Bill Ritter and immigration
Re: “Ritter helped immigrants stay; Deportations avoided via DA’s plea deals,” Oct. 1 news story.
I feel compelled to clarify the role of the Denver District Attorney’s Office in prosecuting legal and immigrant immigrants.
Under Bill Ritter’s leadership from 1993 to 2005, the DA’s office handled more than 200,000 cases. During the specific timeframe in question (1998-2004), his office handled 38,000 cases. Congressman Bob Beauprez’s attempt to exploit 150 cases amounts to less than one-half of 1 percent. And he has attempted to confuse voters by mixing legal immigrants with illegal immigrants.
Prosecutors use the tools available to them. Here we are talking about state criminal statutes. Does criminal trespassing on agricultural land sound silly in an urban city like Denver? Yes, of course. But the charge is a felony, and prosecutors used it to obtain a serious mark on a defendant’s record, particularly in drug-use cases against legal immigrants where evidentiary problems often existed.
And let us not forget that illegal immigrants are always subject to deportation. The real travesty is that the federal government, time and again, failed to answer the call from the Denver District Attorney’s Office to pick up and deport illegal immigrant felons. And that failure sits squarely on the shoulders of Congressman Beauprez, who for four years served in Congress and did nothing to help local and federal law enforcement agencies deal with this issue. For that, he needs to be held accountable.
Norm Early, Denver
The writer was Denver district attorney from 1983 to 1993, and chief deputy DA for 10 years before that.
…
Since when did The Post become a campaign tool for Bob Beauprez? This front-page article a month before the election reeks of a blatant effort to support Beauprez by playing the immigration issue that Republicans are trying to use to gain votes this fall. The article only puts the matter in perspective later on by stating the immigrant cases represented less than 1 percent of the cases at the time, and that then-District Attorney Bill Ritter was wisely using limited resources to prosecute more violent and serious offenses.
And what does any of this have to do with Ritter’s ability to be governor of Colorado?
Dave Mehan, Denver
…
While most of us have become accustomed to the flood of propaganda that comes every election season, it is very disappointing to see The Denver Post add to it with an attack ad disguised as journalism.
The Post seems more intent on making a political point than reporting facts. Consider this key statement from the first sentence of the article: “Bill Ritter approved plea bargains that prevented the deportation of illegal and legal immigrants.” Not only is this statement inaccurate, it’s impossible. Illegal immigrants are deportable because they are in the U.S. illegally. A criminal conviction does not change the fact that they are deportable. Thus, there is no way that a plea bargain could “prevent” such individuals from being deported.
The failure to deport these individuals is a failure of the federal government. State officials have no ability to deport people, nor can they force the federal government to deport people.
Paul Buono, Denver
…
Editorializing belongs on the editorial page. Your headline on this article is misleading, to say the least. Readers have to get to the second page of the article to discover the details, that Bill Ritter was busy prosecuting the most severe cases and depending on the federal government to deport minor criminals. Your headline and the first half of the article are straight out of Bob Beauprez’s campaign manual. You’ve lost credibility as a reliable source of information.
Sherry Law, Denver
Post’s endorsement of Bill Ritter for governor
Re: “Bill Ritter: The best choice for Colorado,” Oct. 1 editorial endorsement.
Does anyone at your shop read your own newspaper? The front-page headline is “Ritter helped immigrants stay” and the story details the illegal and legal immigrants arrested for felonies and plea-bargained (under district attorney Bill Ritter) to unrelated crimes that allowed them to stay in the United States and continue to commit felonies. Then in the Perspective section, The Post not only endorses Ritter, but so does the Rocky Mountain News.
How can the editorial staffs of two independent (ho, ho, ho) newspapers in good conscience endorse a candidate for governor who should apparently have been removed from office for malfeasance as district attorney? Is this the level of moral turpitude that we have reached now in Colorado that we should reward politicians who clearly perform poorly (maybe even illegally) while in one office with even higher office?
Chaun Cadwell, Parker
…
I strongly disagree with your endorsement of Bill Ritter for governor. To put it bluntly, Ritter has no guts. He allowed Denver Police Officer James Turney to walk away from a potential manslaughter charge after the senseless killing of a 15-year-old boy. Four cops and a kitchen knife, how stupid was that? His next dive for cover was when Officer Ranjan Ford shot an unarmed invalid in bed because he viewed a soda can as a weapon. Ritter declined to take any action on that one also.
Ed Saltzman, Grand Lake
…
I was glad to see in The Post’s endorsement of Bill Ritter for governor that “he believes the state must better serve agriculture and ranching interests.” Apparently, they have quite a problem with agricultural trespassing. With much foresight, Ritter has already taken action against more than 150 individuals who have posed this type of threat to agriculture in our state.
David Kleim, Aurora
Editor’s note: As Denver district attorney, Ritter allowed a number of legal and illegal immigrants plea-bargain their crimes down to agricultural trespass.
Endorsement policies
Re: “Endorsing early and often,” Oct. 1 Jonathan Wolman column.
Thanks to Jonathan Wolman for his informative column about The Denver Post’s policy regarding endorsements of political candidates.
I have a suggestion for an even more interesting (albeit politically controversial) column for the future. Why don’t you publish a report card for candidates that you endorsed in the past election cycle? Such a report may allow the readers to answer two questions for themselves. First, given your paper’s past track record, how much credibility should be lent to this paper on its current endorsements? Second, to the extent that you stand behind your previous endorsements (which you may or may not make clear in the report), how well do your values as a newspaper align with those of each of your readers?
I think the vast majority of your readers would find this type of report card fascinating for no other reason than one: To what degree are you currently prepared to defend your paper’s decision to endorse George W. Bush for president of the United States in the 2004 election? Fortunately or unfortunately, that may be the one issue that defines how all of your paper’s other endorsements are viewed by your readers.
Eric Unger, Thornton
In defense of PeaceJam
Re: “PeaceJam flunks reality test,” Oct. 1 John Andrews column.
John Andrews would have this country’s teens training to fight and to die rather than gathering together with their peers from around the world and praying for peace. He says that PeaceJam’s premise is “fatally flawed” and that it “seduces impressionable teens from the tough realism needed to defend humane values in a dangerous world, imperiling peace and inviting war.”
Clearly, Andrews has lost his moral compass. In one breath, he disdains our children’s focus on peace and love, yet, in the next, he wants to teach them to fight and to kill to defend humane values. One wonders exactly which humane values Andrews wants to protect by throwing out God’s playbook, replacing it with a page borrowed from Team al-Qaeda, and turning our children into killing machines. Talk about imperiling peace and inviting war!
Indeed, it will be time to pack it in when this country rips the spoonful of Golden Rule idealism from our children’s mouths to force-feed them from Andrews’ jar of jaded, tough realism.
Tom Cladis, Denver
…
John Andrews implies that PeaceJam is a waste of time and a waste of mind for teens. I very much disagree. PeaceJam, in my eyes, is a way for teens to express their disagreement with the violent, sometimes savage ways of humankind. I think that all adults should encourage teens’ wanting for peace and nonviolence.
Also, I was infuriated by Mr. Andrews’ insulting of Rose Green and her parents. I am the sister of Rose Green, and she is a great sister, student and all-around person. I would like readers to think about this part of Rose’s opinion: “All religions practice tolerance, love, peace, nonviolence, and self-discipline. We must accept all religions and simply try and focus on those elements instead of anger and extremism. America is incredibly guarded from reality. Bombs do not secure a country, people do.” Rose’s opinion is completely reasonable.
Also, further angering me, Rose’s (and my) parents were called irresponsible for not telling my sister not to agree with PeaceJam, not to want peace and nonviolence, not to express ourselves, and to sit back and let people start wars over idiotic lies and nonsense accusations, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people.
Mr. Andrews has a right to his opinion, but I disagree with the idea that to rally for peace is wrong. I disagree and always will, for peace is a trait that should be encouraged in every person.
Jesse Aisha Simone Rosechild, 11, Aurora
Diversion of Fraser River
Re: “Fighting for the Fraser,” Oct. 1 Perspective article.
Water and the West made headlines once again this past Sunday. This time, Denver Water is attempting to divert water from an already starved river on the other side of the Continental Divide. As a water conservationist and private rafter who has had the occasion to raft this river only once due to its consistently dismal water flows, I applaud Colorado Voices columnist Gretchen Bergen’s words on the topic.
If you look at any map of the Fraser’s drainage, you can clearly see the many water diversions that devastate this river. It is disheartening to see that the river’s ecosystem is failing because humans have already altered it drastically – all so folks can water their lush, green lawns on the Front Range. And now Denver Water wants more?
There is a simple solution to our so- called future water “needs”: conservation. If everyone would plant Colorado’s beautiful native flora and other Xeriscaping plants in lieu of water- thirsty landscaping, there would be no worry to continue the search for more water.
Do you want green grass for your kids to play on? Then go to your local park, or plant one of the drought-tolerant varieties of grass.
I feel that Denver Water is not doing anyone who lives in this climate any justice by continuously charging us such low water rates. I encourage a water rate increase so that people would take this issue of water conservation seriously. We must adjust to our climate in order to preserve it rather than alter our surroundings for egocentric motives.
Kristyn Econome, Denver
Editor’s note: Denver Water changed its rate structure late last month to charge heavy users higher rates.
TO REACH OPINION EDITORS
Phone: 303-820-1331; Fax: 303-820-1502; E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
Archives: Missed your favorite columnist or the latest Mike Keefe cartoon? Archives available at The Denver Post Online (www.denverpost.com)
