A fair alternative to free trade that will also protect our borders

Both Republicans and Democrats are right to be concerned with the security of our 700 miles of shared border with Mexico. However, as long as members of both parties favor temporary and superficial solutions that attempt to ebb the flow of illegal immigrants into the US without doing anything to remove those fundamental forces that not only attract Latin Americans to our country, but repel them from their own, their reliance upon our country as a place of economic refuge will go unabated. In her article, Vanessa Burgos makes the convincing argument that the US' imposition of liberal free trade agreements, both NAFTA in 1994 and CAFTA just last year, upon Mexico and Central America is what is driving people to enter the US illegally. In the decade following NAFTA's being made law, immigration from Mexico to the US increased by more than 60%. Based on the same flawed premise that all countries, first and third world alike, benefit from opening their borders to free trade, CAFTA is likely to spawn a similar exodus from involved countries.

Free-trade policies, while trumpeted as the solution to Latin America’s underdevelopment and economic problems, have led to a loss of jobs, a decline in salaries, worsening working conditions and increased cost of living, all of which have exacerbated existing inequalities. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), the free trade agreement signed between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, has been the most glaring example of the disastrous effects of these policies. Since its inception in 1994, Mexico’s small farmers have been forced into poverty as they lost land due to land privatization or went out of business due to their inability to compete with U.S. agricultural imports, especially corn. In turn, the general Mexican population has suffered a hard blow in the resulting rise in corn tortilla prices, one of Mexico’s principle food staples. Mexicans have also experienced increased unemployment, and a decline in quality and access to public services as a result of privatization. Another effect of reduced quality of life: immigration from Mexico to the U.S. increased by more than 61% in the first 8 years of the policy’s implementation.[3]


Central America is experiencing trends in the same directions with the initiation of its own free-trade agreement with the U.S., known as CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement). CAFTA took affect last year after Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic signed agreements with the U.S. Much like its predecessor, CAFTA threatens to displace a large number of agricultural workers, forcing many into larger cities to search for other employment. This is worrisome, as the agricultural industry provides an important source of revenue, and Central American countries do not seem to have a viable economic replacement for a loss of jobs in this sector. Some of the negative affects of CAFTA can already be seen in the first year of its inception. In El Salvador, the first to implement CAFTA, exports to the U.S. have already dropped by more than half from $187 million to $88 million.[4] In Guatemala there has been an inundation of North American chicken in the domestic market, that has increased its price, despite promises that the free-trade agreement would reduce food costs.[5] In Honduras, while exports to the U.S. have increased by 1%, U.S. exports to Honduras have risen by 13%.[6]

But don't worry, it's not all bad news. Well, NAFTA and CAFTA are, but fortunately there are viable alternatives currently being discussed by Congress that seek to ensure that any trade agreement signed between the US and its southern neighbors respects national and international law concerning labor practices, the environment and human rights. Read the bill, H. Con. Res. 295, that is still under review after being introduced nearly two years ago.