The WSJ has an editorial supporting - you guessed it - illegal immigration and the politicians who are paid to support it, contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of their constituents.

As you can imagine, it's filled with smears:

Mr. Cannon tops the restrictionists' target list because he's been one of the few politicians in either party to expose the extreme nature of their underlying agendas, which has less to do with immigration per se and more to do with environmental extremism and population-growth concerns influenced by the discredited claims of the 19th-century British economist Thomas Malthus...

Huh? This WSJ-only meme has already been discredited (See also this and this). And, note that their readers are - as usual - opposed to their pro-illegal immigration stance.

Why, you might ask, is the WSJ supporting a politician so desperate that he has to have an aide beg for money from illegal aliens? Because, of course, they're desperate themselves.