Wednesday, May 05, 2010

From Jane Norton. I agree with this completely


Thursday, April 29, 2010

Centennial, CO – Jane Norton, candidate for U.S. Senate, issued the following statement on the passage of the Arizona immigration law:

“The Arizona law was an inevitable consequence of the federal government’s failure to act over the last 30 years to secure all our borders. Securing America’s borders is a national security imperative. Federal inaction has meant border violence and a drug trade run amok. Is it any wonder Arizonans are angry and fed up?”

“Year in and year out, states have been forced to shoulder the increased costs associated with illegal immigration. Millions have crossed our border illegally or overstayed their visas and have driven up the costs of health care, education, welfare, law enforcement and incarceration.”

“Meanwhile, our leaders in Washington have done nothing. The Arizona legislature and governor decided to stand up and say ‘no more.’ And contrary to popular belief, they aren't the only state that has done so. Georgia, Colorado, and other states have all approved tough illegal immigrant enforcement laws in an effort to address a problem our federal government has ignored. States under the 10th Amendment have the right and the duty to protect their citizens.”

“The solution to this problem isn't for the Justice Department to file a taxpayer-funded lawsuit against the Governor of Arizona for responding to a law enforcement crisis. It isn't to give amnesty to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants who are already in this country -- as Barack Obama has suggested. And it isn't to give illegal immigrants public benefits that will only induce even more illegal immigrants to come here.”

“The time has come to secure America’s borders and end illegal immigration. America is a nation established on the rule of law, and if I'm elected as your U.S. Senator, I will demand that our immigration laws are enforced. America was established and built by immigrants and will continue to need immigrants for its future economic vitality and global competitiveness. I will insist on an enforceable and verifiable temporary worker program to meet the needs of our nation’s economy to ensure that employers hire only people who are here legally and that their stay is truly temporary. We have the technology to do this in a way that is fair and sensible, and I believe we must. Amnesty violates the rule of law. Those who wish to obtain American citizenship must follow the legal process, and therefore I oppose amnesty and efforts to create a ‘path to citizenship’ for people in this country illegally.


Jeffrey Shallit said...

Did any of your ancestors arrive illegally?

Dan said...

It's much easier to yell racist than to contemplate her words, an accusation I can legitimately assume has already been leveled. I guess that's one reason its easier to be a liberal than a conservative, to destroy rather than to build.

Doug Groothuis said...


No. Even if they did, it would be irrelevant.

Mark Mathewson, Ph.D. said...


To be honest, I’m not impressed by either political party’s views/solutions on this whole immigration issue. Forgive my lack of political understanding here, but I must admit I’m a little perplexed at some of what Norton says. Not living in Colorado, and thus not being familiar with Norton, I may not be grasping her full view here. Perhaps you could help clarify some things since you know her views better than I do (and I appreciate that you may or may not know her views on my exact questions).

Norton says:

“Amnesty violates the rule of law. Those who wish to obtain American citizenship must follow the legal process, and therefore I oppose amnesty and efforts to create a ‘path to citizenship’ for people in this country illegally.”

First, does her view of adhering to the ‘rule of law’ imply that if something is law it cannot be changed or opposed without violating the ‘rule of law’? And would her view put her in the position that the ‘rule of law’ should be applied as rigorously, for example, to current abortion law as well as Obamacare? Surely not (I hope). But, if not, what are her criteria for when the ‘rule of law’ is to be applied and when it isn’t (e.g., when it may be ‘violated’)?

Second, her statement seems to assume the current immigration laws are good. Does Norton believe the current immigration laws are good (i.e., just) and that no reform of the laws themselves should be undertaken? If not, what aspects of immigration law does she think need to be changed?

Third, it seems from Norton’s statement that she thinks a ‘path to citizenship’ for those in the country illegally is a type of amnesty. Is this her view?

Fourth, it seems that her opposition to “efforts to create a ‘path to citizenship’ for people in this country illegally” is because such an effort would violate the ‘rule of law.’ Do I understand that accurately? If so, that doesn’t seem correct. How would efforts to create a pathway to citizenship through the legal process constitute a violation of the ‘rule of law’? I’m not getting that. Now there may be perfectly good reasons to be opposed to creating such a pathway, but surely not because it violates the ‘rule of law.’

Any thoughts or insights?