The reality check about ‘harmless’ immigration rule
We need a strategy to separate legitimate border policy goals from the Trump administration’s policies of dehumanizing migrants and turning children into collateral damage.
Here’s what’s legitimate:
❚ Border security matters: A country that cannot control its borders is not a country.
❚ It’s unfair for American taxpayers to carry the burden of supporting immigrants, legal or undocumented.
❚ The millions of undocumented immigrants in this country need a safe way to come out of the shadows because when they hide in fear, they become a security challenge on two levels: They are easy prey for criminals and criminals can hide among the hardworking majority.
What’s not legitimate? The scare tactics Trump uses to justify treating hard-working men and women – and their children – like a big-time threat to our jobs, our homes, our language and our way of life.
One of those tactics is a proposed rule change by the Department of Homeland Security regarding the definition of a “public charge.”
If the Arizona election were a movie, it could be called the “Return of the Democrats.”
Democrats had endured a long drought, not winning a statewide election in Arizona since 2008.
The drought ended not with a drizzle, but with a downpour.
Virtually overlooked was that Democrats won all three of Arizona’s competitive congressional districts, and by big margins. Democrats won the Pima County seat vacated by Martha McSally, contributing to the takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives at the national level.
In the Arizona House of Representatives, Democrats narrowed the Republican advantage to an eyelash.
They won two state offices, superintendent of public instruction and a Corporation Commission seat. As of this writing, they are on track to also secure the secretary of state position.
And they won the election’s big prize, the open U.S. Senate seat that was the most heavily, and bitterly, fought.
The question is whether this is a oneoff, attributable to factors peculiar to this election year? Or is it an indication of a new era of more competitive politics for the state?
I’m inclined toward the latter view. There were some factors peculiar to this election at work. Anti-Trump sentiment elevated Democratic turnout and made independents tilt toward Democrats. The #RedForEd movement morphed into grass-roots activism for Democratic candidates, despite its initial protestations of being a bipartisan endeavor. There was an unusual amount of money spent in favor of Democratic candidates.
And one can point to one-off factors in individual races. Martha McSally made some strategic errors. The current GOP school superintendent had a bad run. Arizona Public Service has tainted the Republican brand in Corporation Commission races. Republicans fielded a political unknown for secretary of state, who seemed only slightly aware or interested in what the office actually does.
Republicans may console themselves in light of all that. And with Doug Ducey’s thumping victory in the election’s second-biggest prize, and with retaining control of both chambers of the Legislature.
But that would be whistling not exactly past the graveyard, but past a dramatic change in scenery.
Every Democrat who won statewide office won Maricopa County. In fact, whoever won Maricopa County won every statewide office.
Given that 60 percent of the state’s voters reside here, that’s not a surprise. But Maricopa County as swing territory is something different.
There were signs of this change coming. Maricopa County has steadily been becoming less reliably Republican and conservative.
In 2014, Democrat David Garcia narrowly carried Maricopa County in the superintendent race, although losing the rural counties by a larger margin.
In 2016, Donald Trump carried Maricopa County by a smaller margin than he racked up in the rural counties. Recreational marijuana barely lost here, while getting beat more soundly in the rural counties. And two Democrats were elected to county offices, sheriff and recorder, where the Republicans fielded troubled incumbents.
The change doesn’t seem to be driven principally by demography. According to the exit poll, Latinos weren’t a larger percentage of the electorate than normal. Democrats have narrowed their registration disadvantage, but it remains daunting.
Instead, there seems to have been a return to the ticket-splitting that characterized Arizona voting before the drought commenced. According to the exit poll, 17 percent of those who voted for Ducey also voted for Kyrsten Sinema for U.S. Senate.
And ticket-splitters didn’t just go for Sinema, who pretended not to be a Democrat. Kathy Hoffman, Sandra Kennedy and Katie Hobbs can fairly be described as liberal Democrats. So, the lesson here is that Maricopa County is now open to Democrats from a broad ideological swath who can make a case that, for a particular office, they are better than the Republican alternative.
I don’t think Maricopa County, or the state, is yet purple. It’s somewhere between red and purple. But a mediocre Republican can no longer be counted on to beat a superior Democrat. And a poor Republican candidate is likely to lose to even a mediocre Democratic opponent. It was a big night for Democrats. It’s probably a new day in Arizona politics.