[n-tres-ted]

Problem is they send 80% of the money they earn out of the country as remittances, so its lose lose for the American citizens again.

I'm not sure about your # for the percentage sent South, but it is a substantial increase in purchasing power for the recipients. I would prefer that US-made goods be in their markets available for purchase. Chalk up a win-win for both the US and the other economy.

[Paul Ross]

but it is a substantial increase in purchasing power for the recipients.

And how is this a vital national U.S. interest? Not!

I would prefer that US-made goods be in their markets available for purchase.

China is not a member of NAFTA or CAFTA or the prospective FTAA...yet you can bet that those "recipients" of our money are buying Chinese goods over ours in at least as big a ratio (5-to-1) as our trade balance is with China. In other words, China is sopping up a great deal more U.S. dollars than our direct trade would reveal. And they aren't buying our goods 1-to-1. They are buying up our assets, securities, corporate, governmental and industrial.

Chalk up a win-win for both the US and the other economy.

Wrong. Wrong assumptions. Wrong Conclusion. Your reasoning is in fact based on a nonsequitur fallacy. The Mexicans and Canadians don't have to buy our goods. Why would they? We don't. I.e., it is not a "win" for the U.S.

So, I am sorry to say, you guys have failed to repeal David Ricardo's Iron Law of Wages.