| Farming communities across Mexico were hit hard by NAFTA. Unable to compete with subsidized American exports. NAFTA destroyed independant farmers and the communities that supported them. Market logic assumed that job creation and economic growth would offset this destruction. It didn't. Even with all the manufacturing jobs that we sent to Mexico, it doesn't appear that our jobs were enough to employ all of the farmers that lost work. Increasingly, Mexicans slipped across the border to find employment.
Ten years after NAFTA, BusinessWeek reported:
The agriculture sector is still reeling from the competitive shock of NAFTA. One consequence was the virtual wipeout of Mexcio's small farmers by a flood of subsidized U.S. food imports. Some 1.3 million farm jobs have disappeared since 1993, according to a new report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Also reported, imports of U.S. pork increased 726%. During roughly the same time period, "the number of Mexicans working illegally in the U.S. more than doubled, to 4.8 million between 1990 and 2000."
For many Americans, including many union members, illegal immigration is a serious concern. Republicans are winning on this issue. Why? Because Democrats offer no solutions. Democrats typically sidestep the issue for fear of alienating a growing Latino base. That's not leadership. That's pandering, and it conforms to certain stereotypes of Democrats. Addressing immigration as a trading issue attacks the problem at its root and remains true to Democratic principles
NAFTA has proven that it has legs for this election cycle. It's time to frame the debate in robust terms that includes immigration, the damage it has done to America's economy and the damage it has done to Mexico's economy. It's time to frame the immigration debate in a way that goes on the offensive.
Republicans view McCain as weak on immigration. Keeping the issue alive will erode his support with his base. SW moderates, on the other hand, like his stance. These are key voters for 2008. Proposing innovative solutions will invigorate the debate in the SW, and could even pick up a significant number of voters in our efforts to turn red to blue. Taking an active interest in the affairs of Mexican peasants will almost certainly endear the next President to Latino voters.
Linking immigration and NAFTA cements important segments of the Democratic coalition. A response to immigration that identifies NAFTA as common cause for Latino voters and Unions, can build bridges between important Democratic constituencies. We will need this strong coalition to advance a progressive agenda in the fall, and it will energize union support. Unions are almost alone in denouncing trade, even though the policy has had far reaching impacts on American life. Identifying common concerns for its diverse constituencies should be a primary goal of both the Democratic Primary and the campaign this fall. Fixing our trade agreements can bring these groups together.
As the primaries move to NC and IN, we can start working toward that goal now. Now is the time to prove that there is not a red and a blue America. NAFTA drains jobs in Indiana and swells illegal immigration in NC. Immigration is big concern for Southern states, too. NAFTA could be an issue that connects the dots for these voters. The South views McCain as weak on immigration. Shifting the terms of the debate keeps McCain's unfavorables alive here, and going on the offensive shatters Dem stereotypes in the region. Added bonus, this is a positive message on an incendiary topic. NAFTA has resonance in IN, immigration in NC. North Carolina also has a burgeoning Latino population. These primaries offer a unique opportunity to encourage dialogue between these groups, and hit McCain.
Taking a hard line on trade is less politically risky than it once was. Obama has made his most positive statements about NAFTA while addressing the Illinois Farm Bureau. With the rise of biofuels, the Mexican market lookis less lucrative than the American fuel tank. There is likely to be little blowback from King Corn. Big Pig, is another matter. Pork is big in both NC and IN. They will be caught flatfooted before the primaries, but Big Pig will come out swinging in November.
There are political challenges to addressing America's trade policy. Smart trade policy can build a working majority to overcome those challenges. World food shortages may prove to be an invaluable opportunity to redress massive injustice in America's agriculture and trade policies. Our policies have damaged food security around the globe and cost our workers here at home. Our trade policies have caused a flood of illegal immigration across our borders that is an economic drain and an obstacle to governance.
Perot's opposition to trade hit the Republicans hard in 1992. It could be an issue in 2008, too. Free trade has given America more iPods and (leaded) toys than we ever dreamed of. But at what cost? The stability of communities across the heartland. Loss of job security. Loss of economic security. Massive trade deficits. Growing national debt. International food insecurity. Water insecurity. NAFTA and other trade agreements have given us toys and cost us the things that really matter. A progressive agenda on trade will cement the coalition Dems need for 2008 and for and enduring Democratic majority.
Footnote: I crossposted this from dKos by request. I am by no means an immigration expert, but I do think it's an issue the dems can use for November if we develop a strategy and talking points. Please add your comments, I'd love to see how folks who've thought deeply about immigration respond. |
Receive information on the latest action items, media campaigns, and legislative initiatives from ProMigrant
No spam or press release dumps from DC advocacy groups, lobbyists, or politicos. No requests for donations, or re-directs to astroturf groups looking to harvest your e-mail information.
Just real action for real change from real grassroots activists.
