Summit County and much of the rest of Colorado were recently on the Department of Homeland Security’s federal naughty list before it was taken down from public view. Our state has incurred the wrath of President Donald Trump’s administration due to state policies that limit the cooperation of law enforcement officials with federal efforts to deport undocumented immigrants. Summit County’s sin is local leaders aligning with the intent of Colorado’s so-called “sanctuary” policies.

Rarely (never?) in my decades of following news have I seen such vitriolic targeting of state and local jurisdictions by the federal government. This feels like something entirely new. Sure, we’ve seen investigations by the Justice Department into agencies before, like the one into the Aurora Police Department’s handling of the Elijah McClain case, but such scrutiny is usually narrowly focused and doesn’t impact the average Jane or Joe across the state as this sanctuary designation may.

It’s certainly no coincidence that the administration’s focus is primarily on Democratic strongholds, versus Republican. While I’m sure it’s true that most solidly red states don’t place as many restrictions on federal cooperation with immigration enforcement as blue ones do, it’s also true that so-called sanctuary jurisdictions aren’t actually breaking any federal laws in their refusal to assist with immigration law enforcement either. This isn’t business as usual, it feels very much like partisan payback on the part of the administration. This is in contrast to when a democratic administration was in place, passing laws like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that spread benefits across the entire country regardless of which candidate states voted for.

But what does our being on that list mean to the average Summit County resident? As I’ve previously pointed out, Colorado’s budget is already hurting thanks to cuts to federal agencies that support our state. With this designation, Summit County is at further risk of losing federal monetary support and given the mercurial nature of this administration’s decision making. This includes for funds already approved such as:

• $34.7 million from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) earmarked for the electrification of the Summit Stage bus system and the construction of a new transit operations and maintenance facility
• $500,000 from the Department of Housing and Urban Development awarded to Summit County for a new Search and Rescue headquarters
• And any funding related to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs act that hasn’t already been disseminated including dollars from the Department of Transportation’s Safe Streets and Roads for All program to develop a Comprehensive Safety Action Plan for roadway safety improvement

In short, it’d seem that Summit County stands to lose a lot for supporting Colorado’s sanctuary stance.

But don’t expect Reps. Lauren Boebert or Gabe Evans to go to bat for Summit County’s removal from the naughty list as they have for Weld and El Paso counties. Neither do I think a plea for mercy from Rep. Joe Neguse, one of the members of the congressional team that impeached Donald Trump, is gonna get very far with this administration either.

Sanctuary policies that have gotten us to this place are largely the work of the Democratic controlled state government. But in Summit County it’s likely a safe assumption that many of the citizens who now reside under those policies aren’t supportive of them. Given the impact that this designation may have upon all our citizens, should lawmakers think twice before considering the passage of regulations and policies that make Colorado jurisdictions a federal target? Perhaps. Especially since it’s undoubtedly true that folks who do support the fed’s no-holds-barred approaches to deportations will also collaterally suffer due to this labeling.

So which side of the divide should a moderate stand upon, for sanctuary policies or against them? It seems like, at least right now, you can’t have it both ways. If Summit County wants to stand up for human rights, we’ll be putting programs that we count on in jeopardy. Alternatively, should the county decide to jump on the federal deportation bandwagon by agreeing to cooperate with federal efforts, doing so may result in citizens feeling they’ve sacrificed their ethical values and are risking our economic prosperity.

If you boil this down to the basics, I think you can avoid the subjectiveness of either side of the morality or economic questions by considering what the Constitution says. Article 10 states that it’s incumbent upon the administration to work within its jurisdictional bounds and legal confines to accomplish their deportation goals, something judges appointed by both parties who have weighed in on the issue have mostly agreed upon. And Article 1 states that only Congress has the power of the purse, not the president through executive orders. Seems pretty clear to me that the Trump administration has no constitutional right to punish Colorado or any of its counties or municipalities for not signing on to its immigration offensive, making the state’s stance on it moot.

Would legislating to accomplish the administration’s goals be a slow and cumbersome process? Undoubtedly, but we’re seeing today how the move-fast-and-break-things philosophy for getting things done works in government, and it ain’t pretty or especially effective. And governing via edict (executive order) and based on retributive partisanship is the very thing that sparked the American revolution and as such should be avoided and/or constrained at all costs.

Tony Jones' column "Everything in Moderation" publishes biweekly on Thursdays in the Summit Daily News. Jones is a veteran of the IT industry and has worked in the public and private sectors. He lives part-time in Summit County and Denver. Contact him at eimsummit@gmail.com.