MUST SEE: Bordertown Tells True Story of NAFTA´s Maquiladores and Deaths in Juarez!

Anyone interested in the Immigration Debate should visit Blockbuster and rent the movie "Bordertown." This movie tells the powerful true story of life in the border town of Juarez, MX. It is based on the book written by Diana Washington Valdez, an El Paso journalist.

Ms. Valdez spent years investigating and documenting the deaths of thousands of women murdered in Juarez since 1993. These murders are called femicides, or gender murders. Hundreds of women working in American-owned factories (maquiladoras) were brutally raped and murdered in Juarez, a city gripped by fear. The attacks have been covered up by the local authorities, and still continue today.

This movie details the inner work processes of the Maquiladores and their link to NAFTA (and CAFTA). It explains the working conditions, low pay and exploitation of workers all so Big Business in Mexico and the USA can reap larger profits. It also details the corruptness of both the Mexican and the American government, the greed of Global Corporations and the role/reason for the cover ups of these murders which are still going on today.

I ask that all commenters who see this movie provide us your feedback and share your thoughts with us.

Caution: You may feel guilty watching TV, using your monitor or PC after you see this film!

Note: User Reviews gave this film very, very high ratings, yet it was not widely distributed. I believe Corporate America and Mexico did not want you to see this movie.

Say Good-Bye to Tomatoes!

U.S. Farmers say Immigration Laws are BROKEN!! One of Nation´s largest Tomato Farmers to STOP harvesting tomatoes this year and will instead harvest grain since it can be harvested by machines. Farmer says harvesting tomatoes are high paying jobs but jobs Americans won´t do due to the heat and difficulty of harvesting.

Major Pa. tomato producer quits, blames Congress
By Nancy Petersen Inquirer Staff Writer Tue, Mar. 25, 2008
CLARKS SUMMIT, Pa. - Keith Eckel, the largest producer of fresh market tomatoes in Pennsylvania, is getting out of the business. Fearing that the labor needed to harvest his tomatoes won't be there when he needs it, Eckel announced yesterday that after decades of growing tomatoes, he was calling it quits. He placed the blame squarely at the feet of Congress and its failure to enact what he called a meaningful immigration reform measure. "The system is broken," Eckel said before a crowd of neighbors, employees and news media gathered in the packing house at his farm near Scranton. "It's a sad day," he said. "We're closing a part of our business that we really love."
Eckel's problems are echoed coast to coast by farmers who are reliant on foreign farm workers allowed into the country each year to plant, pick and package crops. Eckel said the impact of the government's increased vigilance on illegal immigration and the lack of action on an immigration reform bill has sown doubt among farmers that they will be able to count on a predictable and sufficient work force.
The push for immigration reform has stalled in Congress and little action is expected during the rest of this election year. The problem can be solved if Congress would pass a viable and accessible guest-worker program, Eckel said. Otherwise, he and other farmers say they are not going to take the risk of planting crops they can't harvest for lack of a workforce. Eckels estimated the value of his tomato crop at $1.5 million to $2 million. "It is a real concern, and we are disappointed that Congress has failed to act," said Peter Furey, executive director of the New Jersey Farm Bureau. "Ultimately, consumers will feel this." Eckel warned that unless the issue was resolved, it would eventually drive the fresh fruit and vegetable industry offshore, causing an inevitable rise in food prices.
Last year, Eckel employed 180 people, but this spring, when he plants crops that can be handled by machines, he will employ five. Farmers across the country who depend on immigrant labor are facing the same decision as Eckel: Do they forge ahead and risk losing a crop, or do they plant another crop for which a machine can do the work? "It is one of those situations where the ground is shifting under your feet and you may not notice it until two or five years out," said Jack King, director of national programs for the California Farm Bureau Federation. Workers on Eckel's farm averaged $16.59 an hour "and they earned every penny of it," Eckel said. "No one will harvest tomatoes in 90 degree weather except immigrant labor," he said. And a number of people who worked in his packing house were retired workers picking up a few extra dollars, he said. Congress needs to act, said Furey of the New Jersey Farm Bureau: "We need a national solution that is realistic, in tune with the economy and fair to the people." Eckel gave President Bush credit for trying to enact meaningful change, but he said a divided Congress and emotions got in the way. He said the climate was such that legal immigrants were fearful of moving across state lines, further exacerbating the problem.
Although his workers have documents proving that they are legal, Eckel said some estimates show that between 60 percent and 70 percent of the documents are fraudulent.
"We can no longer take the risk," he said. "We have done everything we can to comply with the law." Most farmers are honest, he said, but rather than run the risk of losing their crop, they simply won't plant one.
"It's a very uncertain time," said King of the California Farm Bureau. "Farmers are scared stiff on this immigration thing. They are operating at the mercy of the federal government." King said that some of the state's vegetable growers were moving their operations to Mexico, raising concerns about food safety.
Last year Eckel planted 2.3 million tomato plants over 340 acres of his Lackawanna County farm, a crop that he estimated supplied about 75 percent of the fresh tomatoes in produce aisles between Boston and Washington. He said his was the largest tomato producing operation north of the Mason-Dixon Line and east of Ohio. This year, he is planting about 45 acres of sweet corn, and 1,200 acres of corn for grain.
When his mother asked where they will get tomatoes this summer, her son said: "We'll buy from one of our good neighbors."

Professor Fletcher: NAFTA Economic Impacts and Anti Immigration Vehemence Against Latinos!

Professor Bill Fletcher Jr. from BlackCommentor.com:
One of the more interesting aspects of the current Presidential primary season is the renewed discussion of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Implemented January 1, 1994, and by no coincidence sparking the Zapatista uprising in Chiapas, Mexico, NAFTA was a major step in the economic integration of the USA, Canada and Mexico under the domination of the USA. Sold to the US public as a means of addressing globalization and improving our chances of competing in the global market place, NAFTA was fervently opposed by various social movements and constituencies, particularly organized labor and environmental groups. Both groups, and others, were deeply suspicious of the motives and actuality of NAFTA. Their concerns, as it turns out, were largely justified. Though NAFTA did result in the introduction of some new jobs, what is critical is the net effect of NAFTA. If one factors in losses and gains, the net impact has been the loss of approximately 900,000 jobs in the USA. Unfortunately, much of the NAFTA debate stops here or within a few feet. NAFTA most certainly has drained jobs as well as placed restrictions on the ability of jurisdictions to direct their local economies. It has encouraged the growth of sweatshop and near-sweatshop labor along the USA/Mexico border. This is the side of NAFTA with which many of us are familiar. Many of us remember Ross Perot’s famous comment concerning NAFTA representing the giant sucking sound of jobs being drained away from the USA and going to Mexico. This is not the entire story. And, while it is good that Senators Clinton and Obama have reopened the discussion concerning NAFTA, neither of them have drawn much attention to the impact that NAFTA has had on Mexico, and thereby on us in the USA. What is critical for us to grasp on this side of the Rio Grande River is that NAFTA has had a devastating impact on the Mexican economy. Through forcing the Mexican farmer to compete with USA farmers, rural Mexico’s economy has been turned upside down. The reality is that the Mexican farmer has been unable to compete, and as a result there began - in the mid 1990s - a migration of rural Mexicans into the larger Mexican cities. Finding few job opportunities, the migration moved north toward the USA. This was accompanied by the impact of NAFTA on the Mexican public sector, which also suffered severe body blows, thereby undermining what little social safety net the people of Mexico had. This side of the NAFTA equation is critical to discuss because it helps us understand why hundreds of thousands of Mexicans chose to leave their homes and head north. Contrary to the xenophobic, anti-immigrant rhetoric many of us have heard, it was not because ‘…everyone wants to be in America…’ but rather as a direct result of policies initiated by the USA and their allies in Ottawa and Mexico City. I thought a great deal about this recently when I was moderating a debate on immigration within a labor union. The vehemence of some of the anti-immigrant speakers, including - and very unfortunately - an African American woman, was not only deeply unsettling, but equally lacking in any historical context. While the focus of the anti-immigrant speakers was allegedly undocumented immigrants in general, there was nothing in their language that indicated that they were thinking about Irish, Poles, Russians, or anyone other than Latinos, and most particularly, Mexicans. When confronted with this question of NAFTA they had nothing to say. Interestingly, they could also not explain why they had nothing to say about any other ethnic undocumented worker besides Latinos. It is commonplace in the USA to think in terms of what affects us, and particularly the notion that whatever harms us in the USA must be among the most catastrophic things to affect the planet. Rarely do we stop and think about the actual consequences of the actions of the USA on the rest of the world. Rarer still has been our consideration of how the actions the USA initiates, whether treaties like NAFTA or military actions such as the 1980s Central American wars, end up boomeranging. A real change in the White House would be for the leaders to see beyond the Rio Grande and thereby actually see what is happening here.
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is Executive Editor of The Black Commentator. He is also a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies and the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum. Click here to contact Mr. Fletcher.

Hillary and Barack: Being Honest About NAFTA or just False Promises and Politics as Usual?

Were Hillary and Barack being honest when they said in the Ohio Debates the United States could "opt out" of the 14-year-old NAFTA pact if Canada and Mexico refuse to strengthen labor and environmental provisions and modify an investment chapter that critics say favors corporate interests too much?

Did Obama's senior economic adviser tell Canadian officials privately that Obama's criticism of the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico was "political positioning"?

Now, Reuter´s is reporting:
Mexico businessmen unfazed by U.S. NAFTA threats Thu Mar 6, 2008 5:13pm EST
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexican factory owners are shrugging off threats by U.S. presidential candidates to retool a major free trade deal but say they would worry if the talk continues after election day in November. As they vie for the Democratic Party nomination, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have vowed to tell Canada and Mexico that the United States will pull out of the North America Free Trade Agreement unless labor and environmental standards are renegotiated. Yet even if one of them wins the November election against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, a NAFTA supporter, few see Washington easily reopening the trade deal, the fruit of years of thorny negotiations. "I really doubt they would go through with it. They are just playing politics," said Cesar Castro, who heads Mexico's association of maquiladoras, the assembly-for-export factories that dot the border with the United States.

Castro said killing NAFTA or changing it to favor American workers would shut down Mexican factories and hurt employment in Mexico. "Illegal migration would spike and we all know they don't want that," he said.
By reducing or eliminating tariffs, NAFTA has helped make Mexico the No. 3 business partner with the United States, after Canada and China. "There are net benefits on both sides of the border, so I don't think they will touch it," said Jose Antonio Abogaber, who heads the chamber of shoe makers in the industrial state of Guanajuato. Conservative Mexican President Felipe Calderon's government has made clear it is happy with NAFTA the way it is, while warning against any move away from free trade. "NAFTA has been successful for each of the three countries," Economy Minister Eduardo Sojo told reporters in Toronto earlier this week. "What we need is more integration, not less integration."
----------------------
Readers, What are you thoughts? We know John McCain will continue with NAFTA, Big Business and his partnerships with his RNC Cronies. What about the Dems? Will they make changes as they promised? Or will they say one thing and continue with politics as usual? Should we be concerned?
Is NAFTA a problem? If not, then why doesn´t McCain, HRC and BHO explain the real issues?

Should Democrats Stop Bashing NAFTA?

NAFTA NOT TO BLAME: (The Street.com - summary):

On the Democratic campaign trail, the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has become a punching bag representing all of the ills of free trade, responsible for destroying middle class jobs. The populist rhetoric reached a fever pitch in Ohio this week, even though both Sen. Hillary Clinton (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) have spoken favorably of NAFTA at times and recently supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement.

NAFTA is NOT to blame. The Congressional Research Service noted .. four studies had been released studying the economic effect of NAFTA:

. It had a very modest effect on trade growth between the U.S. and Mexico.

. It had nothing to do with widening trade deficit between the U.S. and Mexico.

. It slightly increased growth and productivity in the U.S.

. It had little or no effect on aggregate employment in the U.S.,

. It had a small effect on real wages.
Democratic demagoguery on NAFTA proves to be misplaced.

Leonardo Martinez-Diaz, a Brookings Institution expert on international finance, says: "NAFTA has become shorthand for the general effects of trade and globalization." The markets in both China and India dwarf the economies of Canada and Mexico. Companies like Wal-Mart and Target depend almost wholly on manufacturing in China..the Democrats use "clever rhetoric" on NAFTA. On the one hand, they express concern for the bitter sentiments of loss felt by American workers, and on the other hand signal to those who favor free trade that they have no plans to move away from free trade agreements. The Democrats' nuanced position presents a problem in the general election, because like their case on taxes, Republicans have a simpler, emotional appeal. On free trade, Sen. John McCain will lambast the Democrats for flip-flopping: "They voted for free trade before they opposed it..the bashing of free trade leads to protectionism and tariff wars." Protectionism has been strongly viewed as a negative economic force, as some have blamed the Smoot-Hawley Act of 1930 for causing the Great Depression. This will hurt the Democratic nominee, as a recent Gallup poll showed that the economy has supplanted Iraq as the top issue in the campaign.

The Democrats need to stop the negative attacks on NAFTA and focus on a brighter future. Brookings' Martinez-Diaz says: "Free trade always creates winners and losers. The Democrats must force those in favor of free trade to recognize something has to be done to help the losers." Timothy Canova, professor of international economic law at Chapman University School of Law, said via email that freer trade in agriculture, combined with U.S. farm subsidies, has contributed to more than 600,000 farm families losing their livelihoods in Mexico. "This, of course, contributes to the increase of illegal immigration from Mexico to the United States," Canova says. "Likewise, there are certainly factories in the U.S. that have been closed down as a result of freer trade with Mexico, and even more so with China."

Robert Reich Blog:

It’s a shame the Democratic candidates for president feel they have to make trade – specifically NAFTA – the enemy of blue-collar workers and the putative cause of their difficulties. NAFTA is not to blame. Consider the numbers. When NAFTA took effect, Ohio had 990,000 manufacturing jobs. Two years later, in 1996, it had 1,300,000 manufacturing jobs. The number stayed above a million for the rest of the 1990s. Today, though, there are about 775,000 manufacturing jobs in Ohio. What happened? The economy expanded briskly through the 1990s. Then it crashed in late 2000, and the manufacturing jobs lost in that last recession never came back. They didn’t come back for two reasons: In some cases, employers automated the jobs out of existence, using robots and computers. In other cases, employers shipped the jobs abroad, mostly to China – not to Mexico. NAFTA has become a symbol for the mounting insecurities felt by blue-collar Americans. While the overall benefits from free trade far exceed the costs, and the winners from trade (including all of us consumers who get cheaper goods and services because of it) far exceed the losers, there’s a big problem: The costs fall disproportionately on the losers -- mostly blue-collar workers who get dumped because their jobs can be done more cheaply by someone abroad who’ll do it for a fraction of the American wage. The losers usually get new jobs eventually but the new jobs are typically in the local service economy and they pay far less than the ones lost. Even though the winners from free trade could theoretically compensate the losers and still come out ahead, they don’t. America doesn’t have a system for helping job losers find new jobs that pay about the same as the ones they’ve lost – regardless of whether the loss was because of trade or automation. There’s no national retraining system. Unemployment insurance reaches fewer than 40 percent of people who lose their jobs – a smaller percentage than when the unemployment system was designed seventy years ago. We have no national health care system to cover job losers and their families. There's no wage insurance. Nothing. And unless or until America finds a way to help the losers, the backlash against trade is only going to grow.Get me? The Dems shouldn't be redebating NAFTA. They should be debating how to help Americans adapt to a new economy in which no job is safe.

The Domino Effect: Cutting wages in half not fair, workers say

GM, Ford and Chrysler Wage Cuts are not only impacting their own workers, it is also impacting related businesses and their families. The Detroit Free Press Reports on what is happening at American Axle & Manufacturing in Detroit:

Cutting wages in half not fair, workers say
GM, Chrysler report no disruption in production
By JEWEL GOPWANI, ERIC LAWRENCE AND ALEXANDRA BARUZZINI • FREE PRESS STAFF WRITERS • February 26, 2008

American Axle & Manufacturing workers trudged through wet, sticky snow as day broke this morning to picket after talks broke down between the UAW and the company. A General Motors spokesman said that as of this morning the strike had not disrupted production at the automaker's plants. GM makes up nearly 80% of American Axle's revenue. A Chrysler spokeswoman said the automaker had stocked up on parts for three assembly plants that use American Axle parts, and had not seen a disruption this morning. ..

Carl Gill's grandfather, mother and three aunts are among many of his family members who worked in these plants when they were a part of GM. Gill said he is financially ready for a long strike. "This is our lives," he said.Talks broke down Monday, with the UAW and the company far apart on a number of issues, including health care, retirement and wages, which management has said it would like to cut by about half. Kevin Dennard has been with the company for 13 years. "I am striking for fair wages and a fair contract, " Dennard said. "If we were to take the cut, even standard living would be impossible. I would lose my house. I will strike until we can compromise, but it doesn't look like the feeling is mutual." ...“This will affect not only our children, but our children's children," Norm Blagec said. "Once a contract is signed, it will take years to change it. That's why we are out here. Fighting so when the contract is signed, it will show fair wages and benefits. I will be out here as long as it takes to reach an agreement." ..Cherisse Ellington, a maintenance worker at the plant, echoed Beauchesne’s sentiments.“They wanted to cut our wages in half. I don’t feel that’s fair,” she said.One striking worker said economic factors make the company’s demands unreasonable.“Look at the price of gas now. Who can afford a cut in pay?” said Henry Nelson, 56, of Southfield.Nelson has worked for American Axle for 36 years.

----------------

When we last discussed this issue, we all agreed these wage cuts had nothing to do with illegal immigration. Ultima said, ""GM was going bankrupt. It's not just the economy and business, it's competition from Japanese and other auto manufacturers who apparently enjoy a cheaper labor contract. I believe in a strong middle class with middle class wages and benefits but I also believe in a level playing field and since in a free society there is little the government can and should do about this, it is up to GM and other companies to do whatever is necessary to competitive. It serves no one's interests for GM to go belly up."

So given Ultima´s response, and I believe it is a good one, many American businesses can only survive if they go Global, and in a Global economy, they must pay competitive wages. Not competitive to American wages, but competitive to what their competition in other countries are paying. The question then becomes, if our corporations are to survive and they most go global, outsourcing and paying reduced wages, then how do we as an American Society adapt? What are our choices?

It´s not Illegal Immigration, It´s the Economy Stupid! The Global Economy!

Since the 1980´s, the rise of technology has allowed business to market products and services all over the world. Partnerships and alliances were established to support this Global Economy. Initially, the US dominated this economy through a variety of methods, including outsourcing technology jobs, establishing manufacturing businesses in foreign countries including maquiladoras in Latin Countries and importing products from foreign countries. In January, 1994, NAFTA passed and eliminated the majority of tariffs between products traded among the United States, Canada and Mexico.

As the US was on this artificial economic high, on January 16, 1998, following perceived Iraqi unwillingness to co-operate with UN weapons inspections, members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC - the NeoCons), including Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney drafted an open letter to President Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using U.S. diplomatic, political, and military power.

PNACs statement of Principles included: The American peace has proven itself peaceful, stable, and durable. It has, over the past decade, provided the geopolitical framework for widespread economic growth and the spread of American principles of liberty and democracy. Yet no moment in international politics can be frozen in time; even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself. What we require is a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States’ global responsibilities.

After September 11, 2001, after the terrorists attacked, PNAC was primed and ready to move forward with their plans for War. By 2003, the country went along with their plans for War in Iraq. The war was financed through foreign debt.

After four years, America's cost for the war in Iraq reached $500 billion, more than the total for the Korean War and nearly as much as 12 years in Vietnam, adjusting for inflation. The ultimate cost could reach $1 trillion or more.

Meanwhile, America was feeling the impact of NAFTA. Manufacturing jobs in the US shrunk from 27% of total jobs to just 12%. Americans were being convinced, however, outsourcing these jobs did not impact them negatively. Instead new jobs were created including stock and financial speculation, house and condo flipping, all financed through foreign debt.

The US, which was once the largest creditor nation became the world’s largest debtor, increasingly dependent on eastern Asian nations such as China, Japan, and South Korea to meet its monthly interest payments.

In order to create the illusion of economic growth and to continue attracting enough foreign capital to meet the US’s interest payments on its debt, the US needed a method to expand their labor force. This method had to push wages down while increasing corporate profits up. Since Americans had a birth rate that barely replaced its death rate, growth in the labor force became dependent on a de facto open unskilled labor market policy. Why unskilled? As Bernanke has stated , “Higher incomes also tend to increase the demand for medical services so that, indirectly, higher incomes may also increase federal health expenditures.” So how can corporations expand while not increasing wages or granting basic health services to workers? Through non-English-speaking, easily exploitable, foreign, preferably semi-literate, deportable workers!

As Americans awakened to their massive debt, loss of manufacturing jobs and rise in the rate of illegal immigrants, their first reaction was anger. Various groups Framed these issues to their own agendas:

ANTI: Promote Enforcement of existing Immigration Laws while Mass Deporting 12M. Use terms such as Mexifornia, 3rd World Country to instill fear and anger in the masses, gaining more members for their cause. Encourage Workplace Raids, Operation Wet back, Racial Profiling while building more Detention Centers and Private Security firms patrolling urban areas and borders. Demonize any Humanitarian Groups with Hispanic terms like “La Raza” in their title to scare the American Public into believing some fake Reconquista theories. Increase membership into their groups (initially started in the 70´s) by instilling fear in the masses. Their message: "Fear and Loathing of Illegal Immigrants." Maximize effectiveness via the internet. Utilize Politically Correct terms to sell message. Utilize form faxes to deluge Congress and the Media. Hire DC Consulting firms with connections to Right Wing Pundits and Shock Jocks.

PRO: React to deplorable Detention Centers and Workplace Raids. React to Hostile Environment and terms such as Mexifornia, 3rd World Country or misrepresentations of various Humanitarian Groups. React to misrepresentation of marches or flags. Struggle to understand the true issues. Communicate the true issues via the internet. Gain alliances across the Nation. Form Groups. Follow the communications path similar to the ANTI communication path in gaining momentum for their cause realizing they are years behind the ANTIs in their mission. Vote in 2008.

Big Business, Administration: Maintain Status Quo or push for non passable Immigration Resolutions. Pass Resolutions but find ways not to implement solutions in order to temporarily appease the masses, yet maintain status quo. Reap as many gains possible through crony built prisons, detaining entire families since cost per head/per day maximizes profits. Continue instilling fear in the American Public so they will be easy to control and manipulate. Encourage passage of bills promoting crony owned Border Security and non-manned aircraft surveillance across all urban areas and borders.

None of the above Framing addresses the True Issues.

The real problem with the current situation runs broader and deeper than Immigration. Consider the issue of Foreign Policy Reform, which focuses on two sub-issues:

1. How has US foreign policy placed, or kept, in power oppressive governments which people are forced to flee?'

2. What role have international trade agreements had in creating or exacerbating people's urge to flee their homelands? If capital is going to freely cross borders, should people and labor be able to do so as well, going where globalization takes the jobs?

If the issue was presented in this way, solutions could be established for the overall problems. The solutions would lead to a solution involving the Secretary of State, conversations with Mexico and other Central American countries, and a close examination of the promises of NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, the IMF and the World Bank to raise standards of living around the globe. It would inject into the globalization debate a concern for the migration and displacement of people, not simply globalization's promise for profits. This is not addressed when the issue is defined as the “immigration problem.” Bush's “comprehensive solution” does not address any of these concerns. The immigration problem, in this light, is actually a Global Economy problem.

References:
. Wikipedia: Global Economy, Pax Americana, PNAC, NAFTA
. 2007 Debate – MATT Members
. The Framing of Immigration