While conservatives continue to find the first tier candidates unacceptable on a range of issues, and continue to experience the let downs from the MSM’s chosen alternatives: Thompson and Huckabee, there’s a candidate that still sets the standard. Though top blogger Michelle Malkin hasn’t endorsed a presidential candidate, and her partner at Hot Air Bryan Preston is likely a ”Fred Head”, it’s obvious they both see a standard bearer in Tancredo on the issue of illegal immigration and possibly beyond.
Here’s Preston’s submitted question for the upcoming CNN/You Tube debate:
Tancredo maybe a standard bearer on the issue of immigration, but that’s about it. The immigration issue will be very interesting in the general election. Rudy and Mitt are moving more to the right on this issue for the primaries and could stay there during the general. It looks like the consensus thought is that being tough on immigration might be an asset in this general election but could cost votes for the party down the line. I say be tough, though as a farmer who has to deal with supply/demand and cost issues associated with hiring seasonal labor, I think Tancredo and the furthest right wingers on this issue are taking their positions too far. Like the legislature rep’s from Seattle, it’s okay for them to go for broke on their shoreline management acts that exempt themselves, they don’t care how the rest of the state is affected.
There is no question that the demand for seasonal labor can be met legally and should be.
There is, further, no question that any farmer who needs seasonal labor, under the current circumstances [with rampant illegal labor, winked at by government at every level, and encouraged by the lure of imminent amnesty, free food, housing, and education at American taxpayers expense] cannot compete on an even playing field without hiring illegal labor.
Businesses that have found ways to survive and compete under the current circumstances may be tempted to see hiring a legal work force as a negative, because, under the current circumstances, it would put them at a competitive disadvantage. But if our laws were enforced by a government that took law enforcement seriously, acting legally would not be a disadvantage but an advantage. Your competitors who hired illegally would be put OUT of business. That couldn’t do anything but help law-abiding employers.
How to choose a candidate on this issue:
Rudy has moved his rhetoric to the right, but not his positions. He would be a sanctuary President as he was a sancturary Mayor. Mitt always moves his positions as circumstances dictate (and seems, quite sincerely, to actually change), so you can never count on anything he has to say. Mitt Romney may sincerely be with you today and against you tomorrow and offer a very believable explanation in both cases. Mitt Romney is a practitioner of the Hegelian Dialectic, a principle component of TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT (TQM). Under TQM (and Hegel) there is no such thing as “objective truth,” just the dictates of shifting consensus. When the consensus changes, so does Mitt.
If you want a major influx of illegals, probably a hundred million more within a decade, swamping our social services and voting socialist, vote for 1. McCain, 2. Giuliani, 3. Huckabee, or 4. Romney.
That’s where they actually stand. McCain is just the most honest.
I strongly disagree with Tancredo’s decision to focus solely on Illegal Immigration in his candidacy, despite the fact that he has moved the whole debate twenty to forty points to the right on the subject. He is a whole conservative who has, so far, sacrificed his candidacy for the sake of the future of US Sovereignty by focusing only on immigration. We need someone to move, not just the debate, but the government.
We need a conservative nominee and there is no one more solid, across the board, than Tom Tancredo. The only other whole conservative (unless Thompson were to come around on Life) is Duncan Hunter and he seems to be focused on his son’s Congressional campaign.
It is on the merciful intervention in the affairs of our nation by the Allmighty upon which we must now depend.
And Michelle,
You can no longer claim that Thompson is the Mainstream Media’s chosen alternative. They, clearly, hate him.
I disagree on your first point. The demand for seasonal labor is currently being fulfilled by legal and illegal labor. The position of the market is such that if you remove all illegal labor from the seasonal workforce then supply/demand will be out of whack and certain costs will become unacceptable and wreak some havoc in certain areas of that market. The solution if you want there not to be any illegal labor in this market is of course to ensure there is an ample supply of legal labor to fill the void and allow the demand and supply to provide for an acceptable market condition.
Tancredo’s position, while noble, doesn’t account for this need, basically ignores it. McCain’s previous view isn’t reasonable at all. Eventually the solution will be to increase the number of legal immigrant workers dramatically, while dramatically decreasing the number of illegal immigrant workers. How will it be done, is the question. I’m all for massive border protection, just as long as the legal supply of workers is dramatically increased to fill the demand. The lawmakers are understanding this and they just have to figure out how to deal with those already in the country illegally.
It’s great rhetoric to support a fence and beefed up security and massive deportations with no amnesty. However, if that is all the candidate has thought out then that is just as unacceptable though for opposite reasons as McCain or sanctuary cities.
I didn’t say the MSM LIKE Thompson. He’s just one of their two chosen “conservatives”. I’m not sure they like Huckabee either.
Other Doug,
I’m all for ensuring there is an ample supply of legal labor to fill the void, but that’s not the job of government. It’s the job of married folks to be fruitful and multiply and teach their teenagers not to be so lazy.
Other Doug,
you say, “supply/demand will be out of whack and certain costs will become unacceptable and wreak some havoc in certain areas of that market.”
Supply and demand are curves. The Supply curve shows how much of a comodity will be produced at a given price, the Demand curve shows how much will be purchased at a given price. I assume that by “out of whack” you mean “will change” and you are correct. The supply curve for labor will go down while the demand curve will remain constant, there having been no change in the demand for a given farm product. The two curves will then cross at a different price. This is normal movement for a market and markets handle change well. The market price for labor will go up until the amount of labor produced meets the same numbers on the demand curve.
I assume that by “unacceptable” you mean some reaction by the demand side of the equation (consumers) to this movement (rising prices) as in the sentence, “Paying TWO DOLLARS A GALLON for gasoliine is UNACCEPTABLE!!” This is also a normal psychlogical reaction in a market influenced by socialist left demagogues who don’t rule out intervening in the free enterprise system with PRICE CONTROLS and don’t really understand how markets work. (When the Democrats were actually saying that about gas prices it was phrased:”Paying ONE DOLLAR A GALLON for gasoliine is UNACCEPTABLE!!” That was before they decided to demonize oil, itself, and decreed that high gasoline prices were good MORALLY.) Obviously, paying more than triple once-current market levels for a necessity is NOT “unacceptable,” or even impractical, and, here again, in the case of seasonal farm labor, market forces will work solutions you had not forseen including higher profits for farmers. Just notice what has happened to oil company profits since the cost of paying their middle-eastern suppliers has skyrocketed.
By “wreak havoc” you must mean “change more than farm prices.” I agree. One change “wreaked” will be the increased prosperity of everyone legally in the country. By billions of dollars a year. More than enough to pay for increased farm prices as a percentage of the GDP and pay everyone a significant bonus.
That is an “acceptable market condition.”
duncan hunter and tancredo need our help folks , they are the only two who will stop amnesty .we act now or pay dearly later ……..