It's disingenuous to argue that Arizona rejected enforcement when, as Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies points out, it approved ballot measures to deny bail to illegals, bar them from collecting punitive damages, keep them from receiving certain state subsidies and make English the state's official language. If Arizona had recoiled from a get-tough approach to immigration, it would have rejected these measures along with Graf and Hayworth, rather than approving them by 3-1 margins.
The fact is that the slaughter of Republican candidates this year was indiscriminate. It hit restrictionists and advocates of amnesty alike. For every high-profile, tough-on-immigration Republican who lost, like Indiana Rep. John Hostettler, there was also a supporter of amnesty like Rhode Island's Sen. Lincoln Chafee. The immigration issue wasn't killing off Republicans; it was discontent with the war and a general disgust with the GOP brand.
The true acid test on the issue is how Democrats handled it. They ran what everyone acknowledges was a brilliant campaign. Yet, they tried to minimize differences with Republicans on immigration and mentioned it nowhere in their post-election agenda.
Finally, there is the matter of the Hispanic vote. The Republicans' share of it declined to 30 percent this year from 38 percent in the last congressional midterms in 2002. This datum -- often characterized as disastrous -- has to be put in the context of a decline in the GOP share of the white vote, from 58 percent to 51 percent. Republicans were equal-opportunity losers this year, alienating everyone from new immigrants to descendants from the Mayflower.
For all of this, it seems that President Bush and House Majority Leader-elect Nancy Pelosi might still accept the "immigration enforcement lost" interpretation of election. They both do so at their political peril.