maybe this explains the tide of illegal immigration.... maybe duh
2006-11-14 06:56:46 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
i already know what half of you are going to say and no mexicans didn't vote for this.
2006-11-14 06:58:57 · update #1
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2006/Revisiting_NAFTA.pdf
2006-11-14 07:01:35 · update #2
read the report the rate of immigration went up 'significantly' since NAFTA was implemented jan 1st 1994.
"Another element that explains the low unemployment rate is illegal migration to the United States. Between 1990-94, the average annual flow of illegal migrants has been estimated to have been 260,000 people (Passel 2005). After 1994, the rate of immigration increased significantly: between 2000-04, illegal migration is estimated to have totaled approximately 485,000 persons per year (Passel 2005)."
2006-11-14 10:56:30 · update #3
See also CAFTA, GAAT and the Security and Prosperity Act for North America. This recently signed bill effectively makes Mexico, US and Canada one big free market. You won't look it up though, so I don't know why I risk getting carpal tunnel typing in Y! A anymore. The thrill is gone.
2006-11-14 07:02:05 · answer #1 · answered by shrill alarmist, I'm sure 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
And people laughed at Ross Perot as not knowing what he was talking about. Do you get the impression that maybe someone is manipulating things, and all of us are "playing that most American of games. Catch up." Mexico is being driven down, and by Mexicans coming here, so are we. It is most disconcerting to realize we are being played with on the scale of game we know not what. We could stop the tide just by fining the employers who hire them, but that clearly is not happening. Instead we are being distracted with building a "Berlin Wall" on our border to keep "them" out. Wouldn't it be nice if all this was out in the open? Good question.
2006-11-14 15:06:31 · answer #2 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Although I agree NAFTA is a disaster, I have to question the source. All of the statistical data is from Canadian sources. I know several of the figures to be wrong (Manufaturing jobs from 93-2004 actually INCREASED in both MN (1.2%)and FL (2.3%).
Also loss of jobs during that time period have other factors. Including but not limited to a HUGE stock market crash and socio-economic changes from 9/11. (Remember the market did not start to rebound until 2004.)
2006-11-14 15:29:31 · answer #3 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Dude, your avatar is scary.
And no I didn't know that, but could it have something to do with the Political upheaval and all of the recent striking that went on there?
Or do you just look at numbers and randomly associate them with causes?
2006-11-14 15:05:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
All part of the plan to ship the jobs out of the country. Pay the locals peanuts and charge your folks good money!!!
2006-11-14 14:59:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes and wages are down 6 years in a row under Bush.
Some Republican!
2006-11-14 14:58:27 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Just when do you think the waves of illegal immigration began, anyway?
Not after NAFTA, for sure.
2006-11-14 15:20:42 · answer #7 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do you have sources for this info? Wages is not the only issue there. There is also availability of jobs.
2006-11-14 14:58:16 · answer #8 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
thank you for sharing that I heard before reagan was president 1970to1980 mexico wages went up 170% and I did hear that was not going up
2006-11-14 15:00:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, you're probably right.
Isn't Clinton the one who passed that stupid thing?
It sure would explain alot.
2006-11-14 14:59:21 · answer #10 · answered by jirstan2 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋