DEBATE

now arcs from Denver’s south suburbs through Aurora and up to Brighton, was redrawn into a much more diverse — and cutthroat — district before the 2012 election. Coffman has held onto his seat, winning re-election handily in 2014, and Carroll’s run is the third serious attempt by Democrats to defeat him.

A recurring theme, as in previous debates, was immigration reform. Both support it — but for Coffman, his evolving stance advocating a piecemeal approach toward granting some legal recognition to people in the country illegally has been at odds with his party’s widespread opposition. Carroll and Democrats portray it as political posturing, with nothing to show for it.

But Carroll was put on the spot first by the moderators when she was asked whether she stood by her comment that immigrants who are in the United States illegally haven’t done anything wrong. “The question is: Does it not then confirm what your critics would say, which is that you don’t respect the rule of law?” Clark asked.

“Sometimes the law is unjust,” Carroll said. “And that was true during Jim Crow, that’s true while we’ve got a broken immigration system that’s there. So we must uphold the rule of law, but the bigger and more important moral imperative, from my perspective, is to make sure the law is just, that it is right, that it is humane and that it is not hurting families. Immigrant rights are human rights. The law is part of the problem.”

Coffman faced a question about his comments advocating for a more robust use of deportations.

Coffman said the country first needed to address the millions of people who are here now after years of “de facto amnesty,” especially for young people brought by their parents, with some accommodations.

“But I would like to see us move to a much tougher system after that point in time,” Coffman said. “We have to get tough on our borders.”