Border Campesinos Block Bridge to Protest NAFTA

KFOX-TV ^ | Jan. 2, 2003 | Lauren Macias-Cervantes - KFOX Producer

[madfly]

Border Campesinos Block Bridge to Protest NAFTA
Lauren Macias-Cervantes - KFOX Producer

Community organizations from El Paso will join campesino groups from across the border in an effort to better their economic crisis. The organizations blocked a border crossing Wednesday.

They're protesting the impact of the new NAFTA phase that allows open importation of agricultural products from the U.S. and Canada into Mexico as of January 1st. They say the new change will promote a new surge of immigration to the U.S. by displaced campesinos.

[madfly]

border protest update ping

[FITZ]

Too bad more Americans don't join them in these protests.

[FITZ]

It could get interesting ---the campesinos now are saying they'll protest for 3 days but the governments intend to open the bridges. I hope it doesn't get violent.

[madfly]

I agree. It would be helpful to all that are affected by the current rate of immigration and show that Americans who are concerned are not all racists. These poor people have jobs and history in Mexico and do not want to leave their home and culture to come to the US. I support their efforts.

[Tacis]

Wouldn't such a protest block some of the drug shipments of Presidente Fox and his drug lord friends and employers, making expensive rerouting/rescheduling necessary?

[E Rocc]

Community organizations from El Paso will join campesino groups from across the border in an effort to better their economic crisis. The organizations blocked a border crossing Wednesday.

Why do I suspect they all left the protest in the same direction?

-Eric

[marron]

I remember listening to a radio program, with guests representing both Mexican and US labor unions, who together insisted that NAFTA would devastate both sides of the border.

Both were convinced thatr their industries could not compete with industry from the other side.

Since this was Pacifica radio, the emphasis was on the fact that all progressive labor leaders agreed, with no exploring of the fact that they were agreeing to an opposite and mirror-image truth.

There is some truth to both cases, of course. US farmers can outfarm anyone. But still we buy an enormous amount of produce from Mexico, simply because of the longer growing season, and from Chile, due to the reversed growing seasons. This is why we have fresh produce year-round.

Some US industries have moved south to take advantage of lower labor costs. Some have moved back, because they discovered that there are other operating costs in Mexico that are higher. Remember, when a country is poor, there are ususally systemic problems that go beyond the simple lack of money. Mexico is a major oil producer and industrial country. If they are poor, it is not due to a lack of money.

In general terms, its not a zero-sum game, NAFTA has shifted some jobs north, some jobs south, but with a net increase in overall employment on both sides. NAFTA was originally brought about for two reasons; one, to offer a better alternative to the Chinese solution, which many companies have opted for, and also to counteract growing Japanese and Korean investment in Mexico. There is a large and growing Japanese and Korean presence in Mexico. Both countries have invested heavily in our "back yard", and NAFTA was intended to counteract that (although it has had the additional feature of attracting even more foreign investment in Mexico, as Japanese and EU investors take advantage of NAFTA to help their own products).

NAFTA was also expected to slow down illegal migration to the north, and I would say it has had an effect. I worked there for a while, and all of my techs had lived and worked in the US, and all had returned home to work in their chosen trades, once work was available in their home town. Of course the border remains fully open, US industry continues to prefer illegal workers to legal ones, and industrial development has yet to come to all of Mexico, so another half million go north anyway every year.

As an aside, the original motive for Chavez' coup in Venezuela back in '92 was the effort underway to establish a NAFTA agreement between Venezuela and the US. Venexuelans were convinced that it would destroy their economy. He lost the coup, but the free trade agreement was put on hold. He has since been elected, and has done for his economy what "free trade" could never have done, which is to run it completely into the ground. Different subject, though.

[madfly]

Keep us posted with your Mexican links. In google news, this FoxTV affiliate was the only one to have this story. All other stories were saying how Fox had promised talks and the campesinos called off the protests.

[madfly]

No, it's not a different subject. NAFTA preceeds FTAA. Plans are for Hemispheric trade in the "Americas". The people in Venezuela are against NAFTA. Here is something from the Border Governors' Conference in 1997, when Dubya participated. If you go to the link and click on Govenors, they have linked every years page to show the current governors. They are very secretive and have been having conferences for the last 20 years.

http://www.bordergovernors.com/declarations/1999_english.html

[madfly]

Although I can see you know more about this than I do, I will post this:

http://www.citizen.org/trade/ftaa/index.cfm

Free Trade Area of the Americas

Information:  Quito Ministerial  New: Peoples Of The Americas - Quito Declaration

 

The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), currently being negotiated by 34 countries of the Americas, is intended to be the most far-reaching trade agreement in history. Although it is based on the model of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), it goes far beyond NAFTA in its scope and power. The FTAA, as it now stands, would introduce into the Western Hemisphere all the disciplines of the proposed services agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) - the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) - with the powers of the failed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), to create a new trade powerhouse with sweeping new authority over every aspect of life in Canada and the Americas. 

 

[flamefront]

toogoodreports.com: The Threat To American Life

Pulled on 01/02/2003 7:02 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason: Article is replete with bigotry.

Article's conclusion:

Mexico gives us drugs, Islamic terrorists passing through, and unwanted and unskilled masses to harvest our produce, care for out kids, and cook our enchiladas. But what they really are giving us is the possible disintegration of our nation.

[RnMomof7]

These poor people have jobs and history in Mexico and do not want to leave their home and culture to come to the US. I support their efforts.

So here we are ..all the "beneficiaries  " of NAFTA are being hurt..so who is it REALLY for? ..Not American workers and not the poor people of mexico that have seen no real improvement in their lives....ahhh but the rich have gotten richer..I ~think~ that was THE plan all along

[FITZ]

NAFTA was also expected to slow down illegal migration to the north, and I would say it has had an effect.

20 million desperate Mexicans recently sneaking into the US might hint otherwise.

[FITZ]

making expensive rerouting/rescheduling necessary?

That's why I fear things could get violent ---Fox isn't going to be very happy that his campesinos are doing this ---they aren't exactly loved by that government, and they are supposed to leave Mexico and work in the USA according to Fox's plans for them. Some just might not want to leave their homes and become meek day laborers begging for work in some Home Depot parking lot ----they'll be considered trouble-makers if they don't "cooperate".

[madfly]

I am not against limited legal immigration from Mexico. Limited because of the numbers we have here now. Here's how I feel:

From Tom Tancredo -

Now the question is, what can be done?

The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Barbara Jordan, the late Democratic Congresswoman and civil rights hero, recommended substantially reducing the number of immigrants admitted each year.  The Jordan Commission proposed setting an immediate limit of about 450,000 per year, and then phasing down the level to about half that.  Had Congress implemented the recommendations of the Jordan Commission in 1996, we would be well on our way to addressing the immigration-driven crisis in traffic, sprawl, schools, and jobs.  Unfortunately, Congress failed and the crisis has gotten worse.

For the reasons mentioned above, I created and chair the Immigration Reform Caucus in Congress to evaluate and critique current immigration policy and offer new suggestions to combat the negative effects of immigration and highlight the benefits.   As a direct descendant of Italian immigrants, it is my hope that Congress will take an objective look at immigration policy and include all angles to create new policies.  It is clear that the United States is reaching its capacity to become a home for the world's immigrants.  We must never forget that this nation was built on the backs of immigrants, but we must also seek to protect the interests of our nation and recognize that our nation's resources, both economically and ecologically, have limits.  If we continue with current immigration policy we will jeopardize what this nation of immigrants has created.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me.  I hope you will continue to inform me of your concerns.  In the meantime, I urge you to visit my website at http://www.house.gov/tancredo where you can sign up for the Capitol Update, my weekly E-mail newsletter.

Sincerely,

Thomas Tancredo
Member of Congress

The article in question wrapped up with what I consider a racist comment IMHO, and I am sorry that I pinged anyone.

It said: "Mexicans must go!"

[madfly]

I also apologize to those that I pinged to that thread.

[Shermy]

The "giant sucking sound" has only become a small one because it's Mexico, not China. No moral argument intended, but if it were Chi.snese next door, we'd be toast. Well, that is, everyone except the globalist (dismantle-ist) profiteers.

[CIBvet]

Thank you for the quick response ... our battle has NEVER been against ANY race of people.

We are rising up to defend our borders, our American Culture and National Sovereignty against a flood of ILLEGALS who have invaded our Nation ... stealing jobs and opportunity from legal U.S. Citizens, and manipulating and in many cases overwheming good-will programs intended for our own deserving poor.