Thread: NYTimes: NAFTA Should have stopped Illegal Immigration, ??

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/weeki ... ref=slogin

The Nation
Nafta Should Have Stopped Illegal Immigration, Right?

(Photo) Expectations Mexican families increasingly crossed the border because higher-paying jobs never made their promised appearance.


By LOUIS UCHITELLE
Published: February 18, 2007

THE North American Free Trade Agreement, enacted by Congress 14 years ago, held out an alluring promise: the agreement would reduce illegal immigration from Mexico. Mexicans, the argument went, would enjoy the prosperity and employment that the trade agreement would undoubtedly generate — and not feel the need to cross the border into the United States.

But today the number of illegal migrants has only continued to rise. Why didn’t Nafta curb this immigration? The answer is complicated, of course. But a major factor lies in the assumptions made in drafting the trade agreement, assumptions about the way governments would behave (that is, rationally) and the way markets would respond (rationally, as well).

Neither happened, yet Nafta remains the model for trade agreements with developing Latin countries, including the Central American Free Trade Agreement, passed by Congress in 2005. Three more Nafta-like agreements are now pending in Congress — with Panama, Columbia and Peru.

When Nafta finally became a reality, on Jan. 1, 1994, American investment flooded into Mexico, mostly to finance factories that manufacture automobiles, appliances, TV sets, apparel and the like. The expectation was that the Mexican government would do its part by investing billions of dollars in roads, schooling, sanitation, housing and other needs to accommodate the new factories as they spread through the country.

It was more than an expectation. Many Mexican officials in the government of President Carlos Salinas de Gortari assured the Clinton administration that the investment would take place, and believed it themselves, said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington who campaigned for Nafta in the early 1990s.

“It just did not happen,â€

Originally Posted by ShockedinCalifornia

Later, China, with its even-cheaper labor, added to the pressure, luring away manufacturers and jobs.

This is the biggest reason right here, and it happened because we gave China most favored nation trade status, thus removing the 30% tarriff on their products.

This one action of giving China favorable trade status has resulted in the Chinese now having $1 trillion of our money and an explosion in Mexican illegal immigration which has taken another $1 trillion of Americans money. It is why we have Stagflation.

This is what happens when you have globalists in charge who do not owe allegiance to any country or principles beyond their own wealth and power.

It is 1 thing and 1 thing only . Our Elites have cut us from ear to ear. Have drove my Country into the toilet . Now we have even a surplus of Illegals to deal with . I say in 3 years the Mexicans will have political power from numbers and also White collar jobs. Then you'll really hear some crying.IMO, That border should have been closed under Clinton after the first WTC attack .

This is what happens when you have globalists in charge who do not owe allegiance to any country or principles beyond their own wealth and power.

Yep, agree 100%.

As a side, I remember in undergrad school I was enrolled in several Pol Sci courses one semester. One was International Relations - it proved to be one of the better courses at the time. Anyway, this was about 1985-86 and the big overarching topic at the time of course was the Soviet Union+Cold War. Secondarily after this topic was fully addressed, the prof later went on to lay out a follow-up thesis; it (simplified and paraphrased) went like this:

'If we ever get past the duality of Soviet Union (global communists) vs. US+Western Europeans (modern capitalism), the next big issue to be dealt with will be the evolution of transnational organizations in various forms (eg. non-profits [eg. Red Cross, related groups], supranational govts [the UN, and regional pact groups], and multinational corporations [too many to list]).

I'm glad that his estimation appears to have been spot on, but also sorry his prophetic words are proving true.

[quote]When Nafta finally became a reality, on Jan. 1, 1994, American investment flooded into Mexico, mostly to finance factories that manufacture automobiles, appliances, TV sets, apparel and the like. The expectation was that the Mexican government would do its part by investing billions of dollars in roads, schooling, sanitation, housing and other needs to accommodate the new factories as they spread through the country.

It was more than an expectation. Many Mexican officials in the government of President Carlos Salinas de Gortari assured the Clinton administration that the investment would take place, and believed it themselves, said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peter G. Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington who campaigned for Nafta in the early 1990s.

“It just did not happen,â€