If only navigating public policy were like a “choose your own adventure” novel where the right choices lead inexorably to a successful and satisfying ending. In real life, there are no solutions, only imperfect options, difficult trade-offs, and partial remedies. To complicate matters, sometimes the most ethical choice is the least practical.
The current migrant crisis is one such case. Denver has made the right decision and born the cost while other Front Range cities have shut their doors.
In addition to Ukrainians and Afghans who come to our shores by plane, a record number of migrants from Venezuela, Central America, the Caribbean, and other places are coming daily by land.
Thanks to dysfunction at the border — too few judges, too loose a standard for qualifying for asylum, and too little room in detention centers — most migrants at the southern border are allowed to enter the country with the expectation they will attend a court hearing in the future. According to Department of Justice data, more than half of those released into the country attend their hearing.
Some of these migrants meet the definition of asylee; they have suffered harm because of their race, religion, political affiliations, or other distinctions and are likely to be abused or killed if they return. In 2022, less than a third of Venezuelan applicants were granted asylum, a higher percentage than other Latin American applicants. This suggests a majority of asylum seekers are fleeing poverty rather than persecution.
Since the socialist takeover, life in Venezuela has descended into poverty and oppression. Middle-class workers like nurses and teachers make $3 a month. Critics of the government are jailed and tortured. People disappear. More than 7 million Venezuelans have left the country, the vast majority of which, 86%, are living in Latin America and the Caribbean. Colombia alone has absorbed 2 million fleeing Venezuelans.
When migrants arrive, they seek available work. In the U.S., asylum seekers may apply for work permits but must wait six months. Those who have received Temporary Protected Status or humanitarian parole can work sooner. In the interim, migrants must rely on relatives, nonprofits, and communities to meet their daily needs.
The City of Denver recently spent $42 million to provide support for some 38,000 migrants. Presently, 4,000 migrants are housed in temporary shelters. Although the city has received $3.5 million from the state, most of the funding has come from Denver’s budget. Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has asked city departments to cut back and has announced cuts to Parks and Recreation and Denver Motor Vehicle offices. Meanwhile, UCHealth has spent $17 million over the past three months to treat migrant patients. Denver Public Schools have absorbed the cost of enrolling 3,000 new students from migrant families.
By contrast, Colorado Springs and Lakewood have essentially closed their doors to migrants. The Colorado Springs City Council passed a resolution stating the city is not a sanctuary city and will not spend public funds to support illegal immigrants. Officials also urged nonprofits not to help migrants after learning the Colorado Springs Salvation Amy had helped 24 migrant families.
The Lakewood City Council hosted a packed meeting of denizens concerned about false rumors the city was considering becoming a sanctuary city and offering shelter to migrants. City council members have assured them they have no intention.
A “sanctuary city” refers to a jurisdiction that has chosen to limit police cooperation with federal law enforcement. Denver, Aurora and Boulder all limit such cooperation, but only Boulder has officially adopted the label. The state also limits police cooperation and provides immigrants here without legal status access to instate tuition, financial aid, driver’s licenses, housing assistance, and occupational licenses. Colorado could be considered a sanctuary state.
Could these policies encourage settlement of migrants with asylum claims awaiting adjudication or illegal immigrants? That’s worth discussing, but changing the laws now will not help the migrants who need a place to sleep and a bite to eat.
Does Congress need to address the deficiencies at the border in a bipartisan way? Certainly, and in ordinary times it might be possible. This is an election year.
Are people frustrated by migrants wading into traffic with squeegees and worried about the impact of immigration on hospitals, schools, and city budgets? Understandably, yes. There are no good solutions.
In this between-a-rock-and-a-hard-place situation, however, Denver (and the Colorado Springs Salvation Army) have nonetheless made the best choice. They fed the hungry, bandaged their wounds, taught their children, and gave them a place to rest their heads.
Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
