I don't know if it's a winning issue but an anti-immigration stance has always been a loser issue for at least 40 years. I can't cite a recent Presidential election where an anti-immigration position was the winning factor. Except for Pete Wilson in California in 1994, I can't cite an example of a statewide race where an anti-immigration stance helped win the election. The fact that rats are pushing amnesty and Dubya is pushing work permits indicates that elected officials in both partys think their election chances decrease by tightening the border. When the left and the middle want something even the right must consider if standing on principle is worth electing lots of rats who will pass the "2006 open border bill." Best I can tell the champions of border control are men whose sphere of influence reaches only as far as a US Congressional district. There is the example of Buchanan, and the fact that Dubya won election in 2000 and 2004 with a moderate stance on the issue.
Proposition 200 just won a higher percentage of the Latino vote in Arizona than President Bush did.
"Except for Pete Wilson in California in 1994, I can't cite an example of a statewide race where an anti-immigration stance helped win the election."
Anger of licenses for illegals was a very significant factor in Arnold's victory in California.
Also, proposition 200 in Arizona. And Prop 200 got 45-50% of the Latino vote, as well.
"There is the example of Buchanan, and the fact that Dubya won election in 2000 and 2004 with a moderate stance on the issue."
But what was the choice in 2000? Al Gore was softer on illegal immigration than GW Bush.
And a single-issue candidate (Buchanan, Tancredo) has its problems. Most people are voting on more than one issue.
But a major party nominee against illegal immigration is a completely different story. And I think you might be surprised at what happens if the Dems wisen up, and put an anti-amnesty candidate on the ticket in 2008, againt a pro-amnesty Republican like McCain, Giuliani, or Frist.