The NAFTA Controversy

On another critical issue, McCain has emerged as a vocal proponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), despite the fact that one of its major supporters, Robert A. Pastor, admits that, in one key respect, it has been a colossal failure.

Pastor, a Democrat who runs the Center for North American Studies at American University, says that NAFTA has resulted in economic integration and increased trade but has “fueled immigration by encouraging foreign investment near the U.S.-Mexican border, which in turn serves as a magnet for workers in central and southern Mexico.” He says that many of the Mexicans who don’t find jobs in northern Mexico are coming into the U.S. Hence, he admits, our illegal immigration problem is being exacerbated by NAFTA.

Pastor, who has advised every Democratic presidential candidate since 1976, proposes to “fix” NAFTA through a $200-billion North American Investment Fund “to close the income gap between Mexico and its northern neighbors, because that is the only way to stop immigration and establish a community.” In other words, we pay them to stay home. Pastor opposes a border fence to keep them out.

Pastor’s “community” is the “North American Community,” in which the three countries have a common security perimeter, a common external tariff, and “North American institutions” to work on such issues as transportation, infrastructure and education. Critics think that, with good reason, this amounts to a proposed North American Union. The Bush Administration’s secretive Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is facilitating this process and Mexican trucks are now traveling over U.S. highways, supposedly in compliance with NAFTA...

You know,I always wonder why the "leaders" chose the eagle ,a bird that steals and kills, over some other symbol to represent America.

So what if the eagle flies higher;it is a cavenger,it swoops down from above and attacks the unsuspecting fish,rabbit ,cat or other prey.Why choose a predator?

And why choose ANY animal to represent humans?Aren't humans supposed to be better than animals?

Pastor needs to study other countries who attempted to reunite. Example, Germany. The two Germanies reunited after the fall of the Berlin Wall. East Germany had a standard of living 1/5 of West Germany, and West Germany had to go thru financial stress to do it. Atleast the West Germans knew what was involved and voted to do it. South Koreans are facing the same issue if reunification with the North is possible. Despite their nationalistic feelings, the South Korean leaders and business community will not integrate the North immediately because the North Korean standard of living is only 1/20 of the South. These two countries understood the price of integration, and one choose to do it (Germany) with popular support, and the other is assessing it. Both countries are involving their people in the decision process. The US government and business community is doing the opposite. They know that integrating a country like Mexico with the US will cause social and economic dislocation for many of the American working class and inner cities, but they don’t care because the elites will not be affected and the cost of dealing with the problems fall on the affected communities and taxpayers. (Yet we lecture other countries about democracy). If the US must form a economic block to compete against the EU, I rather we form one with Canada and the smaller poorer Latin American and Caribbean countries who will impact the US communities alot less than a flood of illegal immigrants from a large Mexico as long as all Americans get an input on the cost and price of such a union. Current plans for the NAU is insane and undemocratic. NAFTA, MFN and etc should be reviewed and if necessary renegotiated, but both parties already indicated that they support these agreements (atleast McCain is honest about it, while Obama and Clinton say one thing in public, but privately assured Canada otherwise).

NAFTA, MFN and etc should be reviewed and if necessary renegotiated, but both parties already indicated that they support these agreements (atleast McCain is honest about it, while Obama and Clinton say one thing in public, but privately assured Canada otherwise).

Canada has said they are more than willing to renegotiate NAFTA and they have also said that your last line is not true. The Canadian official was on c-span sometime the past week. His statements can be-found on c-span web site.

I thought it was only Obama who was hedging about NAFTA.

As for the official’s statement... the point is that the newspaper reported it and then after the Obama campaign contacted Goolsbee, Goolsbee said his statements were taken “out of context.”

That screams coverup to me, but maybe I’m just too pessimistic.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.