The Pew Institute for Research is probably the largest non-for-profit public opinion survey group in the United States. Many people from both the left and right look at them as the source for number crunching anything having to do with elections, media use and the socio-political impact of market demographics.

So it is not shocking to see the reaction around a recent survey they released that pits Hillary Clinton against Rudy Giuliani; especially after the hyperbolic headline published at Politico.com.

I just have to wonder though, how those numbers read when compared to Quinnipac's similar survey for New York state. Giulini's advantage over her is of only 2%. Considering that most surveys have a 2-5% margin of error, that means they are in a dead heat in the Empire state.

Given New Yorkers do know how much of an asshole Rudy is, all I have to say that these polls are more about name recognition and public perception than anything having to do with the facts about either candidate's career.

Which makes it even more depressing to realize that most people really don't vote with the facts; they really just vote with their intuition. Whomever controls the gut instinct wins.

Which is why, this would make for an interesting pairing because, as John Gandelman points out over at The Moderate Voice, it will all come down to immigration.

Hillary Clinton has shown she won't think twice about throwing legal immigrant children and pregnant women under the bus for the greater good. She may look as liberal (or moderate) as Giuliani on immigration, but I think what sets them apart at the moment are two points : the issue of militarization of the border and the definition of immigration reform.

• Opposes illegal immigration, but doesn't vote to follow up. (Jun 2007)
• Making English official imperils crises needing translators. (Jun 2007)
• Comprehensive reform to get 12 million out of shadows. (Apr 2007)
• Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
• Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on eliminating the "Y" nonimmigrant guestworker program. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
• Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)

Source : On The Issues.

Clinton has shown she is eager to militarize immigration policy to the point of turning the border patrol into another militia. I mean, she voted for the fence (along with, btw, Barack Obama).

It doesn't mean Giuliani would act differently if elected president but given his record as NYC mayor, the pro-immigration lobby is going to have to reckon with the truth if having to choose between the two of them.

Giuliani did show restraint as a mayor of a city he had no problem turning into a sanctuary for undocumented immigrants. Here's a recap from On The Issues website :

• Declared NYC a sanctuary city, and crime fell. (Sep 2007)
• Need tamper-proof IDs, and database for immigrants. (Jun 2007)
• Reform bill fails to document who left US and who's here. (Jun 2007)
• Shouldn't be debating LEGAL immigration, only ILLEGAL. (Jun 2007)
• Allow immigrants to work, with tamper-proof ID cards. (May 2007)
• Change rule barring immigrants from running for president. (May 2007)
• Supports Senate guest worker plan & path to citizenship. (Nov 2006)

I shudder at the prospect of having a Giuliani vs. Clinton match. No matter how you cut it, they both would be bad for a lot of people of color and migrant workers. And yes, I am equating immigration to race because today immigration IS a racist battle-cry, and not the domestic security threat people in Capitol Hill want the country to believe.

So the question is, who would be the lesser evil of the two? Would Clinton be the lesser just because she is a democrat?

What should we make of it given Rahm Emanuel's epic pronouncement that immigration is "the third rail of American politics"?

What would a Capitol Hill under Clinton look like for those seeking a path to citizenship?