In an interview tonight on Fox, Lindsey mentioned he is pro Harriman. That dovetails with their soft immigration stance.
Hardiman has an expansive view of the second amendment, believing the right to bear arms extends outside the home. In an opinion he wrote disagreeing with a New Jersey law that requires people to show “justifiable need” to be armed outside the home, Hardiman was alone in his opposition, expressing the view that the need for self-defense exists beyond the confines of the household. In a separate case, he held that even violent felons could regain their second amendment rights so long as they met certain conditions.
In addition, Hardiman notably ruled in favor of a New Jersey prison’s strip-search policy, believing the need for security trumps potential inmates’ rights to privacy. While there have been questions raised by conservatives about Hardiman’s views on immigration due to some legal work he did for a clinic called Ayuda early in his career--- when he helped poor, Spanish-speaking immigrants in political asylum and domestic abuse cases--- he has also written unpublished opinions against non-citizens.
“I don't believe there's much in Hardiman's record to fully gauge him [on immigration]. Ayuda cuts both ways. It could help politically due to the concerns that Trump is anti-immigration,” Philip Holloway, legal analyst at the Holloway Law Group, told FOX Business.
He seems to be an originalist. As long as he follows the law and the constitution, I'm not too worried about his work on behalf of that foundation early in his career. Graham may just be for him because he would be easier to confirm than the others. And the 2A is the biggest issue for me (not that borders aren't). On the whole I think we'll be fine with any of Trump's picks.
BTW, I just saw Lindsey on Fox saying all 4 were great. OH NO! THEY’RE ALL FOR OPEN BORDERS!