The costs of Colorado’s immigration law
Re: “Pricey immigration law,” Jan. 25 news story.
The cost of implementing the immigration legislation passed last summer comes as no surprise to those of us who spent time studying this issue. We pointed out in a December 2005 report that the proposed constitutional amendment requiring identification to get state and local government services would likely have cost as much as 10 times more than it would save.
While House Bill 1023 is significantly better than the proposed amendment would have been, it still misses the mark. As we testified before the General Assembly during the special session, undocumented immigrants come to Colorado to work, not to get public benefits. They are not eligible for most services and, as your article describes, are not receiving them.
In fact, as we stated in another report, released in June 2006, undocumented immigrants pay between $159 million and $194 million in state and local taxes each year.
Unfortunately, one of the unintended consequences of this legislation is that some Coloradans – including many who are low-income, homeless or elderly – have been denied services or experienced considerable inconvenience because they cannot produce the necessary documents to prove their citizenship status.
Immigration is primarily a federal issue, and the most effective policies for addressing it must come from Congress.
Rich Jones, Director of Policy and Research, The Bell Policy Center, Denver
Don’t forget who was in Colorado first
The juxtaposition of the Jan. 30 columns of Dave Barry (“This is Miami, Señor Tancredo”) and Ed Quillen (“Pike story still unsettled”) highlights important history. Anglo-Americans were trespassing on land claimed by Spanish-speaking Americans here in Colorado 200 years ago.
There is an ancient history of Spain and Hispanic people in this area. Coronado made his Entrada in 1540. Friars Dominguez and Vélez de Escalante led a party which explored and mapped part of our state in 1776. The Adams- Onís Treaty of 1819 split modern Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming between Spain and the United States, while Texas, New Mexico, Utah, Arizona, Nevada and California remained legally a part of the Spanish Empire for another year or two. All or parts of those 10 states then became part of Mexico under the Treaty of Córdoba in 1821.
The legacy of the Mexican-American War in 1846, the inequities of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 and the founding of San Luís as Colorado’s oldest town in 1851 all establish that the original European culture of Colorado, as part of the American Southwest, is Spanish- speaking, not English-speaking.
It is appropriate to remember that, as between Europeans, los Españoles llegaron aquí primero.
Karl Kumli, Boulder
Union bill in legislature
If House Bill 1072 is signed into law, the winners will be Democratic politicians who received generous contributions from union special interests, and union bosses who will find it easier to control rank-and-file members. Those who will be marginally hurt by the bill include the remaining 4.7 million residents of Colorado.
R.B. Gifford, Aurora
Mark Paschall indicted
Re: “Ex-Jeffco treasurer indicted,” Jan. 30 news story.
When we elect people to public office who openly and loudly proclaim and promote hostility, malice and contempt for government, law and taxes, as well as governmental institutions, employees and services, why then should we be shocked and surprised when these same people whom we elected perform their duties inadequately, ineptly, abusively and corruptly?
Donald Brown, Westminster
Sports and conservation
Letter-writer Priscilla Green (Feb. 4 To the Point) wrote, “In the interest of conservation and clean air, could it be time to rethink the NASCAR obsession? Why are we lauding a sport that consumes quantities of gasoline and rubber for our viewing pleasure?” To make a fair comparison, are there any people obsessed about football? Was a major football game recently lauded? How much petroleum do you suppose that sport consumes?
Andrew D. Keller, Longmont
State and local television franchising laws
Re: “Bill could aid Qwest TV dream,” Jan. 31 business news story.
The Post’s story about Qwest’s request to repeal cable consumer protections missed some items that are key to understanding the bill’s impact on Colorado residents.
First, there is no evidence that local franchising rules inhibit Qwest or any other company from competing in the video business. Congress abolished exclusive cable franchises more than a decade ago and wrote the 1996 Telecommunications Act specifically to help them enter the video business. Indeed, the only barrier to competition is in Qwest’s corporate boardroom, not the public square.
Second, any price cuts consumers can expect from the fourth or fifth competitor in the video business are slim to none.
In truth, Qwest simply refuses to play by the rules by which thousands of small companies have abided and to agree to serve everyone in our footprint, not just the wealthy or privileged. These rules are critical to protecting consumers against discrimination by giant telecom giants setting their sights on only the most lucrative Colorado customers.
Michael W. Drake, President, Milestone Communications, Inc., Monument
…
On its website, Qwest claims that “we embrace diversity in all aspects of the business. We meet competitive challenges by understanding and valuing all existing and potential customers … .”
If that’s true, why is Qwest promoting a cable franchising bill that would allow it to refuse to serve certain neighborhoods? Is that Qwest’s idea of valuing all existing and potential customers?
Qwest’s bill would turn back the clock to a time when industries were allowed to redline, excluding minority neighborhoods from services offered to others. It appears that Qwest’s diversity promises are just empty rhetoric.
Lisanne N. Leasure, Denver
…
During the past week, there has been significant discourse on what has become known as the Qwest bill. I am completely supportive of increased competition in every facet of our lives.
In my household, we are very competitive, and we enjoy playing chess. It doesn’t matter who takes what color, as long as I’m the only one to have a queen.
In fact, I think that the legislature would do well to expand the bill. Perhaps they could pass legislation allowing the Broncos to gain first downs after only 7 yards. Or maybe they could make it illegal for any visiting team to catch a ball in Coors Field once it travels halfway into the outfield.
Granted, some anti-competitive pundits would say that such decisions should be made by the NFL or Major League Baseball, but if the state government can usurp the power of local authorities, why not professional sports?
H.T. Hatch, Centennial
To send a letter
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 101 W. Colfax Ave., Suite 600, Denver, 80202
Fax: 303-954-1502
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.
To reach us by phone: 303-954-1331
Colorado Voices
Like to write and have something to say? Then we invite you to apply for Colorado Voices, a column-writing program we created in 1999 as a forum for contributors from across the region.
Send us two sample columns, 600 to 700 words each, along with a cover letter describing your background, your interest in Voices and whatever else you think we need to know.
Deadline for entries is 5 p.m. on Tuesday, Feb. 20. Send them to us by e-mail at voices@denverpost.com, or by mail to Mary Idler, Denver Post Editorial Page, 101 W. Colfax, Suite 600, Denver 80202. Provide your address, phone numbers and e-mail address.
Typically, our Voices write every other week for three months. Once published, you’ll get a modest honorarium, impressive clips and bragging rights.
