Politicians face a constant influx of information from various sources, but due to limited attention much of it risks being overlooked. Despite the crucial role of evidence in shaping public policy, research rarely explores how politicians choose which evidence to engage with. We examine this in a study of Austrian politicians running for office in 2024 (N = 1,882) and examine how they select evidence on the contentious policy issue of migration. Austrian politicians are presented with two types of high-quality evidence on a Danish welfare reform that significantly reduced benefits for migrants. One supports the welfare magnet hypothesis, aligning with right-wing views on immigration control. The other highlights the socio-economic impact on migrant poverty, resonating with left-wing humanitarian concerns. Building on motivated reasoning, we hypothesize that right-wing politicians will choose welfare magnet evidence at higher rates, while left-wing politicians will focus on migrant poverty. Parties at the fringes of the political spectrum align with our expectation, but the left-wing Social Democratic Party surprisingly selects welfare magnet evidence at rates similar to the far-right Freedom Party. Further analysis of public opinion data (N = 2,400) shows that most parties align with the views of respondents who share their party identity, demonstrating citizen-elite congruence in considering evidence. In sum, this study provides new insights into how politicians engage with evidence in a salient policy area.