Init. 100 shows potency of immigration issue

Illegal immigration, though it hasn't been in the news much lately, is always a major vote changer. This week voters in Denver -- you know, liberal Denver, that keeps sending Diana DeGette to Washington, and Pat Schroeder before that -- approved Initiative 100, which allows Denver police to seize cars driven by illegal immigrants. The margin was 54% - 46%; imagine what it jwould have been in the rest of the state (not including the People's Republic of Boulder). Below is a short analysis of some things that happened in the state legislature this past spring. How about sending this information to everyone you know? Or copying it and spreading it around? Or bringing the subject up at your next neighborhood barbecue? Or at work?

I believe that if the voters of Colorado knew these things, they would change the composition of the legislature, which last year had a large Democrat majority.

Who wants to do something about illegal immigration?

During the 2008 session of the Colorado Legislature, the following bills were introduced:

1. HCR 1013 would let citizens vote on a measure that would deny bail to persons if they are "in this country illegally" and evidence showed that they had "committed a serious felony or offense involving driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs."

2. SCR 4 would let citizens vote on a measure that would prohibit a court from accepting a plea bargain "from a defendant who is illegally present in the country if the result of the plea would be to permit the defendant to avoid removal from this country."

3. SB 74 would make it a crime for a person who is a citizen of another country to be in the state while in violation of federal immigration law.

4. SB 87 would double the number of officers in the Colorado State Patrol immigration enforcement unit from 24 to 48.

5. HB 1177 would require that a person who applies to register to vote must provide proof of citizenship and would direct county clerks not to register a person as a voter who completes a provisional ballot affidavit until the person provides proof of citizenship.

6. HB 1039 would require that the identification used for elections must contain a photograph of the eligible elector.

The sponsor of each of those six bills was a Republican. And when each of those bills was voted on in committee, every Republican voted FOR the bill, but every Democrat voted AGAINST the bill. And since the Democrats are the majority party, all those bills were killed.

Also during the 2008 session, when the legislators were discussing the 2009 budget bill (HB 1375), an amendment was offered by a Republican Representative that said that "no state funds shall be expended to provide higher education services . . . for persons who do not legally reside in the United States." All 25 Republicans in the House of Representatives voted in favor of that amendment. They were joined by six Democrats, but that was not enough to overcome the negative votes of 33 other Democrats, and the amendment was killed by a vote of 33-31.

On April 28, Democrat Governor Bill Ritter signed the state budget. In doing so, however, he vetoed three specific items that were in the budget, one of them being a provision that would deny state funds to communities that provide state services to illegal immigrants.

So here’s the original question again: Who wants to do something about illegal immigration?