Ryan Lizza offers "Return of the Nativist/Behind the Republicans' anti-immigration frenzy". As you might guess from the author, the title, and the fact that it's in the New Yorker, it's wrong. However, thankfully, I have an intern who's read it for me, saving me the need to do so. Per him, it's a:

A classic dumbed-down Remnick-era New Yorker piece--remedial reading for U.W.S. cocooners. Lizza skips over all the wonkish aspects of the immigration debate (like whether "comprehensive" reform will actually work) as if they have nothing to do with the politics, paints opponents as unfeeling racists, ignores well-publicized evidence (e.g., from Carville and Greenberg) that Democrats might have political problems from supporting legalization, falls for the recent Pew hype and generally fits the issue into a comfortable Civil Rights template (moral moderates vs. pathetic bigots). Did I mention that it's a bad piece?