November 10, 2006

Wide Margin?

Filed under: Immigration,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 2:24 pm

The open-borders Wall Street Journal, in a subscription-only editorial today, is crowing that the election results on Tuesday represent a repudiation of the idea of aggressively enforcing immigration laws, and says:

In Arizona, which is ground zero in the illegal alien debate, two Republicans defined by their opposition to immigration were defeated by wide margins. Representative J.D. Hayworth, who is so proud of his desire to turn the U.S. into a single gated community that he wrote a book about it, lost handily. So did Randy Graf, another anti-immigration absolutist who ran for an open seat in a district that borders Mexico and sees more illegal immigrant traffic than perhaps any other Congressional seat in the nation.

Graf did lose rather handily (Michelle Malkin, for one, in the later section of her early-afternoon post, believes there were many factors other than immigration involved), but Hayworth is holding out, and would seem to have some reason to:

Hayworth declined interview requests with the Tribune, but in television and radio interviews the six-term Republican said he planned to wait out the final count.

Election officials said more than 250,000 ballots cast in Maricopa County have yet to be counted. They were unable to immediately determine how many of those ballots were from the 5th district, which includes Scottsdale, Tempe, Ahwatukee Foothills, Fountain Hills and surrounding areas.

Unofficial results late Wednesday had Democratic challenger Harry Mitchell ahead with 50.5 percent, followed by Hayworth with 46.2 percent and Libertarian Warren Severin with 3.3 percent.

Mitchell led by 5,955 votes among 140,819 votes counted so far.

The WSJ’s definition of a “wide margin” is in need of adjustment, as is its take on the effect of Tuesday’s result on the immigration debate. More on that over the weekend.

Share

5 Comments

  1. I’m getting pretty tired of these “conservatives” who are celebrating congressional losses of Republicans who actually think we should defend our borders.
    Kudlow was absolutely giddy on CNBC the other night about Hayworth’s loss. Not that he cares, but Kudlow has lost one viewer.

    Comment by LargeBill — November 10, 2006 @ 3:50 pm

  2. I do not get that either with Kudlow, esp because he and Laura Ingraham get along so well, and she is definitely NOT open borders.

    I cannot understand the blind spot that the economic conservatives have over this. It is absolutely maddening, because it is the one thing that could peel off the Reagan Democrats. Michelle noted that his opponent was mimicking the Haworth anti-illegals stand almost to the point of plagiairism (Haworth also noted that on Hannity on Monday), so what does his loss really prove?

    And Haworth still has a chance — a much better one than Wulsin, that is for sure.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 10, 2006 @ 4:48 pm

  3. You omitted probably the most important part of the article

    In addition to losing seats, however, the GOP’s restrictionist strategy has reversed significant gains among Latino voters. Exit polls show that 70% of Hispanics voted Democratic in House races this year. Meanwhile, some 29% voted Republican — an eight-percentage-point drop from the 2002 midterm, and down 15 points from the 44% won by President Bush in 2004 (which had improved from 31% in 2000).

    Legal Hispanic immigrants and the generations that follow them are and will be the fastest growing electorate in the US. The hard line approach to immigration reform does not appeal to them. This bloc of voters identifies with the plights of some illegals who come here under the same circumstances that they did. The Catholic principle of deference to the poor is weighted higher to them than emigrating illegally; something that they may consider an “efficient crime.” If conservatives want to solve the illegal immigration problem, they need to focus on making the immigration process more efficient and streamlined.

    Comment by Kevin — November 11, 2006 @ 11:41 am

  4. #3, this is a real problem, and I can’t deny it. The Catholic Church insists on looking at each immigrant as an isolated situation instead of asking why so many come here and then “require” our charity. Meanwhile, in countries with borders sealed tight they don’t utter peep.

    Comment by TBlumer — November 11, 2006 @ 11:24 pm

  5. On Fences…

    I continue to support legal immigration, believing that it keeps our nation strong and vibrant. I am completely opposed to illegal immigration, and have no problem with the government building a fence to help quash that problem.

    ……

    Trackback by Webloggin — November 14, 2006 @ 12:05 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.