Mostly lost in the media coverage of the immigration-reform bill is what life would look like for undocumented immigrants if America doesn’t offer them a path to citizenship.

Republicans like Rep. Cory Gardner of Ft. Collins, who oppose giving undocumented immigrants tangible hope of becoming U.S. citizens, should be asked to explain how their version of immigration-reform comports with the basic American image of itself as a place of opportunity for hard-working people who’ve powered our country from the get-go.

Gardner told The Denver Post’s Allison Sherry Tuesday:

“We have to focus on border security first and enforcement of the law, and then we can move onto questions about citizenship. There is no bill right now, so let’s start with the border and then go from there.”

So Gardner wants to create a hole in our country, as opposed to a path, that would hold millions in fear of deportation or, at best, like indentured servants of yesteryear.

Is this what American opportunity looks like for Gardner? Sit tight in your hole; maybe we’ll get back to you?

What does he have to say to President Obama, who told Telemundo Denver last week that immigration reform without an opportunity for citizenship would create a country of “full citizens and people who are assigned to a lower status.” This isn’t “who we are as Americans,” he said.

Journalists who are writing about people like Gardner should flip their perspective and also report that, de facto, GOP opponents of immigration reform favor the creation of an underclass of American workers.

We all know that Gardner’s quest for air-tight border security could be endless.

If so, what is the GOP vision of America with a class of people who are fundamentally unequal to the rest of us–and lack the opportunity that’s at the foundation of our country.  Let’s hear more from reporters about that.

A version of this op-ed was distributed by the Other Words syndicate.

On Friday, the Durango Herald ran an article on newly-minted CO Republican Senate candidates, state legislators Owen Hill and Randy Baumgardner.

The Herald reported that Hill has taken strong anti-choice stands in the past. (Opponents say he supported de-funding Planned Parenthood in Colorado.) And Baumgardner “pitched an Arizona-style immigration law for Colorado two years ago when he was in the House.”

The Herald’s Paige Jones reported that Owen Loftus, a spokesman for the Colorado Republican Party, “downplayed the candidates’ proposals on abortion and immigration – both of which quickly failed – and said voters make their decision based on a range of issues.”

“People in Colorado don’t vote on just two issues. They vote on the whole package,” he said.

Maybe they don’t vote on just two issues, but Jones should have asked Loftus how he could possibly downplay the importance of women’s issues, like abortion, and immigration after Loftus’ deflating experience as spokesman for Ken Buck’s failed Senatorial campaign in 2010.

Buck was poised to win his race, you recall, and before the 2010 election, Republicans like Loftus were saying the same thing about itsy-bitsy women’s issues: they don’t matter. And look what happened to Buck.

At the time, as Buck was attacked as an anti-abortion extremist, Buck campaign consultant Walt Klein told The Denver Post:

“If they think they can make Michael Bennet a more appealing incumbent by going on and on about abortion, then fire away. But all the polling data show economy, jobs and unemployment is pushing all the other issues to the bottom of the chart.”

Responding to a news story about a college student who was angry at Buck for telling reporters that the student would be accused of having “buyer’s remorse” if her rape case went to trial, Loftus told The Denver Post: “When it comes to women and men, they’re worried about jobs. … That’s what everyone cares about. Voters understand this is a machine set up to smear Ken Buck, and they aren’t buying it.”

As everyone now knows, Loftus was wrong then, he’s wrong again, and reporters should press him on why he continues to say the same lines even though he’s had a two-bit role in the history that proves him wrong. Loftus did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

Three days after 2010 election, Buck himself told The Denver Post:

“My effort was to focus on spending and unemployment, and they wanted to talk about anything but,” Buck said. “It was part of their effort to focus more on their version of Ken Buck rather than the issues that I thought most voters were concerned about. I don’t know that there’s any way to avoid it; I wasn’t going to derail my message to have an election decided on abortion, or any social issue, for that matter.”

The Post’s Michael Booth did readers a favor by following up Buck’s quote with this:

The irony is, of course, that the election may have been decided on precisely those issues, with even Republican analysts saying the Democratic strategy hurt Buck among independent women in Arapahoe and Jefferson counties. The final margin with Bennet was fewer than 20,000 votes, out of 1.5 million cast.

If I’m Post Publisher Dean Singleton, it’s hard to bear hug Peter Boyles.

Since Boyles began his downward spiral with the paranoid right, he’s done more than his share to mindlessly trash The Denver Post and journalism as a profession.

It’s not as bad as his attacks on Muslims and illegal immigrants, because, unlike those people,  journalism exists to be attacked. But still.

But this didn’t stop Singleton from slobbering all over Boyles (and vice versa) on Boyles new KNUS show this morning.

Boyles introduced Singleton as “one of my favorite people in the world.”

To which Singleton said how much he missed Boyles on the air and joked that he had “no one to beat me up.” (Is there a union exec out there?)

Boyles told listeners that when he got fired, Singleton “was there and made sure I was ok.”

“Hey, I treasure your friendship,” Singleton responded. “You get me up every morning, and you know, you can’t have a carnival without a carnival barker.”

But I don’t want a carnival on the radio! Do you?

“We love our carnival barker,” Singleton told Boyles.

Really?

“You know what?” Boyles said with at least a handful of people listening to KNUS at 6:30 a.m. “I miss seeing you. Are you in town for a while?”

“I’m back,” Singleton replied. “This is the first time I’ve heard you on 710. We’ve had a lot of fun times together, and done a lot of fun things, and I wanted to welcome you back to the air, me and Colorado missed ya.”

Not the Muslims or the undocumented immigrants or, I would venture to say, most of the rational-minded journalists at The Denver Post. They didn’t miss him.

Still, we can agree that almost any local radio show is better than no local show. And even if Boyles is bad in many ways, he’s not all bad.

I’m just hoping Boyles stops himself from going to the deep end, and tearing down vulnerable people and institutions, as frequently as he did at his last job.

Listen to Dean Singleton on KNUS 710 AM’s Peter Boyles Show 7-12-13
 

Does Rep. Mike Coffman see hypocrisy in drawing an annual $55,547 pension from the state of Colorado after suggesting in the past that Colorado should consider suspending pensions for people (editor’s note: like him) who start a new job [in Congress making $174,000] after retiring from state employment?

In her article today detailing some of this, The Denver Post’s Allison Sherry provided this response from Coffman, which deserves a follow-up:

Coffman said Monday through an e-mail that public pensions “at the state and local level, all across our country, are in desperate need of reform.”

He added that “the best pension reform for members of Congress is simply to abolish it.”

One wonders if Coffman sent the wrong email to Sherry. Perhaps he was answering a question from another reporter on a completely different topic?

Given that The Post headline on Sherry’s story reads, “Pension critic Rep. Mike Coffman already gets PERA money,” she should ask him directly, “What’s up with saying one thing and, when your own bank account is involved, doing another?” If he refuses to answer, we’d like to know.

The National Journal’s Shane Goldmacher got more out of Coffman during an interview last month, reporting that Coffman “stumbles in defending his decision to draw both a paycheck and a state pension.”

Coffman: “I fought for reform when I was in state, and I’m fighting to reform the system now,” he says. “At states, they ought to end the defined-benefit portion programs.… I’m certainly a beneficiary of it, but at the state level that’s unsustainable, too, and that’s going to have to change….”

“The part that I oppose is having a defined-benefit retirement plan for members of Congress—and have argued against a defined-benefit program when I was at the state level,” he tells National Journal.

But isn’t he taking part in a defined-benefit program?

“I am,” he replies. “I am.”

Still, though, the question lingers. Does Coffman see any hypocrisy in his own actions? And the kicker: If so, what does he think he should do about it?

The National Journal’s Alex Roarty wrote Wednesday it was “surprising” that most House Republicans voted to reverse Obama’s order halting deportations of many undocumented young people who were brought to the U.S. by their parents.

He pointed specifically to “House members like Reps. Mike Coffman of Colorado” whose district represents a “large Hispanic” constituency.

Roarty should have specified just how large Coffman’s Hispanic constituency is in his new district.

The Denver Post’s Kurtis Lee reported in 2011 that when Coffman’s district was re-drawn, the Hispanic population increased “from around 9 percent to about 20 percent.”

This gives you a more precise sense of the stakes involved as Coffman continues to take positions, long-held by the Congressman, that are considered hostile to Hispanics.

You’d expect the Hispanic voting population in Coffman’s district to be less, but still.

On Greeley’s KFKA radio June 7, gun activist Laura Carno asked:

Does [Senate President John Morse] stand by the Colorado Senate Democrats’ tweet that sheriffs, including the Democrats, are standing with criminals for challenging these gun control measures in court?

Host Amy Oliver, who doubles as a staffer for the Independence Institute and is promoted by KFKA as “conservative,  intelligent, and sexy,” jumped in (@22:30):

We’ve talked about that.  They tweeted out, “Sheriffs stand for criminals and against law-abiding citizens.”

Oliver neglected to mention that, in reality, CO Senate Democrats tweeted that pro-gun sheriffs stood “with criminals” because a man who shot a gun at his wife was actually standing (physically with both feet planted) on stage with the Sheriffs, when they announced their lawsuit aiming to overturn new laws banning on magazines holding more than 15 rounds and requiring background checks for most gun purchases and transfers.

As reported by ColoradoPols May 17, Clint Webster was standing with the sheriffs at a May 17 news conference at the Independence Institute.

Webster has a criminal record stemming from threatening his wife and shooting at her and another person.

The Post reported in 2010 that Webster, who was running for State House, “threatened to kill his ex-wife and fired two shots from a Colt semi automatic pistol at her and another person as they drove away from his house.”

Webster “pleaded guilty in 1992 to second-degree assault, a felony, two counts of felony menacing and a misdemeanor assault charge,” according to The Post.

Colorado Springs TV station KRDO made the same mistake in May 29 putting the standing-with-criminals comment in context on its website but completely omitting a reference to Webster and his gun crime in its broadcast story.

This is a serious error, because without the reference to Webster, you’d think Democrats were accusing sheriffs of standing with criminals just because the sheriffs oppose gun-safety laws. This was clearly not the intent of Democrats.

Just so you know, here’s the statement issued by Senate Democrats in response to questions about why sheriffs would stand with criminals.

“The statement was pointing out the irony of the sheriffs protesting legislation that prevents criminals from getting guns while standing with a man who shot at his wife and another unnamed person who was with his wife.

In the photo below, there is Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith (wearing glasses) at the press conference. Next to him is Clint Webster, who was convicted of felony assault and menacing for shooting twice at his wife. So the Sheriffs are quite literally standing with a criminal, and not just any criminal, a domestic violence offender who fired two shots from a Colt semi-automatic handgun at his wife.”

Hard to miss the point, isn’t it?

I really wanted to like Peter Boyles.

He could talk in depth on most any topic, so you never knew for sure what might come out of his mouth (at least when he wasn’t talking about birth certificates, Jon Benet, or “illegals”).

He was irreverent, blasting anyone and anything, including his own newsroom, his corporate higher-ups (who apparently fired him), or any elected official of either party. Everyone was a target, and sometimes this was a good thing.

He talked a lot about history, and he even read books!

But in the end, how could you like the guy? He stood for nothing beyond weird nihilism and his Arbitron rating.

Why would such an intelligent person spend so much time fomenting anger and hatred toward undocumented immigrants, who are actually one group of people who might, through Boyles’ audience, feel the effects of his venom.

His repeated attacks on Muslims were equally gross.

And why did he spend so much time trashing journalism? You sort of admire Denver Post publisher Dean Singleton for spending hours on Boyle’s show, even though one of Boyle’s absolute favorite things to do was to bash The Post (and the Rocky before it closed) in the most sweeping and stupid ways.

You got a sense of what Boyles could have been when he defended gays. But soon enough, he’d been talking birth certificates and social security numbers again.

What happened to the man who long ago did such an honorable and intelligent job hosting Channel 12’s Colorado Inside Out?

I never gave up hope that Boyles would start caring again. But it never happened.

Now that former Congressman Tom Tancredo is officially running for governor, you wonder how many Republicans will go out of their way to denounce Tanc’s anti-anti-anti (that’s triple anti-) immigration views.

It’s a question reporters should put to Republicans (Are you with Tancredo on immigration?) not only because numerous Republicans are trying to cozy up to Hispanics (See Gardner, Coffman, Penry) but also because many leading Colorado Republicans endorsed Tancredo over the years.

As The Denver Post’s Kurtis Lee tweeted this morning, Rep. Mike Coffman endorsed Tancredo in 2010.

To get an understanding of the bond between those two guys (which goes beyond the fact that Tancredo was anybody-but-Dan-Maes in 2010), watch Coffman praise Tancredo’s true conservative values in this video. (Here Tancredo nominates Coffman.)

As you know if you follow Tancredo from microphone to microphone, Tancredo’s true conservative values start with immigration, which still comes up in one of every ten of his breaths.

On Friday, Tancredo told KNUS’ Steve Kelley, for example, that immigration reform is not only wrong but “impossible” to achieve. His solution, in a word, is e-verify, he told Kelley. Just make it impossible for employers to hire ’em.

Are Colorado Republicans ready to tell reporters how and why they part ways with Tancredo?

I’m late getting to this, but it’s still bugging me.

In The Denver Post’s, “Winners and Losers of the 2013 Colorado Assembly” editorial May 9, Rep. Mark Waller got credit for being “instrumental in getting a bill passed to set a standard for driving while stoned. He also managed to find a few Republican votes in favor of the budget.”

And House Speaker Mark Ferrandino was a winner for leading “his chamber through a highly contentious session with many late nights and long fights. He was heavily involved in brokering deals on the budget and other matters.”

Then how does Senate President John Morse not get similar recognition? He performed the not-so-easy task of getting a majority of Senate Dems to vote for SB1325, the DUI-D bill, that Waller was “instrumental in getting passed.”

The Post obviously liked the stoned-driving standard bill. Fair enough. So why not spotlight Morse’s work on the measure?

In a Spot Blog post Sunday, The Denver Post cited a story from Colorado Springs TV station KOAA reporting that organizers of the campaign to recall Senate President John Morse hired Kennedy Enterprises to gather signatures to put the recall question on the ballot.

But the Post’s print version of its Morse-recall story, unlike it’s Spot Blog post, did not include a reference to Kennedy Enterprises, and it didn’t delve at all into the mysterious question of who’s funding the Morse recall campaign, even though Post reporter Kurtis Lee quoted one of the anti-Morse campaign’s major donors (without informing readers of her donation).

So The Post missed an opportunity to follow up on the query posed by KOAA-TV’s Jacqui Henrich in her May 6 story, “The bigger question at hand: who hired Kennedy Enterprises despite their questionable background?”

In his piece for the print edition of the newspaper, Kurtis Lee quoted Laura Carno, who was identified as a “Republican political strategist who runs a political action committee in Colorado Springs and is in staunch support of the recall.”

Lee didn’t point out that one of Carno’s organizations, I Am Created Equal (IACE), donated over $14,ooo in in-kind support to the recall effort. Lee should have informed readers about her donation, what it’s being used for, and her views other aspects of the anti-Morse campaign, once considered rag-tag but now infused with real money.

You’d have to hope The Post would get better answers from Carno than I did when I emailed her last week. Carno did confirm that her 501(c)4 organization donated 14k, but she skirted these questions:

Will you tell me what the IACE’s 14K (in-kind) donation to El Paso Freedom Defense Committee was used for or what it was earmarked for?

Do you know who’s paying for the people to collect signatures to recall Sen. Morse, if it’s true that there are people being paid to do this?

Do you think it’s fair to call the Morse recall effort “grassroots” even though the paid petition drive appears to be led by someone named Tracy Taylor, who’s not from Colorado?

Carno sent me a video link as well as this written response:

“We are raising money for our Morse education campaign the way I Am Created Equal always has — we are asking folks who believe in free markets, free enterprise, and limited government to help. To date, every penny we have raised for this comes from Colorado, just as you would expect from a grassroots group like our own. Rest assured, not one penny has come from Mayor Bloomberg. That much I can promise you.”