A federal judge just gave Colorado the go-ahead to follow harmful sanctuary laws

The state of Colorado has always followed the beat of its own drum when it comes to law and order. The problem with that, however, is that many couldn’t stand the rhythm it produced. I know several officers who have left their posts in that state, if only because the Democratic driven state basically went against them at every turn.

And it’s not getting much better.

Per this report, a Federal judge recently dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice that had pointed out how Colorado – and its capital city of Denver – were interfering big time with immigration law enforcement.

We’ve seen other leaders do the same, but this is something that was granted by a federal judge. I cannot explain what a mess this will create.

The Department of Justice had filed the lawsuit back in May of last year,citing that the Colorado-generated sanctuary laws were a direct violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. These included four state laws and two local Denver laws, holding back resources that could’ve been used to arrest harm-inducing criminal illegal immigrants.

Judge Gordon P. Gallagher, representing the U.S. District, noted that “Colorado and Denver have the right to refuse to expand their resources to implement a federal regulatory program.”

So ICE agents and other agencies can still hold their investigations. But when it comes to getting local help? Nah, sorry, we’re busy.

For that matter, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston couldn’t help but rub our noses in the decision. “Today’s ruling makes clear that we cannot be required to use local resources to enforce federal policies.”

I’ve talked at great length in the past about how sanctuary policies act as a burden when it comes to federal agencies attempting to arrest gang members and violent illegal immigrants that want to do harm to U.S. citizens – something the official ICE website has noted time and time again. But to have a federal judge side against the Constitution in favor of sanctuary laws?

But here’s the shocking part – it’s happened before. Back in July, a judge in Illinois managed to dismiss a Trump lawsuit after they asked Chicago to cooperate with federal immigration agents. This serves as a gigantic hindrance, as local laws would restrict “local governments from sharing immigration information with federal law enforcement officials.” Sound familiar?

So this is what it’s come down to. Some cities are so afraid of the vital progress that ICE has made over the past few months (arresting thousands of dangerous criminals, including those who would sexually violate children) that they now turn to their local legal officials to keep those sanctuary laws from being broken. So they knowingly continue to defend criminals of this type, while waving off any complaints by hard-working U.S. citizens.

And something tells me future lawsuits could use these two cases as examples as to why sanctuary laws should exist. In other words, this is a “get out of jail free” card – literally – and ties the hands of the federal government while they try to do the work they’re so afraid of attempting. What’s worse, it strains the local police departments that actually don’t have a problem with what ICE is doing, and, given the opportunity, would willingly take part in.

It’s just a mess. All of it. Clearly, this judge should’ve given the Constitution more consideration, and, for that matter, taken a better look at what ICE and Donald Trump have been trying to do in the first place. It’s a matter of going after the criminals that are doing the most harm to this country. And now, with these decisions in Denver and Chicago, they’re set back several paces, creating hours more worth of work and giving these criminals a chance to slip away free.

I do hope that the Department of Justice doesn’t give up the fight and keeps pushing for the Constitutional rights that are provided for each and every U.S. citizen out there. We’re doing so well on the ICE front, and the progress needs to continue. “Sanctuary laws” be damned.

‍