Dont confuse what voters care about with what the political fundraising complex and their media consultants know will spur fundraising donations amongst a very small subset of the electorate. A classic case is gay marriage. That topic was invented back in the 1990s by Richard Viguerie and Lee Atwater because it had an off the scale return on fundraising. They set down with thousands of people in focus groups and asked them what was important to them as far as the issues and then asked them to rate those issues on which one they would be most likely to give money. Less than 1% of the focus groups listed gay marriage as an important issue, but amongst that 1% it was the issue that group was most likely to give for by a wide margin. When those results came in, they immediately contacted every political figure they knew and told them to start pushing a gay marriage ban. That's how DOMA happened in the early 1990s. People needed to raise money to run campaigns and the people that run them wanted to get rich. Meanwhile, we got a political issue for the next twenty years that nobody really cared about and nobody really noticed or cared once the Supreme Court resolved it.
Its the same with immigration. The average voter on either side doesnt give a crap, but it brings out the wallets in a defined portion of the electorate on each side, so it gets talked about.
I know people on here are going to disagree with that assessment and that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion. (However, with a little self awareness you might recognize that your opinion is actually your thoughts being manipulated by others). I have seen the raw data in a variety of formats. I speak regularly with people who do this stuff for a living. They all assure me that immigration is a loser issue for both sides, doesnt drive turnout, and is simply a marketing/fundraising tool for the race baiters on either side trying to drive voter turnout to their small base and small donations from the public. Those are just the facts.
