IMMIGRATION DISRUPTION.

Though I'm largely in the wait-and-see camp as to immigration's potency in the 2008 elections, I think Matt's underselling it as an issue here. One reason it's not been particularly powerful in recent years is simply that very few politicians have been exploiting it. This was partially driven by a reticence among Republican Party operatives to destroy their standing with the emergent Hispanic electorate, partially driven by the business community staying their hand. After the conservative base revolted, though, Republicans decided to jettison the counsel of their strategists and try to squeeze some short-term advantage out of the issue in the hopes that, in a decade or so, they'll make amends with Hispanic voters by nominating Mel Martinez or something. That hoped-for tomorrow seems a bit unlikely, but the issue's short-term power is significant. One thing to keep in mind about immigration is that it's an almost uniquely disruptive political issue. It's not really like abortion, where Republicans had to turn the conversation to that topic before extracting an advantage. Rather, illegal immigrants are an entry point towards attacking otherwise popular social policies. For instance: I was in a meeting the other day on health reform where the participants were fretting about a poll showing that support for universal health care flips to majority against if the respondent is told that the program will pay for health are for illegal immigrants. It's nearly the only effective attack against reform. Similarly, all manner of poverty programs and educational interventions see their support bottom out if attacked for providing cash payments to help undocumented immigrants. It's the modern day incarnation of asking whether you want your tax dollars going to lazy black people. Democrats can deny that their programs will help undocumented immigrants, but that's both cruel (and so unlikely to fly with their supporters) and ineffective. Watch for this to be the way illegal immigration enters the debate: Not so much as an issue unto itself, but as a way to blunt Democratic advantages on other subjects. Arguing that program X will really mean that hardworking American dollars go towards supporting illegal aliens is a much easier way to argue against progressive programs than actually coming up with a popular counteroffer.