tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post5803020796132130005..comments2024-03-25T19:00:40.046-06:00Comments on The Constructive Curmudgeon: From Jane Norton. I agree with this completelyDouglas Groothuis, Ph.D.http://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-11301903754281922002010-05-06T11:51:41.397-06:002010-05-06T11:51:41.397-06:00Doug,
To be honest, I’m not impressed by either p...Doug,<br /><br />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).<br /><br />Norton says:<br /><br />“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.”<br /><br />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’)?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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? <br /><br />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.’<br /><br />Any thoughts or insights?<br /><br />Thanks,<br />MarkMark Mathewson, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07180021113027502055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-45535782202174622302010-05-06T10:28:56.219-06:002010-05-06T10:28:56.219-06:00Jeff:
No. Even if they did, it would be irrelevan...Jeff:<br /><br />No. Even if they did, it would be irrelevant.Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08766692378954258034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-87014406146888674712010-05-06T09:34:34.421-06:002010-05-06T09:34:34.421-06:00It's much easier to yell racist than to contem...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.Danny Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15006024707303951009noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14410967.post-61033142393340384812010-05-06T05:48:37.446-06:002010-05-06T05:48:37.446-06:00Did any of your ancestors arrive illegally?Did any of your ancestors arrive illegally?Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.com