Farmers Threaten To Block US-Mexico Border Crossings [NAFTA]

Voice of America News ^ | Dec. 28, 2002 | AP, AFP and Reuters

[madfly]

Angry Mexican farmers are threatening to block U.S.-Mexico border crossings on New Year's Day to protest the lifting of tariffs on agricultural products under free trade rules.

The farmers say they fear they will not be able to compete with U.S. and Canadian producers when tariffs are removed on January 1 as part of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The farmers and their supporters are calling on the Mexican government to do more to protect the agricultural sector.

President Vicente Fox refuses to re-negotiate the free trade agreement, but he has pledged to help the farmers compete with the United States and Canada.

Some information for this report provided by AP, AFP and Reuters.

[1rudeboy]

Please elaborate. Are you suggesting that Mexicans, in general, would be better off if they stuck to lower-paying jobs?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

No. In that sense, you are admitting that NAFTA has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

Never stated NAFTA was the cause of illegal immigration, I simply said it has done nothing to stop it. At the same time, we're losing millions of good paying jobs in the US.

NAFTA is a failure, you know, I know it, and George Bush Sr. knows it, though he'll NEVER admit he's wrong.

[dennisw]

No. In that sense, you are admitting that NAFTA has nothing to do with illegal immigration.

The people who pushed NAFTA claimed it would reduce illegal immigration. This was a lie. It never happened. They lied and didn't give a crap whether or not this turned out to be true. Actually NAFTA pulled many Mexicans northward to the maqilladoras. Pulled them that much closer to our border and they learned a lot more about how easy it is to bust across it.

Maqilladora zone = staging area for illegal immigrant invasion.

[1rudeboy]

I need to learn Spanish? What else?

[FITZ]

Do you really believe thousands of campesinos plan to shut down the border next week because they believe NAFTA is of any benefit to them? Do you believe 20 million illegals from Mexico left their homes because they saw any hope in staying in their own homeland because they have these wonderful high salaries now? Do you really believe the rancheros prefer to lose their little ranches and become some day laborerer standing in a Home Depot lot in California? NAFTA is not benefitting Mexico of the USA ---but it's lining the pockets of a few in both countries.

[dennisw]

Please elaborate. Are you suggesting that Mexicans, in general, would be better off if they stuck to lower-paying jobs?

We would be better off if the illegal ones stayed in Mexico. And deported from here. Then maybe give 1 million Mexicans a strictly enforced guest worker status. That's all we really need. Not 6 million of them. Mexico is a parasite nation

[Reaganwuzthebest]

To earn $2 an hour in Mexico, you'd better at least have a college degree. It's more like $0.50.

It is completely understandable why illegals want to come here, but to get paid only .50 an hour, why the heck don't they rise up and fight that? All the more reason for us to close the border so maybe they will.

[FITZ]

If you don't know Spanish --then how can you know much about what's going on in Mexico? How do you talk with the illegals to find out why they really left? Or what they really think about their government and Fox?

[1rudeboy]

The people who pushed NAFTA claimed it would reduce illegal immigration.

BS. If anything, some people claimed that NAFTA would reduce the incentive for people to enter the U.S. illegally. You are projecting.

[1rudeboy]

That's funny. I suppose I should add, if you don't know economics, wtf are you doing on a NAFTA thread?

[FITZ]

" así como la eliminación de aranceles en el marco del TLCAN en enero del 2003, la migración interna y hacia territorio estadunidense será de grandes magnitudes."

So with the elimination of tariffs because of NAFTA this January, migration ---internal (to the big cities) and to the USA will be of great magnitude.

[FITZ]

"Refirió que el 80% de los casi 26 millones de productores del campo en México se encuentran al borde de la quiebra"

Then here's some economics ----80% of about 26 million farm producers in Mexico are on the edge of bankrupcy. Why have something like NAFTA if it's hurting that many people in just one country? We were told it was to help them ---but they're shutting down the bridges next week which means they say it isn't.

[Ben Ficklin]

It is the free marketeers versus the protectionists and only time will tell. But let me tell you, its difficult to impose regulations on an enterprise that has been deregulated. Not to mention the cost.

I predict that the next major piece of news from mexico will be market reforms in the energy sector. Who will be the first US company to build a power plant in mexico?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

It is the free marketeers versus the protectionists...

So being against illegal immigration makes you a protectionist. Ok Ben, gotcha.

[4Freedom]

"It is the free marketeers versus the protectionists..."

Correction:

It is the borderless, one-worlders (3rd worlders) against those that would defend and preserve their national sovereignty.

"I predict... Who will be the first US company to build a power plant in Mexico?"

Ok, Kreskin. How soon after Mexico has its first nuclear power plant will Mexico make the same threat as the North Koreans did, 'to destroy the world'? ;^)

[1rudeboy]

So being against protectionism makes you an advocate of illegal immigration. Gosh, I'm glad we got that established.

[1rudeboy]

Please see my #96.

[Jennikins]

The open borders crowd..." Just another name for the Bush administration, IMO.

Right on! President Bush, along with his father (and Clinton/Gore) have promoted the NWO,(NAFTA/GATT, FTAA) and no way are they going to stop. They want NO BORDERS and that's just what is going to happen.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

So being against protectionism makes you an advocate of illegal immigration.

If you're against illegal immigration, what's the problem?

I'm all for free trade, as long as those we're negotiating these treaties with are similar to us in pay structures and rules governing employee/employer relations. For now NAFTA should have remained between the US and Canada. If that had been the case, the US might have seen far fewer jobs move out. At the same time, our southern border should have been closed. Maybe then Mexico would get their house in order.

[dennisw]

The people who pushed NAFTA claimed it would reduce illegal immigration.

1rudeboy said: BS. If anything, some people claimed that NAFTA would reduce the incentive for people to enter the U.S. illegally. You are projecting.

What really was said:

http://216.239.33.100/search?q=cache:j9uoRVH8tKIC:www.siliconv.com/trade
/tradepapers/immigration.html+1994+NAFTA+REDUCE+ILLEGAL+IMMIGRATION&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The rest enter the U.S. illegally and remain here. The bulk of these enter the United States by crossing our border with Mexico. In the Fall of 1993 the Clinton Administ- ration aired a NAFTA promotion featuring testimonials by four Presidents. Ex-President Ford stated that NAFTA would reduce the flow of illegal immigrants across the Mexican border by providing jobs in Mexico. He concluded that if NAFTA failed of passage its opponents would have to bear the blame for the increased volume of illegals crossing the border. Actually, the independent demographers, both in Mexico and the United States, agreed that the economic dislocations caused by NAFTA would significantly increase the number of illegal immigrants. INS commissioner Doris Meissner stated that in a press conference but also pointed out that the migratory flows would not be expected to last more than 10 years.