[BretLudwig]

Will a Democratic Landslide Mean Amnesty?
By Ian Jobling €¢ 5/14/08

"With the victory of Democrat Travis Childers in Mississippi yesterday,
Republicans have lost three House seats in special elections this year in
districts once considered impregnably Republican. These victories foretell
a Democratic landslide in November, and Republicans are going bonkers.
However, for immigration reformers, the results turn not to be so bad. Two
of the three Democrats who have won sound more like Tom Tancredo than Nancy
Pelosi on immigration issues. In fact, I prefer all of these new
congressmen to John McCain. Essentially, the Democratic victories reflect
public disgust with the Iraq War, rather than a shift to liberalism on
immigration.

Childers contrasted himself to Washington establishment Democrats during
his campaign. His stance on many issues, including immigration, is quite
conservative:

Now, I have to be honest. Im a Mississippi Democrat, not a
Washington, DC Democrat. Ill be on the side of the family struggling,
the child that needs health care and the teenager whos only hope is a
college degree. Im pro-life and pro-gun. I believe marriage is between
a man and a woman. And I will take a tough stand to stop illegal
immigration into our country.

Don Cazayoux, who won a Louisiana seat, has stated his anti-amnesty
position clear as day:

I am strongly against amnesty for illegal immigrants. America is a
nation of immigrants, but we also are a nation of laws. In Congress, I
will fight to secure our borders and work to crack down on employers who
knowingly hire illegal workers.

Bill Foster, the Democrat who took a Republican district in Illinois, is
considerably mushier in his immigration reform principles. Nevertheless,
his proposals are slightly to the right of todays policies. He believes
in mandatory workplace verification of the immigration status of workers.
Foster would allow illegal aliens to stay in the country only if they are
needed to prevent businesses from collapsing. Aliens allowed to stay would
receive special worker visas. They would have to pay taxes, or €œimpact
fees,€� as Foster calls them, and would not receive any advantage over
other immigrants in obtaining citizenship. In short, it seems that the
life of the illegal alien would not be a happy one if Foster got his way.

The reason these Democrats won is simple: all of them agree with the large
majority of the public that we need to withdraw from Iraq.

These three candidates are a testament to the extraordinary effectiveness
of the immigration reform movement, which has made it extremely difficult
for pro-amnesty candidates of either party to get elected.

In short, a Democratic landslide will not inevitably mean amnesty. The
only danger is that the liberal party elders will be effective in coercing
the new moderate Democrats to abandon their principles. In fact, Nancy
Pelosi has effectively blocked challenges to her agenda from within her
party so far. However, as the ranks of anti-amnesty Democrats grow, Pelosi
may find her grip on the party loosened."

http://inverted-world.com/index.php/..._mean_amnesty/

--
Message posted using http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/group/rec.audio.opinion/
More information at http://www.talkaboutaudio.com/faq.html