Not necessarily
By http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4480
With the victory of Democrat Travis Childers in http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=4076 yesterday, Republicans have lost three House seats in special elections this year in districts once considered impregnably Republican.
These losses foretell a Democratic landslide in November, and Republicans are going http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=3303. 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. I’m a Mississippi Democrat, not a Washington, DC Democrat. I’ll be on the side of the family struggling, the child that needs health care and the teenager who’s only hope is a college degree. I’m 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 today’s 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 “impact 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.
http://inverted-world.com/index.php/blog/blog/will_a_democratic_landslide_mean_amnesty/