NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

[don]

NAFTA made possible the dumping of American subsidized agriculture on the southern peasantry.The numbers....

From 1990 to 1994, total immigration from Mexico to the United States rose from 285,000 in the years 85-89 to 370,000 (Passel 9). That increase is about the same as it was from 80-84 to 85-89, roughly 30%. This is not the number that is significant. What is significant is that undocumented immigration rose from 28% in the previous time frame, to 70% in this one, from 80,000 immigrants to 260,000 immigrants (Passel 9). That is a 225% increase- a rather astounding number in such a short time period. Another thing interesting to note is that legal immigration decreased from 205,000 immigrants in 85-89 to 110,000 immigrants, nearly a 50% decrease (Passel 9).

From 1995-1999, undocumented immigration continued to rise. A total of 505,000 immigrants arrived into the United States from Mexico during this time period, with 80% of those 505,000, which is 400,000, being undocumented immigration- a 53% increase from the previous timeframe of 90-94 (Passel 9). Legal immigration from Mexico continued to decline but at a much lower rate, from 110,000 to 105,000 (Passel 9).

The trends continued from 2000-2004. 85% of the 575,000 immigrants from Mexico were undocumented- a steady jump from 400,000 undocumented immigrants to 485,000- a 21% increase (Passel 9). The number of legal immigrants declined once again from 105,000 to 90,000 (Passel 9).

Let’s take a look at a later income gap to better understand as to why illegal immigration increased so dramatically, while legal immigration decreased. To give better contrast, let’s bring up the previous income gap statistic from 1992. In 1992, the richest 20% received 54.2% and the poorest 20% received 4.3%. In 2000, the richest 20% received 59.1% and the poorest 20% received 3.1% (World Bank).

This means that the richest 20% in Mexico earned 19 times as much the poorest 20% in 2000. Mexico in 2000 was 16^th out of countries with the greatest inequality (World Bank).

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...#ixzz11gVUk3Pv

[hayekvindicated]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

NAFTA made possible the dumping of American subsidized agriculture on the southern peasantry.The numbers....

From 1990 to 1994, total immigration from Mexico to the United States rose from 285,000 in the years 85-89 to 370,000 (Passel 9). That increase is about the same as it was from 80-84 to 85-89, roughly 30%. This is not the number that is significant. What is significant is that undocumented immigration rose from 28% in the previous time frame, to 70% in this one, from 80,000 immigrants to 260,000 immigrants (Passel 9). That is a 225% increase- a rather astounding number in such a short time period. Another thing interesting to note is that legal immigration decreased from 205,000 immigrants in 85-89 to 110,000 immigrants, nearly a 50% decrease (Passel 9).

From 1995-1999, undocumented immigration continued to rise. A total of 505,000 immigrants arrived into the United States from Mexico during this time period, with 80% of those 505,000, which is 400,000, being undocumented immigration- a 53% increase from the previous timeframe of 90-94 (Passel 9). Legal immigration from Mexico continued to decline but at a much lower rate, from 110,000 to 105,000 (Passel 9).

The trends continued from 2000-2004. 85% of the 575,000 immigrants from Mexico were undocumented- a steady jump from 400,000 undocumented immigrants to 485,000- a 21% increase (Passel 9). The number of legal immigrants declined once again from 105,000 to 90,000 (Passel 9).

Let’s take a look at a later income gap to better understand as to why illegal immigration increased so dramatically, while legal immigration decreased. To give better contrast, let’s bring up the previous income gap statistic from 1992. In 1992, the richest 20% received 54.2% and the poorest 20% received 4.3%. In 2000, the richest 20% received 59.1% and the poorest 20% received 3.1% (World Bank).

This means that the richest 20% in Mexico earned 19 times as much the poorest 20% in 2000. Mexico in 2000 was 16^th out of countries with the greatest inequality (World Bank).

http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...#ixzz11gVUk3Pv

Why is NAFTA the cause of this? Correlation doesn't equal causation.

[GRG55]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

WTF does NAFTA have to do with this? NAFTA attempted to reduce tariff and other trade barriers between the USA, Canada and Mexico. I have no difficulty with the view that without NAFTA the illegal immigration into the USA from Mexico would have been worse...much worse.

[Starving Steve]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

Immigration is wonderful. Immigrants bring new ideas, new thinking, new languages, new foods, new cultures, and new vitality to countries. But what we don't want are criminals, especially we don't want terrorists moving across borders.

I support NAFTA, and I favour empowering immigrants with citizenship in whatever country they choose to move to. The tacit arrangement or agreement is that the immigrant will obey the laws and fulfill the obligations of citizenship in whatever country they choose to move to..... And what is wrong with that?

[flintlock]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

Immigration is wonderful. Immigrants bring new ideas, new thinking, new languages, new foods, new cultures, and new vitality to countries. But what we don't want are criminals, especially we don't want terrorists moving across borders.

I support NAFTA, and I favour empowering immigrants with citizenship in whatever country they choose to move to. The tacit arrangement or agreement is that the immigrant will obey the laws and fulfill the obligations of citizenship in whatever country they choose to move to..... And what is wrong with that?

Agree with you 100% Steve. Just understand that an illegal immigrant is by definition, not obeying the law. This fact escapes many. I am for raising the number of LEGAL immigrants we allow in the US and stopping the flow of the rest. Anarchy follows when a nation decides to selectively enforce some of it's laws and ignore others. It turns a nation of laws into a Banana Republic where only the favored get justice. It causes all citizens AND immigrants to lose respect for the law in general.

I am not an expert on NAFTA by any means. But it is my understanding that it may have helped Mexico more than it helped the United States. Or at least in regard to their respective citizens. If that is in fact true, then it is an unequal agreement and any unequal trade agreement agreed to by our leadership is nothing more than a sellout to big business or some other special interest, which is nothing new. But I don't see any particular connection between NAFTA and immigration either.

[World Traveler]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

NAFTA has had a devastating effect on Mexico's poor rural farmers. Corn is the staple crop for Mexico. NAFTA has flooded Mexico with cheap U.S. corn and they can't compete.

In the past (as in before NAFTA), Mexicans primarily got their corn from Mexican farms. There were also government support programs that subsidized the price of corn in the Mexican market to keep its price low enough for the average (i.e. poor) Mexican consumer. That went away with NAFTA.

Illegal immigrants of the past 15 years are primarily from Mexico's rural areas. They can no longer make a subsistance living on the farm (i.e. they cannot produce corn and other agricultural staples at a price cheaper than U.S. imports) and so they head for El Norte (the U.S.).

That is the primary reason for the large increase in illegal immigration. You can't make a living on the farm any more and Mexico has primarily been a rural nation most of its history.
.

[flintlock]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

So my guess is that NAFTA merely lined corporate pockets? I know my Dodge truck was made in Mexico. That had to produce some good jobs in Mexico. But probably not enough to replace all those farm jobs, huh? I don't see why nations can't just work out trade agreements for products they want to export and block imports of the rest. Isn't that the way trade is supposed to work? You have something I need, I have something you need.

[snowman111]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

So my guess is that NAFTA merely lined corporate pockets? I know my Dodge truck was made in Mexico. That had to produce some good jobs in Mexico.....

It produced jobs just not good ones and maybe that is the reason your Dodge was made there instead of in the states.
Earning 150 to 180 USD for a 6 day work week does not go far in northern Mexico. Though it is double the average income for a rural farmer from Oaxaca.

[snowman111]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

Agree with you 100% Steve. Just understand that an illegal immigrant is by definition, not obeying the law. This fact escapes many. I am for raising the number of LEGAL immigrants we allow in the US and stopping the flow of the rest. Anarchy follows when a nation decides to selectively enforce some of it's laws and ignore others. It turns a nation of laws into a Banana Republic where only the favored get justice. It causes all citizens AND immigrants to lose respect for the law in general.

I am not an expert on NAFTA by any means. But it is my understanding that it may have helped Mexico more than it helped the United States. Or at least in regard to their respective citizens. If that is in fact true, then it is an unequal agreement and any unequal trade agreement agreed to by our leadership is nothing more than a sellout to big business or some other special interest, which is nothing new. But I don't see any particular connection between NAFTA and immigration either.

The problem is the law is wrong and unjust not the lack of enforcement. It is nearly impossible for an average Mexican to get a legal work visa, but there are jobs waiting for the large percentage of workers who enter illegally. This logic is a long ways from "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free............"

[GRG55]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

NAFTA has had a devastating effect on Mexico's poor rural farmers. Corn is the staple crop for Mexico. NAFTA has flooded Mexico with cheap U.S. corn and they can't compete.

In the past (as in before NAFTA), Mexicans primarily got their corn from Mexican farms. There were also government support programs that subsidized the price of corn in the Mexican market to keep its price low enough for the average (i.e. poor) Mexican consumer. That went away with NAFTA.

Illegal immigrants of the past 15 years are primarily from Mexico's rural areas. They can no longer make a subsistance living on the farm (i.e. they cannot produce corn and other agricultural staples at a price cheaper than U.S. imports) and so they head for El Norte (the U.S.).

That is the primary reason for the large increase in illegal immigration. You can't make a living on the farm any more and Mexico has primarily been a rural nation most of its history.
.

Pardon me, but your two opening statements seem in direct conflict. On the one hand Mexican farmers cannot compete with "cheap US corn", but on the other hand Mexican consumers, for whom corn is a staple, can't afford to pay for expensive Mexican corn and therefore needed to be subsidized. The only way to subsidize is to tax some other part of the economy that is more efficient [and therefore can afford to be disproportionately taxed] and redistribute the income to the agriculture/food sector.

Okay, so let's pretend that NAFTA never happened, and explain to me how the pre-NAFTA situation was sustainable policy for the Mexican government...

[World Traveler]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

Think China. Sometimes governments don't act for purely economic reasons. They also act to maintain social stability. The old Mexican system was sustainable for that reason.

Price supports for agricultural products have been fairly common worldwide - the U.S. and the European Union still do it in some ways. Prior to NAFTA, Mexico had barriers to a flood of cheap American corn. NAFTA removed the ability to have those legal barriers.

Mexican small farm plots are not as efficient as U.S. farms, but they did provide a subsistance living for a lot of Mexicans. And, the average Mexican consumer is poor and could only afford the products of those small farms via government price supports that kept down the selling price in the markets where Mexicans buy their food.

To outsiders it may not may make sense. But, though inefficient, the system did work for Mexico for a long time. The small farmers made enough to survive on and the poor Mexican consumer did not pay the full price to consume those food products.

The difference between then and now is that today is that cheap American corn holds down the price for the poor Mexican consumer. The fallout is that the very large numbers of small plot farmers cannot make a living on the land.

[skidder]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

The problem is the law is wrong and unjust not the lack of enforcement. It is nearly impossible for an average Mexican to get a legal work visa, but there are jobs waiting for the large percentage of workers who enter illegally. This logic is a long ways from "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free............"

What's your point? That the US should guarantee that everyone who wants in to the US should get a visa? Let's have a national discussion on how many foreign born should be allowed into the country and enforce that number. Do you not see an assimilation problem as well as a taxpayer subsidy problem with all these illegals? MS-13, press 2 for spanish, ring a bell for you? There has been research done on this and from what I read these illegals are costing taxpayers in excess of 250 Billion/yr in everything from schooling to law enforcement. That there are businesses that are happy to suppress wages by hiring illegal aliens is irrelevant, imo.

[GRG55]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

Think China. Sometimes governments don't act for purely economic reasons. They also act to maintain social stability. The old Mexican system was sustainable for that reason.

Price supports for agricultural products have been fairly common worldwide - the U.S. and the European Union still do it in some ways. Prior to NAFTA, Mexico had barriers to a flood of cheap American corn. NAFTA removed the ability to have those legal barriers.

...

I understand all of that. Where we disagree is that "the old Mexican system was sustainable". Not a chance.

Price supports and various agricultural sector distortions are rampant throughout the world...I agree completely with you on that. However, even though such idiocy might be able to be maintained for decades, it is not sustainable. Everywhere in the world governments are today [finally!] finding they are no longer able to support and pursue policies that have in some cases been built up over decades and are treated by the beneficiaries as though they are part of their national psyche and identity [Greek and French civil servant retirement policies are good illustrations of this].

Agriculture is one of those political sacred cows..."self sufficiency" in basic food production being one of the favourite policy objectives of governments nearly everywhere. Mexico's subsidies to make inefficient corn production affordable for its consumers was no more sustainable than, say, Saudi Arabia's subsidies to produce irrigated alfalfa in the middle of the desert that then gets fed to cattle housed in air-conditioned barns to make the country self sufficient in dairy production - which then has to be sold at below cost of production because otherwise most of the people in the country can't afford it. This has been going on for decades now...but as the population has increased the need to expand production increased, which in turn is blowing the subsidies out of sight [not to mention the rapidly depleting water supplies]. Think this is sustainable? Think the government can withdraw the subsidies from the established dairy industry? Think the government can go on subsidizing an expanding output to maintain dairy product "self sufficiency"? Think the government can close the gap between cost of production and consumer price? See the problem. And this is a "government" that never, ever has to worry about opinion polls and voter intentions.

I am not suggesting that the NAFTA consequence for corn supply in Mexico was the "best" solution for them. In fact I would argue that by not recognizing the unsustainable status-quo that it had pre-NAFTA, and taking policy action to deal with it voluntarily, the Mexican government left itself vulnerable and open to having a socially [and perhaps economically?] sub-optimal "solution" imposed upon it from outside.

[GRG55]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

What's your point? That the US should guarantee that everyone who wants in to the US should get a visa? Let's have a national discussion on how many foreign born should be allowed into the country and enforce that number. Do you not see an assimilation problem as well as a taxpayer subsidy problem with all these illegals? MS-13, press 2 for spanish, ring a bell for you? There has been research done on this and from what I read these illegals are costing taxpayers in excess of 250 Billion/yr in everything from schooling to law enforcement. That there are businesses that are happy to suppress wages by hiring illegal aliens is irrelevant, imo.

LOL.

Your economy couldn't survive without the illegals now.

Why don't you show the other side of the equation? How much of your economic output goes to zero if you theoretically remove every single illegal from your country tomorrow?

That the USA has a dysfunctional immigration system goes without saying. That it probably should be overhauled damn soon is not a difficult argument to make. That your masses of illegals are a net drain on your economy is, however, absurd.

[World Traveler]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

The bottom line is that today Mexico has a serious "surplus labor" problem partly due to NAFTA's impact on Mexican agriculture. Mexican illegal immigration today to the U.S. mostly originates from Mexico's rural areas. And Mexico has a population of 100 million.

The illegal immigrant immigrant problem in the U.S. will not be sovled until a couple of things happen:

1. Jobs are created/ found inside of Mexico for its significant "surplus labor" group

2. Serious and strict enforcement of U.S. laws that prohibit the employment of illegals, with severe punishment for any employers/ companies who break this law.