The South Carolina GOP nomination is in a run-off between prominent Nikki-Haley endorser Representative Ralph Norman and Senator Darline Graham. The president has endorsed Graham — the sister of my old boss, the late Senator Lindsey Graham — while much of the professional-conservative activist set has tried to rally around Norman.
A significant driver of this support comes from Norman supposedly being stronger than Graham on illegal immigration. Graham has taken a hard line on immigration, but her late brother was far from a hawk on the issue, so the attack makes some intuitive sense.
Then how to explain Norman’s answer on the question during last night’s debate between him and Graham? He was asked what to do about DACA recipients, “migrants with valid visa status,” asylum seekers, green-card holders, naturalized citizens, and “others who are legally going through the citizenship process.” Does he want them to have a pathway to citizenship? It’s a pretty good question, because the Trump administration has been very aggressive in deporting (or attempting to deport) people occupying these categories who would normally get a pass.
Norman’s answer was a mess. He asserted that he believes in legal immigration, not illegal immigration. If they’re illegal, get them out, and then “you have an expedited area for those workers who, like, have been here and have not caused trouble and provide work for different companies, you have an organized way to do it.” Does this mean he wants to throw them out and bring the good workers back in? Or does it mean you focus on the criminal aliens like the more moderate Republican elements want? Honestly, it’s hard to say, and whatever it is, it’s a far cry from Stephen Miller.
Indeed the overarching sentiment is one that you’d expect to hear from someone like John Cornyn. Which is not to say that Cornyn’s view here is necessarily wrong or unusual, but the fact is that he was thrown out of office for it by Republican primary voters. And this is supposed to be the new champion of immigration restriction?
The old Republican mantra of “I support LEGAL immigration” doesn’t really work anymore. Decades of asylum abuse, DACA, TPS extensions, and lawless parole have created a monstrously large class of “legal” illegal aliens. Trump has made it his business to go after that class, which is why the papers have been filled for two years with mendacious half-truths about Trump deporting, say, parolees or asylum seekers who “are here legally.” That’s what the question was getting at, and Norman gave an answer that could have come from the chamber of commerce.
If Norman just another rich boomer with rich-boomer prejudices on illegal immigration (hey, someone has to do the work, right?) why all the support from the professional activist class? It’s not because of his policy views but because he’ll be a pain in the neck to his colleagues. On one hand, he’ll vote yes to abolish the filibuster in exchange for some magic beans, and, on the other hand, he’ll vote no on every spending bill because conservatism.
Of course that’s a terrible way of doing business for South Carolina. Graham is a filibuster skeptic, too, as is, presumably, the primary electorate in the Upstate. It is what it is. But the filibuster empowers small states like South Carolina, and its strictures contributed significantly to the influence wielded by the other Senator Graham.
As for voting no on spending bills, that’s simply a nightmare for a state like South Carolina. Southern states have long used senatorial power to guide federal money to their projects. Even arch-conservatives like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond knew that to win the game, you have to play the game, and were therefore happy to partake in the appropriations process — provided their states were duly taken care of. Jeff Sessions had few qualms partnering with Richard Shelby to rob the treasury blind to benefit Alabama. It’s why half the FBI is now in Huntsville, Ala. — just like how all AUSAs get their training at the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, S.C.
In 2026, though, spending bills are not just about spending. They’re one of the few things that actually happens every year because they have to, and, as a result, they have become power centers for congressional leadership. Consistently voting no on spending bills may mean you don’t get your home-state priorities funded, but it also means that Republican leadership needs to backfill your vote somewhere else (with a Democrat) thereby reducing leadership’s effective control and therefore power. That’s a good thing for the professional activist set, and a bad thing for a state like South Carolina.
It’s also why Norman, whose answer last night on illegal immigration was somewhere between John Cornyn and John McCain, is being improbably touted as the second coming of Tom Tancredo. Hopefully, voters see through it like Trump has.