These Colorado areas are listed as ‘sanctuary jurisdictions' by Homeland Security
DENVER (KDVR) — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security released a sanctuary jurisdiction list of areas across the country, including 14 cities and several counties in Colorado, that are allegedly defying immigration laws.
On Thursday, the department posted a list of more than 500 jurisdictions across the country on its website as part of the executive order 'Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.' The department said the order requires a list of jurisdictions obstructing federal immigration laws, also known as sanctuary jurisdictions.
Colorado House passes immigration protections after DOJ sues for 'sanctuary' policies
Sanctuary jurisdictions are considered cities, counties and states that obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws and 'protect dangerous criminal aliens from facing consequences,' according to the department.
This list comes about a month after President Donald Trump signed an executive order cracking down on immigration laws. Border Czar Tom Homan said during a press conference when the order was signed that sanctuary cities are going to be sued by the Trump administration for not following the immigration laws.
The list was created to identify these jurisdictions. The department said it used factors like compliance with federal law enforcement, information restrictions and legal protections for illegal aliens to determine the list.
Colorado was listed as self-identifying as a state sanctuary jurisdiction. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has testified on Capitol Hill on sanctuary city policies, but the city has never formally taken on the title of a sanctuary city.
Boebert claims Johnston proved Denver is a 'sanctuary' city; advocates voice support of such policies
Meanwhile, several other Colorado cities and counties were also included on the sanctuary jurisdiction list. Here's which Colorado jurisdictions are on the list, as of May 30:
Adams County
Arapahoe County
Baca County
Bent County
Boulder County
Broomfield County
Chafee County
Cheyenne County
Clear Creek County
Conejos County
Costilla County
Custer County
Denver County
Eagle County
El Paso County
Garfield County
Gilpin County
Gunnison County
Huerfano County
Jefferson County
Kiowa County
Kit Carson County
La Plata County
Lake County
Larimer County
Las Animas County
Lincoln County
Logan County
Morgan County
Otero County
Park County
Pitkin County
Prowers County
Pueblo County
Rio Grande County
Saguache County
San Miguel County
Summit County
Washington County
Weld County
Yuma County
Boulder
City of Durango
City of Fort Collins
Denver
Lafeyette
Lakewood
Longmont
Northglenn
Town of Avon
Town of Basalt
Town of Carbondale
Town of Dillon
Town of Eagle
Town of Vail
The department said the listed jurisdictions will receive a formal notification of their non-compliance, and demands that the jurisdictions review and revise their polices to comply with the federal immigration laws.
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
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive
President Donald Trump owes his second electoral victory, in no small part, to voter frustration over the rising cost of living. Over the course of Joe Biden's presidency, the price of a typical American house increased by nearly 40 percent, and rents followed a similar trajectory. As of 2024, approximately 771,480 Americans lack reliable shelter—at once a new high and a new low. All of these issues are most acute in states governed by Biden's fellow Democrats. In California, the median home price is now more than 10 times the median household income. Economists generally view three to five as a healthy ratio. Polling data suggest that many key voting blocs in the 2024 presidential election were primarily motivated by the rising cost of living and by out-of-control housing costs in particular. For all the network news preoccupation with transgender athletes and campus protests, it was mortgages and rents—the single largest line items in a typical household's budget—that moved voters to toss out incumbents. On April 2, after months of empty threats and false starts, the administration finally launched its global trade war, including a 25 percent tariff on various goods from Canada and Mexico. But Canadian softwood lumber and Mexican gypsum used for drywall—the (literal) pillars of a typical American single-family home—would be exempt. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) was quick to celebrate it as a win: Canada accounts for 85 percent of all U.S. lumber imports. If the tariffs had taken effect as planned, the per-unit cost of a home might have increased by as much as $29,000. In a sector characterized by thin margins, that would have meant a lot of idle construction sites. And yet the partial rollback will offer only a temporary reprieve. Tariffs already in effect will increase the cost of a new home by $10,900 on average, according to an April 2025 estimate by the NAHB—an increase of $1,700 over its March estimate. This is on top of a 41.6 percent increase in building materials since 2020, brought on by pandemic-related supply chain disruptions. Those cost increases could hit renters hardest. After a decade of underbuilding in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, America is short roughly 5 million homes—most of them apartments. Perhaps the most robust finding in urban economics is that when vacancy rates increase, rents fall. But driving up vacancy rates requires cities to build more housing. Thanks to the YIMBY ("yes in my backyard") movement, a handful of cities—including Austin and Minneapolis—have recently had building booms that have brought prices back down. But those cities have been the exception. Meanwhile, a new wave of tariffs is about to make it a lot more expensive to build. On February 11, the administration imposed a 25 percent tariff on steel and aluminum—much of it imported from allies such as Brazil and Germany. On February 25, the administration announced an investigation into copper imports, presumably with future tariffs in the works. Depending on their country of origin, other key inputs like iron and cement are also now subject to steep tariffs. Even if you can get new housing built, the appliances needed to make all these new homes livable could soon cost hundreds of dollars more. Not only are microwaves, refrigerators, and air conditioners now more expensive to import, but tariffs on key inputs mean they are also more expensive to produce domestically. Uncertainty around tariffs has put many construction projects on pause, sending homebuilder stocks plummeting. Many small, local developers are exiting the market altogether. Following in the mold of autarkic Cuba—where international trade is strictly limited and medical doctors drive taxis for a living—your next Uber driver could very well be an out-of-work former developer. Never mind that the typical American city desperately needs them to build. If tariffs weren't bad enough, the administration's program of mass deportations could kick the housing crisis into overdrive. As things stand, the construction industry is already short 250,000 workers. This is partly a legacy of Trump's first term, in which an immigration clampdown suppressed what might have been an overdue housing construction boom. Even today, approximately 30 percent of construction workers are immigrants, many of them undocumented. In California, which is already a basket case on housing affordability, immigrants make up 41 percent of all construction labor. In Texas—one of the few bright spots for housing affordability in recent years, thanks to an ongoing construction boom—nearly 60 percent of all immigrant construction workers are undocumented. If 2024 was any indication, expecting voters to put up with all this in 2026 is a risky gamble. On some level, the Trump administration must appreciate that this is an existential threat. And yet its current proposals are out of sync with the scale of the housing crisis: Releasing more federally owned lands for housing development remains the only proposal the administration has seriously offered up to address the housing shortage. It's a fine enough idea if properly designed. But it would, at best, provide only modest relief to a handful of Western cities. Worse yet, the administration seems to have regressed to the implicitly regulatory "protect the suburbs" rhetoric that so failed Trump in the 2020 election. In February, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) chief Scott Turner announced that he would be scrapping the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) rule in order to "cut red tape" and "advance market-driven development." Except the rule was essentially just a reporting exercise that required local governments to disclose—and ideally remove—local red tape standing in the way of housing. In 2018, then–HUD Secretary Ben Carson embraced the AFFH rule as a way of nudging cities to remove regulatory barriers to housing production, as part of his brief flirtation with YIMBYism. In a move that would make Orwell blush, Carson joined Trump in a Wall Street Journal op-ed two years later announcing that they would "protect America's suburbs" and scrap the rule if reelected. Trump lost that election. It's all a very strange state of affairs—a developer in chief with evidently little interest in getting America building again. It didn't need to be this way. Over the course of the first Trump administration, housing production recovered at a steady clip, with a muted increase in housing costs as a result. The administration's deregulating zeal could have been focused on unnecessary federal mandates that increase costs. Instead, the United States is poised to experience a run-up in housing prices through 2028 that could make the pandemic-era increases like a minor blip. So what could the federal government do? From a constitutional perspective, not much. The bulk of the blame for America's housing crisis lies with local governments that maintain onerous zoning regulations and unpredictable permitting processes—and the state governments that control them. The federal government has little role to play in zoning, even if it once did a lot of the heavy lifting to promote it. But that isn't to imply there is nothing the federal government could do. In recent years, the idea of tying federal dollars to local deregulation has gained acceptance within the Beltway. Bills with unsubtle names like the "Build More Housing Near Transit Act" or the "Yes In My Backyard Act" would variously condition money for transit or other public facilities on local jurisdictions cutting back on red tape. At the same time, the federal government could turn up the tax pressure. If homeowners in cities with high costs and low production were suddenly ineligible for benefits like the mortgage interest deduction or the state and local tax credit, it would transform the local politics of housing. Homeowners who might otherwise be fully bought into government constraints on housing production could flip their script. More likely, however, the onus will fall on state and local legislators to pull out all the stops on housing production. State and local elected officials can't control tariffs or immigration policy. But they can control "make or break" factors such as zoning regulations, permitting timelines, and impact fees. According to a recent RAND study, variations in these policies explain why it's nearly twice as expensive to build housing in California as in Texas. At least some state legislators are rising to the occasion. In recent months, states as diverse as Republican-supermajority Montana and Democratic-supermajority Washington have moved forward legislation restricting the right of local governments to block housing. Even California is starting to see the light. All these bills will help to get more housing built, no matter what's happening at the federal level. The Trump administration had better hope those state-level efforts are successful—and scrap the trade and immigration policies that could plunge America into another housing crisis. The post How Trump's Tariffs and Immigration Policies Could Make Housing Even More Expensive appeared first on
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
British businessman ‘spied for Beijing and tried to smuggle weapons into China'
A British businessman tried to smuggle missiles and drones into China and attempted to silence critics of Xi Jinping, according to an indictment. John Miller is accused of spying for the Chinese Communist Party and faces extradition to the US after his arrest in Serbia. The 63-year-old allegedly referred to Xi Jinping, the Chinese president, as 'The Boss' in intercepted phone calls and conducted surveillance on an artist who created statues mocking the country's leader. In April, Mr Miller was arrested along with 43-year-old Chinese national Cui Guanghai, in Belgrade, Serbia, on the orders of the FBI and is now awaiting extradition to the US where he could be jailed for 20 years. Over two and a half years, Mr Miller and Mr Cui allegedly employed a wide range of tactics to harass, intimidate, stalk and threaten a Los Angeles resident, known only as 'the victim', who is a public critic of President Xi. 'As alleged, the defendants targeted a US resident for exercising his constitutional right to free speech and conspired to traffic sensitive American military technology to the Chinese regime,' said Todd Blanche, the US deputy attorney Miller is a long-time resident of the US, but also owns a £1.5 million home in Tunbridge Wells in Kent. Companies House records show Mr Miller has held roles in at least five UK companies, including TEFL Jobs China Ltd, which seemed to facilitate English language teaching jobs, but is now dissolved. A few months before the case began in June 2023, Mr Miller went to China where he met with Chinese government officials in Beijing and Liaoning, a province in north-east China that borders North Korea. He also met someone who works for the governor of Liaoning. During the trip, Mr Cui reportedly introduced Mr Miller to two people, who Mr Miller later referred to as 'big mother------s.' Upon his return, he reportedly boasted that 'the trip couldn't have gone better'. The first incident referred to in the indictment occurred shortly after he returned. In October 2023, Mr Miller and Mr Cui approached two individuals who, unbeknownst to them, were working for the FBI. They enlisted the undercover agents to stop 'the victim' from protesting against Xi's appearance at the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit the following month. Mr Miller and Mr Cui allegedly installed tracking devices on 'the victim's' car and paid the undercover agents to slash their tires. Mr Miller and Mr Cui also devised a complex plan to destroy a set of statues created by 'the victim'. These depicted President Xi and his wife bare-chested, kneeling with their hands tied behind their backs, and were potentially going to be displayed at a protest. The 'victim' had previously displayed the statues in Times Square electronic billboards and broadcast the display on X, according to court documents. Initially, Mr Miller had wanted to steal the statues and 'remove the heads' as evidence, but later decided to pay the undercover FBI agents to 'smash up' them up. In 2025, Mr Miller paid the agents $36,500 (£27,100) to convince 'the victim' to desist from showcasing the new statues at an upcoming protest, after 'the victim' had displayed the statues on a 24-hour live feed online. Beyond the intimidation schemes, Mr Miller also allegedly tried to purchase millions of pounds worth of military equipment on behalf of the Chinese military. Mr Miller reportedly tried to buy a £37,000 Stinger portable missile launcher, two military drones valued at £148,000, a £668,000 AGM-88E anti-radiation missile system and a £1.5 million air-defence radar system. He also allegedly tried to procure a cryptographic device, which is used for secure communication of classified and sensitive information. At one point, the Briton suggested that the device be smuggled from the US to China by hiding it inside a food blender or a motor starter, having shipped it first via DHL or FedEx to Hong Kong, according to court documents. Several times in Mr Miller's conversations, he mentions a 'boss' or at times a 'big boss' that seems to be the one giving orders. According to the special FBI agent who submitted the affidavit, Mr Miller's use of the phrase 'boss' 'refer[s] to President Xi' and 'demonstrates [Miller's] awareness that he was acting at the direction and control of the [Chinese] government.' Mr Blanche said: 'This is a blatant assault on both our national security and our democratic values. This Justice Department will not tolerate foreign repression on US soil, nor will we allow hostile nations to infiltrate or exploit our defence systems. 'We will act decisively to expose and dismantle these threats wherever they emerge.' Bill Essayli, attorney for the Central District of California, said: 'The indictment alleges that Chinese foreign actors targeted a victim in our nation because [they] criticised the Chinese government and its president. 'My office will continue to use all legal methods available to hold accountable foreign nationals engaging in criminal activity on our soil.' Akil Davis, the assistant director in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles field office, said: 'The FBI will not tolerate transnational repression targeting those in the United States who express dissenting opinions about foreign leaders. 'Both defendants face serious stalking charges in Los Angeles and my office intends to hold them accountable for bullying a victim, a critic of the PRC [People's Republic of China], and targeting him with violence.' If convicted, Mr Miller could also face the maximum penalties of five years in prison for conspiracy, five years in prison for interstate stalking, and 10 years in prison for smuggling. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
CA track meet spotlight should have been on competition, not shaming
Finally, the charade of President Donald Trump and other politicians pretending to care about girls' sports is over with Saturday night's closing of the 2025 California Interscholastic Federation Track & Field Championships at Buchanan High's Veterans Stadium. Well, I hope it's over. I have covered the state track meet off and on since 1979 when I traveled to Berkeley to cover the event for The Bakersfield Californian. I don't recall any politician showing up and cheering for the female competitors. I was there last year, and I'm sure Fresno County Supervisors Garry Bredefeld and Nathan Magsig didn't attend a press conference to promote the girls taking part in 17 track and field finals. This year's edition of a sporting event that draws more than 1,500 boys and girls would likely have come and gone with little notice if not for Trump threatening on Tuesday to withhold federal funds for California if the state track meet included a transitioned girl from Riverside County. 'In the meantime I am ordering local authorities, if necessary, to not allow the transitioned person to compete in the State Finals,' the president posted on Truth Social. 'This is a totally ridiculous situation!!!' What is ridiculous is that the transitioned girl has followed the rules, which have allowed transitioned girls to compete at the high school level since 2013. The CIF did amend its rules for a pilot program to allow any biological girl that was displaced by a trans girl to compete at the state meet. The CIF also released a statement on Wednesday: 'A biological female student-athlete who would have earned a specific placement on the podium will also be awarded the medal for that place and the results will be reflected in the recording of the event.' The pilot program sounds a bit confusing, but blame it on the politicos who should get a gold medal for spotting a microphone and television camera. Saturday, GOP gubernatorial hopeful Steve Hilton spoke at a press conference outside Veterans Stadium where he blasted the state policy that allows trans girls to compete. All the noise – and the extra dose of media attention – is misguided. Last year, finding a place at the media table was no problem. Saturday, the area was inundated by media drawn not so much by the sport of track and field, but by a 16-year-old performer who drew the wrath of Trump. Authentic track and field supporters would show up to cheer for Giselle Fernández of Riverbank High in the 1,600-meter race. Or Khaliq Muhammad of Pittsburg High in the pole vault. Or the Herbst twins (Morgan and Makenna) from Carlsbad. Only those stuck in the Middle Ages would dare root against the trans athlete. The real attention should have been on the competitors named above and others, who transform the California state meet into the best in the nation. Fernández and Riverbank have been a perfect match for the state finals. The senior didn't match her brother Germán's 2008 state double in the 1,600 and 3,200 meters that people still talk about, but Giselle proved she deserves a shot at the title by improving her personal mark in the 1,600 by more than 10 seconds. She placed sixth Saturday in 4:43.8. Does having her brother, who still holds the state record in the 1,600 with a 4:00.9 time, help? Of course, said Giselle, who was a year old when her brother won his state titles. 'My brother has connected with many people that are now professionally running, and that's given me benefits,' said Giselle. 'I'm not finished here. I think next year I can improve even more.' Muhammad is another state competitor with a pedigree. His older sister, Jathiyah, won the girls state pole vault last year. Their father, Gary, is a pole vault coach at Pittsburg. Khaliq dominated the boys pole vault, clearing a personal-best 17-10½ and besting the meet record by half an inch. He missed a try at 18 feet, ½ inch before calling it a day. 'I was tired,' he said. 'I knew I was going to win. I had confidence in my ability to win,' said Muhammad, who credits his father for his success. 'He's been my coach for 12 years, ever since I started.' Morgan Herbst shattered the meet record in winning the girls 300-meter hurdles (39.64 seconds), while sister McKenna won the girls 800-meter race less than a quarter-second off the meet record (2:02.28). I could mention many other athletes who deserve the attention at claiming a medal on a 100-degree-plus day. That is where the focus of this state meet should have been all along.
