[Vision2020] U.S. Approves Mexican Consulate for Boise

[Chasuk]

On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Donovan Arnold
<donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Why do you reject some of my statements because I lack providing sources to
> some of my claims, yet accept the statements of Rainford who doesn't site a
> single source in his claims? Seems biased.

It is unarguably biased.  However, you have a bit of a credibility
issue, whereas Rainford doesn't.  I don't make appeals to authority,
and I am certainly not doing that in this case, but I've been reading
Rainford for a while, and I've grown to trust him.   I've been reading
you for a while, and I've grown to distrust you.

> Second, Rainfords claims, have nothing to do with illegal labor, but Latino
> workers, they are not synonymous. And I think it is wrong to slander all
> Latinos in Idaho with such an association.

No slander involved.  We are discussing not illegal laborers
generally, but Mexican illegal laborers specifically, who comprise a
subset of  Latino workers.

> Third, according to Rainford's own claims, which I doubt validity, illegal
> labor only contributes 2% of ten billion dollars, or $4 million.

At last, you address Rainford's claims, almost.  However, you havn't
taken it far enough.  Finish the thought.  I don't mean split off into
another tangent, but expalin the relevance of  the aparently important
fact that illegal labor contributes "only" $4 million to the Idaho
economy.  Is this a good thing, or a bad thing?

> Fourth, the mistreatment of illegal laborers for Idaho should not be given a
> dollar amount. Slave labor is not good, regardless of the fortune it brings
> to the community or the businesses that profit from it.

In the case of Wal-Mart and China, you argue that, for the Chinese,
slave labor is better than no labor.  This is seemingly different for
Mexicans.  Why?

> Fifth, how many billions are lost in trade with Mexico and other nations
> with illegal laborers in the US?

I don't know.  I make no claims of being an economist, so I pass on
this question.  Do you evidence or a rational explanatio why anything
should be lost at all?

> Finally, how has the quality of life for Idahoans been impacted by the
> result of increased cheap labor in a shrinking labor oriented market? Real
> wages are on a decline.

Again, I don't know.  I do know that many, able-bodied (but
non-Latino) unemployed in this country wouldn't do the jobs that
Mexicans and other illegal laborers do.  My theory is that their sense
of entitlement is too high.  I don't have any studies to cite, but
I've observed it hundreds of times in my approximately 35 years of
work.  I've had several people quit because they were required to
vacuum, and it was somehow beneath them, even though it was required
of everyone, including the managers.

> Rainford is simple throwing numbers out there, that have nothing to do with
> morality or modern industrialized slavery, nor the overall quality of life
> experience by Idahoans as the number of illegal laborers increases. $10
> billion for 150,000 more people isn't a better life for Idahoans if all the
> money goes to just a handful of greedy corporations and businesses. Which it
> apparently it is, because it sure as hell isn't going to our wages, roads,
> or schools.

You do realize that the above paragraph is just pointless ranting,
right?  This is called arguing from ignorance.  You are saying, in
effect, "I can't see where this alleged $10 billion is going, so it
must be going to a handful of greedy corporations and businesses."

Chas