DENVER -- An attorney for the federal government has asked a judge to throw out a lawsuit filed by the state -- which alleges that the government failed to do enough to stop illegal immigration.

Colorado voters gave their approval to the lawsuit when they passed Referendum K last November with 56 percent of the vote.

It directs the state attorney general to sue the federal government to force them to do a better job of enforcing immigration laws.

"Essentially the state ... through the attorney general, is arguing that the world has changed since Sept. 11, 2001 and it's no longer acceptable for our borders to be porous," said Nate Strauch, communications director for the Colorado attorney general. "We're essentially arguing that the federal government needs to do a better job and that they are in fact required by the Constitution to do a better job to protect us from terrorist threats coming through the borders."

Attorneys for the federal government said the courts cannot tell Congress and the President how to do their jobs. They argued that the issues raised by Colorado are political and should be addressed by Congress and the President, not the courts.

U.S. District Court Judge Lewis T. Babcock questioned whether he had the authority to grant the state's request that he order the U.S. to hire more border guards and provide more detention space for illegal immigrants.

"If you increase the number of border guards and inspectors maybe you'll snag a terrorist," the Judge said, "maybe not."

Attorney General John Suthers was originally opposed to Referendum K. Strauch said the A.G. thought "the tax money could have been better used elsewhere."

Six other states have tried to sue the federal government and failed.

But Strauch said Colorado's lawsuit is unique because it argues the national security angle.

"That's why we feel it has a better chance of success than those of other states," Strauch said.