Longtime New York Assemblyman Willis Stephens was defeated in a Republican primary for a seat in Westchester County that not only has he held for six terms, but that his father and grandfather held before him. Stephens’ father held it for 30 years, his grandfather for 28 years.

But Stephens isn’t really opposed to illegal immigration, so he lost the primary to a 28-year old ex-Air Force officer named Greg Ball.

The Westchester Journal News ran an editorial title Incumbents Beware, that pointed out that there is no ducking the immigration issue.

No dodges, ducking

It was illegal immigration, however, that dominated the night’s talk. Is it a local issue or a national one? Both, the audience grumbled. The presence of large numbers of immigrant day laborers has long frustrated communities on both sides of the Hudson River. Many local officials have long asserted that assessing workers’ legal status is a federal responsibility; Congress has been unable to craft comprehensive and realistic reforms.

But no dodge was acceptable here. At the forum, sponsored by Concerned Residents of Carmel/Mahopac, even the three county judge candidates looking for primary lines were asked to weigh in on illegal immigration. Signs of a litmus test for November races?

Yes, that seems likely. This race hasn’t attracted much notice outside the Westchester Journal-News and the Poughkeepsie Journal, so news of it comes to you via Vdare.com, courtesy of one of our readers who lives in the area.

For more on the “all politics is local” aspect of the immigration, see Mickey Kaus’s recent coverage of the Randy Graf race, and his remark that

P.S.: “Local” in this year’s election has an especially skewed meaning, since the only way the GOP seems to feel it can raise one of its most powerful nationally-appealing issues, immigration enforcement, is by individual House candidates bringing it up in individual races–i.e. locally! If Bush hadn’t decided that he loves his semi-amnesty proposal more than he loves Speaker Hastert, that might be different. But as things stand, “local” in 2006 is a term of art often meaning “national”–or rather, meaning “an issue that would have been a national issue if we didn’t disagree with our party’s leader.” … Which means you can’t necessarily use the low national favorability ratings of that leader–or even, maybe, of the Republican party generally–to predict the outcome of the election….

This is nauseating…

The House is currently debating a variety of immigration bills and so far this morning I have had to endure the mindless ramblings of Sanchez (D-CA), Grijalva (D-AZ) and Hinojosa (D-TX).

Or as I like to call them, the Three Racketeers.

(Ahh…my beloved Tom Tancredo (R-CO) just took to the floor for an all too brief moment although it was long enough to ease my nausea!)

The issue at hand is simple: Should we build a fence on the U.S./Mexico border?

The Three Rackateers (and indeed most of the umm…Left Side of the aisle…claim to support “true immigration reform” and yet they oppose the construction of a fence.

What is their idea of immigration reform? To get rid of the U.S. Border Patrol altogether? Do we need to get rid of all those nasty barriers? Maybe we should erect posters throughout Mexico advertising all the freebies we bestow on illegal immigrants? You know, just to make sure we reach the 5 or 6 Mexican nationals left who have not made the journey North and are therefore unaware (unfairly I’m sure) of the perks!

The argument has been made this morning that terrorists can easily sneak into America through the Mexican border…umm, you think?

The pro-illegal immigration loons are making a valiant albeit non-sensical argument against this reality but this type of behavior is to be expected from fruitcakes…and I am not talking about the super groovy Fruitcakes from the ethereal world of Jimmy Buffet as I am a sustaining member!

They are trying to convince God only knows who that a terrorist threat is minimal…sure it is!

During my evening with the Minutemen down on the California/Mexico border a few months back, at least five Arabic-speaking men were spotted sneaking across the border. That was one evening via one small spot on a very long border…

Oops, sorry about that! Just because they speak Arabic doesn’t mean they are terrorists! There is a .00001% chance they were not terrorists!

Then again, if they were legitimate people they wouldn’t have to sneak in!!!

Anyhow, I will get back to you when the vote is taken…a fence will not solve the illegal immigration problem but it is a very, very good start!

Congressman Ron Paul, who is more or less the only libertarian member of Congress, has an article on Lewrockwell.com, (which has been sound on immigration, but has been neglecting it lately) called Immigration Reform in 2006?

He writes

The American people want something done about illegal immigration now – not next year. All sides in the immigration debate agree that the current, “Don’t ask, don’t tell,” policy cannot continue. That’s why I am joining several of my colleagues in demanding that the Senate vote this month on a border security bill already passed by the House earlier this year. I truly believe border security is the most important issue for millions of Americans.

Representative Paul is notoriously a man of principle, as the following story illustrates:

The third “excuse” is the “Ron Paul exemption.” One day then-Speaker Newt Gingrich called on all House Republicans to band together on a budget vote, even though it was a messy compromise that spent too much money. Everyone was expected to go along–except Ron Paul of Texas. Other conservatives wanted to know what it would take to get a “Ron Paul exemption” for themselves. The answer was to have a consistent voting record against all spending–even in your home district. There have been no additional exemptions passed out.[McCain's Big Backers By Grover Norquist,The American Spectator, 12/99]

If Ron Paul votes for something, it’s because he believes it’s in the best interests of the United States.

Representative Paul’s suggested immigration reform program looks like this:

• First, physically secure our borders and coastlines.
• Second, enforce visa rules on those already in the country.
• Third, reject amnesty.
• Fourth, end welfare-state incentives for illegals.
• Fifth, end birthright citizenship.
• Finally, completely overhaul the legal immigration process.

Liberty Magazine has three articles on immigration, the cover headline is “Immigration: Yes, No, and Maybe.”

From Vdare.com’s point of view, the No essay is pretty good, [The Fallacy of Open Immigration, by Stephen Cox]and the Maybe essay is a call for immigration that’s good for America, not bad. The Yes essay is the usual stuff.

Famous libertarian columnist Vin Suprynowicz had an article in July the Las Vegas Review-Journal, called Enforce immigration laws, don’t ‘reform’ them [July 16, 2006, Login required here | cached version]

We can’t even get the federal government to stop enforcing their absurd marijuana laws when we so direct them by majority vote. So, if they “have to enforce all the laws,” why in hell won’t they enforce sensible immigration laws, currently on the books, that have overwhelming public support?

I think that various friends of liberty are realizing that the net effect of mass immigration is to make the United States less free.

I recently read of the closing of Henry Cogswell College in Everett, WA:

We are saddened to announce the closure of Henry Cogswell College in Everett, Washington. On June 23, 2006, the College’s governing board made their decision to close the college effective August 31, 2006, having concluded that the College is in a financial crisis and that enrollment at the College will continue to decline over the coming year.

Cogswell had a rather interesting and innovative engineering program that had gotten some national acclaim. I’m sad to see them go.

Now, why should Americans be educated when it is cheaper to simply import folks from abroad? That really does appear to be the logic of American business and governmental leadership today–and likely will be until we get a fundamentally different leadership.

Cogswell College is survived by a sister college in Silicon Valley.