Most of the impassioned arguments over illegal immigration revolve around Mexican migration, but lawyers for Colorado assert in a federal lawsuit that immigrants from terrorist nations pose the largest threat to the state.
“While most illegal immigrants are citizens of Mexico, and are unlikely to be part of terrorist organizations, in 2005, the Border Patrol apprehended approximately 165,000 illegal immigrants from countries other than Mexico,” the suit says. “Some of these were from nations commonly referred to as ‘countries of interest’ where terrorism is a known threat.”
Colorado voters in November passed Referendum K, which required the state attorney general to sue the federal government to enforce immigration laws.
The measure passed largely over concerns about the influx of Latino immigrants and the impact on jobs, the economy and social services.
The argument about the threat of terrorism was used in the lawsuit because arguments about the economic impact of illegal immigration have previously failed, said Nate Strauch, spokesman for the state attorney general’s office.
“When we looked back on lawsuits filed in the past, those states that have argued that immigration issues have an impact on health care and other issues failed every time,” he said. “We chose to take a different approach. Our nation has been invaded by terrorists. The federal government has responsibility to defend states against invasion.”
The lawsuit indicates that immigrants from countries other than Mexico present the most threat, especially since they can’t be sent back as easily as those from Mexico and often are released from detention pending further hearings.
Strauch emphasized that the state is equally concerned about Mexican illegal immigration.
The suit argues that the threat of terrorism is heightened because of the 2008 Democratic National Convention, scheduled for Denver in August.
A motion to dismiss the case was heard Thursday in U.S. District Court. Judge Lewis Babcock is expected to make a written ruling on the matter within weeks.
Similar suits filed against the government by other states have been dismissed because federal judges have determined they do not have jurisdiction over the issue.
Colorado’s lawsuit says that the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which required the federal government to increase the numbers of Border Patrol agents, investigators and detention center beds, has not been fulfilled.
In the motion to dismiss the lawsuit, lawyers for the federal government argue that the Department of Homeland Security has to make its own decisions on how to use its resources.
“Although (the act) requires DHS to increase the number of Border Patrol agents, investigators and detention center beds by a certain amount each year, that requirement is subject to the availability of appropriations for such purpose,” the motion says.
Also, the government contends that Colorado cannot sue based on the mere possibility of a terrorist attack.
“(The state) cannot allege an injury by asserting a general fear of a terrorist attack on the people of Colorado,” the motion says.
Staff writer Felisa Cardona can be reached at 303-954-1219 or fcardona@denverpost.com.
