Will a Democratic Landslide Mean Amnesty?
By • 5/14/08With 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. 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. 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.
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
The democrats continue to make gains which superficially appear impressive. However, as you pointed out many of the “democrat” winners appear more conservative than many Republicans. The strategy of Rahm Emmanuel who is credited with engineering the increase in the number of seats held by dems is , in many cases, to run a candidate who may have “D” next to their name, but is conservative on many, if not the majority of major issues. Bill Cinton weathered his scandals by “triangulation”. He embraced such conservative issues as welfare reform. The republican party leadership is incompetent and out of touch with reality. Jorge Bush, El Presidente,advised by that fool Carl Rove, among other prominent Republicans continue to live in a dream world where they totally ignore traditional republican supporters, in their quest for the holy grail, the “Hispanic Vote”. I have seen statistics which show this strategy is a sure loser and they can win elections by securing traditional Republican voters without little if any increase in hispanic support.
I have long argued that issues such as immigration reform and affirmative action can and should be pitched to and embraced by those who may be leftists on economic issues (New Dealer types, not Great Society devotees).
I am glad to see you noticing this development.
There might be some moderate Democrats being elected who are strong on the illegal invader issue, but they’ll help to form a strong Democrat majority which is primarily very leftward. This majority could push through the Fairness Doctrine and other very destructive legislation. Rahm Emanual and Howard Dean are clever; they’re using the same Northern-Southern Democrat coalition as existed in the 20th Century to forge a different America.
These developments in the Democratic Party are certainly encouraging.
They remind me of those long-ago days when, whatever its failings, the Democratic Party was the “party of the working man,” i.e. the usually unionized, and generally non-college-educated, blue collar worker. Such people, of course, have the most to lose from immigration, which puts them in direct “price competition” with hordes of unskilled laborers willing to work for pennies even as the market for unskilled labor is shrinking.
The Republican Party has long since been split on the immigration issue between fat-cat corporate donors (who of course profit hugely from an influx of cheap labor) and the conservative, mostly white middle class, rank-and-file that wants a traditional American, rather than a “diverse,” America.
Perhaps a similar split is opening up in the Democratic Party. Up until now, that party’s ultraliberal elites, who genuinely loathe the white middle and lower classes, have primarily promoted any cause or group that wasn’t white or traditional-American, e.g. illegal immigration, “gay rights,” diversity, feminism, radical environmentalism, multiculturalism, ceding sovereignty to the United Nations, and so on. But maybe the party’s basis, white—and black!—lower income people, is finally waking up to the fact that mass Third World immigration hurts them much more than it hurts Republican soccer moms and degreed professionals, and are at last ready to rebel against their “leadership.” We shall see…
Maybe the reverse is true. Will amnesty (at least the attempt for it) mean a Democratic landslide?
The media crows about Bush’s low poll numbers as a way to push him Left and to discredit the Right, but it never mentions Bush’s amnesty efforts as a prime reason.
The base stuck with Bush for years throughout some of the worst fighting in Iraq, as the military struggled to adapt. It was only when Bush began pushing amnesty in earnest that his numbers truly tanked.
And to repeat my own question above, will amnesty, successfully implemented, mean a Democratic landslide? Of course it will.
The Democrats are and always have been the party of the “other”, marginalized, less American America, and a wave of millions of mestizos will be a bumper crop of new Democratic voters. The Democrats are wise to push for amnesty.
The stronger Democratic majority will then push for even more lax immigration enforcement, even more amnesties, and such. Then that amnesty’s results will get the vote. A vicious circle.
As for the Republicans, they remind me of the white race as a whole, in their stubborn insistence at committing suicide.
re:
“They … would not receive any advantage over other immigrants in obtaining citizenship.”
Of course, they have one big advantage in that they can drop anchor babies. Unless we abolish birthright citizenship, guest worker programs will only serve to help the enemy.