To Stem Flow of Immigrants, Stem Free Trade

[one...two...tree 2,762]

by Anuradha Mittal

On June 6, 2006, the Canadian Members of Parliament from the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois met with their American and Mexican counterparts to declare that the North American Free Trade Agreement was a "continental tragedy." "If it were (a success) there would be no need to build the fence that the United States wants to build between the U.S. and Mexican border and there would be no need to militarize it either,'' said Mexican legislator Victor Suarez.

The ongoing debate on the fate of some 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, however, continues to ignore the structural issues that have forced millions to leave their homes. Free trade agreements such as NAFTA promised to bring more jobs, trade surpluses and an increased standard of living to member countries. But the reality is far from real.

Let's take the case of Mexico and NAFTA. Mexico has been growing corn for 10,000 years. Under NAFTA which was supposed to 'level playing fields', Mexico opened its markets to imports from the U.S., including corn. Mexican farmers, mostly operating small-scale family farms, were unable to compete against U.S. large corn producers - the largest single recipient of U.S. government subsidies which amounted to$10.1 billion - some ten times greater than the total Mexican agricultural budget in 2000. This overall $10.1 billion production subsidy, resulted in an export subsidy for U.S. dumping on the Mexican market of between $105 and $145 million annually - a figure that exceeds the total household income of the 250,000 corn farmers in the state of Chiapas, Mexico.

Not surprisingly then, U.S. corn exports to Mexico have tripled and account for almost one third of the domestic Mexican market, leading to an acute crisis in the Mexican corn sector. The increase in imports has reduced real prices for Mexican corn by more than 70 per cent since 1994. Declining prices for the 15 million Mexican farmers who depended on the crop, have meant declining household incomes, followed by forced migration from land. In 1997,according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) figures, 47% of the population was engaged in agriculture. By 2010, FAO estimates that the number would have dropped to 18%.

Far from operating on a 'level playing field', NAFTA has been a death warrant for small farmers, placing small Mexican farmers at the wrong end of a steeply sloping playing field which runs downhill from the U.S. Mid-West. Since the passage of NAFTA, an estimated 2 million Mexican family farmers have been displaced from land while corn-based tortilla prices have increased by nearly 50%. Millions of people gave been forced to migrate, desperate to escape poverty, many of them intent on crossing the U.S. -Mexico border to feed their families.

Proponents of free trade agreements often point to job creation in Mexico as NAFTA's success. However, U.S. based Economic Policy Institute (EPI) points out that while work in low-pay, low-productivity jobs (e.g., unpaid work in family enterprises) grew rapidly since the early 1990s, by 1998, the incomes of salaried workers had fallen 25%, while those of the self-employed had declined 40%. This reflects the growth of low-income employment such as street vending and unpaid family work in shops and restaurants) Rather than improving living standards, Mexican wages have fallen. EPI points out that wages decreased by 27% between 1991 and 1998, while overall hourly income from labor decreased 40%. In addition, the minimum wage lost almost 50% of its purchasing power in the last decade. Manufacturing wages also declined by almost 21% in this period. So while NAFTA benefited a few sectors of the economy, mostly maquiladora industries and the very wealthy, it increased inequality and reduced incomes and job quality for the vast majority of workers in Mexico.

Failure of NAFTA to keep its promise of improved standards of living, more jobs, trade surpluses, coupled with failure of the U.S. to remove its trade distorting subsidies, has forced millions of Mexicans to the border. 1995 figure of 2.5 million undocumented immigrants from Mexico has increased by 8 million since then. Hoping for better lives, they are willing to risk crossing the border, if only to find slavery in the fields of the U.S., incarceration at the border, xenophobic legislators, and sometimes even death. In 2005 an estimated 400 Mexicans died trying to cross the border.

No fence will be able to keep pressure away from the U.S. border, which is bound to increase as more small farmers, and the working poor are displaced in Central American countries with the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR). Given this context we are faced with some simple questions: should the undocumented immigrants be criminalized and our borders walled off or should we get rid of or renegotiate free trade agreements? Should we blame the victims of free trade agreements or ensure that as long as capital and goods can move freely across borders, so can the hungry, the destitute and the dispossessed?

* Anuradha Mittal is the executive director of the Oakland Institute, a policy think tank whose mission is to promote public participation and fair debate on critical economic, social, and foreign policy issues. www.oaklandinstitute.org

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

i will agree that nafta needs to be dumped given the mexican government is actively encouraging people to invade the usa.

[peejay 327]

NAFTA, CAFTA,...all I've seen is the SHAFTA. Yes, Ross Perot was right...that giant sucking sound he talked about in the 1992 election has come to fruition in the new millennium. Jobs and trade deficits going South and millions of illegal aliens moving North. The triple SHAFTA for the USA and the American middle class.

Perot was running against G.H.W. Bush in 1992 and daddy's boy finished the SHAFTA 10 years later. We should stay away from bushes because there is no telling what dangers are hiding in them.

[Fandango 1,439]

Oh I love this.....illegal immigration is NAFTA's fault

Anyone who uses the term 'undocumented worker' is someone who's not willing to call things as they are...which, IMO makes what they say a 'pile of plant growth promoter' or in normal terms....full of shiznit.

Edited July 30, 2006 by LisaD

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Oh I love this.....illegal immigration is NAFTA's fault

Anyone who uses the term 'undocumented worker' is someone who's not willing to call things as they are...which, IMO makes what they say a 'pile of plant growth promoter' or in normal terms....full of shiznit.

You can't put your political rhetoric aside for a moment and actually argue the merit of the points made in the post. How pathetic....tsk, tsk.

[Fandango 1,439]

Oh I love this.....illegal immigration is NAFTA's fault

Anyone who uses the term 'undocumented worker' is someone who's not willing to call things as they are...which, IMO makes what they say a 'pile of plant growth promoter' or in normal terms....full of shiznit.

You can't put your political rhetoric aside for a moment and actually argue the merit of the points made in the post. How pathetic....tsk, tsk.

Hah, apparantly the author couldn't either!