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

[Donovan Arnold]

Chas,
   
  It is good to know you admit to not being unbiased. The tone and nature of your previous email led me to believe that was your attempt. However, I think your lack of acceptance of my statements as being fact over that of Rainford, has less to do with credibility as to our willingness to play to your willful ignorance. 
   
  "No slander involved. We are discussing not illegal laborers
generally, but Mexican illegal laborers specifically, who comprise a
subset of Latino workers."
   
  It is slanderous to lump all Latinos in with illegal immigrates. I would not want to be associated with a crime solely for the color of my skin, or my ancestral background. 
  In addition, we are not discussing the productivity of Latinos. That is irrelevant to anything. I don't think it is disputed that Latinos, or any race of culture of people are lazy or unproductive. So to bring it up is not relevant to the argument. 
   
  Second, I don't think the argument is that illegal laborers don't generate wealth for the country. I think it is clear that they do. They work all day for substandard wages, of course wealth is being generated. But if it is $20 dollars, or $20 billion dollars, is irrelevant, just as the amount of wealth a cotton picking slave generated 260 years ago as to if he should be remain slave or be free. 
   
  Rainford asks questions and gives data which is irrelevant to the principle arguments of opposing slave labor in this nation.  So to question it further, especially when he gives no sources to back his hyperbole claims, is a fruitless venture. 
   
  "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.""
   
  No Chas, it is you are that arguing with willful ignorance. If illegal laborers were increasing the wealth of their surrounding communities, their communities would be wealthy communities, not the poorest in the nation. 
   
  If Rainford wishes me to swallow his tall tales of glorious wealth generation for the Idaho communities they reside in, he needs to provide something other then poverty riddled cities in which these illegal laborers reside. He isn't asking the right questions, if his goal is to improve the lives of illegal laborers. 
   
  "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?"
   
  This is called bait and switch. I am confident that if you didn't believe there was a difference you would be shopping at Wal-Mart and supporting them. Nonetheless, I will explain. Slave labor in the US is reducing working conditions and wages in the US. Wal-Mart trading with China increases the quality of working conditions and wages in China. One is a step forward, the other is a step backwards. I am for improving working conditions, not reducing them. 
   
  Best Regards,
   
  Donovan

   
   
   
  
Chasuk <chasuk at gmail.com> wrote:
  On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Donovan Arnold
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


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080504/52536ab7/attachment.html