DENVER | Colorado’s next Senator, Rep. Cory Gardner, voted Thursday with most House Republicans to repeal President Obama’s order allowing more than 4 million immigrants in the country illegally to stay, triggering accusations that his pledge to help immigrant communities during his campaign this year was hollow.

Gardner’s fellow Republican Rep. Mike Coffman, who has also tacked to the center on immigration, was one of only seven House Republicans to vote to uphold Obama’s order from last month. The vote was purely symbolic — the measure will die in the senate, which remains under Democratic control until January — but represents the first test of where Republicans stand on immigration after the election.

FILE - In this Nov. 4, 2014 file photo, Sen.-elect, U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., delivers his victory speech to supporters during a GOP election night gathering in Denver, Colo. Republicans in search of a way to oppose President Barack Obama’s moves on immigration without alienating the nation’s fast-growing population of Hispanic voters can find a playbook in Colorado. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley, File)

“I voted against H.R. 5759 because, although I strongly believe that it is unconstitutional to have immigration policy made by executive orders and without the consent of Congress, this legislation will only mislead the American people into believing that we are taking care of the problem when the only way to address President Obama’s overreach is either through the U.S. Supreme Court or through the appropriation’s process,” Coffman said in a statement after the vote.

Obama took his action because House Republicans refused to vote on a bipartisan immigration bill that the Senate passed last year that would provide eventual citizenship for many of the 11 million people in the U.S. illegally. Shortly after his vote to overturn the action, Gardner released a statement calling for a broader immigration overhaul and emphasizing immigrants’ common humanity.

“Without presenting an alternative plan, today’s vote is not a solution,” Gardner said. “We owe it to generations past and generations to come to find a solution to our broken immigration system.”

But activists were furious. “It appears that Cory Gardner’s gentle, moderate, compromising tone on the campaign trail was just a trick to win votes,” said Victor Galvan, a Gardner constituent and organizer with the Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition. “Today Congressman Gardner showed his true extreme colors by blocking a vote on common sense bipartisan reform, and instead voting to deport students and parents at the expense of families and the Colorado economy.”

Gardner defeated Democratic Sen Mark Udall in last month’s election. With Hispanics comprising 14 percent of Colorado’s voters, Gardner adopted a notably softer line on immigration than many other Colorado Republicans have. Udall, a supporter of the Senate bill, accused the Republican challenger of being insincere on immigration.

Colorado’s two other Republican Congressmen — Doug Lamborn and Scott Tipton — voted to repeal Obama’s order. The state’s three Democratic congressional representatives voted to uphold it.

18 replies on “Gardner votes to overturn Obama immigration order; Coffman votes against House measure”

  1. Sorry, Mr. Galvan, if you enter our country illegally then you are subject to our laws and whatever it brings you. There’s no if’s, and’s or but’s about it. Mr. Numbnuts simply wants to do away with that and let everyone stay and feed off of what’s left of this country. So, when (not if) this country’s economy collapses, where will you stand then? I would guess the bread line, it one exists. I just hope I’m not alive to see it.

    1. OUR President, President Barack Obama, merely
      wants 4 million people to go through a background check, pay appropriate taxes
      owed, and contribute to society. We can’t
      deport 11 million undocumented workers, and
      can’t expect them to “self deport” like Mitt
      Romney suggested. Republicans refused to
      vote on a bipartisan bill that passed in the
      Senate. Boehner refuses to allow a vote.
      Instead of suing the President, elected representatives need to put on their big boy
      pants and constructively do something about
      immigration. Both President Bush and Reagan
      issued Executive Orders that allowed millions
      of undocumented people stay in the U.S., but
      when President Obama does this it’s a crime.

      1. Well, Ms or Mr reader, apparently, comprehension is the part missing from your ability to read. Have you read the executive order? Did you see where it says these “undocumented” (illegal) residents will pay taxes owed? OUR president hasn’t signed ANY executive order stipulating that. As for President Bush’s executive orders allowing ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS to stay in the US, direct me to your research where you believe this took place.

        1. Kevin, in case you are not fluent in internet research, here you go: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/11/24/did-george-h-w-bush-really-shield-1-5-million-illegal-immigrants-nope/

          here is another: https://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-and-bush-made-immigration-executive-orders-2014-11

          You speak as though you are well informed, however, your ignorance to the topic shows contrary. I am a first generation academically achieved HISPANIC now pursuing my DBA (Doctor of Business Admin). Let’s have a true, respectful, back and forth on this issue in order to gain knowledge on both sides of this particular issue. I hold TRUE conservative principles because of the TRADITIONAL life style that HISPANICS hold…
          What do you say?

          1. In 1986, President Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the USA, if they had come to the USA before 1982.
            In l989, President Bush Sr. went big. He protected about 40% of the unauthorized population – about 1.5 million.
            Presidents Eisenhower, Ford and both Bushes altered the immigration laws by EXECUTIVE
            ACTION. The word “impeachment”
            ws never mentioned.

          2. In 1986, CONGRESS enacted IRCA, which Reagan used as his basis for expanding. Bush expanded policy for those that didn’t qualify for IRCA, but were family members of those that did and set an INS “policy” that included only family members of those already qualified.

          3. Sorry, Reagan expanded the 1986 IRCA legislation already enacted. Bush was left with the remainder of those that didn’t qualify for IRCA, but were family members of those that did and set an INS “policy” that included only family members of those already qualified. Mr. Obama wants to exempt all regardless of their status according to our existing laws. Unfortunately, the links you provided are unverifiable “stories”.

        2. You’ve got to be kidding. Are you OK? Seriously. Sounds like you need medical attention. A psychiatrist perhaps?

    2. On Friday, Dec. 5, 2014, republican Pete
      Sessions stated the republican party “is ready to accept that millions of undocumented immigrants
      in the country should not be deported.” Mr. Sessions is Chairman of the House Rules Committee.

    3. You certainly have a vivid imagination along with an adolescent attitude. Do you still write your middle school epitaphs on bathroom walls?

      You must be living in a vacuum. The economy is doing fine thank you despite your gloom and doom ignorance. “Breadlines”. You are indeed delusional.

        1. If unworthy, why do you bother. I have to say. Your comments beg for discussion, are quite typical, but sensible?
          I think not.

  2. Our representatives should be in support of immigrants, not illegal immigrants. Gardner IS supporting immigrants by voting against Obama’s order that cheapens the value of immigrating to our country legally – the way that over 1 million legal immigrants do every year.
    “Obama took his action because House Republicans refused to vote on a bipartisan immigration bill that the Senate passed last year that would provide eventual citizenship for many of the 11 million people in the U.S. illegally.”
    That was a take it or leave it “comprehensive” bill. There was never a bill passed by the Senate that proposed to do things step by step. What Obama unilaterally did via executive order was never proposed to the House to vote on.
    I believe this is an issue of using the lawful/constitutional process to “change law”, the process used by Obama should not be supported by any of our representatives that took an oath to uphold the constitution. For Obama and Progressives is it another “the ends justify the means”. The process we have in this country should be followed.

    1. You’re entitled to your opinion flawed as it is. Your characterization of the Senate immigration reform bill rejected by the Republican House members including Gardner and Coffman was not a “take it or leave it” bill.

      The only reason Coffman is now wavering is due to the demographical change in the 6th district which is no longer Tancredo Red.

        1. Fair enough. I would point out your comment the President’s executive order on immigration was “not presented to the House to vote on” is flawed. This President as well as most of his predecessors have issued literally thousands of executive orders and have done so within the legal powers of their office without the approval of Congress.

          The conservatives can complain to no avail. Unless the courts step in and rule the President exceeded his presidential authority, Obama’s order stands. The courts have ruled twice in the history of our country to overturn a presidential executive order among literally thousands since George Washington. It’s doubtful Obama’s order will be overturned by the courts.

          The extremists among the GOP rank and file in Congress will moan and groan about impeachment, law suits with holding funds. Let them do it. In my opinion the result will be further gridlock and with 2016 just around the corner the voters memories are long.

          But you are entitled to your opinion. Let me add we both come from different points. Neither of us are entirely right or wrong.

          Thanks for your reply.

          1. The Senate has sent a bill to the House that was not a “comprehensive” bill? Apparently I missed that and a bill that was offered to the House that was the same or similar as the president’s executive order. What I imagine is that it is possible that the House would/could pass a bill that is similar to Obama’s order. The House has put several bills to committee that have passed through committee, I am not sure what happened to them but I doubt that the Senate would pass any, anyway. I did not state anything about what Obama did compared to the his predecessors. I don’t expect his order to be overturned, what I stated was that the president shouldn’t have acted unilaterally. An argument that he needed to do something because the House won’t is “flawed”. Impeachment? I didn’t say anything about impeaching the president and do not support it and most House republicans don’t support it either. IMO, gridlock is not a bad thing … in 2015, 2016 I imagine that the House and Senate will pass bills, it will be up to Obama to sign them or veto them, if he vetoes them then he will be the cause of “gridlock”.

          2. Gridlock may be OK by you. It is certainly not with most of the voting public.

            It remains to be seen who will be blamed for gridlock. The President or the Republicans. Let’s be clear. In your opinion it will be the President who will be blamed for gridlock. You could be right or wrong.

            Lastly you state the President should not have acted unilaterally and that his reasoning was flawed. Great. You’re entitled to your opinion.

            Of this we can be sure. The new Congress will begin in January and the sun will rise in the East.

            Nice to know you don’t support impeachment. You had me worried there for a moment.

            Have a good one.

Comments are closed.