ALAMOSA — Preparing for the possibility of an influx of migrants, the San Luis Valley Commissioners Association listened to a presentation by Eric Treinen, Director and SLV Emergency Secretary with the Alamosa County Office of Emergency Management, during a regular meeting on Jan. 22. After updating the commissioners regarding the need to plan in the event of an influx of migrants, commissioners discussed the issue. Currently, the Valley has not seen an influx of migrants and commissioners only discussed planning for such an event.

Treinen and other local emergency managers met recently to discuss how to respond to a possible influx to the region such as what happened in Carbondale in December. That small community witnessed the arrival of about 120 migrants, mostly from Venezuela.

Regarding local shelters in Alamosa County, Treinen said, "They are totally full. That is why we have 150 individuals, plus or minus out on the streets. We are tapped out."

DHS [Colorado Department of Human Services] does not have the resources. Jody Kern from DHS said, "It is a staffing issue, we are in the middle of the unwind for the public health emergency. All of my staff are trying to renew the Medicaid requirements which haven't been done for the last three years as well as we are seeing an unprecedented amount of SNAP and Medicaid applications coming into county departments. If the county commissioners would want a sheltering requirement for us, we would have to pull those resources. That would mean we would be untimely in processing those applications and no funding to do this."

Kern added the American Red Cross would not assist if there were an influx of migrants.

Rio Grande County Commissioner Scott Deacon who did not support the motion said, "I've had a multitude of people come to me, several constituents have said, 'this is not immigration this is invasion, and a lot of these people are military and we are being invaded by China, Russia, all of them, this is the way they can take America over, and I for one stand strong with the other commissioners and there is no way we're gonna entertain anything in Rio Grande County as far as these people if they show up...like the sheriffs that gas the bus or just moving them on. We don't want 'em, and we can't afford it."

Robert Jackson, Alamosa County Sheriff said, "We've had conversations recently with immigration and they are reluctant to take a stand for obvious reasons."

Jackson said migrants in the country legally would have documents proving that and "if they do not, if they have no documents at all to call them (immigration) they will come out and process them, they're not going to deport them, not even take them into custody and we certainly are not either unless they have committed a crime."

Regarding immigration officers Jackson said, "They're, not going to take them into custody, they're not going to deport them. They are just going to document they made contract with them."

Jackson concluded his comments with, "Welcome to our world, we don't know what to do either."

Saguache County Commissioner Tom McCracken offered, "I probably think compassion ought to be our guiding light here. We have to deal with the actual issues. I don't think passing a resolution that we're not going to deal with it is going to help. If we're going to deal with it, we have to deal with it."

Alamosa County Commissioner Vern Heersink said, "We're not a sanctuary county, we're trying to get that message out. Be prepared if they do show up and may have small children and it is cold out. I'm in favor of having of our emergency managers coming up with an emergency plan."

After a discussion of the issue, the group passed a motion to allow all the county emergency services managers to work collaboratively.

Deacon told the Valley Courier he did not support the motion, "Because I've only been doing this for four years and when we go to committee it's kick the can. That is what has happened so many times. Mineral and Rio Grande both put out resolutions and we were hoping to get everybody on board with that and I just think...Rio Grande is going to stay firm on this, my phone has been blowing up. Constituents told us what they wanted. I'm one commissioner, I am their servant and I work for the people and that is why I had to do what I had to do, I look at this not as immigration but as invasion, believe this is the way they are going to take America over. We're the last free country, they got Russian and Chinese."

The Valley Courier has requested a copy of the resolution from Mineral County that Deacon referenced.

In other matters discussed during the meeting, Alamosa County Commissioner Lori Laske gave an update on the new office building for District Attorney Anne Kelly and said the project was moving forward. Kelly expressed her gratitude to the commissioners for facilitating the new offices. Alamosa County Administrator Roni Wisdom spoke about the building which was donated by Alamosa State Bank.

"This is an awesome opportunity for us,” said Wisdom.

Larry Brown from CSU Extension gave an update and spoke about the annual agriculture conference next month with keynote speaker and CSU faculty member Dr. Temple Grandin. Janae Naranjo from CSU Extension spoke about some upcoming free classes.

The ‘migrant’ conversation: understanding the terms

By PRISCILLA WAGGONER

Courier Reporter

ALAMOSA — The question of how to prepare in the event that a large group of migrants come unexpectedly to the San Luis Valley has appeared on agendas of county commissioners in recent weeks, culminating with a discussion during Monday’s meeting of the San Luis Valley County Commissioners Association.

The topic gained commissioners’ interest after witnessing the challenges currently facing the town of Carbondale on the Western Slope following an influx of migrants in December.

Of all the topics in public discourse today, immigration is — and has been for decades — one of the lightning rods, sparking fierce, often partisan debate and even giving birth to conspiracy theories that stretch the imagination and have little to no merit.

And now, strong emotions around the issue have only intensified as media coverage has shown groups of migrants being transported via bus from states along the southern border to cities in states further north, like Denver, prompting responses from other smaller communities.

While there is, as of yet, no clear path forward that can gain bi-partisan Congressional support, understanding what terms mean — sanctuary city, illegal immigrant, asylum seeker, migrant — and using them correctly in a conversation might provide some common ground, however small it may be.

There is no legal definition of “sanctuary city”, but the term is widely used to describe a city (or county or state or university) that limits the extent to which local resources are committed in support of federal immigration agents’ enforcing federal immigration law.  

Examples can range from local law enforcement declining to join federal agents in “sweeps” where large groups of people suspected to be without documentation are detained, refusing to jail someone who has posted bond and a judge has ruled they can be released or declining to gather more information than is legally required to obtain services, such as enrolling in public school.

Sanctuary cities do not violate federal law as long as those cities share and maintain information that has been gathered on an individual’s citizenship or immigration status, as federal statutes require. Aside from that, federal law does not require a local entity’s participation in supporting federal immigration agents in enforcing federal immigration law. There are no sanctuary cities or counties in the Valley.

According to the Department of Justice, “illegal immigrant” is a colloquial term used to describe a noncitizen who entered unlawfully or who entered lawfully but has overstayed a visa.

Asylum is a different situation where a person has stated that they have been persecuted or are in fear of being persecuted should they return to their own country.

Asking for asylum is not illegal. Those who have a pending asylum applications are not in the country illegally and are, in fact, protected from deportation provided certain factors are in place.

According to the Department of Justice, “anyone who has a pending asylum application should have a stay of removal [i.e. protected from being deported]. Technically speaking, the Department of Homeland Services (DHS) cannot deport someone until there is an ‘order of removal’ issued by an immigration judge.

“There are exceptions for people encountered at the border or for people who have been removed before but if the person has filed for asylum or has been found to have a credible fear of persecution or torture by a DHS asylum officer, they should not be removed until a determination on the asylum or withholding of removal application is adjudicated.”

Once a person has completed the application for asylum and begins the long wait to appear before a judge, biometric data is collected to make certain that he or she has not entered the country illegally before and been removed. The asylum seeker must also register his or her physical address with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (U.S.C.I.S.) Department, check in on regular intervals to see the status of the application and keep their address current if there is a change is residence.

There are also a series of hearings to determine the person’s asylum status. There are consequences should a person miss a hearing, not the least of which is a delay in the process that is currently taking four years to go to court.

The challenge facing many communities is that, for a minimum of 180 days, asylum seekers are prohibited from working, which essentially means they “are protected from deportation but have no status.”

Asylum seekers may not submit an application for a work permit until they have been in the country for 150 days, and, once that application is submitted, there is another 30-day period after which — if there have been no delays — the work permit is issued.

Due to the current backlog that period may extend far beyond 180 days.

And it is during that six-month (or more) period that most asylum seekers are at the greatest risk since they are in the United States but unable to support themselves or their families, which makes them reliant upon social services that some communities are unable (or, perhaps, unwilling) to provide.

So, where does the term “migrant” come in? It is used as it has always been used: a person who moves — either willingly or, perhaps in this case, not — to another part of the country where they are living is referred to as a migrant.

Immigration has always been a complicated subject. Given the confluence of factors across the globe that are impacting immigration here and elsewhere, it’s not like a conversation that is going away anytime soon.