If we invested in Mexico would we decrease immigration in the long run?

Answer 1

i am not a fan of directed investment. It is not market driven and normally can have adverse effects.
But it could if that is what you want.

Answer 2

There is no simple answer to this question. We already do invest in Mexican industry, building a lot of automobliles and trucks there, as well as parts. Quite a lot of food is purchased from Mexico and there is a pretty good tourist trade in many parts of Mexico. Unfortuantely, these investments are not helping to ease the problem of low wages and lack of opportunity in Mexico. The illegal immigrant group does not see any benefits from US investment.

Answer 3

To start off, we cannot think of ourselves as the saviors of Mexico when discussing such matters. There is a saying: "Solidarity, Not Charity!"

Some say that Mexicans should help themselves. There are many people in Mexico fighting to make that country better for their people so that families are not broken up when a family member migrates north into the US to find work.

It is these people who are fighting to make Mexico a better country who are often killed or dissapeared by the Mexican Government or right wing death squads. They are disapeared, harrased, arbitrarily imprisioned because their struggle threatens the joint economic policies of the US and Mexican governments.

The reason there has been so much immigration in recent years is because Mexico entered NAFTA. NAFTA is a trade agreement, created by groups who wanted to invest in Mexico and help it develop. These groups, however, belonged to the very wealthy classes; they were the presidents and CEOs of huge corporations. Many of the people who believed NAFTA would work were well intentioned. Some were not even wealthy, many were and are average people who simply believe that the rationale behind NAFTA style trade agreements works.

The problem is no one asked the average Mexican Citizen what he or she thought would help develop their country. All of these decisions were made by people in high government and corporate posts in the US and in Mexico. During the 1994 presidential election President Clinton promised to support measures in NAFTA that would protect worker rights. He also told the American people that NAFTA would reduce immigration. Neither came to pass. Yet there were many people who understood that NAFTA would cause more immigration and devastate the sources of work for Mexicans (and Americans alike, but that is another conversation; you can watch Roger and Me if you want to see a small glimpse of the affect NAFTA had on hard working Americans. )

Solidarity, not charity, means that to provide any meaningful ideas and solutions, one should understand the lives of the people we are trying to help. It means, that we should truly walk in their shoes. It is they who are at the best position to propose solutions, since it is they who know their plight.

Do you think the wealthy CEOs and the politicians who wanted corporate sponsors put themsleves in the shoes of the average Mexican or even the Average US worker? The answer is NO! They did. They came up with a so called solution from their vantage point of privledge and wealth. As a result their "solution" was nothing more than a self serving trade agreement that benefits the corporation, that benefits short term company profits for short sighted investors.

SO to decrease immigration, start off by understanding the economic forces at work: NAFTA, the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund behind immigration. And secondly to provide insightful solutions one must be in solidarity with those in Mexico and the US who are fighting and being imprisoned because they want to make Mexico a better place, a place with jobs and where families can stay together and not be torn apart by the need to find work and survive.

Solidarity not charity means supporting those who are helping themselves. To come as an invited guest at the table, to understand how you are positioned in society and how your position will affect your suggested “solutions.”

Answer 4

Maybe, but...why do WE (I'm assuming this means the USA) need to invest in Mexico? Why don't they invest in their own country? They have plenty of natural resources.

Plus - we already invest in them plenty. What about NAFTA? What about all the illegal and legal immigrants that send money down south? A huge portion of the Mexican economy is based on these monies.

Answer 5

mexico needs to invest in itself. its people need to stay there and make it a better country for themselves instead of leaving. in fact, we in the U.S. already invest heavily in Mexico -- the highest source of income in Mexico is money being sent from relatives who are in the U.S. so i'd say no to investing any more in mexico. creating good relations, yes. providing work permissions, yes, and other services to those who go thru legal channels, but more money? no thanks.

Answer 6

for sure!! why do you think they want to get out so badly.. but why would the government do that? not only are they not spending money on helping Mexico but they are profiting for extremely cheap labour, they don't have insurance, so the insurance comps don't loose out, they can't vote. If they really wanted to stop immigration , they would.