By Vince Phillips
Governor Jared Polis has repeatedly and explicitly denied that Colorado is a sanctuary state.
In January 2025 he said: “This narrative is false, that Colorado is in any way, shape, or form a sanctuary state. We are not.” In August 2025 his office stated: “Colorado is not a sanctuary state. … Colorado fully cooperates with federal authorities in identifying, apprehending, and prosecuting criminals — regardless of immigration status.”
In January 2025 he said: “This narrative is false, that Colorado is in any way, shape, or form a sanctuary state. We are not.” In August 2025 his office stated: “Colorado is not a sanctuary state. … Colorado fully cooperates with federal authorities in identifying, apprehending, and prosecuting criminals — regardless of immigration status.”
Attorney General/Governor Candidate Phil Weiser, U.S. Senator/Governor Candidate Michael Bennet, Secretary of State/Attorney General Candidate Jena Griswold, Chaffee County Commissioner P.T. Wood, and Salida Mayor Justin Critelli have all echoed versions of the same message: Colorado (and Chaffee County) are not sanctuary jurisdictions. They insist the state follows the law and cooperates on criminal matters.
Yet look at the actual legislation these officials support and defend. The key statutes, HB 19-1124 and SB 25-276, do not contain the word “sanctuary.” Instead, they do the following:
- Prohibit local law enforcement from honoring civil ICE detainers.
- Restrict sharing of certain personal information with federal immigration authorities for non-criminal purposes.
- Forbid the use of local resources to support federal civil immigration enforcement.
Officials can truthfully say “the word ‘sanctuary’ is not in the bill” while the practical effect of the laws is precisely what sanctuary policies achieve: limited cooperation with ICE on civil immigration matters and reduced information sharing.It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and swims like a duck…
The progressive groups that organized the April 15, 2026, immigration town hall at Salida High School, the Chaffee Immigrant Partnership Team and Ark Valley Indivisible, have actively defended and celebrated these restrictive policies. They host events to reassure immigrant communities that local agencies will limit cooperation with ICE. They push for maintaining or strengthening these limits.
Here is the inconsistency that should trouble everyone: If you support the practical outcomes these laws produce, limited cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, shielding of immigration status in many cases, and restrictions on local resources, then why cheer when Polis, Weiser, Bennet, Griswold, Wood, and Critelli insist “we are not a sanctuary state”? You cannot simultaneously applaud the effects of sanctuary-style policies and celebrate officials who deny the label. The statutes do the work you want done. The denials appear to be political cover.
This word-game approach does not serve transparency. It leaves local sheriffs and deputies in an impossible bind: they risk state penalties if they cooperate too much, and they risk public blame if they cooperate too little. The result is eroded trust on all sides and reduced public safety for everyone.
Chaffee County residents, including many moderate and liberal voters who chose the High Country for its safety and quality of life, deserve straight answers. If the policies are worth defending, defend them openly. Stop pretending the laws do not produce sanctuary-like outcomes simply because the word “sanctuary” is avoided.
Public safety should not depend on semantic games. It requires clear, consistent rules that allow meaningful cooperation on criminal matters without constant legal and political risk to the officers sworn to protect us. It is time to drop the word games and have an honest conversation about what these laws actually do, and whether Coloradans are better or worse off because of them.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 