I’ve said it a few times over the years, and it’s looking to me truer than ever tonight: Immigration is an entirely phantom issue in American politics; it’s always supposed to be the 800-pound gorilla, yet it never ends up deciding (or even strongly influencing) elections.

In a general election, it’s easy to see why this is: both parties are split in half on the issue, so nobody talks about it during the general.

In the GOP primary this year, however, it’s looked at times like it could be decisive. The GOP base is running riot over immigration, we’re told. So, why exactly are the two winners of Iowa and New Hampshire — the only winners the GOP race has so far — the two “worst” candidates, at least so far as the Lou Dobbs set is concerned? Mike Huckabee, he of “compassion” toward immigrants, runs away with Iowa. John McCain, he of “comprehensive immigration reform,” runs away with New Hampshire. Both candidates beat the tar out of “tough on immigration” (at least this week) Mitt Romney. (OK, Romney won Wyoming. Show of hands for who cares.)

Huck, of course, looks set to win South Carolina next, a state where immigration should be extremely important. And then we’re essentially into a national campaign. And, so, just what exactly did any of the candidates who have pandered so relentlessly on immigration buy themselves (here’s looking at you, Rudy)? A tougher road to hoe should they make it to the general, is all.

So, as I’ve said before, I spit on immigration as an important political issue. Candidates ought to quit getting sucked into the nativist trap. Like Ron Paul supporters, nativists yell the loudest; but it doesn’t mean they decide elections.