncitizens may not vote and have no voice in government. The Center for Immigration Studies has found that of 16 districts where more than one in four adults is not an American citizen, only one is represented by a Republican. These are, in other words, places where it takes fewer votes to win – and where Democrats hold the advantage. In light of the Trump vote among Hispanics, one cannot predict how naturalized immigrants would vote. As important as citizenship can be, there are real barriers – not just reality show theatrics – to achieving it. Taking the citizenship test costs $710 for each family member – and one must have studied 100 potential civics questions and be able to read English. ESL classes are available to be sure – but these can have long waiting lists and may be scheduled in the evening when immigrants are working night shifts. In Chicago, for instance, the public library offers a nine-week citizenship class in English only – and the ESL classes you'd need first have waiting lists. But a new, nationwide citizenship movement is plausible – because the U.S. has a record of a successful one. In 1910, the foreign-born percentage of the population in the US (14.7) was roughly as big as it is today (15.6). The assimilation that ensued is too often cast as inevitable. But our civil society – not government – took steps to introduce immigrants to the American system and lead them to citizenship. The settlement house movement, started by Jane Addams, founder of Hull House, in a working-class Italian immigrant neighborhood in Chicago relied on volunteers who moved in and "settled' in immigrant neighborhoods and offered everything from nutrition classes to music lessons. They specifically prepared their neighbors to become American citizens. In her memoir "Twenty Years at Hull House," Illinois-born Addams, a Quaker whose Republican father was a friend of Abraham Lincoln, wrote, "Every settlement has classes in citizenship in which the principles of American institutions are expounded." The goal was to "make clear the constitutional basis of a self-governing community." There were more than 400 such settlement houses across the country – all supported by local donors. It was a movement – and encouraging citizenship was part of it. There are some similar efforts ongoing today. In Reno, Nevada, the Northern Nevada Literacy Council pairs volunteers with immigrants – tutoring them in their homes by day because many work nights. They've helped many pass the citizenship test. In the village of Port Chester, New York – where immigrants from Central America have clustered – the George Washington Carver Center has added citizenship test tutoring by volunteers to its historic assistance for low-income Blacks. The potential benefits of a national citizenship push were captured well by Lillian Wald, founder of the Henry Street Settlement on the Lower East Side. New immigrants, she wrote in her memoir, "The House on Henry Street," "bring an enthusiasm for our institutions." She dreamed "of making his coming of age – his admission to citizenship, something of a rite." So it can still be. We should celebrate, not deride, a reality show that draws renewed attention to it.
