DHS

Lakewood has reason to be concerned about being placed on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) list of sanctuary cities. Email records show they do not comply with federal immigration law, nor do they plan to. Sanctuary was not granted through official vote of City Council; however, sanctuary from federal immigration law was undertaken behind the scenes while using word games to muddy the issue. From the emails, it appears that some Lakewood City Council Members do not appear to know the full extent of Lakewood’s defiance of federal law. On the other hand, DHS knows more than is publicly apparent – which makes sense because they are the ones that have been stonewalled for years. So although Lakewood does not pay for migrant support, it is clear that there is good reason for Lakewood to be placed on a sanctuary list, no matter the word games Lakewood plays. Lakewood City Council has repeatedly denied being a sanctuary city – which is true if defined by formal vote. However, it is not true that Lakewood does not provide sanctuary for illegals. Lakewood DOES provide sanctuary by not verifying immigration status or cooperating with DHS. In the beginning of the sanctuary city debate, the general public understood that a sanctuary city was just that – a safe place where your immigration status wouldn’t be questioned or held against you. Lakewood never made a public motion or official policy stating that they are a sanctuary city but it is apparent that they fully embrace and enable the state’s sanctuary status rather than federal immigration enforcement. No emails asking for removal When Lakewood was placed on the sanctuary city list, Lakewood did not issue a denial. There are no emails to DHS asking to be removed. That would be the first, honest, response from a city that was NOT acting as a sanctuary and was complying with federal immigration law. That’s what Aurora did. There is no email evidence that occurred in Lakewood. There are no emails asking why Lakewood is on the list. This is despite the fact that there is email from Senator Bennet’s office showing that jurisdictions with questions should reach out via email to SanctuaryJurisdictions@hq.dhs.gov. The official response to City Council was a bland email stating that Lakewood staff didn’t know why they were on the list or that they were concerned. Again, parsing the words carefully, staff “didn’t know why they were on the list” is different than “we have no idea why we are on the list.” Lakewood management may not have known the exact reason DHS was citing, but Lakewood would have known what internal procedural changes have been made over the years. Or perhaps Lakewood assumed they wouldn’t be singled out from other cities in Colorado who may have adopted similar, pro-sanctuary polices. Probably, they could rely on not having an official vote cast for sanctuary, which appears to be the case for some Councilors. Someone must have known there is a reason to be concerned, or they would have asked questions openly and honestly. Instead, Lakewood proceeded by investigating “delicately” (see email below). Lakewood declined to comment to the Denver Gazette and Denver 7 inquiries. A quick Google search could find no comment in any press coverage on the subject although Mayor Strom did reply to an msn.com inquiry. Official Response to City Council Don’t Draw Attention to Sanctuary Policies Nowhere anywhere did our investigation turn up evidence that Lakewood cooperates with DHS and ICE on immigration matters. There was never a suggestion that the situation was a misunderstanding. There was no proof emailed to DHS that Lakewood is indeed cooperating with federal immigration. There was one email showing that a Lakewood employee signed up for e-verify for the first time on Monday, June 2, in what may be a coincidence or a panicked response. In this case, Lakewood appears to have taken the approach that the less said the better because Lakewood cooperates with state law. Colorado sanctuary law is obviously intended to conflict with federal law. Lakewood’s cooperation with the state may be seen in multiple subversive actions, rather than one blanket vote by city council for “sanctuary”. And in fact, Ben Goldstein wrote: “Overall, I think the best strategy is to keep our heads down on this one, but perhaps the cat is out of the bag now” (see below). Lakewood Does Not Cooperate With Federal Immigration Proof that Lakewood provides sanctuary by not cooperating with DHS is shown in several ways besides being unable to deny the charge: There are also a couple things conspicuously missing: Complying with Colorado Law Over Federal Law As one example of City Council opinions, Councilor Jacob LaBure believes being placed on the sanctuary city list is “baseless” (see email below). LaBure’s response is the strong denial of an innocent man – which stands in stark contrast to the “keep your head down approach” from Lakewood management. However, strong beliefs or rewriting definitions of sanctuary does not change Lakewood’s support of migrant polices in 2024 or Lakewood’s vote to help Denver with its influx of migrants or Lakewood’s policy to lessen migrants deportation fears. As previously reported, such support is the original definition of a sanctuary city. In 2024 Lakewood Informer filed CORAs regarding immigration policy and did not receive any answers as to enforcement actions. The responding supervisor said the public information officer would be reaching out – an action that didn’t happen. Verbal responses in public meetings align with Jeffco’s response. They say that checking immigration status, which used to be a routine practice, was not the job of local jurisdictions. There is no federal law that says a home rule police department must check immigration status. This was just a matter of routine, like checking to see if you had an out-of-state drivers license. Lakewood no longer regularly does these routine checks. No Use of DHS Database Colorado law requires Lakewood to NOT share personally identifiable information with DHS non-public databases.