On July 16th Jane Norton was interviewed on Colorado Public Radio. The transcript below clearly states Jane Norton’s interest in establishing a pathway to citizenship for the 12 to 20 million illegal immigrants.
Jane: Some of the Hispanic clergy have said and I think it is an interesting idea; if they wanted to stay they would got to law enforcement and say I am here illegally. And they would receive punishment and they would have a record. And they would go to the back of the line. They would submit themselves to a background check and they would go to the back of the line.
Host: And they wouldn’t be deported necessarily?
Jane: Well they could be if they didn’t pass a background check, or if they had infractions that would be, that would be troublesome. The other thing is right now they could face up to three….thirty day imprisonment and of course we don’t have enough jail room, if that were, if all would come forward to this. So one of the suggestions is then they do 30 days community service. So I think it is an interesting option. But I do believe right now that barring some kind of solution like that, they would have to leave the country.
http://www.cpr.org/#load_artic…
It is understandable Jane Norton has leanings toward amnesty and a pathway to citizenship; she was McCain’s Colorado co-chair during his failed run for the presidency. It also is clear that the Republican Party’s Senators Graham, Cornyn, and McCain have all endorsed and worked tirelessly to get Jane elected. That trio has long advocated for yet another failed immigration policy of amnesty. What is truly disturbing is Senator Michael Bennet had a guest opinion piece published in today’s Greeley Tribune. Bennet’s words and Norton’s words are frighteningly similar.
I support requiring undocumented immigrants to undergo criminal background checks, learn English and pay all back taxes and fines. The path should also give priority to those people who have been playing by the rules by sending undocumented immigrants to the back of the line for citizenship.
http://www.greeleytribune.com/…
In February Jane Norton was called out by Tom Tancredo for her stance on immigration.
“I ask that Jane clarify her comments and explain what a ‘workable’ immigration system actually is,” Tancredo is quoted to say in the release, which captures Tancredo’s rapid-fire style. “That has become a code word for amnesty legislation. This kind of pro-amnesty rhetoric is virtually identical to that of John McCain.”
http://coloradoindependent.com…
Jane Norton is not the strong conservative we need on immigration. Ken Buck has been in the trenches fighting illegal immigration while Jane Norton is aligned with McCain and Senator Michael Bennet(D) on amnesty and pathways to citizenship. The GOP establishment just does not get it. Do we need any additional proof that Jane Norton will align herself with the liberal wing of the Republican Party? She even said she would seek the mentoring of Lisa Murkowski if elected.
The true Jane Norton is revealing herself. Are Colorado conservatives ready to say no to yet one more wolf in sheep’s clothing?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: kwtree
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Christmas 2024 Open Thread
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Delta County’s Rep. Matt Soper Opposes Birthright Citizenship
BY: Pam Bennett
IN: Colorado Pols is 20 Years Old!!!
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Christmas 2024 Open Thread
BY: Duke Cox
IN: Christmas 2024 Open Thread
BY: NotHopeful
IN: Christmas 2024 Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
I thought the NPR interview was wierd. If Norton was going to deport illegals, community service before they go was not exactly going to ensure they would get on a bus headed south.
touts her tough stand on illegal immigration. She’s lying through her teeth.
this race boils down to some really tough choices between:
1. Unethical (That’s always been a very popular option.)
or,
2. Empty Headed (And, there’s a huge amount of growing support for that.)
I see your problem.
Let me suggest a tie-breaker, like maybe, oh, — Who is more evil?
(I know, you’re going to have to settle for two out of three, but some day you’re going to have to face the fact that this will never be a perfect “conservative” world.)