Thread: Colorado: Immigration pact OK'd!

Immigration pact OK'd
1 million people in state must prove residency
By Mark P. Couch and Chris Frates
Denver Post Staff Writers
http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_4035126

Democratic lawmakers and Republican Gov. Bill Owens reached a deal Monday on what both sides called the toughest immigration reform package in the country.

The compromise - which ended a cantankerous five-day special session - will force 1 million people to prove their residency before collecting taxpayer-funded benefits.

It will not, however, go to voters, prompting complaints from many Republicans that their governor had abandoned their bedrock position.

"Bill Owens turned his back not just on the members of his party but on the 50,000 people who wanted to vote on (immigration reform)," said Sen. Shawn Mitchell, R-Broomfield.

Democrats, meanwhile, touted the deal.

"I think we can be proud of the work we have done," said Senate President Joan Fitz-Gerald, D-Jefferson County. "We did legislation that was tough, fair to the taxpayers, enforceable and humane."

The two parties have been at odds since the Colorado Supreme Court threw out a ballot proposal that would have asked voters to curtail services to illegal immigrants beyond those mandated by the federal government.

Republicans said their measure was stronger. Democrats said Republicans were just trying to drive Republican-minded voters to the polls and help their candidates in the election.

Owens, who said he would prefer to give voters a choice but would accept a "substantive" proposal, on Saturday had denounced the Democratic plan as too weak.

The Senate strengthened the bill Sunday by adding photo-ID requirements, multiplying the penalties for false applicants and mandating that local governments use standards "no less stringent" than the state.

On Monday, after a day of exhausting, behind-the-scenes negotiating with legislative leaders, Owens accepted the deal. Democrats agreed to restore a background-checking system used by the federal government to verify that applicants for public assistance are legal residents.

"House Bill 1023 is arguably one of the strongest measures of its kind in the country," Owens said. "In some respects, we're now able to see in both parties who's in favor of immigration reform."

The Senate voted 22-13 to pass the bill. Four Democrats joined nine Republicans in voting against the measure. The House voted 48-15 in favor of the bill. Sixteen Republicans voted yes, and three Democrats voted no.

Owens estimated that the identification process could remove as many as 50,000 illegal immigrants from the rolls of those getting public benefits. There are an estimated 250,000 illegal immigrants in Colorado's population of 4 million.
When Owens threw his support behind the amended bill, he dashed the hopes of many Republican lawmakers who wanted to force the issue onto the ballot.

Owens said Republican lawmakers discarded the proposal to add a declaration to another that lets voters decide whether to direct the attorney general to sue the federal government to enforce immigration laws. Democrats agreed to amend the bill to declare that Colorado's public policy would be to provide proof they are legal residents.

Legislative Republicans rejected that amendment as a worthless statement.

"It is a letter to Santa Claus," May said. "I can't vote for that and express very strongly that I can't be a participant in letting the citizens think they're voting for something of value when they're not."

The governor placed the blame squarely on the legislative Republicans for changing their positions throughout the day.

"I thought my party wanted to put something on the ballot," Owens said, "and I got permission to do that, and then they decided it wasn't precisely what they wanted, and so, if they don't want it on the ballot, that's fine with me."

Following Monday's negotiations, Democrats also said Owens agreed to sign House Bill 1017, which would require employers to attest that they have verified the legal status of their employees.

Both sides agreed the state would have to prove businesses showed "reckless disregard" for the law before they could be fined.

The standard was a compromise between the lower standard that businesses should know and the tougher-to-prove standard of "knowingly."

The Owens-backed House Bill 1018 was killed in committee. It would have required employers to ask prospective employees for Colorado identification. Fitz-Gerald called the bill "a stumbling block to Colorado's economic development."

The ski and agriculture industries lobbied against the bill because they depend on out-of- state workers to fill their seasonal jobs.

"I've gone to the wall for it, and I think if you talk to any of the legislators, they'll tell you that," Owens said. "I talked very specifically with every businessperson who has discussed it with me and told them I'm strongly in favor of it."

But Republican Rep. Al White, the sponsor of House Bill 1018, told his Republican colleagues that Owens was supportive of the bill until business leaders told him that the price of a house might go up by 5 percent because some homebuilders could lose illegal-immigrant labor.

"That tells me that business in Colorado is really not serious about doing away with illegal immigration in this state," White said. "And if that is the case, this whole special session is nothing but bull."
Rep. Lynn Hefley, R-Colorado Springs, said it bothered her "when businesspeople come and talk to the governor and tell him what needs to be done."

She was referring to homebuilder Larry Mizel, who talked with Owens on Sunday.

"We know, and names were named here, who came and who gives big bucks to the party. It's my party too, and I came here for us to do a job, and I'm ashamed of us," Hefley said.

So far in the 2006 election cycle, Mizel has donated $29,150 to Republican political action committees and candidates and another $25,000 to the Republican National Committee.

Denver Post staff writer Karen E. Crummy contributed to this report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Provisions of House Bill 1023
How would an applicant get public assistance?

Applicants for taxpayer-funded benefits would be required to show they are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. They would also be required to sign an affidavit attesting to their legal status.

Applicants would be required to produce one of the following:

A valid Colorado driver's license or a Colorado identification card

A U.S. military card or military dependent's identification card

A U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card

A Native American tribal document

What is the penalty?

If an applicant falsely signs an affidavit, he or she would face a misdemeanor charge of perjury in the second degree.

Each offense would carry a maximum penalty of 18 months in jail, a $5,000 fine, or both, and a minimum penalty of six months in jail, a $500 fine, or both.

What would be curtailed?

Any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, post-secondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar payment.

The bill would also ban any grant, contract, loan, professional license or commercial license provided by an agency of state or local government.

What would be exempt?

Verification would not be required for:

Emergency medical care

Short-term, emergency disaster relief

Immunizations and treatment for communicable disease

Services delivered at the local level such as alcohol and drug treatment, mental health treatment, short-term housing, crisis counseling, and soup kitchens not conditional upon income or necessary for life or safety as determined by the U.S. attorney general

Prenatal care

When would it take effect?

Aug. 1

How does the proposal differ from the citizen-sponsored ballot measure, Initiative 55?

The initiative would not have listed the services that would be barred from illegal immigrants, nor would it have specified procedures for verifying a person's immigration status. Rather, it would have directed the legislature to detail those services and procedures during the next legislative session beginning in January.

The measure would have taken effect in June 2007.

Finally, a step in the right direction!

Now let's see if it is enforced. I really hope so.

At the sametime I think it's hilarious that the Democrats are pointing at the Republicans saying they are doing things in hopes of gaining votes. As if they (the Democrats) aren't?

Why not all 250,000 illegals and only 50,000 effected if it is enforced?

Why not all 250,000 illegals and only 50,000 effected if it is enforced?

I don't understand the question.

I thought the 50,000 referred to people who can vote? And 1 million people will be forced to prove residency which would seem to encompass the 250,000 illegals?

Did I misunderstand?

Originally Posted by CC

Why not all 250,000 illegals and only 50,000 effected if it is enforced?

I was one of the pople who was presenting the petition from Defend Colorado Now. The ballot initiative was to prevent ANY illegals from receiving non-emergency services of any kind.

The darn bill that was passes restricted that to only ADULT illegals. IMO, who needs most non-emergency services - MINORS!! So, to answer your question - that says they figure 200,000 are minors.

Now that I've had my mini-hissy, I guess I should say that I'm happy we got something. But, even tho I'm a Colorado native, in this case I'm going to declare myself from Missouri - I'll believe enforcement when I see it!

By all means throw that hissy! This country's freedom of speech isn't totally gone ... yet?

The darn bill that was passes restricted that to only ADULT illegals.

Ahh, I see now. Thanks.

The darn bill that was passes restricted that to only ADULT illegals. IMO, who needs most non-emergency services - MINORS!! So, to answer your question - that says they figure 200,000 are minors.

I agree. It bothers the heck out of me too. It is better then nothing but does not get to the heart of the matter. By and large almost all these benefits go to children. Also as you say passing and enforcing are two different things. The federal government being a prime example. We need some sort of systems in place to monitor and ensure enforcement. Who was it that said "trust but verify"?

BTW Thanks for your hard work.

Originally Posted by AlturaCt

The darn bill that was passes restricted that to only ADULT illegals. IMO, who needs most non-emergency services - MINORS!! So, to answer your question - that says they figure 200,000 are minors.

I agree. It bothers the heck out of me too. It is better then nothing but does not get to the heart of the matter. By and large almost all these benefits go to children. Also as you say passing and enforcing are two different things. The federal government being a prime example. We need some sort of systems in place to monitor and ensure enforcement. Who was it that said "trust but verify"?

BTW Thanks for your hard work.

Thank you. But I reeeaaally do wish we could have gotten that initiative on the ballot. I'd bet a lot on the fact that the people of Colorado would have voted it in.

I think that's what scared everybody in our legislature. Some people, who shall remain nameless, didn't want to take the chance that it would get on the ballot in November.

I remember the "trust but verify" statement too - can't remember who said it though.

AlturaCt:

"Trust but verify" - Ronald Reagan.