FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
How Mexico Got Screwed Up - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (
+-- Forum: Piazza (
+--- Forum: Secular News, Politics, & Social Issues (
+--- Thread: How Mexico Got Screwed Up (/showthread.php?tid=74597)

How Mexico Got Screwed Up - VoxClamantis - 01-24-2016


Illegal Immigration and NAFTA
February 05, 2011 
Dustin Ensinger

One of the largely overlooked aspects of the North American Free Trade Agreement is the fact that the failed trade pact has been the catalyst for the massive increase in illegal immigration over the past two decades or so.

An influx of highly subsidized corn flooding the Mexican market has displaced millions of rural farmers, according to McClatchy Newspapers. Prior to the implementation of NAFTA, Mexican officials claimed that factory jobs would fill the void left by disappearing work on family farms.

Mexican officials had promised that NAFTA would result in the “export of goods, not people.” That, however, has turned out to be far from reality.

Since NAFTA was signed into law, illegal immigrants in the U.S. has increased to 12 million today from 3.9 million in 1993, accounting for an overall increase of over 300 percent. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, 57 percent of those entering the country illegally are from Mexico.

“The numbers of people displaced from family farming were much, much higher than the number of new wage jobs,” Jonathan Fox, an expert on rural Mexico at the University of California at Santa Cruz, told McClatchy Newspapers.

Vox Wrote:
And, of course, the American people instead of The Powers That Be are generally blamed for all this mucking up, just as "white people" are blamed for the doings of The Powers That Be  when it comes to what banksters and their bought-and-paid-for politicos are up to.

Those displaced workers are largely the result of U.S. corn exports to Mexico. Heavily subsidized American Agribusiness not only put hundreds of thousands of American family farms out of business, but also dumped billions of dollars worth of American agricultural products into the Mexican market, putting millions of peasant farmers out of business.

Between 1994 and 2001, the flood of cheap, subsidized American corn caused the price of the crop to fall 70 percent in Mexico. The drop in prices caused millions of farm jobs to disappear, with the numbers falling from 8.1 million in 1993 to 6.8 million in 2002.

Those out-of-work farmers make up the bulk of the illegal immigrants entering the U.S. each year. Unable to compete with their highly subsidized American competitors – $10 billion in 2000 alone – rural Mexican farmers have increasingly sought employment in the U.S.

Corn producing jobs – the nation’s largest cash crop – fell by over one million in the first decade of NAFTA. Additionally, another 142,000 job cultivating flowers and fruit have disappeared.

In rural areas, the percentage of the population working in the agricultural sector fell from 44 percent in the early 1990s to just 28 percent at the beginning of the decade.

Even those that did not earn livings on farms were likely to be affected by NAFTA. Since the trade pact was implemented, 30,000 small and medium-sized businesses have permanently closed their doors.

“It’s been roughly a tripling, quadrupling, quintupling of U.S. corn exports to Mexico, depending on the year,” Timothy A. Wise, the director of research and policy at the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University in Medford, Mass, told McClatchy Newspapers. “Is that a river? Yeah, that’s a lot of corn.”

The end result has been a flood of illegal immigration into the U.S. With jobs drying up in Mexico, millions have illegally crossed the border seeking work. If it were not for NAFTA, illegal immigration would not be such a problem.

“The great failure of this supposition is that there wasn’t economic growth that would absorb these people,” Victor Suarez, the executive director of the National Association of Rural Producers, told McClatchy. “The result has left rural areas increasingly populated by the elderly and women.”

“In Chiapas, there was hardly any migration before NAFTA,” Suarez said, referring to Mexico’s southernmost state. “Farm laborers were even brought in from Guatemala. Now, more than 50,000 rural people from Chiapas go each year to the United States.”

Vox Wrote:So, Mexico is gutted, the United States are flooded, and cui bono? Some background:

A few lines from each of the two above articles that need to be read together:

Articles Wrote:The Jewish community of Mexico, centered in Mexico City, is estimated to number just 50,000, out of a population of some 88 million.

The Jewish angle in all this rests on a naive but firmly held equation: Mexico’s Jews are closely linked to their brethren in the United States, who are believed to influence American government and society. Therefore, the wisdom holds, if Mexico’s Jews can win over American Jews, the NAFTA deal is as good as done.

In addition, while not all agree, some in the Mexican Jewish community think NAFTA would encourage further political modernization in Mexico, and thus would create a more tolerant atmosphere for minorities.

“In a pluralistic society, there would be more space” to legitimize “Jewish identity and Jewish belonging,” said Bokser-Liwerant.

There is a close relation between “an open market and an open society,” she said.

Mexican Jews also have said they would welcome the closer ties to the United States that the agreement would bring, in part because of the close ties between the United States and Israel.

If NAFTA fails, it is possible that a “nationalistic reaction” could emerge in Mexico that would not help the country move toward “diversity, pluralism, and tolerance,” Bokser-Liwerant said.

50,000 Jewish people in Mexico convincing 2% of the population in the U.S. that something needs to be done -- and what they want done is a done deal? Fascinating.

I love that "who are believed to influence American government and society" bit. If I were to say that, I'd be accused of throwing out "age-old antisemitic canards." The Jewish Telegraphic Agency can say it and get away with it, but just don't quote them!

[Image: antisemiticcanard.png]

Re: How Mexico Got Screwed Up - xandratax - 01-24-2016

Sorry Vox, I see nowhere in the article where the people and NAFTA are equated. I do not feel offended by reading this article. I am disgusted by NAFTA, I would not have voted for it, and I do not feel this article is blaming me or Americans (regardless of color) for what happened. In fact, I think article is doing he opposite. It aims to educate people about this issue, and only from awareness comes any change.

Re: How Mexico Got Screwed Up - VoxClamantis - 01-24-2016

(01-24-2016, 03:13 PM)xandratax Wrote: Sorry Vox, I see nowhere in the article where the people and NAFTA are equated. I do not feel offended by reading this article. I am disgusted by NAFTA, I would not have voted for it, and I do not feel this article is blaming me or Americans (regardless of color) for what happened. In fact, I think article is doing he opposite. It aims to educate people about this issue, and only from awareness comes any change.

I wasn't saying that that article blamed the American people. I was saying that when the matter is brought up in your typical political conversation, the American people will be blamed for it, just as we've been blamed for all sorts of things we didn't vote for and didn't want, or did vote for and want because we were lied to be media that EED Christians don't own. It's also the case that EED people are blamed for things that EED people didn't do or didn't initiate. American slavery, for ex., was led largely by Jews, but it's "America" and EED people who are blamed for it, and who fought it, eradicated it (even as it continues in Muslim lands and Africa). What the banksters do in meddling with the economies of other countries is blamed on EEDs or "America," but it's not EEDs who make up the bankster population. Radical feminism wasn't a Christian-led movement, nor was the sexual revolution. And on it goes.