NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

[GRG55]

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.

Although it may not apply to corn, I do wonder how much of the "cheap" agricultural exports from the USA to Mexico depend on illegal Mexican farm labour... :-)

[flintlock]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

In my observations, having a job with expensive food is better than no job and cheap food. Food is just not the major expense in life that it used to be in the 19th century. Though it probably is a bigger percentage of the cost of living in Mexico than it is in the USA. The prospect of cheaper goods is what was used to sell Globalism to the people. But the catch is, for those who can't find work, even at 1/10 the cost, zero dollars/pesos buys nothing. So in a nutshell, globalism/unrestricted trade(whatever you want to call it) is fine for those 80% or so who can keep a job. For the 20% at the bottom of the employment ladder it is a disaster. It's a game of musical chairs for some, with more and more getting squeezed out, at least in some nations. In my opinion, maintaining as close to full employment as possible for it's people should be a government's primary concern in these matters. Instead, they focus on total income, most of which we have seen, ends up in the pockets of the top few percent. So the real question is balancing GDP with the welfare of the populace. I'm not for income redistribution, but rather, see this as a balancing act between what is good for all.

Mexico's real problem is that it's population growth is outpacing it's economic growth. In a world of increasing automation, where less and less "bodies" are needed, this won't work. This is the real "Elephant in the room" that nobody wants to address.

[flintlock]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

Although it may not apply to corn, I do wonder how much of the "cheap" agricultural exports from the USA to Mexico depend on illegal Mexican farm labour... :-)

Kind of ironic isn't it?

With all due respect, I think most well off Americans/Canadians can't understand how a populace could be content living in what we would consider poverty. I mean, they don't all own a car! Or a flat screen TV even! But Mexico lived for centuries like this. They didn't have wealth but they did have community, family, and a sense of stability that no longer exists for many. They were not forced to travel thousands of miles away from home to a strange land, risking their lives crossing, and not seeing family for years at a time. My father wrote a book about his time growing up poor in semi-rural Georgia. The sense of family and community was very strong. He considered those times some of the best of his life.

Time marches on of course, and things change. But I can't help wondering if SOME Mexicans long for the good old days.

I agree their system was not sustainable. But the problem far exceeds what any trade agreement can fix. Mexico's economic problems can be directly linked to corruption, lawlessness, and overpopulation. NAFTA addresses none of those issues.

[flintlock]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

Why does everything have to be black and white with some when discussing this?

Your economy couldn't survive without the illegals now.

Hyperbole. Shortage of workers I suppose? Then why the 20% underemployment/unemployment in the US? And I'll go ahead and answer for you with the standard, " Doing jobs Americans won't do " myth. Tell that to all my American construction buddies out of work. Sorry, but all illegals are not cleaning bathrooms and picking fruit. American citizens clean my parents bathrooms , go figure.

How much of your economic output goes to zero if you theoretically remove every single illegal from your country tomorrow?

More hyperbole. Come on? Zero output? And who is calling for 100% removal tomorrow?

That your masses of illegals are a net drain on your economy is, however, absurd.

Depends on how you calculate it. But for the most part this is correct. Not just illegals but almost ALL very low income/low educated people are a drain on the US economy. Both citizens and illegals. Once again, not politically correct, but the truth. It's not the worker himself that is the drain. It's the family, none of whom poor people in the US can actually afford to support fully. They are subsidized by the US government from cradle to grave.

I'm not trying to get in a pissing match with you GRG, as I respect your opinions on this forum, but I've noticed when it comes to ILLEGAL immigration, your normally cool logic goes out the window. Most LEGAL immigrants I know personally feel the same as I do. My wife's father is an immigrant. Get in line and play by the rules. If you feel the US OWES illegal immigrants something then explain why. It also does not escape me that you are Canadian, where illegal immigration is not such a major issue. I suggest you visit a few border states and then reconsider.

I am all for LEGAL immigration, and think the numbers allowed in legally should be increased dramatically once the US economy is back on it's feet. Part of the reason for our current problem is that the legal number allowed in was too low to match the economic conditions. Blame Congress for that. But we are a nation of laws, and if they want to change this then they need to do it though Congress and not by simply having the executive branch ignore the law, based purely on political reasons, not humanitarian ones. That sets up a moral hazard. What happens next when they decide to ignore other laws like Habeas Corpus, or the 1st Amendment? Americans are losing all respect for the law and I can see why.

[GRG55]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

Why does everything have to be black and white with some when discussing this?



Hyperbole. Shortage of workers? Then why the 20% underemployment/unemployment in the US? And I'll go ahead and answer for you with the standard, " Doing jobs Americans won't do " myth. Tell that to all my American construction buddies out of work. Sorry, but all illegals are not cleaning bathrooms and picking fruit. American citizens clean my parents bathrooms , go figure.



More hyperbole. Come on? Zero output? And who is calling for 100% removal tomorrow?



Depends on how you calculate it. But for the most part this is correct. Not just illegals but almost ALL very low income/low educated people are a drain on the US economy. Both citizens and illegals. Once again, not politically correct, but the truth. It's not the worker himself that is the drain. It's the family, none of whom poor people in the US can actually afford to support fully. They are subsidized by the US government from cradle to grave.

I'm not trying to get in a pissing match with you GRG, as I respect your opinions on this forum, but I've noticed when it comes to ILLEGAL immigration, your normally cool logic goes out the window. Most LEGAL immigrants I know personally feel the same as I do. Get in line and play by the rules.

Immigrants are immigrants. Legal or not, the NET is not a drain. I don't support illegal immigration at all [i am the child of legal immigrants into Canada]. As I said, the US immigration system is dysfunctional and needs to be fixed. The large amount of "que jumping" because of illegal immigration is ample evidence of that problem, and only serves as a disincentive to play by the rules if one wants to enter the USA.

My beef is that some people on this forum think that all can be set right with the US economy and unemployment if the USA just got rid of its illegal immigrant "problem". The fact is that illegal immigrants are now a strucutral part of the US labour force. That is, in part, because US politicians have for a very long time stuck their heads in the sand when it came to reforming US immigration policy [How many prominent US citizens have illegals working for them as domestic help or in their businesses? Is Meg Whitman really such an isolated case?]

As for 100% removal of illegals tomorrow, I am afraid that you missed my point. That is how an economist would try to measure the impact of illegal labour on the US economy. Figure out what they do, theoretically [you'll note that word in my previous post as well] remove all of them immediately, estimate the consequence on economic output, and compare that against the cost. All I saw in the post I was responding to was some sort of cost number...which is what I took issue with. If you assume that unemployed construction workers can/will step in and replace every illegal then there is no impact on US output, is there. Somehow I doubt that's anywhere close to a reasonable assumption, but certainly any economic analysis is going to have to account for some substitution from elsewhere in the labour force. No wonder they call economics the dismal science...

[flintlock]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

I agree that immigrants are ingrained in our economy so much that things would not be the same without them. But I think where I disagree with you is that I believe there IS a limit to how many immigrants can be reasonably assimilated in a relatively short period into the US economy without causing undue disruption. To put it bluntly, they can F$%K a lot faster than we can provide jobs for them. As I stated earlier, they have a run away population. Their problem is being foisted on the US to "solve". Though taking them in solves nothing as this video shows. FF to about 4:40.





Despite popular belief, there is no "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." clause in the US Constitution. If being pro-American first makes me a bad person, then so be it. But I can't see any other reason for national borders if not for one group looking out for the best interests of its own. Throw that concept out and you have no reason to have national borders other than for administration purposes.

I see immigration as something internal that a nation DRAWS on when needed to fill a void. You see it as an obligation to meet a need from external sources, be it individuals or nations. I see it as being a Pulling force, you see it as accepting a PUSH, so to speak. To my logic, to accept your version is to accept that nations no longer have reign over their own best interests, but rather are a cork on the ocean, bobbing with the tide of population and economic swings. Let's not forget we all for the most part are immigrants in North America. But our forefathers came here both as a refuge(PUSH) from economic or other reasons, AND were DRAWN here to fill the void of labor in a very sparsely populated continent. Before the welfare state, any unneeded immigrants would have perished if their had not been a NEED for them and they could not pull their own weight economically. Today the situation is different. The average $12 hour construction worker simply cannot afford to raise 5 kids and educate them, provide them health care, etc.

I can see your view. I don't like the " I'm on the boat, pull up the ladder" type mentality either. I just think there is a point were the boat capsizes and all drown if we are not careful.

[wayiwalk]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

The assimilation question goes to how I think our gov't leaders really muck things up.

For NAFTA, so that the politicians can achieve a victory that results in meaningful success for them (ie, immediate campaign contributions), laws are passed that directly affect economic issues and take immediate effect.

No one has time (businesses, employees, ie, the average citizen) has time to adjust.

Whereas if the corn imports/exports were phased in over a longer period of time (say 10 or 20 years), then the passing of the law would not have hat as revolutionary impact on so many lives.

I feel the same way about the home mortgage deduction. I agree, fix the market, get rid of it. But overnight? That would cause chaos.

People would be more apt to agree to change if it wasn't sudden and revolutionary. Again - I'm only talking about economic issues. Some "social" change issues righly should be immediate.

[tsetsefly]

Re: NAFTA: Elephant in the Immigration Parlor

First off Nafta was not a real free trade agreement, many provisions and exclusions were put in.

As for why didn't poor mexicans benefit. That has to do more with Mexican policy than anything. Their heavy regulated inner market still makes it very tough for entrepreneurs, especially poorer ones. If you cant get in the "regular market" than you cant enjoy any of its benefits.

Also poorer farmers just dont have the technology or money to produce at the rates Americans can. And those farmers that do, are not poor. Mexico still needs major reform for it's citizens to actually be able to participate in the economy. I think many here are familiar Hernando de Soto, his work on informal economies in latin america and the marginalization of many entrepreneurs is great. Mexico suffers from this as well.