No other issue seeks to dominate the next few months than the troubles in the US economy. Besides the well documented mortgage lending scandal, the roots of the fragile US economy are the movement of large amounts of manufacturing jobs to China as well as the approximately one-third to one-half of US debt that is held by China, Japan and other foreign creditors in order to assist the US fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. During the last week of campaigning a new nemesis has been created within the dialogue between Clinton and Obama, that is the NAFTA agreement and the threat Mexico and Canada pose to the US economy.
In reality the United States has often determined the course of NAFTA and its rulings since the agreement came into effect with Canada and Mexico in 1994. Until recently, Canada and Mexico have been the top trading partners with the United States, switching between Japan and the EU for top spot which has recently been adopted by China. Trade with the US and its neighbors is more than 92% with Canada and approximately 80-85% in Mexico and has increased more than 100 percent with both neighbors since 1994. The US's NAFTA partners do not only export to the US, but import the majority of their goods from the United States, becoming a net benefit to US exporters in the process, especially those in border states such as Texas, California, Michigan and New York.
Problems encountered by the Canadian and Mexican governments often had to deal with the reality of the US holding a lot more economic weight and power in commercial activities, political weight, and control in official NAFTA hearings which often did not have any real power in enforcing its decision inside the US. Of great concern was NAFTA Chapter 11 which details the rights of companies to have legal recourse over government policies if they believed harm was done to them. This was one of the first times in international law where a company was represented without the support of a country, as before Chapter 11 only states had legal rights of representation under international law. In case law, American companies and policymakers who for the first time promoted the ability for a private company to gain a legal reward often supported this policy. The results were cases such as Metalclad, where a Mexican municipality was denied the right to stop the creation of a waste management plant, despite its concerns that it would harm the local environment. In S.D Myers, a Canadian law preventing the ban of toxic waste to the US was challenged as well, despite the regulations being there to protect the health and safety of the environment in both jurisdictions. Change only came in recent appeals in the NAFTA appeals hearing regarding Methanex, which challenged California state policy to prevent environmental damage inside the United States itself, the first of a number of appeals limiting the rights of companies over governments, namely the governments of California and the US.
Despite the recent criticisms by Clinton and Obama, it was Bill Clinton who ratified NAFTA during his time as President with no opposition from his wife, as well Obama who did little to appease the passing of NAFTA until the United States opened trade relations with China upon its acceptance into the WTO. The effect of the Methanex appeal is that the US trade policy has moved towards fair and equitable treatment of companies. As seen in the newest version of the US Trade Act and new trade agreements with Singapore and others, public policy is paramount over a companies rights over its investment as long the treatment is fair and equitable with due process and just compensation. This turn around took place not for Chapter 11's negative effects on Mexico or Canada, but on the US itself. Policies from the US and American Labour Unions challenging Canadian softwood lumber, or taking the production of corn, a staple of Mexico, and limiting it through NAFTA rules was a power advantage of the United States over its greatest trading partners in many cases. As seen in NAFTA tribunal cases and trade policy, the US has nothing to fear from its neighbors, but more from its debt and poor leadership which has sent American jobs and money to China. Criticisms of Mexico and Canada have died out long ago, and do nothing but create scapegoats such as NAFTA in order to win votes in Ohio and Texas.
John McCain this week showed his prudency in this election campaign. Despite talk of referring to Mr. Obama as Barak Hussein Obama and actions by his opponents in defacing America's good trading partners in Canada and Mexico, McCain had tried to keep the election campaign free of issues which seek to rip apart the country and mire the election in issues which do nothing more than to create a false crisis and give the Presidency to someone who can create the most paranoia for the American people. Ironically this tactic that was used so effectively by Bush is being countered not by the Democrats, but by another Republican. In reality, the Democrats are creating a lot of political tensions for something which has been created by American companies themselves. American companies have moved to Mexico and put Mexican companies out of the agriculture business while solidifying their control over staple Mexican products. American Auto manufactuers have taken advantage of the state sponsored health care system in Ontario to set up auto manufacturing in Canada. While these moves do hurt American manufacturing, it is the policies of American companies which have taken employment across the border. Companies such as Walmart and other retailers have created the most intense changes in the modern US economy by taking advantage of loose rules and laws in China who is slowly absorbing the world's manufacturing base without Labour Rights or accountability to its employees. Clinton and Obama would do well focusing on China as opposed to scapegoating Mexico and Canada. These two countries do more to purchase American goods than any other countries in the world. It is hard to manage a relationship with a giant, but it is impossible when that giant claims to be the victim of trade, when its certain the American people are being set up to be the victim of politics.
5 Comments So Far»
AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY AND THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION
The term "Free Trade' is usually defined as the absence of tariffs, quotas, or other governmental barriers to international trade. There is no doubt that some recent free trade agreements have not been very good for the American worker. On the other hand, the agreements have been great for the large multinational corporations, particularly those that have moved their manufacturing plants from the United States to China, Mexico and other low-wage countries where they can hire people there for a few dollars a week. These corporations can now produce their products without worrying about the costs of meeting OSHA requirements, providing employee health care or pensions for its workers and then they can bring their products back into the USA to sell. These products oftentimes are not made to the same quality standards as when they were produced in America and as recents incidents involving Chineese imports have shown, these products can pose health hazards to Americans as well.
The supporters of many free trade agreements, particularly the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have always promised increased exports, better jobs and better wages. Under many of these free trade agreements, however, just the opposite has occurred. Under NAFTA, for example, the U.S. trade deficit has soared and now averages $55-65 Billion dollars per month; the U.S. has lost over a million manufacturing jobs and real wages in both the U.S. and Mexico have fallen significantly. In short, NAFTA has not been a friend to the citizenry of either the United States or Mexico.
In 2005, a new mechanism was created to speed the further expansion of the NAFTA free trade agreement into a North American Union. It is called the Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)' The SPP is designed to facilitate the establishment of a North America Union through the "economic integration" of the US, Mexico and Canada. The most important feature of the SPP is that it does not require congressional ratification or the passage of any federal legislation by the congress of the United States. This design places the negotiation fully within the authority of the executive branch in the United States. How else would Mexican truckers be able to begin operating in the USA over the objections of Congress, American truckers and most of the American people?
The people and their elected representatives in congress no longer seem to have a voice when it comes to international trade. This is definitely a national sovereignty issue. International trade issues that affect 300+ million Americans should be made by the people's representatives in Congress, not by a handful of government bureaucrats and corporate elites who use their government connections to bypass congress and ignore our Constitution, which expressly grants Congress the sole authority to regulate international trade.
The goal of these international trade elite is to create an integrated North American Union, complete with a currency, a cross-national bureaucracy, and virtually borderless travel within the proposed Union. Like the European Union, a North American Union would represent another step toward the destruction of our national sovereignty. A free America, with limited, constitutional government, would just be a memory.
Not all free trade agreements are bad, but I believe that the United States of America must withdraw from any international agreements that infringe upon the freedom, sovereignty and independence of the American people.
By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York's 20th Congressional District
http://www.johnwallaceforcongress.com
My impression as working in all three NAFTA countries on trade and immigration issues is that there is a strong sense in your response that trade and sovereignty are mutually exclusive, or perhaps at polar opposites. The United States are in the economic troubles it is in currently because of a trade deficit with China and the severe loss of manufacturing with a country as large and economically capable as China as well as assuming large amounts of debt in the process. The problem with considering NAFTA partners and other trade partners as wholly negative is that trade is necessary for growth, and some countries while having a negative effect on some in the US also create alot of jobs via trade as well as investment in the United States. If Canada or Mexico benefit at all from this trade it does not mean it hurts the United States. Americans purchase low cost items from China presently as they once did from Mexico. One of the reasons that the items are low cost are because like China, Mexico once did produce low costs items. Since NAFTA, the rise in real wages went up in Mexico, deterred several recessions and economic crisis since 1996 and for the last while helped improve rights for workers and produce proper employment for many in Mexico and allowed Americans to purchase items from people who had a proper degree of Labour Rights in most of the American companies working in Mexico. In reality Mexico developed a greater economy and labour rights because of its economic success under NAFTA. Currently China lacks rights for its workers but dominates the American market, which is where many Americans are losing their jobs.
Trade with Canada has always been essential, as Canada has been the US closest trading partner over both country's histories. Canada and the US had strong trade relations with the Auto-Pact, which existed well before NAFTA and integrated the US and Canadian auto manufacturing plants. When jobs were lost in this industry in Detroit, they were lost as well in Ontario. In that Canadian region, 40% of the jobs are linked with the auto sector, much of which is Vertically Integrated with the US plants in Detroit. With recent losses to Asian auto manufacturers Canada has suffered as well. With 92% trade for Canada with the US, when there is a problem in America Canadians also suffer from decisions of American companies as do many Americans.
Regarding a North American Union, no one in the United States, Mexico or Canada wished for such a Union in any serious regard. It was an idea under neo-liberal economic theory which drove alot of US foreign policy in trade with its neighbors since NAFTA and beyond through almost every trade agreement that reducing economic barriers to trade would allow American companies to compete on par with foriegn competitors in their own countries. These agreements helped many American companies invest abroad without restrictions, but the theory never went beyond multilateral trade. In Canada and Mexico the belief is that culturally, economically and socially there is no desire for such a strong cultural and economic tie with the US. Beyond the difficulties of having economies which are several times smaller than the US, it would also lead to a loss of control over economic policy which have kept Mexico and Canada in heathy standing despite recent US economic troubles. A North American Union has never been a serious reality and is used mostly as a straw man arguement to create dissent against trade. No elected official would approach such a Union as it is assured they would not be successful in being elected.
With regards to trade agreements, the United States while passing legislation by means which many do not agree with, it is usually the US who has the advantage with trade agreements over its trading partners. Much of the newer agreements have been with smaller nations or ones which hope to have more developments as to create closer friendly ties with the US and helps the US promote development within those economies which often need to trade with the US to reduce poverty in their nation..a small sacrifice for the US, but a great help to countries which suffer from poverty and inequality.
Since the first city states the need for trade has been essential for local people and the progress of their business. When Americans sell billions of goods and services abroad there is never an issue, and allowing these goods to be sold into Canada and Mexico creates many jobs and profit fro Americans. Others have the right to sell to Americans as well, but if the relationship takes massive amounts of jobs away there needs to be action taking towards those trading relationships in order to create a fair and equitable response for all parties. American trade is not mutally exclusive and it necessary for growth, but targeting the correct problems is essential for the next President in order to keep cash flows coming into the US and going out to proper trading partners. Every country wants sovereignty, but no one has taken this away from the American people. It has always been the US to decide how it wishes to form policy and effect its own people. Americans need leaders who can choose policy and take actions before placing the blame on others for policy which will not help the average citizen and alienate good neighbors and trading relationships. This is essential to the progress of any Nation, America included.
Mexican migration was not an accident, nor was an accident that most of us are experiencing poverty. As a matter or fact, it was planned by rich people and by corporations who are systematically greedy enough to not want to pay a worker a fair wage but instead look for cheap labor. To corporations it does not matter if workers survive or they do not, as long as they are making profit out of this low wage they pay. Most corporations go to different countries in search of the cheapest labor for the reason that here in the United States the minimum wage is above seven dollars an hour. These corporations do not want to pay that amount; they rather go to a different country where the minimum wage is about six cents an hour the least and about twelve cents the most. In Mexico because of the implementation of NAFTA the minimum wage went very low and a lot of Mexicans began migrating to the United States. This paper argues why people from Mexico and other countries migrate to the U.S for fault of the global ecosystems that have been set up in order for corporations to profit, it mentions how we, the people, contribute to this system by consuming and buying stuff: basic things that become more important to us than our own lives. What's more is that it explains in brief how neo-liberal reforms affect poor people and workers dramatically.
Since many Mexicans unfairly went through a loss of autonomy: freedom, during colonization they decided to fight in a revolution that promised to return power to the people. Fortunately, farming tended to be mixed and maintained itself balanced with the ecosystem such as the weather, population, or the change of crops. Everything was in a fair position. But suddenly, French and Dutch plantation owners began exploiting land and labor from Indigenous people who were from Africa and Asia (Globalization, Thomas Friedmann 38). Oppressors and their farming practices affected people's liberty and self-reliance in the way that this system made local economies greatly dependant upon corporations for food, fuel and other goods necessary for our everyday living. Moreover, most workers were put in a position were they were not self-sufficient, therefore they did not have other choice but to resign and conform in a system that would dehumanize them and exploit them. Besides they only had about three options; to migrate to the Unites States, continue living in such system or be corrupted as they. Farming in Mexico during colonialism focused not on mixed farming but on mono-cultural production. Meaning they only cared about making the global economy profit while affecting local economies. After the revolution, Mexico did get its independence from the oppressive colonial rule. Yet, Spanish elites put in colonial rules that cruelly continued to exploit the workers. People still did not have any self-determination or self reliance for fault of these colonial practices that were occurring. Furthermore, after the revolution poor workers and indigenous people were told that they would now be self-reliant and self-sufficient (The World is Flat, Friedman). And so, the revolution caused the establishment of Ejidos. Ejidos were communities where people owned the land and it could never be sold, so its purpose was to benefit the poor and Indigenous people and fortunately not to serve the state or the world market (The Line between us, Bill Bigelow). As if it was sent from heaven, Article 27 was put to deregulate the practices of neo-liberalism. This Article stated that poor farmers had a right to own land. Forty-five million acres of collective ejidos were distributed to poor farmers by President Lazaro Cardenas who was in charge (The Line between us, Bill Bigelow). This greatly benefited the poor and Indigenous people. They no longer had to depend or obey certain rules that made them dependant. Rather, they became self-reliant again.
Even though the revolution helped many Mexicans and Mexico to become more self-reliant and autonomous, there were barriers when they tried to compete in the global market place. Since the United States became more powerful in the global agricultural market place, it became extremely difficult for Mexicans to afford paying imports. Mexicans could no longer compete with the U.S and the Soviet Union whom both were trying to modernize and industrialize farming practices. They wanted to change the way farming worked. Mexico lost its sovereignty and eventually became dependant on the U.S (Friedman 42). During this crisis, Mexico's government maintained Mexicans producing its own tortillas and had factories that produced sugar and cooking oil (Friedman 44). As I mentioned earlier Mexico became very dependant on the U.S and lacked autonomy. The U.S purposefully left many countries in debt and dependant. Many of these countries had to take out loans. These loans were given only under certain conditions. For instance, these conditions that had to be met would mean that poor farmers could no longer be assisted and their wages would go lower making them more dependent on imports. These conditions deregulate, decentralize and affect the building of more schools, hospitals or roads. As a consequence most countries signed agreements with NAFTA. A North American Free Trade Agreement which changed import controls into tariffs and automatically reduced or gets rid of tariffs (The roots of Migration). Mexico weakened on its loan which resulted on the abolition of Article 27 and the passing of NAFTA. The revolution did bring greater autonomy mainly through the passing of Article 27 and the establishment of ejidos. However, as the end of the twentieth century approached, Mexicans had enough reasons to migrate to the U.S because they were becoming less reliant and autonomous: more dependent, no self-rule.
The abolishment of Article 27 and the passing of NAFTA have led to Mexican's migration, as well, as to the loss in autonomy and self-reliance. Yet, Article 27 was implemented early in the twentieth century, as I said before, to end with everything that had to do neo-liberalism. It was put in response to inequalities during independence and lack of autonomy. Nevertheless, Article 27's abolition systematically led to an increase in migration and dependence in many ways. It was already obvious that most Mexicans depended on the U.S and they somehow had to migrate to that country in search of work (Friedmann 45). After taking out loans Mexico could no longer provide the people with work, it was unaffordable to pay workers. Then, as if it was not enough already, Ejidos got abolished too and that led to the privatization and purchasing of ejido land by foreign investors. Thereupon, the U.S Congress controlled land taking it away from Native Americans from reservations to give to the white farmers (Teaching about the man and us 23). This North American Free Trade Agreement, as we have seen, took effect on January 1, 1994. It is an agreement between the U.S, Canada, and Mexico to reduce tariffs to trade and invest. It was said that NAFTA would bring more jobs in all three countries and that prices of products would decrease. In Mexico NAFTA brought a dramatic rise in exports and Imports and suspiciously linked U.S and Mexican economies together as never seen before. Now, since NAFTA, Mexico's minimum wage decreased fifty percent, poverty increased, U.S investment went up, pollution went up, domestic products such as corn went down (NAFTA and the Roots of Migration 19). Evidently, NAFTA made migration and dependence possible. That explains why many Mexicans migrated to the United States in search of work, and to encounter themselves with what? They encountered exploitation and dehumanization. It is undeniable that NAFTA mostly benefited the U.S. It also offends us Mexicans because it is unfair that white people can freely go into Mexico to invest but Mexicans cannot come to the U.S illegally. Mexicans would have to migrate, be illegal and have no self-autonomy (The line between us20). Eventually, many Mexicans migrated and it would not surprise me learning that my parents are here as a result of NAFTA.
An example of a Neo-liberal reform would be the establishment of NAFTA and the abolition of Article 27. A neo-liberal reform deals with privatization, deregulation, and advancement of the "free market". Privatization which mean that mostly everything should be owned by someone, deregulation means that local economies will get destroyed and less roads and other necessities will be built. Now the free market supposedly claims that it will promote common good. Though, it only affects domestic issues, such as social security. In addition, it makes people dependant. This neo-liberal reform increased migration and dependence. Other countries also migrated because of similar conditions as Mexico. Countries like Panama, Haiti, and Vietnam. These countries suffered the same consequences as Mexico. In Palmira, Panama a four year old picks coffee beans and then uncontrollably inhales chemicals into his respiratory system just like most farm workers do everyday. It is a long process just to prepare a cup of coffee (Chapter 6, Just food 243). In Haiti the law requires factories to pay its workers about $2.17 as the minimum wage. However, in violation of the law, workers in some factories do not earn the minimum wage but rather less. They get exploited just like in Vietnam. In Vietnam someone could work 9 to 10 hours a day, seven days a week, earning as little as 6 cents and hour working in factories like Keyhinge in Vietnam making promotional toys or Disney characters for McDonald's. The worker's daily earned wage does not even cover 20% of his or her food and transportation. This led to materialism in the way that now most people in the U.S no longer were concerned on surviving but instead on commodities. Materials were now more important, not knowing how workers in other countries, as stated earlier, get exploited for us to use these materials (Rethinking Globalization. Teaching for Justice in an unjust world 158). Martin Luther king Jr. called a ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, a "thing oriented" society. In consequence of these neo-reforms many people from different countries have been struggling to survive.
In other parts of the world, Neo-liberal reform is playing a huge role in making poverty possible. For example, the Filipines are lacking jobs if there are jobs they do not pay enough for them to survive. Most filipines can not afford going to school. Neo-liberal reform decentralizes a country. In addition, Bolivia is another country which is experiencing the same injustices. Bolivia was in debt alike the filipines, Haiti and Mexico. Bolivia had to take out a loan under several conditionalities. These conditions were decentralization, privatization, and deregulation which together contribute to hurt poor communities, workers and the environment (film). Furthermore, the country of Haiti is at its worst. Haiti is the poorest country in the western Hemisphere because it was colonized by Napoleon Bonaparte through the Neo-liberal reform. Multinational corporations began investing on businesses in Haiti; they got people from Haiti to work for cheap labor. Haiti has free trade zones in where corporations make fantastic profits paying the worker as little as 12 cents and hour. They even have a special zone for slavery where they treat workers as if they were slaves because there are no inspections or regulations. Besides what can workers do when there are no jobs and the one they actually found treats them like dogs. They can not do much for the very reason that they will lose their job if they resist. Therefore, they think they must conform and as a result their self-reliance and autonomy becomes very vulnerable (film).
Most promoters of free trade talk good of neo-liberalism. Some claim that free trade, investment and liberalization are good for the poor. But how can that be possible when, in fact, poverty exists because of free trade. For instance, U.S investment in Mexico is high, as well, as exports. Yet, in Mexico since NAFTA (free trade), the minimum wage is very low and the amount of Mexicans reaching poverty is in the rise and needless to say that the environment is contaminated with pollution because of factories implemented by the U.S (NAFTA and the Roots of Migration). Moreover, others claim that as trade shifts economic growth, governments invest more in the environment. Trade does bring economic growth, however, only to the wealthy companies affecting the poor even more, and the governments do not invest more money on the environment but rather on commodities. In other words, free trade was designed to be a success for the companies and for the rich people.
Several claims I have heard throughout the years could be dangerously misleading the people. For instance, a constantly heard claim is that undocumented workers hurt the U.S economy. However, the U.S has been built by immigrants and workers that are not only Mexicans but also Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, African and so on. What's more, Mexicans pay taxes, construct homes for the wealthy and middle class to live in, they support the economy in this country by consuming its goods, and some even serve in the military. There is another frequently heard myth that says that undocumented workers are only here to receive social welfare. False, in truth, they do not even have access to certain services like medical, FAFSA: a financial aid to help students attending college with their careers. Thus to this end, undocumented workers are the victims of neo-liberalism.
Many countries began to resist after dealing too much with these reforms. They began to held resistance movements. Specifically, in Cancun, in the year 2003 people form all over the world unionized to ruin the WTO's meeting which affected the poor people. Fortunately, the meeting was postponed and the poor had beaten the rich again by protesting. Equally important, more than 3,000 Immokalee workers began a strike that lasted a week in order to be given their human rights. In the end, these boycotts held by the Immokalee workers led to the elimination of certain abuses (Resistance Film). Even though Immokalee is still a low-waged town it is now an organized town. The town realized that only by organizing and protesting will they be able to be given their rights. Also, in November of the year 1999, more than 30,000 people in Seattle made the last meeting of the WTO collapse. Many people from the north and South were there to support that movement. But, cops unjustly started shooting poison at the people to get them to stop protesting. Gratefully, there exist media/films that plan to open people's eyes to make social change through art and journalism. Even the Immokalee people have their own website in which it shows many cases thy have won against corporations. Numerous workers in Indonesia got influenced with these films and began their own organizations and their wages were raised. There is a movie called Walkout in where many students boycotted to be given the simple right of using restrooms in schools. Since they planned and organized they got what they wanted (Walkout DVD). Evidently, in order to be given human rights people must organize and plan protests ahead of time. Migrants shall be given their human rights without question. After all, they are migrating for the very reason that NAFTA was passed and because there were no jobs in their own countries. Migrants actually benefit corporations. Gladly, many presidents in Latin America resisted and rejected free trade. For example, President Hugo Chavez says "This planet can not stand this model any longer" (Venezuela: President Hugo Chavez). In addition, President Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva from Brazil resisted. He was the voice of the poor and now as president he critics the U.S and the IMF: International Monetary Fund. Another president who resisted was Evo Morales from Bolivia. He spoke before the United Nations promising that he would never let the United States pressure to nationalize coca production (Bolivia: President Evo Morales). These presidents resisted against neo-liberalism.
I used to believe that America was, indeed, a democracy. However, now I do not even doubt that it is not. When I was younger I was obviously told that it was a democracy and I like many of you got brain washed. But, not any more, with what I have been learning throughout this course I came to the conclusion that America is practicing democracy by encouraging it abroad. In terms of almost perfect, a true American democracy would not exploit workers, would not offer low-wages to the people whom after all makes America profit. Also, it would not attempt the poor go poorer while the rich get richer, instead it will offer the poor healthcare/ health benefits to every family. It will, as well, respect any race, be fair, would not let corporations profit from exploiting poor farmers and workers, it would not move unilaterally: attempting to take anything by force from other countries, it would educate students not to only obey but to understand what it is fair, and it would finally let workers decide what would be a fair minimum wage for them. There is so much more to it though. To the rest of the world its realization would mean a new beginning, a known world for once, and mostly happiness for future generations. In the same way, to me this would mean a different future for myself and my future family, something that would be quite fascinating. This reminds me of a book I read a week ago, it is called "Rain of Gold" by author Victor Villasenor. It talks a lot about immigration and struggles on how to survive here in the United States. This book makes one reflect a lot about life (Rain of Gold by Victor Villasenor).
It is, indeed, very important for us students to be studying about the realities of the world for various reasons. First of all, we get to appreciate life more and try to make it better by organizing and opening other people's eyes. Also, once a student learns about this he or she will automatically run off teaching it to his family who most likely already knew but never gave this situation a second thought or thought of it with full detail and also comment this with friends who will then do the same their families. In the end, the world's reality will start to make sense to many of us. I have learned the very reasons why Mexicans and millions of people from other countries migrate to the United States in a supposedly search of a better life. I will always remember even when I sleep that America is not a democracy as it makes us believe. I powerfully disagree with the way poor people are being unfairly treated right now as I write. Of course, this unit is relevant to my life. My father came to the United States to work leaving mother and his children in Mexico. Although he sent home money every few months, it was not as much as he would like to send. But what else could he do when there was no work in his own country and the wages were so low for workers without papers who didn't speak English? Both of my parents are hard workers who did not have the opportunity to go to school, and consequently, their lives were largely determined by others who had more power and education than they did. Once again I would like to restate that it would not surprise me learning that my parents moved to the U.S because of NAFTA and the abolition of Article 27. Those who say that we came here to the U.S for a better life are yet not aware of the atrocities and violations America commits everyday. My perspective dramatically changed, but for good though. I have to admit that I view the U.S with hate, without any respect and with such tremendous resentment.
In conclusion, it is now clear why Mexicans migrate to the United States alike many people from other countries. Most think that they will face better conditions, but once more they face the very same exploitation or even worst conditions. It is worst because they are here in a country where they do not belong and so therefore get treated even worst than dogs sometimes. As soon as Mexicans arrive all they want is to work in order to survive and most go work in the fields. This work comes with little job security, few benefits, low wages, and often times disrespect. The worst part about these jobs is that there is little room for upward mobility. Many people in my community share this history. They get so exploited that after a while they began to believe it is something normal. Most of the people who get exploited believe that they are not capable of determining their own fate. Since their self-esteem gets so low after living in a country as a second class citizen they think they can not do much. If thought about it like that then it is true because we live in a country that is not a democracy and our voices are never herd. It is as if we do not exist, we are only objects being used to make corporations profit. All of these policies that were implemented are not natural, accidental or normal; they automatically produce poverty and dependence.
Mexican migration was not an accident, nor was an accident that most of us are experiencing poverty. As a matter or fact, it was planned by rich people and by corporations who are systematically greedy enough to not want to pay a worker a fair wage but instead look for cheap labor. To corporations it does not matter if workers survive or they do not, as long as they are making profit out of this low wage they pay. Most corporations go to different countries in search of the cheapest labor for the reason that here in the United States the minimum wage is above seven dollars an hour. These corporations do not want to pay that amount; they rather go to a different country where the minimum wage is about six cents an hour the least and about twelve cents the most. In Mexico because of the implementation of NAFTA the minimum wage went very low and a lot of Mexicans began migrating to the United States. This paper argues why people from Mexico and other countries migrate to the U.S for fault of the global ecosystems that have been set up in order for corporations to profit, it mentions how we, the people, contribute to this system by consuming and buying stuff: basic things that become more important to us than our own lives. What's more is that it explains in brief how neo-liberal reforms affect poor people and workers dramatically.
Since many Mexicans unfairly went through a loss of autonomy: freedom, during colonization they decided to fight in a revolution that promised to return power to the people. Fortunately, farming tended to be mixed and maintained itself balanced with the ecosystem such as the weather, population, or the change of crops. Everything was in a fair position. But suddenly, French and Dutch plantation owners began exploiting land and labor from Indigenous people who were from Africa and Asia (Globalization, Thomas Friedmann 38). Oppressors and their farming practices affected people's liberty and self-reliance in the way that this system made local economies greatly dependant upon corporations for food, fuel and other goods necessary for our everyday living. Moreover, most workers were put in a position were they were not self-sufficient, therefore they did not have other choice but to resign and conform in a system that would dehumanize them and exploit them. Besides they only had about three options; to migrate to the Unites States, continue living in such system or be corrupted as they. Farming in Mexico during colonialism focused not on mixed farming but on mono-cultural production. Meaning they only cared about making the global economy profit while affecting local economies. After the revolution, Mexico did get its independence from the oppressive colonial rule. Yet, Spanish elites put in colonial rules that cruelly continued to exploit the workers. People still did not have any self-determination or self reliance for fault of these colonial practices that were occurring. Furthermore, after the revolution poor workers and indigenous people were told that they would now be self-reliant and self-sufficient (The World is Flat, Friedman). And so, the revolution caused the establishment of Ejidos. Ejidos were communities where people owned the land and it could never be sold, so its purpose was to benefit the poor and Indigenous people and fortunately not to serve the state or the world market (The Line between us, Bill Bigelow). As if it was sent from heaven, Article 27 was put to deregulate the practices of neo-liberalism. This Article stated that poor farmers had a right to own land. Forty-five million acres of collective ejidos were distributed to poor farmers by President Lazaro Cardenas who was in charge (The Line between us, Bill Bigelow). This greatly benefited the poor and Indigenous people. They no longer had to depend or obey certain rules that made them dependant. Rather, they became self-reliant again.
Even though the revolution helped many Mexicans and Mexico to become more self-reliant and autonomous, there were barriers when they tried to compete in the global market place. Since the United States became more powerful in the global agricultural market place, it became extremely difficult for Mexicans to afford paying imports. Mexicans could no longer compete with the U.S and the Soviet Union whom both were trying to modernize and industrialize farming practices. They wanted to change the way farming worked. Mexico lost its sovereignty and eventually became dependant on the U.S (Friedman 42). During this crisis, Mexico's government maintained Mexicans producing its own tortillas and had factories that produced sugar and cooking oil (Friedman 44). As I mentioned earlier Mexico became very dependant on the U.S and lacked autonomy. The U.S purposefully left many countries in debt and dependant. Many of these countries had to take out loans. These loans were given only under certain conditions. For instance, these conditions that had to be met would mean that poor farmers could no longer be assisted and their wages would go lower making them more dependent on imports. These conditions deregulate, decentralize and affect the building of more schools, hospitals or roads. As a consequence most countries signed agreements with NAFTA. A North American Free Trade Agreement which changed import controls into tariffs and automatically reduced or gets rid of tariffs (The roots of Migration). Mexico weakened on its loan which resulted on the abolition of Article 27 and the passing of NAFTA. The revolution did bring greater autonomy mainly through the passing of Article 27 and the establishment of ejidos. However, as the end of the twentieth century approached, Mexicans had enough reasons to migrate to the U.S because they were becoming less reliant and autonomous: more dependent, no self-rule.
The abolishment of Article 27 and the passing of NAFTA have led to Mexican's migration, as well, as to the loss in autonomy and self-reliance. Yet, Article 27 was implemented early in the twentieth century, as I said before, to end with everything that had to do neo-liberalism. It was put in response to inequalities during independence and lack of autonomy. Nevertheless, Article 27's abolition systematically led to an increase in migration and dependence in many ways. It was already obvious that most Mexicans depended on the U.S and they somehow had to migrate to that country in search of work (Friedmann 45). After taking out loans Mexico could no longer provide the people with work, it was unaffordable to pay workers. Then, as if it was not enough already, Ejidos got abolished too and that led to the privatization and purchasing of ejido land by foreign investors. Thereupon, the U.S Congress controlled land taking it away from Native Americans from reservations to give to the white farmers (Teaching about the man and us 23). This North American Free Trade Agreement, as we have seen, took effect on January 1, 1994. It is an agreement between the U.S, Canada, and Mexico to reduce tariffs to trade and invest. It was said that NAFTA would bring more jobs in all three countries and that prices of products would decrease. In Mexico NAFTA brought a dramatic rise in exports and Imports and suspiciously linked U.S and Mexican economies together as never seen before. Now, since NAFTA, Mexico's minimum wage decreased fifty percent, poverty increased, U.S investment went up, pollution went up, domestic products such as corn went down (NAFTA and the Roots of Migration 19). Evidently, NAFTA made migration and dependence possible. That explains why many Mexicans migrated to the United States in search of work, and to encounter themselves with what? They encountered exploitation and dehumanization. It is undeniable that NAFTA mostly benefited the U.S. It also offends us Mexicans because it is unfair that white people can freely go into Mexico to invest but Mexicans cannot come to the U.S illegally. Mexicans would have to migrate, be illegal and have no self-autonomy (The line between us20). Eventually, many Mexicans migrated and it would not surprise me learning that my parents are here as a result of NAFTA.
An example of a Neo-liberal reform would be the establishment of NAFTA and the abolition of Article 27. A neo-liberal reform deals with privatization, deregulation, and advancement of the "free market". Privatization which mean that mostly everything should be owned by someone, deregulation means that local economies will get destroyed and less roads and other necessities will be built. Now the free market supposedly claims that it will promote common good. Though, it only affects domestic issues, such as social security. In addition, it makes people dependant. This neo-liberal reform increased migration and dependence. Other countries also migrated because of similar conditions as Mexico. Countries like Panama, Haiti, and Vietnam. These countries suffered the same consequences as Mexico. In Palmira, Panama a four year old picks coffee beans and then uncontrollably inhales chemicals into his respiratory system just like most farm workers do everyday. It is a long process just to prepare a cup of coffee (Chapter 6, Just food 243). In Haiti the law requires factories to pay its workers about $2.17 as the minimum wage. However, in violation of the law, workers in some factories do not earn the minimum wage but rather less. They get exploited just like in Vietnam. In Vietnam someone could work 9 to 10 hours a day, seven days a week, earning as little as 6 cents and hour working in factories like Keyhinge in Vietnam making promotional toys or Disney characters for McDonald's. The worker's daily earned wage does not even cover 20% of his or her food and transportation. This led to materialism in the way that now most people in the U.S no longer were concerned on surviving but instead on commodities. Materials were now more important, not knowing how workers in other countries, as stated earlier, get exploited for us to use these materials (Rethinking Globalization. Teaching for Justice in an unjust world 158). Martin Luther king Jr. called a ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, a "thing oriented" society. In consequence of these neo-reforms many people from different countries have been struggling to survive.
In other parts of the world, Neo-liberal reform is playing a huge role in making poverty possible. For example, the Filipines are lacking jobs if there are jobs they do not pay enough for them to survive. Most filipines can not afford going to school. Neo-liberal reform decentralizes a country. In addition, Bolivia is another country which is experiencing the same injustices. Bolivia was in debt alike the filipines, Haiti and Mexico. Bolivia had to take out a loan under several conditionalities. These conditions were decentralization, privatization, and deregulation which together contribute to hurt poor communities, workers and the environment (film). Furthermore, the country of Haiti is at its worst. Haiti is the poorest country in the western Hemisphere because it was colonized by Napoleon Bonaparte through the Neo-liberal reform. Multinational corporations began investing on businesses in Haiti; they got people from Haiti to work for cheap labor. Haiti has free trade zones in where corporations make fantastic profits paying the worker as little as 12 cents and hour. They even have a special zone for slavery where they treat workers as if they were slaves because there are no inspections or regulations. Besides what can workers do when there are no jobs and the one they actually found treats them like dogs. They can not do much for the very reason that they will lose their job if they resist. Therefore, they think they must conform and as a result their self-reliance and autonomy becomes very vulnerable (film).
Most promoters of free trade talk good of neo-liberalism. Some claim that free trade, investment and liberalization are good for the poor. But how can that be possible when, in fact, poverty exists because of free trade. For instance, U.S investment in Mexico is high, as well, as exports. Yet, in Mexico since NAFTA (free trade), the minimum wage is very low and the amount of Mexicans reaching poverty is in the rise and needless to say that the environment is contaminated with pollution because of factories implemented by the U.S (NAFTA and the Roots of Migration). Moreover, others claim that as trade shifts economic growth, governments invest more in the environment. Trade does bring economic growth, however, only to the wealthy companies affecting the poor even more, and the governments do not invest more money on the environment but rather on commodities. In other words, free trade was designed to be a success for the companies and for the rich people.
Several claims I have heard throughout the years could be dangerously misleading the people. For instance, a constantly heard claim is that undocumented workers hurt the U.S economy. However, the U.S has been built by immigrants and workers that are not only Mexicans but also Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, African and so on. What's more, Mexicans pay taxes, construct homes for the wealthy and middle class to live in, they support the economy in this country by consuming its goods, and some even serve in the military. There is another frequently heard myth that says that undocumented workers are only here to receive social welfare. False, in truth, they do not even have access to certain services like medical, FAFSA: a financial aid to help students attending college with their careers. Thus to this end, undocumented workers are the victims of neo-liberalism.
Many countries began to resist after dealing too much with these reforms. They began to held resistance movements. Specifically, in Cancun, in the year 2003 people form all over the world unionized to ruin the WTO's meeting which affected the poor people. Fortunately, the meeting was postponed and the poor had beaten the rich again by protesting. Equally important, more than 3,000 Immokalee workers began a strike that lasted a week in order to be given their human rights. In the end, these boycotts held by the Immokalee workers led to the elimination of certain abuses (Resistance Film). Even though Immokalee is still a low-waged town it is now an organized town. The town realized that only by organizing and protesting will they be able to be given their rights. Also, in November of the year 1999, more than 30,000 people in Seattle made the last meeting of the WTO collapse. Many people from the north and South were there to support that movement. But, cops unjustly started shooting poison at the people to get them to stop protesting. Gratefully, there exist media/films that plan to open people's eyes to make social change through art and journalism. Even the Immokalee people have their own website in which it shows many cases thy have won against corporations. Numerous workers in Indonesia got influenced with these films and began their own organizations and their wages were raised. There is a movie called Walkout in where many students boycotted to be given the simple right of using restrooms in schools. Since they planned and organized they got what they wanted (Walkout DVD). Evidently, in order to be given human rights people must organize and plan protests ahead of time. Migrants shall be given their human rights without question. After all, they are migrating for the very reason that NAFTA was passed and because there were no jobs in their own countries. Migrants actually benefit corporations. Gladly, many presidents in Latin America resisted and rejected free trade. For example, President Hugo Chavez says "This planet can not stand this model any longer" (Venezuela: President Hugo Chavez). In addition, President Luis Inacio Lula Da Silva from Brazil resisted. He was the voice of the poor and now as president he critics the U.S and the IMF: International Monetary Fund. Another president who resisted was Evo Morales from Bolivia. He spoke before the United Nations promising that he would never let the United States pressure to nationalize coca production (Bolivia: President Evo Morales). These presidents resisted against neo-liberalism.
I used to believe that America was, indeed, a democracy. However, now I do not even doubt that it is not. When I was younger I was obviously told that it was a democracy and I like many of you got brain washed. But, not any more, with what I have been learning throughout this course I came to the conclusion that America is practicing democracy by encouraging it abroad. In terms of almost perfect, a true American democracy would not exploit workers, would not offer low-wages to the people whom after all makes America profit. Also, it would not attempt the poor go poorer while the rich get richer, instead it will offer the poor healthcare/ health benefits to every family. It will, as well, respect any race, be fair, would not let corporations profit from exploiting poor farmers and workers, it would not move unilaterally: attempting to take anything by force from other countries, it would educate students not to only obey but to understand what it is fair, and it would finally let workers decide what would be a fair minimum wage for them. There is so much more to it though. To the rest of the world its realization would mean a new beginning, a known world for once, and mostly happiness for future generations. In the same way, to me this would mean a different future for myself and my future family, something that would be quite fascinating. This reminds me of a book I read a week ago, it is called "Rain of Gold" by author Victor Villasenor. It talks a lot about immigration and struggles on how to survive here in the United States. This book makes one reflect a lot about life (Rain of Gold by Victor Villasenor).
It is, indeed, very important for us students to be studying about the realities of the world for various reasons. First of all, we get to appreciate life more and try to make it better by organizing and opening other people's eyes. Also, once a student learns about this he or she will automatically run off teaching it to his family who most likely already knew but never gave this situation a second thought or thought of it with full detail and also comment this with friends who will then do the same their families. In the end, the world's reality will start to make sense to many of us. I have learned the very reasons why Mexicans and millions of people from other countries migrate to the United States in a supposedly search of a better life. I will always remember even when I sleep that America is not a democracy as it makes us believe. I powerfully disagree with the way poor people are being unfairly treated right now as I write. Of course, this unit is relevant to my life. My father came to the United States to work leaving mother and his children in Mexico. Although he sent home money every few months, it was not as much as he would like to send. But what else could he do when there was no work in his own country and the wages were so low for workers without papers who didn't speak English? Both of my parents are hard workers who did not have the opportunity to go to school, and consequently, their lives were largely determined by others who had more power and education than they did. Once again I would like to restate that it would not surprise me learning that my parents moved to the U.S because of NAFTA and the abolition of Article 27. Those who say that we came here to the U.S for a better life are yet not aware of the atrocities and violations America commits everyday. My perspective dramatically changed, but for good though. I have to admit that I view the U.S with hate, without any respect and with such tremendous resentment.
In conclusion, it is now clear why Mexicans migrate to the United States alike many people from other countries. Most think that they will face better conditions, but once more they face the very same exploitation or even worst conditions. It is worst because they are here in a country where they do not belong and so therefore get treated even worst than dogs sometimes. As soon as Mexicans arrive all they want is to work in order to survive and most go work in the fields. This work comes with little job security, few benefits, low wages, and often times disrespect. The worst part about these jobs is that there is little room for upward mobility. Many people in my community share this history. They get so exploited that after a while they began to believe it is something normal. Most of the people who get exploited believe that they are not capable of determining their own fate. Since their self-esteem gets so low after living in a country as a second class citizen they think they can not do much. If thought about it like that then it is true because we live in a country that is not a democracy and our voices are never herd. It is as if we do not exist, we are only objects being used to make corporations profit. All of these policies that were implemented are not natural, accidental or normal; they automatically produce poverty and dependence. However, one day the world will be left with no resourses and corporations will be hurt at it's worst. It is our hope that America seeks communion.
Thanks for your extensive comments, really wonderful!
I think the only brief response I can give comes from a collegue of mine when she had the opportunity to represent Mexico in a meeting with a US government official a few years back. Her comment on free trade between Mexico and the US came down to “What other choice do we have?”
I think her perspective was that whether you are rich or poor, Mexican or otherwise sometimes there are few opportunities. I think regarding Latin America many share your views, but considering other parts of the world and even some situations in Latin America itself, the US is not the only actor which has received criticism for actions its taken towards other nations and people. I think there is a shift to reengage with the international community, with regards to Mexico, I think there are issues that have been there before our time and ones that will not disappear for generations. How do you suggest we bring communion in the future?
3 Pingback & Trackback
Leave Comments Below»