Colorado House passes bill limiting many local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement

DENVER — The Colorado House passed Senate Bill 276 on May 2 after extended debate over whether the measure would protect residents’ civil rights or hinder law-enforcement cooperation with federal immigration officials.

The bill, carried in the House by Representative Adrienne Velasco, would curtail several forms of local and state assistance to federal immigration enforcement and add new limits on the collection and sharing of personally identifying information by state and local agencies. Supporters described the measure as a safeguard for due process and public safety; opponents warned it could jeopardize federal funding.

Proponents said the bill clarifies that state and local resources should not be used to perform federal immigration work except when explicitly required by law. “It took me over 20 years to go through the process of becoming a US citizen,” Representative Velasco said during floor remarks, urging colleagues to protect the constitutional rights that apply to everyone in Colorado. Co-sponsor Representative Briana Garcia said the language had been narrowed in response to stakeholders and legal review.

The measure includes limits on when jails may delay a defendant’s release for the purpose of an immigration detainer, extends data-privacy protections to political subdivisions, and expands who may challenge certain pleas on the grounds they were entered without adequate notice of immigration consequences. It also imposes civil penalties for intentional violations of the new privacy rules and establishes use of collected fines to fund immigration legal defense services.

Opponents said the changes risked a clash with federal authorities and could lead to lost federal grants. “This bill continues to solidify our wrongful status as being a sanctuary state,” Representative Ken Baron said on the floor, urging the House to return the bill to committee for more work. Several members urged an amendment that would automatically repeal the bill if a provision caused a loss of federal funding; that amendment failed on the floor.

Lawmakers debated whether parts of the measure would undermine cooperation needed to pursue criminal suspects or to allow federal agents to complete investigations. Supporters countered that the bill does not block cooperation where courts issue warrants or other lawful orders and that it is narrowly tailored to preserve due process and privacy.

House members approved the bill after voice votes and additional floor amendments clarifying several definitions and tightening language on data handling and facility access. The bill now returns to the Senate for consideration of the House-floor amendments or to a conference committee if the Senate seeks changes.

Discussion vs. decision: The House debate saw extended discussion about enforcement, federal funding risk, and privacy protections; the action taken on the floor was formal passage of SB 276 in its amended form.

What’s next: Because the Senate had already passed its version, the bill may go to conference if the Senate does not accept the House amendments. If the bill becomes law it will change how some state and local agencies process and share immigration-related information and how certain detainer requests are handled.

Ending note: Sponsors and critics both said they had tried to narrow the measure after months of stakeholder meetings; differences remain over implementation details and the potential fiscal and legal consequences.