January 8, 2025 • 16 mins
KYLE CLARK PLAYS CUTE WITH IMMIGRATION LAW AND GABE EVANS I guess I should be happy that Kyle Clark is going after a male Republican this time. Clark decided to try to corner Gave Evans on how he would vote on a bill that hasn't been filed by anyone yet that would strip so-called "sanctuary cities" of their federal funding. When Evans didn't answer the question to Clark's satisfaction Clark used that to bludgeon the brand new Congressman on his show. Fine, he has the right to ask whatever he wants. My issue is the way he then tried to downplay what Colorado actually DOES in practice when it comes to immigration law.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I am pleased is Punch to welcome newly minted Congressman
Gabe Evans to the show. I was going to say,
back to the show, but you were candidate Evans last time,
and now you're Congressman Evans. How does that still give
you a little tingle when somebody says, Congressman Evans, how
are you today?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Mandy? First of all, it's great to be back with
you on the show. And yeah, you know, parts of
this are still surreal. Every time I step outside my
office and I think to myself, my goodness, I have
an office in the Longworth House Office Building, a room
twelve twenty nine, if you guys are ever in the
DC area and want to stop by, And I look
up at the national Capital and I think to myself,
just how incredibly honored I am to be the voice
(00:39):
of Colorado's eighth congressional district. And you know, towards that end,
just working as hard as I can to fulfill those
things that are so critically important to the district, like
public safety, like securing the border, like getting the cost
of living under control.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Well, and then of course you know you're in politics
because Kyle Clark comes knocking Hugh, and I just want
to get your version of events of what happened in
that interview.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
And you, guys, this is typical of me.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Whenever I try to be super snarky and imply that
someone else should make an apology, I make a mistake.
I sent on my blog today that legislation had not
been filed.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Oh no, I don't know if it has or not.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Has legislation been filed about withholding federal funds for I
thought I made mistake, but now I realized I'd made
two mistakes, which makes it even better. No, there hasn't
been a bill filed to withhold money from sanctuary cities
or states.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Has there? Do you know? Now?
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So I'll tell you exactly what happened. One of the
first things that a new Congress, so you know, we
are now in the one hundred and nineteenth Congress, and
so one of the first things that a new Congress
has to do is basically packaged, to excuse me past,
the rules package that will govern how we do business
for the next two years. And so one of the
things that can be included in that rules package is
(01:56):
a directive to the committee or committees having jurisdiction over
a particular issue to work on something. And so one
of the things that was in the rules package that
was passed on Friday, again, like the after electing a speaker,
it's the very next order of business because without those rules,
the House can't function for the next few years. So
(02:17):
one of the things that was in that rules package
said to the committees having jurisdiction that they need to
work to provide a bill similar to House Resolution fifty
seven to seventeen from the one hundred and eighteenth Congress,
which is that that resolution is called the No Bailout
(02:39):
for Sanctuary Cities Act, which passed the House actually with
bipartisan support last year, and so the bill hasn't been written.
There's been similar bills in previous Congresses that have been
discussed and have had bipartisan support. But now for the
one hundred and nineteenth Congress, all this is saying, hey,
these issues that we were working on a couple of
(03:00):
years ago, we need to bring them back and continue
to work on them in order to ensure that we
are not handing out American taxpayer dollars to folks that
are illegally present in the country. And we have to
be very specific with this. The only federal funds that
are in discussion right now are federal funds that might
go to illegal immigrants. We're not talking about any other
federal funding. It is only federal dollars two or that
(03:23):
might be going to illegal immigrants that are in question here.
And so really the two things, the two takeaways from
this are no, there is no bill. The bill hasn't
been written. This as merely a directive to the committees
having jurisdiction to continue to work on something similar to
last Congress's bill, which again passed with bipartisan support, saying
that American taxpayer dollars should go only to Americans and
(03:47):
to law abiding folks.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Well, I mean, you know the situation here in Denver.
They've spent tens of millions of dollars on illegal immigrants
from Venezuela. We're seeing some negative impacts from that, definitely
with crime a and it's just been a very difficult situation.
So Kyle Clerk really tried to pin you down by
the way I think Denver brought all that on themselves.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
To be clear, I.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Realized that's a kind of sympathetic I have no sympathy.
I have sympathy that people are being used as pawns,
but ultimately Denver has created this situation for themselves. And
Kyle was trying to get you to say that you
either would vote for or would not vote for legislation
that stripped Denver of federal dollars. But the explanation you
just gave seems that they would be things like the
(04:31):
last I looked at the bill from last year's Congress
and I just realized it was last year's Congress and
they were stripping economic development dollars from sanctuary cities because ultimately,
all money is fungible, right, I mean, you could say
we're not going to give you any money that's going
to go to illegal immigrants. But they've been using ARPA
dollars for this stuff. They've they've been using, you know,
dollars that were supposed to be for COVID and and
(04:53):
now they're housing illegal immigrants without money. So it's it's
is it just performative or there is a real teeth
there in your.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
In your view, Well, again, for the bill that's developed
in the one hundred and nineteenth, obviously that hasn't been
written yet, and so that's going to be the conversation,
and so it'll probably be written a little bit differently
given that in the one hundred and eighteenth, yes, the
Republicans controlled the House, but you still had a Democrat
Senate and a Democrat president that you had to get
any legislation by. Whereas this year, with you know, the
(05:22):
voters being sick and tired of the failed policies of
the left, we now have an opportunity with unified control
to actually make some some substantive change to make folks
lives better in the area of public safety, in the
area of border security, and again in the area of
good stewardship of American taxpayer dollars not being used to
(05:42):
fund illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. You know. But all
of that is at this point again just considerations because
the bill hasn't been written yet. Right on. One other
thing that I do want to mention, because you've mentioned
Denver a couple of times, you know, and this came
up a little bit. The conversation that you're referencing with
(06:02):
Kyle is this is actually state law in Colorado, and
there's three relevant state laws here, and there's a quick
sequence to how these happened. An ice immigration detainers where
Immigration and Customs says, hey, would that person, you know, whoever,
that illegal immigrant that they're interested in that we need
that person. We don't know where they are, but we
need that person. So they can put what's called a detainer.
(06:25):
If law enforcement contacts that information, Hey contacts that person,
Hey hold them for us. In twenty nineteen, Colorado passed
a state law. So this doesn't apply just in Denver,
this applies across the state of Colorado. Passed the state
law that said Colorado will not honor ICE immigration detainers.
So local law enforcement contacts somebody that's wanted by ICE
(06:47):
for drug trafficking, all sorts of other stuff, Colorado law
enforcement cannot honor that ICE immigration detainer. Certain law enforcement
agencies found a work around to that, so in twenty
twenty one, the State of Colorado and doubled down with
Senate built twenty one point thirty one doubled down and
said state and local law enforcement. State and local governments
(07:07):
are not allowed to share any personal identifying information for
the purposes of anything related to immigration with ICE. So
what that means is it is against the law for
Aurora PD to pick up the phone and call Immigration
and customs and say we have a gang of illegals
here that are causing problems in apartments. That phone call
(07:27):
is illegal for Aurora PD if it transmits any sort
of personal identifying information for the purposes of any sort
of immigration enforcement. And so the result of that is
that the state of Colorado has sanctuary state policies that
are attracting people. It's why we saw one of the
highest influxes in the nation of illegal immigrants. And with
that comes cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and other gangs that
(07:50):
are specifically selecting Colorado to be their regional or their
national headquarters because they know that state and local law
enforcement can't talk to ICE to get them out of
our communities.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
And people may not know this, but Denver has long
been acrossroads for drugs in the United States coming out
of Mexico.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
This is a very what's sort I'm looking for.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
It's a commonplace where drug dealers will run things through
Denver because seventy goes east and west. You know, you
can continue on from here to reach a lot of
places pretty quickly in the grand scheme of things.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
So we've just added another layer to.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
That, or rather taken a layer of law enforcement ability away.
Now I have to ask you, when you talk to
Kyle about this, did you share these things with him?
Because he certainly gave the impression to his viewers that
you were wrong on the level of cooperation that was
available between law enforcement of Colorado and ICE.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Well, I mean, I was a cop for a little
over ten years. I don't think he was. And I
can tell you what the law and the day to
day actual practical operating procedures are boots on the ground
in Colorado, and it's that you cannot call ICE to
share personally identify buying information if it's anything that could
be related to immigration. Again, anybody who's listening that doubts
me on this, go google it. You can look it up.
(09:07):
Colorado Senate Bill twenty one, so that means it was
passed in twenty twenty one. SB twenty one DASH one
thirty one, one hundred and thirty first Senate bill introduced
in Colorado in the year twenty twenty one. Senate Bill
twenty one one thirty one is the bill in question
here that says you can't show that information with ICE
for immigration related purposes. If you do, then bad sanctions happen.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
That's what I was going to ask.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Somebody on the text line said, ask him what the
retribution to the city of Aurora will be if they
violated that law. Because the ACLU is already making noises
that the Americans Civil Liberties Union is making noise that
the illegal immigrants were being treated unfairly as they were
committing their crimes.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
I mean, it's mind blowing to me.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
But what happens to Aurora if it is found that
they did call immigration because these guys are now in
immigration custody.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Yeah, potentially one of the sanctions is that you get
cut off the law enforcement agency gets cut off from
Colorado Department of Motor Vehicle Data.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
I wait, so wait a minute.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Okay, So Colorado is supposed to be immune from any
sort of repercussions from the federal government, but they themselves
impose repercussions on people who do not do what they
want them to do.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Absolutely, And again that goes back to what we were
talking about in Colorado. Unfortunately, state and local law enforcement
have been handcuffed by state law from being able to
work with federal immigration authorities to get violent criminals, to
get folks like Trendy arguas to get folks like cartels
out of our communities. And the result of that, I mean,
(10:45):
there was some news I don't know, maybe a month
or two ago, where information came to light that said
Trendy Argua was looking at Denver, Colorado specifically because of
these soft on crime laws and specifically because state and
local law enforcement can't work with the federal authorities. Trindy
Arguau was looking to set up their national headquarters in
(11:06):
Colorado because of these laws. This is why we are,
unfortunately the third most dangerous state in the nation. I mean,
among many other reasons, but this is a significant contributing factor,
just being the third most dangerous states in the country
right now, more dangerous than California and New York State, Illinois, Oregon, Washington.
Denver's homicide rate is higher than San Francisco's homicide grade
(11:27):
by a significant percentage.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
So let me ask you this, Congressman, and I'm not
trying to put you into agatcha situation, but what would
a piece of legislation in any way shape or for
dinging sanctuary cities or states?
Speaker 3 (11:41):
What could you support in that way?
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Because I got to tell you, I think that nothing
will change until the federal government does something punitive two
states and cities like Denver and Colorado, because I don't
want to live in a sanctuary state. I don't want
to live in a place that flouts one of the
true things that is the purview of the federal government,
and that is immigration.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
We should not be involved in.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
This at all, you know, we we should simply be
following the law and going about our lives. But now
we have people who are flouting the law. So there
is there any version of this that you think you
could support?
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Well, again, I you know, without having a bill written,
you know, it's difficult to give any sort of concrete
answer there. But I think that most folks. So, you know,
we saw this in a pretty clear mandate by the
American people and how they voted this last election cycle.
We saw that they believe that American taxpayer dollars should
go to people who are following the law and to
(12:42):
American citizens. We should not be subsidizing illegal immigrants who
are living off of the American taxpayer. And so finding
you know, the details and the very you know, well
thought out policies to actually achieve that end is why
you know, in this rules package, we had a broad
directive to continue to look at this issue because that's
(13:04):
you know, that's the work that we have to roll
up our sleeves and do over the next two years
to figure out how do we make sure that American
taxpayer dollars are going to people who are law biding
and who are American citizens.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
And Gabe, lets anybody get the vapors about the federal
government flexing its financial muscles to force states to acquiesce
to what they were doing. They've done this since the
beginning of time. Remember when the speed limit was forced
upon US fifty five miles per hour fifty five arrive alive,
drive fifty five, and they blackmailed states with transportation dollars
(13:33):
withholding them if they did not acquiesce and change their
speed limits. So for anybody who wants to pretend like,
you know, the government is the pure as the driven
snow on issues like this, they have forever used the power.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Of the purse to get their way.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
And I think that in this particular measure, I support
that because those are my tax dollars.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
I'm getting double dinged.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
You know, Colorado has been using ARBA dollars to pay
for illegal immigrants. I am my state tax dollars are
going to support this. It's like it's enough, It's enough already.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
I feel a lot of.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Compassion for the people who want to come here, but
I feel more compassion for the people that are just
barely getting by, who are getting crushed by inflation, and
I'd love to see them get a break. And I
don't see that as long as government is spending like maniacs.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Congressman, I'll let you have the last word on it.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Yeah, I appreciate that. So for me, I mean to
two real quick thoughts. You know. First of all, I
am the grandson of immigrant from Mexico. So you know,
we know that the United States, it's one of our
national models. Equeer of us soon I'm out of many one.
You know, we don't begrudge anyone who wants to come here.
We just say that if you're going to come here,
you've got to follow our laws, and you have to
do it legally, and you have to do it the
(14:42):
right way. The second thing is, you know, for me
is a small government constitutional conservative. You know, I look
at a couple of things in the Constitution as my
guiding light. In these discussions. The first is the Preamble
to the Constitution, which lays out what is the proper
jurisdiction of the federal government, and it's real simple six things.
Form a more perfect union, establish justice and sure domestic tranquility,
(15:03):
Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
That is the scope of jurisdiction for the federal government
has laid out in the Preamble of the Constitution. And
then you go look at Article six of the Constitution,
which says that in those areas, the Constitution and any
laws made in accordance thereof are the supreme law of
(15:23):
the land. It's called the supremacy clause. And so the juxtaposition,
you know, putting those two things together, I think says
that when you have states that blatantly ignore federal law
in this area of immigration, in this area of enforcing
the law for people who are not legally present in
(15:45):
the country, you know, I think that ties back to
a lot of the frustrations that American people. The American
people have with the open border and again with their
tax dollars flowing to folks whose first act in coming
here was to break the law.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Dona agree with you more.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
I'll give you my You know, I have a very
simple way of looking at any piece any policy, any
piece of legislation, and just put it through this filter.
Does it make me more free or less free? Start
there and the rest source itself out, Congressman Gave Evans.
Feel free to use that as you're congressing or whatever
the verb for being in Congress is. So it's a
pleasure to talk to you, have you back on the show,
and congratulations and welcome to the Congress.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
You just remember you.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Asked for it, mister, You asked for it, Okay, So
I remember that when you're when you're frustrated and ready
to pull your hair out.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
H Well, after twenty two years in the military and
law enforcement, this is just the next challenge. And again,
super honored to be here, Gave Evans. Dot House dot
gov is the official website for anybody that needs assistance,
Gave Evans. You'll have two e's right next to each
other dot House dot gov. The district offices are open.
The DC offices open, reach out, stop, buy, We're here
to serve, all.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
Right, Congressman I appreciate your time today.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Take care,
I am pleased is Punch to welcome newly minted Congressman
Gabe Evans to the show. I was going to say,
back to the show, but you were candidate Evans last time,
and now you're Congressman Evans. How does that still give
you a little tingle when somebody says, Congressman Evans, how
are you today?
Speaker 2 (00:17):
Mandy? First of all, it's great to be back with
you on the show. And yeah, you know, parts of
this are still surreal. Every time I step outside my
office and I think to myself, my goodness, I have
an office in the Longworth House Office Building, a room
twelve twenty nine, if you guys are ever in the
DC area and want to stop by, And I look
up at the national Capital and I think to myself,
just how incredibly honored I am to be the voice
(00:39):
of Colorado's eighth congressional district. And you know, towards that end,
just working as hard as I can to fulfill those
things that are so critically important to the district, like
public safety, like securing the border, like getting the cost
of living under control.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
Well, and then of course you know you're in politics
because Kyle Clark comes knocking Hugh, and I just want
to get your version of events of what happened in
that interview.
Speaker 3 (01:03):
And you, guys, this is typical of me.
Speaker 1 (01:05):
Whenever I try to be super snarky and imply that
someone else should make an apology, I make a mistake.
I sent on my blog today that legislation had not
been filed.
Speaker 3 (01:14):
Oh no, I don't know if it has or not.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Has legislation been filed about withholding federal funds for I
thought I made mistake, but now I realized I'd made
two mistakes, which makes it even better. No, there hasn't
been a bill filed to withhold money from sanctuary cities
or states.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Has there? Do you know? Now?
Speaker 2 (01:33):
So I'll tell you exactly what happened. One of the
first things that a new Congress, so you know, we
are now in the one hundred and nineteenth Congress, and
so one of the first things that a new Congress
has to do is basically packaged, to excuse me past,
the rules package that will govern how we do business
for the next two years. And so one of the
things that can be included in that rules package is
(01:56):
a directive to the committee or committees having jurisdiction over
a particular issue to work on something. And so one
of the things that was in the rules package that
was passed on Friday, again, like the after electing a speaker,
it's the very next order of business because without those rules,
the House can't function for the next few years. So
(02:17):
one of the things that was in that rules package
said to the committees having jurisdiction that they need to
work to provide a bill similar to House Resolution fifty
seven to seventeen from the one hundred and eighteenth Congress,
which is that that resolution is called the No Bailout
(02:39):
for Sanctuary Cities Act, which passed the House actually with
bipartisan support last year, and so the bill hasn't been written.
There's been similar bills in previous Congresses that have been
discussed and have had bipartisan support. But now for the
one hundred and nineteenth Congress, all this is saying, hey,
these issues that we were working on a couple of
(03:00):
years ago, we need to bring them back and continue
to work on them in order to ensure that we
are not handing out American taxpayer dollars to folks that
are illegally present in the country. And we have to
be very specific with this. The only federal funds that
are in discussion right now are federal funds that might
go to illegal immigrants. We're not talking about any other
federal funding. It is only federal dollars two or that
(03:23):
might be going to illegal immigrants that are in question here.
And so really the two things, the two takeaways from
this are no, there is no bill. The bill hasn't
been written. This as merely a directive to the committees
having jurisdiction to continue to work on something similar to
last Congress's bill, which again passed with bipartisan support, saying
that American taxpayer dollars should go only to Americans and
(03:47):
to law abiding folks.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
Well, I mean, you know the situation here in Denver.
They've spent tens of millions of dollars on illegal immigrants
from Venezuela. We're seeing some negative impacts from that, definitely
with crime a and it's just been a very difficult situation.
So Kyle Clerk really tried to pin you down by
the way I think Denver brought all that on themselves.
Speaker 3 (04:08):
To be clear, I.
Speaker 1 (04:09):
Realized that's a kind of sympathetic I have no sympathy.
I have sympathy that people are being used as pawns,
but ultimately Denver has created this situation for themselves. And
Kyle was trying to get you to say that you
either would vote for or would not vote for legislation
that stripped Denver of federal dollars. But the explanation you
just gave seems that they would be things like the
(04:31):
last I looked at the bill from last year's Congress
and I just realized it was last year's Congress and
they were stripping economic development dollars from sanctuary cities because ultimately,
all money is fungible, right, I mean, you could say
we're not going to give you any money that's going
to go to illegal immigrants. But they've been using ARPA
dollars for this stuff. They've they've been using, you know,
dollars that were supposed to be for COVID and and
(04:53):
now they're housing illegal immigrants without money. So it's it's
is it just performative or there is a real teeth
there in your.
Speaker 2 (05:01):
In your view, Well, again, for the bill that's developed
in the one hundred and nineteenth, obviously that hasn't been
written yet, and so that's going to be the conversation,
and so it'll probably be written a little bit differently
given that in the one hundred and eighteenth, yes, the
Republicans controlled the House, but you still had a Democrat
Senate and a Democrat president that you had to get
any legislation by. Whereas this year, with you know, the
(05:22):
voters being sick and tired of the failed policies of
the left, we now have an opportunity with unified control
to actually make some some substantive change to make folks
lives better in the area of public safety, in the
area of border security, and again in the area of
good stewardship of American taxpayer dollars not being used to
(05:42):
fund illegal immigrants and illegal immigration. You know. But all
of that is at this point again just considerations because
the bill hasn't been written yet. Right on. One other
thing that I do want to mention, because you've mentioned
Denver a couple of times, you know, and this came
up a little bit. The conversation that you're referencing with
(06:02):
Kyle is this is actually state law in Colorado, and
there's three relevant state laws here, and there's a quick
sequence to how these happened. An ice immigration detainers where
Immigration and Customs says, hey, would that person, you know, whoever,
that illegal immigrant that they're interested in that we need
that person. We don't know where they are, but we
need that person. So they can put what's called a detainer.
(06:25):
If law enforcement contacts that information, Hey contacts that person,
Hey hold them for us. In twenty nineteen, Colorado passed
a state law. So this doesn't apply just in Denver,
this applies across the state of Colorado. Passed the state
law that said Colorado will not honor ICE immigration detainers.
So local law enforcement contacts somebody that's wanted by ICE
(06:47):
for drug trafficking, all sorts of other stuff, Colorado law
enforcement cannot honor that ICE immigration detainer. Certain law enforcement
agencies found a work around to that, so in twenty
twenty one, the State of Colorado and doubled down with
Senate built twenty one point thirty one doubled down and
said state and local law enforcement. State and local governments
(07:07):
are not allowed to share any personal identifying information for
the purposes of anything related to immigration with ICE. So
what that means is it is against the law for
Aurora PD to pick up the phone and call Immigration
and customs and say we have a gang of illegals
here that are causing problems in apartments. That phone call
(07:27):
is illegal for Aurora PD if it transmits any sort
of personal identifying information for the purposes of any sort
of immigration enforcement. And so the result of that is
that the state of Colorado has sanctuary state policies that
are attracting people. It's why we saw one of the
highest influxes in the nation of illegal immigrants. And with
that comes cartels, transnational criminal organizations, and other gangs that
(07:50):
are specifically selecting Colorado to be their regional or their
national headquarters because they know that state and local law
enforcement can't talk to ICE to get them out of
our communities.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
And people may not know this, but Denver has long
been acrossroads for drugs in the United States coming out
of Mexico.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
This is a very what's sort I'm looking for.
Speaker 1 (08:11):
It's a commonplace where drug dealers will run things through
Denver because seventy goes east and west. You know, you
can continue on from here to reach a lot of
places pretty quickly in the grand scheme of things.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
So we've just added another layer to.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
That, or rather taken a layer of law enforcement ability away.
Now I have to ask you, when you talk to
Kyle about this, did you share these things with him?
Because he certainly gave the impression to his viewers that
you were wrong on the level of cooperation that was
available between law enforcement of Colorado and ICE.
Speaker 2 (08:46):
Well, I mean, I was a cop for a little
over ten years. I don't think he was. And I
can tell you what the law and the day to
day actual practical operating procedures are boots on the ground
in Colorado, and it's that you cannot call ICE to
share personally identify buying information if it's anything that could
be related to immigration. Again, anybody who's listening that doubts
me on this, go google it. You can look it up.
(09:07):
Colorado Senate Bill twenty one, so that means it was
passed in twenty twenty one. SB twenty one DASH one
thirty one, one hundred and thirty first Senate bill introduced
in Colorado in the year twenty twenty one. Senate Bill
twenty one one thirty one is the bill in question
here that says you can't show that information with ICE
for immigration related purposes. If you do, then bad sanctions happen.
Speaker 3 (09:29):
That's what I was going to ask.
Speaker 1 (09:30):
Somebody on the text line said, ask him what the
retribution to the city of Aurora will be if they
violated that law. Because the ACLU is already making noises
that the Americans Civil Liberties Union is making noise that
the illegal immigrants were being treated unfairly as they were
committing their crimes.
Speaker 3 (09:50):
I mean, it's mind blowing to me.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
But what happens to Aurora if it is found that
they did call immigration because these guys are now in
immigration custody.
Speaker 2 (09:59):
Yeah, potentially one of the sanctions is that you get
cut off the law enforcement agency gets cut off from
Colorado Department of Motor Vehicle Data.
Speaker 3 (10:07):
I wait, so wait a minute.
Speaker 1 (10:08):
Okay, So Colorado is supposed to be immune from any
sort of repercussions from the federal government, but they themselves
impose repercussions on people who do not do what they
want them to do.
Speaker 3 (10:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Absolutely, And again that goes back to what we were
talking about in Colorado. Unfortunately, state and local law enforcement
have been handcuffed by state law from being able to
work with federal immigration authorities to get violent criminals, to
get folks like Trendy arguas to get folks like cartels
out of our communities. And the result of that, I mean,
(10:45):
there was some news I don't know, maybe a month
or two ago, where information came to light that said
Trendy Argua was looking at Denver, Colorado specifically because of
these soft on crime laws and specifically because state and
local law enforcement can't work with the federal authorities. Trindy
Arguau was looking to set up their national headquarters in
(11:06):
Colorado because of these laws. This is why we are,
unfortunately the third most dangerous state in the nation. I mean,
among many other reasons, but this is a significant contributing factor,
just being the third most dangerous states in the country
right now, more dangerous than California and New York State, Illinois, Oregon, Washington.
Denver's homicide rate is higher than San Francisco's homicide grade
(11:27):
by a significant percentage.
Speaker 1 (11:30):
So let me ask you this, Congressman, and I'm not
trying to put you into agatcha situation, but what would
a piece of legislation in any way shape or for
dinging sanctuary cities or states?
Speaker 3 (11:41):
What could you support in that way?
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Because I got to tell you, I think that nothing
will change until the federal government does something punitive two
states and cities like Denver and Colorado, because I don't
want to live in a sanctuary state. I don't want
to live in a place that flouts one of the
true things that is the purview of the federal government,
and that is immigration.
Speaker 3 (12:03):
We should not be involved in.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
This at all, you know, we we should simply be
following the law and going about our lives. But now
we have people who are flouting the law. So there
is there any version of this that you think you
could support?
Speaker 2 (12:20):
Well, again, I you know, without having a bill written,
you know, it's difficult to give any sort of concrete
answer there. But I think that most folks. So, you know,
we saw this in a pretty clear mandate by the
American people and how they voted this last election cycle.
We saw that they believe that American taxpayer dollars should
go to people who are following the law and to
(12:42):
American citizens. We should not be subsidizing illegal immigrants who
are living off of the American taxpayer. And so finding
you know, the details and the very you know, well
thought out policies to actually achieve that end is why
you know, in this rules package, we had a broad
directive to continue to look at this issue because that's
(13:04):
you know, that's the work that we have to roll
up our sleeves and do over the next two years
to figure out how do we make sure that American
taxpayer dollars are going to people who are law biding
and who are American citizens.
Speaker 1 (13:13):
And Gabe, lets anybody get the vapors about the federal
government flexing its financial muscles to force states to acquiesce
to what they were doing. They've done this since the
beginning of time. Remember when the speed limit was forced
upon US fifty five miles per hour fifty five arrive alive,
drive fifty five, and they blackmailed states with transportation dollars
(13:33):
withholding them if they did not acquiesce and change their
speed limits. So for anybody who wants to pretend like,
you know, the government is the pure as the driven
snow on issues like this, they have forever used the power.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Of the purse to get their way.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
And I think that in this particular measure, I support
that because those are my tax dollars.
Speaker 3 (13:52):
I'm getting double dinged.
Speaker 1 (13:53):
You know, Colorado has been using ARBA dollars to pay
for illegal immigrants. I am my state tax dollars are
going to support this. It's like it's enough, It's enough already.
Speaker 3 (14:03):
I feel a lot of.
Speaker 1 (14:04):
Compassion for the people who want to come here, but
I feel more compassion for the people that are just
barely getting by, who are getting crushed by inflation, and
I'd love to see them get a break. And I
don't see that as long as government is spending like maniacs.
Speaker 3 (14:18):
Congressman, I'll let you have the last word on it.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Yeah, I appreciate that. So for me, I mean to
two real quick thoughts. You know. First of all, I
am the grandson of immigrant from Mexico. So you know,
we know that the United States, it's one of our
national models. Equeer of us soon I'm out of many one.
You know, we don't begrudge anyone who wants to come here.
We just say that if you're going to come here,
you've got to follow our laws, and you have to
do it legally, and you have to do it the
(14:42):
right way. The second thing is, you know, for me
is a small government constitutional conservative. You know, I look
at a couple of things in the Constitution as my
guiding light. In these discussions. The first is the Preamble
to the Constitution, which lays out what is the proper
jurisdiction of the federal government, and it's real simple six things.
Form a more perfect union, establish justice and sure domestic tranquility,
(15:03):
Provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity.
That is the scope of jurisdiction for the federal government
has laid out in the Preamble of the Constitution. And
then you go look at Article six of the Constitution,
which says that in those areas, the Constitution and any
laws made in accordance thereof are the supreme law of
(15:23):
the land. It's called the supremacy clause. And so the juxtaposition,
you know, putting those two things together, I think says
that when you have states that blatantly ignore federal law
in this area of immigration, in this area of enforcing
the law for people who are not legally present in
(15:45):
the country, you know, I think that ties back to
a lot of the frustrations that American people. The American
people have with the open border and again with their
tax dollars flowing to folks whose first act in coming
here was to break the law.
Speaker 3 (16:00):
Dona agree with you more.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
I'll give you my You know, I have a very
simple way of looking at any piece any policy, any
piece of legislation, and just put it through this filter.
Does it make me more free or less free? Start
there and the rest source itself out, Congressman Gave Evans.
Feel free to use that as you're congressing or whatever
the verb for being in Congress is. So it's a
pleasure to talk to you, have you back on the show,
and congratulations and welcome to the Congress.
Speaker 3 (16:23):
You just remember you.
Speaker 1 (16:24):
Asked for it, mister, You asked for it, Okay, So
I remember that when you're when you're frustrated and ready
to pull your hair out.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
H Well, after twenty two years in the military and
law enforcement, this is just the next challenge. And again,
super honored to be here, Gave Evans. Dot House dot
gov is the official website for anybody that needs assistance,
Gave Evans. You'll have two e's right next to each
other dot House dot gov. The district offices are open.
The DC offices open, reach out, stop, buy, We're here
to serve, all.
Speaker 3 (16:50):
Right, Congressman I appreciate your time today.
Speaker 2 (16:53):
Take care,
The Mandy Connell Podcast News
Popular Podcasts
40s and Free Agents: NFL Draft Season
Daniel Jeremiah of Move the Sticks and Gregg Rosenthal of NFL Daily join forces to break down every team's needs this offseason.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.