Post, AP misled about law governing deportation of illegal immigrants

Summary: In reporting on a proposed amendment to the Colorado Constitution that would bar plea agreements that "will result in the defendant avoiding removal from this country," The Denver Post and the Associated Press failed to state that aliens unlawfully present in the United States are always subject to deportation under U.S. law. Further, the Post omitted that the measure accounts for instances in which courts could accept such plea bargains under certain conditions.

In separate news articles, The Denver Post and the Associated Press each covered a proposed state constitutional amendment that according to the Post "would prohibit prosecutors from plea bargaining cases involving defendants in the country illegally to crimes that would allow the defendant to avoid being immediately deported." But both articles failed to explain that aliens in the United States illegally are subject to deportation under existing federal law. The Post also omitted that the proposed amendment specifically would allow courts to accept such plea bargains in cases where the prosecuting attorney showed that the defendant could not otherwise be brought to trial under the original charge, and if "the plea offer is not intended to permit the defendant to avoid removal from this country."

The article posted April 14 on the Post's PoliticsWest website linked the proposed amendment to "controversy surrounding a plea bargain then-District Attorney Bill Ritter's office gave to an illegal immigrant." The article by John Ingold further reported that during the 2006 gubernatorial campaign the Republican candidate, Bob Beauprez, said that during now-Gov. Ritter's previous service as Denver district attorney, "Ritter's office would sometimes plea bargain cases involving illegal and legal immigrants to charges of 'agricultural trespassing' so that the defendants could avoid deportation." (A shorter version of the article appeared in the Post's April 15 print edition.)

Similarly, the Associated Press article, published April 15 in the Rocky Mountain News, stated that the sponsor of the proposed amendment, Sen. Ted Harvey (R-Highlands Ranch), "wants to amend the Colorado Constitution to bar plea deals that allow illegal immigrants to avoid deportation." The AP article by Colleen Slevin, which also mentioned the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, stated that the measure "would bar courts from accepting guilty pleas to charges of trespassing on agricultural land -- the count Ritter agreed to -- or any other charge that would allow suspects to avoid deportation."

Neither article explained, as Colorado Media Matters has noted repeatedly, that illegal immigrants are subject to deportation by federal officials regardless of any state or local pleas to which they agree, according to U.S. law. Moreover, the Post quoted Harvey as citing "these kind of laissez-faire policies by [former] District Attorney Ritter" as an impetus for the proposed amendment without reporting, as Colorado Media Matters has pointed out, that other Colorado district attorneys also used the agricultural trespassing plea bargain.

From John Ingold's article "Proposed immigration amendment tweaks familiar controversy," published April 14 on The Denver Post's PoliticsWest website:

Just when it looked like the controversy surrounding a plea bargain then-District Attorney Bill Ritter's office gave to an illegal immigrant was dead, Republican lawmakers have raised its specter in a proposed state constitutional amendment.

The proposed amendment would prohibit prosecutors from plea bargaining cases involving defendants in the country illegally to crimes that would allow the defendant to avoid being immediately deported.

The issue harkens back to a controversy that enveloped the gubernatorial race between Ritter, a Democrat, and Republican Bob Beauprez. Beauprez said Ritter's office would sometimes plea bargain cases involving illegal and legal immigrants to charges of "agricultural trespassing" so that the defendants could avoid deportation.

[...]

But Sen. Ted Harvey, a Highlands Ranch Republican who is a co-sponsor of the proposed amendment with almost every other Republican in the state legislature, said the amendment isn't meant as a political slap at the governor.

"This resolution is an effort to ensure that no district attorneys around the state of Colorado can use that policy," Harvey said.

"I think it's harmful for municipalities to be encouraging illegal immigrants to come to Colorado with the understanding that they won't be prosecuted," he added. "... I think these kind of laissez-faire policies by District Attorney Ritter only encouraged those kinds of things even more."

The proposed amendment, known for the moment as Senate Concurrent Resolution 4, must receive a two-thirds majority in both chambers to make the ballot.

From the Associated Press article "Illegals' deals targeted: Senator's measure seen as slap at plea bargain Guv Ritter made as DA," as published in the April 15 edition of the Rocky Mountain News:

A Republican state senator wants to amend the Colorado Constitution to bar plea deals that allow illegal immigrants to avoid deportation, taking a swipe at Democratic Gov. Bill Ritter for a plea deal he made when he was Denver district attorney.

The measure from Sen. Ted Harvey, of Highlands Ranch, that was released Tuesday would ask voters to approve a constitutional ban on such deals.

It would bar courts from accepting guilty pleas to charges of trespassing on agricultural land -- the count Ritter agreed to -- or any other charge that would allow suspects to avoid deportation.

Courts could accept such deals if prosecutors don't have a strong case for a more serious charge and the deal isn't intended to help the defendant avoid deportation.

Ritter was criticized during the 2006 campaign for letting an illegal immigrant who was charged with heroin possession plead guilty to agricultural trespassing instead. The man avoided deportation and was later accused of a sex crime in California.

The information turned up in a campaign ad for Ritter's Republican opponent, then-U.S. Rep. Bob Beauprez. It made headlines again last week when Cory Voorhis, a federal immigration agent who gave Beauprez the information, was acquitted on charges of getting it illegally from a federal crime database.

In reporting that certain charges against illegal immigrants, such as trespassing on agricultural land, "would allow suspects to avoid deportation," the Post and the AP omitted that, as Ritter's campaign repeatedly clarified before the November 7, 2006, election, aliens unlawfully present in the United States are always subject to deportation under U.S. law. As the News reported on June 11, 2006 (accessed via the Nexis database), "unlawful presence" in the United States is in and of itself a deportable offense: "The most common charge against those caught without authorization in the U.S. is 'unlawful presence,' a civil offense. The penalty is removal, and an immigrant can be detained in the meantime."

As Colorado Media Matters noted, an October 12, 2006, News article also reported Ritter's defense against the suggestion that the pleas helped illegal immigrants who received them avoid deportation:

Ritter and the district attorney's office have said the plea generally involved legal immigrants with green cards or visas and allowed them to separately plead their case against deportation before federal immigration officials. The plea did nothing to help illegal immigrants, Ritter said.

"An illegal immigrant is deportable whether they plead guilty to this felony or any other crime, even misdemeanors, even petty offenses," Ritter said. "It (the plea) was not used to preserve an arrangement where they could stay in the country."

As Colorado Media Matters has further noted, the Denver district attorney's office has said that an immigrant featured in one of the Beauprez attack ads, Walter Ramo, was charged with agricultural trespass only after "evidence problems" cast doubt on the case against him.

The written version of KCNC CBS4's "Reality Check" from October 12, 2006, reported that [Denver DA's office spokeswoman Lynn] "Kimbrough said the case [against Ramo] had evidence problems." CBS4 further reported:

What kind of problems? Before police arrested Ramo in 2001, he was spotted getting out of a car. Police arrested the driver of that car, and found him with drugs. The driver said he bought the drugs from Ramo. When police caught up with Ramo, they found he had no drugs, and no criminal record in Colorado. But the driver who told police about Ramo did have a criminal record. So prosecutors found themselves wondering who to believe.

The Post did not report that the proposed constitutional amendment, for now known as Senate Concurrent Resolution 4, specifically accounts for instances in which a DA might offer a plea bargain in cases that otherwise could not be brought to trial under the original charge:

SECTION 1. At the next election at which such question may be submitted, there shall be submitted to the registered electors of the state of Colorado, for their approval or rejection, the following amendment to the constitution of the state of Colorado, to wit:

Article XVIII of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:

Section 16. Prohibit guilty plea to avoid deportation. To ensure public safety, a court shall not accept a plea of guilty from a defendant who is in violation of the federal "immigration and nationality act", 8 U.S.C. sec. 1325, as amended, to a charge of third degree criminal trespass on agricultural land or any other charge if the plea of guilty is made as a result of a plea offer and will result in the defendant avoiding removal from this country by the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency; except that the court may accept a plea of guilty to a charge of third degree criminal trespass on agricultural land or any other charge upon a good faith representation by the prosecuting attorney that the attorney could not establish a prima facie case if the defendant were brought to trial on the original offense and the plea offer is not intended to permit the defendant to avoid removal from this country. [emphasis added]

In addition to quoting only Harvey about his proposed amendment, the Post failed to note that, contrary to Harvey's criticism of Ritter's purported "laissez-faire policies," other DA's also used the agricultural trespassing plea bargain. In the same October 12, 2006, article, with the headline "Others use farm trespass charge: Ritter not alone in letting immigrants plead to lesser count," the News reported that "Arapahoe County followed Denver in the use of the [agricultural trespassing] plea, with 71 cases since 1998."

—E.B.