Colorado immigration protection bill clears Senate vote
People gathered at the Colorado Capitol in Denver on Feb. 3, 2025, for the national "A Day Without Immigrants" demonstration, a response to President Donald Trump's policies that target the immigrant community. (Sara Wilson/Colorado Newsline)
The Colorado Senate approved a bill on Monday that would put data protections in place for immigrants and limit where federal immigration authorities can physically access without a warrant. The legislation comes in direct response to the Trump administration's mass deportation efforts.
Senate Bill 25-276 passed on a 22-13 vote and now heads to the House for consideration in the final weeks of the legislative session.
'The question of who actually gets to be an American, or who actually gets to be protected by the Constitution, is a matter of debate right now in this country and in this state. We've had conversations with teachers and with school districts that are concerned about students being too afraid to come to class and about parents being afraid to go to parent teacher conferences. We can do better than that,' said bill sponsor Sen. Julie Gonzales, a Denver Democrat.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
The bill would prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers from going into non-public spaces in jails, hospitals, schools and child care centers without a signed, valid warrant. An amendment on the Senate floor added libraries to that list of locations.
It also clarifies that local law enforcement cannot cooperate with ICE to land a person in custody through a detainer request by holding that person in jail beyond their ordered release without a warrant.
The bill also deals heavily with personally identifiable information, or data about a person that is not publicly available such as birthday, addresses, vehicle registration information and immigration status, which federal authorities might want access to in order to identify people to detain and deport. Local governments would not be allowed to share that type of information with ICE under the bill.
Additionally, immigrants would not need to sign an affidavit about their intention to pursue legal status in order to get a driver's license or in-state tuition.
'We're in unprecedented times, where people are being unjustly targeted, incarcerated, removed and deported, and we sit in a position where we might be able to push back and help out, to provide some sort of protection,' said Sen. Jessie Danielson, a Wheat Ridge Democrat. 'It is a terrifying time for a number of people I know, and for a lot of people I don't, and it doesn't take much for me to empathize with that.'
The bill comes three months into the second administration of President Donald Trump, who has followed through on a campaign promise to increase efforts to detain and remove immigrants who lack legal status. In Colorado, that has resulted in a series of highly-publicized immigration raids at a party in Adams County and residences in Denver and Aurora and in the detention of immigration rights activist Jeanette Vizguerra.
In addition to Gonzales, the bill is sponsored by Sen. Mike Weissman, an Aurora Democrat, Rep. Lorena Garcia, an Adams County Democrat, and Rep. Elizabeth Velasco, a Glenwood Springs Democrat.
Sen. Kyle Mullica, a Thornton Democrat, joined Republicans in opposition to the bill. Mullica said his vote was in response to a series of amendments offered during the final vote on Monday — usually amendments are considered during the initial debate and preliminary vote on a bill — and that he did not have sufficient time to read the amendments and consider their implications. One amendment on Monday, for example, clarified that SB-276 does not intend to ban the transfer of a person to and from federal custody if there is a valid warrant.
'This isn't a position in cement that I'm not willing to move,' he said. 'I want the opportunity to digest these amendments and see if there are any amendments that address potential concerns in the second chamber.'
If the House passes a version of the bill with other amendments, the Senate would need to sign off on those changes before the bill heads to the governor's desk for a signature.
Republicans argued that the bill interferes with federal policy and impedes legal ICE operations, going against the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. The bill's passage would likely result in lawsuits, they said.
'This undermines federal immigration enforcement. The bill restricts cooperation between state, local entities and federal immigration authorities, potentially obstructing that of which is the province of the federal government — immigration laws,' said Minority Leader Paul Lundeen, a Monument Republican.
Debate on the bill lasted an entire day last week as Republicans offered amendments that ultimately failed to block it. The bill is likely to face a similarly protracted discussion in the House if chamber leadership decides not to limit the length of debate.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
22 minutes ago
- UPI
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
President Donald Trump congratulates a cadet at the United States Military Academy graduation ceremony in Michie Stadium at West Point, New York, on May 24, and will review the Army's 250th birthday parade on June 14. Photo by John Angelillo/UPI | License Photo June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Drama Between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk
The failed friendship between President Donald Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Musk continues, Bill Maher has some advice for the Democratic party, and social media drama between gold medalist Simone Biles and Riley Gaines. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Politico
26 minutes ago
- Politico
Negotiate or fight? Trump has colleges right where he wants them.
President Donald Trump's campaign against two of the planet's best-known universities is laying bare just how unprepared academia was to confront a hostile White House. Schools never imagined facing an administration so willing to exercise government power so quickly — targeting the research funding, tax-exempt status, foreign student enrollment and financial aid eligibility schools need to function. That's left them right where the president wants them. Even as Ivy League schools, research institutions, and college trade associations try to resist Trump's attacks in court, campus leaders are starting to accept they face only difficult choices: negotiate with the government, mount a painful legal and political fight — or simply try to stay out of sight. Groundbreaking scientific research, financial aid for lower-income students and soft power as an economic engine once shielded schools' access to federal funds. Trump has now transformed those financial lifelines into leverage. And the diversity and independence of U.S. colleges and universities — something they've seen as a source of strength and competition — is straining efforts to form a singular response to the president. 'Perhaps it's a failure of imagination on the part of universities,' said Lee Bollinger, the former president of Columbia University. 'It feels now like there has been a naïveté on the part of universities. There's been no planning for this kind of thing.' Schools are accustomed to tension with their faculty, governing boards, legislatures and governors. But punishments for resisting the Trump administration plumbed untested levels of severity this week when the president issued an executive order to bar foreign students from entering the country to study at Harvard University as his administration threatened Columbia's academic accreditation. Even though Project 2025 — The Heritage Foundation's roadmap for a second Trump administration — previewed some of the tactics the administration would use, many school leaders may have underestimated the president's determination. 'It just seemed inconceivable that we would be in this position of having massive amounts of federal funding withheld, threats to have legislation that attacks your tax status, and now these new issues with international students,' Bollinger said. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order Thursday night that blocked Trump's directive to restrict Harvard's access to international students. But the administration is brandishing its response to Harvard's resistance as a warning to other schools who might resist, as federal officials pressure schools to negotiate the terms of a truce over the administration's complaints about campus antisemitism, foreign government influence and its opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. 'We've held back funding from Columbia, we've also done the same thing with Harvard,' Education Secretary Linda McMahon told House lawmakers this past week. 'We are asking, as Columbia has done, to come to the table for negotiations,' she said, just hours before telling the school's accreditor it was violating federal anti-discrimination laws. 'We've also asked Harvard. Their answer was a lawsuit.' A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment. 'What we've seen so far when it comes to Harvard is the playbook for holding these radical schools accountable is way deeper than anyone anticipated or expected,' a senior White House official told POLITICO. 'You're starting to get to the bone, so to speak, of holding these people accountable,' said the official, who was granted anonymity to freely discuss White House strategy. 'Harvard knows they cannot endure this for long, they just can't. They're going to have to come to the table, and we'll always be there to meet them. But this was a test case of what to do.' The university described Trump's latest foreign student order this week as 'yet another illegal retaliatory step.' A federal judge in May blocked a separate administration attempt to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students. Harvard is still locked in a legal fight over more than $2 billion in federal grants the White House blocked after the school refused to comply with demands to overhaul its admissions and disciplinary policies. Trump announced plans to cancel Harvard's tax-exempt status in early May, then later floated redistributing billions of dollars in university grants to trade schools. 'It is not our desire to bring these schools to their knees. The president reveres our higher educational facilities. He's a product of one,' the White House official said. 'But in order to hold these people accountable, we will be unrelenting in our enforcement of the law and hitting them where it hurts, which is their pocketbook.' Many institutions have chosen a more muted response following months of conflict, including major public institutions in states that have also grown reliant on the full-freight tuition paid by international students. 'Universities don't have as many degrees of freedom, at least in the public sector, as you might think they do,' said Teresa Sullivan, the former president of the University of Virginia. 'One reason they seem to be relatively slow to act is there's a certain disbelief — can this really be happening?' 'We seem to be in uncharted territory, at least in my experience,' Sullivan said. 'All of a sudden, the rules don't seem to apply. I think that's disconcerting. It shakes the ground beneath you, and you don't necessarily know what to do next.' Still, some higher education leaders are trying to confront the government. More than 650 campus officials have so far signed onto a joint statement that opposes 'the unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.' Sullivan and a group of other former presidents used an op-ed in The Washington Post to argue the Trump administration's offensive 'won't be confined to Harvard University.' Trade associations including the American Council on Education, Association of American Universities, and Association of Public and Land-grant Universities have joined schools in a lawsuit to block some of Trump's research funding cuts. The Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a collective of school leaders, has also sued to challenge the Trump administration's attempts to target the legal status of thousands of foreign students. 'Your first obligation as president is you don't want to hurt the institution you represent,' Sullivan said of the relative silence coming from non-Ivy League institutions. 'These days it's hard to tell what hurts and what doesn't. I think that's the motive. The motive is not cowardice.' Schools still face a choice between negotiating with the government — and risk compromising on their principles — or inviting Trump's rage by putting up a fight. 'Every school has had an option to correct course and work with the administration, or stand firm in their violations of the law,' the administration official said. 'They have an option, they know very well what to do.' The real question, according to Bollinger, the former Columbia president, is how far the White House will go and how much resistance the schools are willing to put up. 'The power of government is so immense that if they want to destroy institutions, they can,' he said. 'What you do in that kind of environment is you stand on principle.'
