Colorado DA Sounds Alarm on Venezuelan Gangs and Sanctuary Policies
A heated debate is unfolding in Colorado over the presence and impact of Venezuelan gangs, particularly the notorious Tren de Aragua, and the state’s controversial sanctuary policies that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. At the center of the discussion is Colorado’s 23rd Judicial District Attorney George Brauchler, who is forcefully arguing that dismissing the severity of the situation is a dangerous "ignorance-is-bliss" approach to the law.
Brauchler has criticized what he sees as two extreme and unproductive reactions to the issue. On one side, he claims there are those who exaggerate the situation, suggesting that Venezuelan gangs have completely "taken over the city." On the other side, he points to segments of the mainstream media, particularly on the far left, who he says deny the existence of a Venezuelan criminal element altogether, even dismissing the reality of Venezuela as a country and Venezuelans as a people.
Brauchler vehemently refutes both extremes. He asserts that Venezuelan gangs, specifically Tren de Aragua, have indeed established a presence and exert control over certain areas, citing the takeover of two or three apartment complexes as concrete evidence. He stresses that downplaying or denying this reality is not only inaccurate but also detrimental to public safety. "To suggest that this isn’t an issue is fake. It is a giant issue. It is a growing issue," he warned, emphasizing the need for a realistic and proactive approach.
The issue has gained significant attention due to Colorado’s sanctuary laws, which have been criticized for hindering the ability of local jurisdictions to collaborate with federal immigration agencies. This restriction on cooperation has become a major point of contention, particularly in light of reports about the growing influence of Tren de Aragua in cities like Aurora.
The debate reached a boiling point during a recent House Oversight Committee hearing, where Denver Mayor Mike Johnston faced intense questioning regarding the city’s policies on immigration enforcement and its handling of the Tren de Aragua problem. Republican Colorado Representative Gabe Evans went as far as to claim that Denver’s weak immigration laws have made the city an attractive target for the gang, essentially designating it as their American headquarters.
DA Brauchler suggests that Mayor Johnston’s responses during the hearing were primarily a diversionary tactic, aimed at shifting the focus away from the central question of whether cities and states should actively obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Brauchler firmly believes the answer to this question is a resounding "no." He argues that local and state governments should not create barriers that protect individuals who are in the country illegally from federal law enforcement.
Despite this seemingly obvious conclusion, Brauchler claims that Colorado’s Democratic-controlled government has doubled down on sanctuary policies in recent years. He notes that since 2018, when Democrats gained control of both the state legislature and the governorship, there has been a concerted effort to transform Colorado into a sanctuary state.
One specific example Brauchler highlights is the enactment of laws that designate courthouses as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, effectively prohibiting the enforcement of immigration laws within those facilities. He further states that legislation is currently being considered to extend this protection to the areas surrounding courthouses, preventing immigration enforcement on the way to and from legal proceedings.
Brauchler finds these policies deeply troubling and illogical. He poses a series of rhetorical questions, asking if anyone can imagine a city or state preventing local law enforcement from communicating with the FBI about fugitives, the IRS about tax evaders, or the DEA about drug dealers. He argues that it is only in the context of illegal immigration that such barriers to law enforcement are being erected, hindering the ability of authorities to maintain public safety.
Brauchler remains resolute in his commitment to challenge these policies and prioritize the safety of Colorado residents. His message to undocumented immigrants is clear: either legalize your status or, if that is not possible or desired, abide by the law. He warns that those who violate the law should not expect him to provide refuge or protection, especially if their presence in the state is already illegal.
Brauchler’s strong stance reflects a growing concern among some officials and residents about the potential consequences of sanctuary policies and the increasing presence of transnational criminal organizations in the state. The debate is likely to continue as Colorado grapples with the complex issues of immigration, law enforcement, and public safety, with Brauchler serving as a vocal advocate for a more stringent and cooperative approach. The implications of this debate extend beyond Colorado, as other states and cities grapple with similar challenges related to immigration and the enforcement of federal laws. The case highlights the ongoing tension between local and federal authority, and the often-conflicting values of sanctuary and security.
