WASHINGTON - News
coverage of this week's ruling on the Arizona anti-immigrant law is
re-igniting the debate over comprehensive immigration reform and the
need for a federal solution.  But as Washington pundits analyze the
political implications of the judge's decision, they are turning to
outdated thinking instead of real facts from real elections. 
Conventional wisdom in Washington has it that the Obama Administration's
lawsuit, and success this week in court, will hurt congressional
Democrats in swing districts and help Republicans mobilize their base. 
Once again, these experts prove that they have a superficial
understanding of the politics of immigration. 

According
to Frank Sharry, Executive Director of America's Voice, "The Arizona
law and Wednesday's ruling only heightens the public's desire for a
federal immigration solution.  While polls show the Arizona law is
popular with voters, these same surveys show comprehensive immigration
reform is even more popular.  The public is hungry for leaders in
Washington to solve this problem, and they will reward politicians who
cut through the rhetoric to offer real solutions." 

Some points to consider about the politics of immigration:

• Conventional wisdom has consistently been wrong:
  While running on a hard-line immigration stance may work in some
  Republican primaries, it has not proven to be successful in the vast
  majority of general election campaigns. Polling in swing districts and states
  consistently shows that comprehensive immigration reform is supported
  by a majority of voters because it is a practical solution that
  increases the tax base and restores order to the system. In 2006 and 2008, comprehensive reform candidates consistently trounced hard-line candidates in close races. An America's Voice report
  found that in twenty of twenty-two contested congressional races in
  2008, the losers advocated a deportation-only agenda and the winners
  supported more comprehensive policies. According to the late Richard
  Nadler, a GOP activist who studied
  the role of immigration in 2008 House races: "Immigration was a wedge
  issue benefiting the Democratic Party, but not the GOP."

• The American people have complex views on immigration, and support pragmatic approaches to fixing the problem:
  Voters want the problem of illegal immigration solved and want a
  national solution instead of a state-by state approach. A number of
  recent surveys have shown that while the Arizona immigration law is
  popular, comprehensive immigration reform enjoys even wider support. Bi-partisan nationwide polling
  conducted by Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies found
  that 60% of voters support the Arizona law with 23% opposed. This
  support for Arizona's SB1070 reflects people's frustration over
  Washington's failure to act on immigration reform. Even more
  voters--78%--support federal, comprehensive immigration reform.
  Notably, 84% of those who support the Arizona law also support
  comprehensive immigration reform, and by a margin of 60% to 18%, voters
  want the federal government to act instead of letting the states
  decide.

• Republicans in Washington have formed a wall of resistance to working on immigration reform, leaving states like Arizona floundering under the weight of a problem that must be solved at the national level. While some Republicans
  are calling on the Obama Administration to "make immigration reform a
  priority" following the judge's decision, the fact is these same
  politicians have done nothing to advance the issue this year, and even refused to work with Democrats
  on a reform proposal this spring. By insisting on "border first"
  proposals as a precondition for engaging on broader reforms, Arizona's
  own Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain are also blocking the only approach
  that they know will work at a time when Arizona and the rest of the
  country desperately needs a solution.

• Latino voters are re-engaged and energized by immigration:
  While conventional wisdom has it that western Democrats in close races
  have the most to "lose" from the court's ruling, the exact opposite is
  true. Conservative voters were already motivated to turn out and vote
  against Democrats this cycle; it is the Democratic base, including the crucial Latino voter group,
  that needed a reason to show up. In Nevada, Florida, Colorado,
  Arizona, and elsewhere, new polling shows that the fallout over
  Arizona's anti-immigration law is having a mobilizing effect on Latinos,
  and defining the good guys and bad guys in a way that will hurt
  Republicans and help Democrats if sustained through the fall. For
  example, a recent poll
  from LatinoMetrics, co-sponsored by the Hispanic Federation and the
  League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), found that "since the
  end of 2009, immigration has catapulted to the top issue of personal
  concern among 1 in 4 Latinos -tied with jobs & the economy." A poll
  of Latino voters in CA, CO, FL, and TX from Dr. Ricardo Ramirez of the
  University of Southern California, for the National Association of
  Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Education Fund (NALEO), similarly
  found that 70% of Latino voters are likely to vote this year and an
  additional 8% said it was possible; over half of them (57%) cited the
  current immigration debate as the reason they are more likely to vote.
  Notably, 54% of the NALEO poll respondents said a candidate or party
  espousing an immigration position they disagreed with would be less
  likely to vote for that candidate, even if they agreed with most of that
  candidate or party's positions on other issues. According to Arturo Vargas, NALEO's Executive Director, "Latinos are feeling less optimistic and more under siege."

Ironically,
the Republican Party's continued embrace of its restrictionist wing-the
most visible example being the debate over the Arizona anti-immigration
law-could do very little to win new voters to the GOP, and a lot to
further motivate and alienate the fastest-growing group of new voters in
the nation.  Now that's a true read on the politics of immigration in 2010.