As President Fox plays host to President Bush this weekend, one wonders if the two leaders have any honest, frank discussions. If they did, here is how a conversation about the 10th anniversary of NAFTA might go:
"So George, did you know that when NAFTA was signed there were 2.4 million undocumented Mexicans in the U.S., yet now that number has more than doubled to 4.81 million. (1) The total number of Mexican-born people in the U.S. also doubled to about 9 million from 1990 to 2000. (2)"
"That’s true Vicente, because your hard --working people were attracted by all the wonderful jobs we created in the late 1990s." "But then George how do you explain that as the U.S economy shed millions of jobs in 2001 and 2002, these two years were the biggest ever for illegal migration with more than 600, 000 Mexicans going north in 2002 alone (3)."
"We’re trying to stop them illegals, Vicente. Since the implementation of Operation Gatekeeper the number of U.S. border patrol agents has jumped from just over 3000 in 1993 to some 9000 in 2002. (4) Heck, we even built a huge fence all across southern California."
"I know George, but that only forced migrants into the Arizona desert. This year during the hot summer months about 200 people died trying to cross it (5). Some say it is the worst border in the western world and the deadliest across land anywhere. And another thing, your increased clampdown has made it even more profitable for the so-called "coyotes" who help migrants across the border. The money available in the "coyote" trade has spurred an increasingly violent network of organized crime that has some comparing the border control situation to the futile war on drugs."
"Well Vicente, I’m not sure what to say, except that this whole NAFTA thing hasn’t worked so well for us either."
Then President Bush could go on to tell his Mexican counterpart that in the early 1990s, 10 years after Mexico’s 1982 peso devaluation and the beginning of the country’s neoliberal economic restructuring, the flow of "illegal" migrants had become a political issue in the U.S.
So, before Mexico entered NAFTA proponents of the accord proclaimed that its growth inducing properties would curb the flow of northbound migration. The argument put forth was that NAFTA would boost Mexican growth, which would create jobs and with more jobs Mexicans wouldn’t need to seek work in the U.S. The logic seems reasonable so long as NAFTA creates jobs. What happened?
NAFTA did create hundreds of thousands of (Maquiladora) jobs, mostly in the north of the country. By 2000 some 700 000 Maquiladora jobs were the result of NAFTA. (7). Yet by 2003 300 000 of those jobs had disappeared due to the downturn in the U.S economy and more importantly Chinese competition (8).
Mexican workers, it seems, believe that "development" means they should expect steadily improving wages. Yet, with China’s ascent to the WTO in 2001 international capital, which underpins the Maquiladora sector, had other ideas. The capitalists reckoned that Chinese workers could be paid a third the rate of a Maquiladora worker (50 cents per hour compared with a $1.47 hourly average (9)). So they moved shop.
But why have so many Mexicans migrated? If my experiences with "illegals" are of any indication certainly not for an adventure. The fifty-year old man I sat next to on a flight from Mexico City to Tijuana wasn’t looking forward to being away from his family or sneaking across the border. Here in Montreal my university’s night cleaners have told me they would prefer to be with their families.
And the countless numbers of ex migrants I met across Mexico said the same thing; Mexico was home but their livelihood was up north. Mexicans, it seems, are like most people in the world. They like to travel, maybe work a short-term low paying job in a foreign city for a while or study abroad, but by and large, they want to spend their lives close to their family and where they grew up.
The reasons for migration then probably lie in the effects NAFTA and its economic liberalization agenda have had on the country’s economic situation.
Let’s be clear NAFTA has benefited some. Mexico has had a major increase in billionaires. Some corporate agri-business has done well. Large segments of the country’s business elite and professional classes have got a cut. And certainly a few multi-nationals aren’t complaining. Unfortunately, most Mexicans aren’t members of these sectors of society.
The agricultural sector, especially small farmers have been devastated by a flood of subsidized U.S. exports and reductions in their own subsidies. The French paper Liberation reported that during NAFTA’s first decade some 2.5 million Mexican farmers were driven from their land (10).
And for naïve city folk like myself who might see farm work as un-enjoyable it is not just a matter of Mexicans wanting to get off the farm. In the 10 years between 1989 and 1998 the percentage of U.S. farm workers, mostly Mexicans, without legal working documents increased from less than 10% of the farm worker population to over 50%. (11)
And un-documented farm workers precarious nature has been beneficial to U.S. agri-business (The source of the products undermining small farmers in Mexico). According to the Wall Street Journal, "hourly wages in the fields fell from $6.98 in 1989 to $6.18 in 1998, in constant 1998 dollars. (12)
Outside of the agricultural sector, NAFTA’s not been as bad, but certainly not great. The Financial Times reports that, "better paying manufacturing jobs that support entire families are fewer now than when the [NAFTA] agreement was signed." (13) According to the USA Today "since the accord took effect, real wages for Mexican Manufacturing workers have dropped 13.5%" (14) These numbers don’t paint a very pretty picture, especially since in all likelihood the situation will further deteriorate with China’s ascent to the WTO.
Mexico’s economy isn’t in a total free-fall though, which is a testament to an ability to do what neoliberals love most: export... The only thing is that in Mexico’s case it is not the exportation of products or materials we’re talking about but rather people. Money sent home (remittances) from the U.S. has surpassed tourism and foreign direct investment as the second biggest source of foreign currency to the country after the oil sector. Over 1 billion a month was being remitted in the first half of 2003, nearly 30% more than 2002. (15)
To put this number into perspective lets add the likely combined wages of all 700 000 Maquiladora jobs created during the first seven years of NAFTA.
Assuming 700,000 workers work 50 hours a week for 52 weeks a year at $1.47 per hour the total amount brought into the Mexican economy is $2.68 billion.
That’s about the amount remittances increased between 2002 and 2003 though remittances are of much greater short-term economic value. Unlike the Maquiladora sector, the Mexican government doesn’t need to put large amounts of money into attracting remittances. Where the Maquiladoras expect the government to build roads and other infrastructure (and tax credits), all migrants can hope for is an I.D card. So, in the short-term the economy gains more per dollar of remittances than it does per Maquilladora dollar.
Victor Hanson a Professor at Cal State Fresno argues that ‘Mexico...stays afloat by exporting human capital [remittances]. If you shut that border down, in five years you’d have a revolution, because Mexico can’t meet the aspirations of its own people." (16) And you can bet Mexican politicians understand this fact. The L.A Times reports that, "the migrants who come north used to be regarded as sellouts or deserters in Mexican society. Now, they are heroes praised by Mexican president Vicente Fox for the money they inject into that faltering economy." (17)
After a decade of NAFTA the remittances from increased economic migration, which NAFTA was supposed to curb, is what’s keeping the Mexican economy afloat. "So George can we talk about re-working that agreement."
yves with stan goff, cynthia mcKinney and others will be at the one dance summit in Santa Cruz California (www.onedancesummit.org) from Jan 12-14.
he can be reached at: yvesengler@hotmail.com
1. NY Times Dec.27 2003
2. Globe and Mail Jan.3 2004
3. Wall Street Journal Oct 10 2003
4. Wall Street Journal Oct 10 2003
5 Globe and Mail Sept. 20 2003
6.NY Times Dec.27 2003
7.NY Times Dec.27 2003
8. NY Times Dec.27 2003
9. La Presse, January 12 2003
10. Liberation Jan 1 2004
11. Wall Street Journal, October 10th 2003
12. Wall Street Journal, October 10th 2003
13. Financial Times July 1
14. USA Today Dec 31 2003
15. FT Sept 19 2003
16. L.A Times, July 20th, 2003
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. NoNonsense English offers this material non-commercially for research and educational purposes. I believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner, i.e. the media service or newspaper which first published the article online and which is indicated at the top of the article unless otherwise specified.