Love, a Republican, has the enthusiastic backing of Utah’s far right in her race against incumbent Congressman Jim Matheson for the 4th District. Matheson, a conservative Democrat, is in a panic about losing, at least if his recent piranha attacks on Love are any indicator. Character emerges under pressure. But character is also shown by a candidate’s willingness to address straight questions in an honest, forthright way. On this score, Love has been lacking.

Did her parents enter the country legally in the early 1970s? How did they enter? If they used tourist visas, were they still in legal status at the time Mia was born in 1975? Or had they overstayed their dates, lying low for a few years — long enough to have a child in America?

According to credible news accounts, there was a law in place at the time that allowed foreign parents to take advantage of their anchor baby to get themselves on a track to permanent residency and eventual citizenship. But what about the gap in Love’s case? What about the legal status of her parents from the time they entered until her birth? On this question, candidate Love has been mysteriously mercurial. Her public statements have been few and nuanced. Phone calls and e-mails from the press go unanswered.

The anti-immigrant voices that support Love must be squirming, hoping for election day, hoping that all these questions will just go away. Many of them have been vicious in their opposition to visa overstays and the exploitation of anchor babies for citizenship. It would be awkward if it turned out that their new standard-bearer, Mia Love, was herself an anchor baby. Love should come out publicly, and soon, to explain her roots with candor. It would help, not hurt. There is no hiding behind the election. Even if she wins, these questions will dog her in office. And the facts will come out, one way or another. They always do.