Sin Fronteras

You cannot visit Arizona without visiting Mexico, until 1854 Arizona was Mexico! On our last Saturday with No More Deaths we packed into the car and drove down to Nogales to cross the border. The streets of Nogales, AZ were quiet, the only activity was in the parking lots and a small strip of shops changing money and selling Mexican car insurance. It took less than 5 minutes to walk across to Nogales, MX, where suddenly Nogales came to life. The town was bustling with people, traffic, souvenir markets, street vendors (selling everything from small appliances to popsicles) and dentists. The dentist offices were piled on top of other, each with a big sign advertising their services; it almost made me feel like I might need some work done and that somehow by not going to the dentist I was not getting the full Nogales experience.

One street in Nogalas, MX was practically empty, the one that runs parallel to the border fence. To call it a fence seems inaccurate, it is more of a barrier, 25ft iron posts dominate the skyline and are topped with rectangular iron sheets. On the Mexican side artists have decorated the barrier with graffiti and arts installations and commemorated loved ones who have lost their lives at the border. Through the gaps you can see the deserted streets of Nogales, AZ and the cameras, motion detectors, vehicles and watch towers of US Border Patrol.

It was not always this way. Prior to the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994 by the Clinton administration, there was no barrier. People crossed regularly for seasonal work in the US on farmers and in factories. They also crossed back again to spend holidays and special occasions with their families.

Within a year of the passage of the original NAFTA it became clear that the creators had either not given serious thought to the impact of the agreement on Mexican workers or that they did not care about it. As a result of heavily subsidized, cheap US corn flooding the Mexican market and the expansion of large US corporations, for example Walmart and Home Depot, opening big box stores in the country selling cheap goods, Mexican farmers and small businesses owners lost their jobs or were driven out of business. Consequently, Mexican workers did the only thing they could do to provide for their families, they migrated north with the goal of more permanent settlement in the US.

Free movement of people was not part of the NAFTA plan; the goal was free movement of capital not workers.

On October 1, 1994, to combat this increased migration, the US government launched its new policy of Prevention Through Deterrence in San Diego with the first physical barriers on the border and hiring additional Border Patrol agents. The goal of Prevention Through Deterrence was to curb migration by Mexican workers by forcing them to risk their lives crossing in the deadly deserts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. Between 1994 and 1997, Prevention Trough Deterrence expanded rapidly long the border with additional fencing being erected, increased Border Patrol manpower and checkpoints up to 100 miles north of the actual border.

Over the past 24 years, more than 10,000 migrants have died in the desert as a result of Prevention Through Deterrence and many thousands more have gone missing, fallen victim to people smugglers, or been separated from their families though detention or deportation. By all measures, the human cost of NAFTA, ignored by the drafters of the original agreement, on Mexican workers and families has been immense.

Fast forward to 2018 and the Trump administration is currently trying to renegotiate NAFTA. Given Trump’s overwhelmingly nationalist, anti-immigrant stance it seems unlikely that his administration’s proposed agreement gives any more thought to its impact on Mexican workers than Clinton’s did.

Two of the mostly widely reported proposals in the new NAFTA are the requirements that 75% of new car content be made in North America (ie the US, Canada and Mexico) and 40 to 45% of content be made by workers making $16 per hour. Ostensibly the goal of this second provision is to force car manufacturers to bring jobs back to the US and hire white US citizens. That is not the only possible outcome. How could this provision could impact migration on the US-Mexico border?

Firstly, the US could see an increase in Mexican migration similar to that which occurred in 1994. Car manufacturers could open new factories in the US to comply with the $16 per hour wage requirement. This would lead to job losses in Mexico and workers, already skilled in those jobs, and facing shrinking employment opportunities at home, crossing the border with the knowledge that their skills are needed in the US and the hope that they will be paid well should they be able to secure a job.

Secondly, if car manufacturers move factories to Canada, the US could become a “gateway” country. Mexican workers faced with job losses at home might decide to risk the long journey to Canada. The US could find itself hosting caravans of migrants crossing its southern deserts, continuing across the plains of the mid-west and attempting to cross its norther border in harsh, cold winter conditions, while also facing a Canadian government berating it to do something to stop them. While there would be a kind of delicious irony in this scenario for the chattering classes, it would undoubtedly result in many more migrant deaths and family separations.

Lastly, car manufactures could decide to pay workers in Mexico $16 an hour. This might make economic sense when factoring in the costs of building new factories and hiring and training a new work force in the US. This would make wages in the auto industry disproportionately high compared to wages and cost of living in the rest of the Mexican economy. Within Mexico, it would increase inequality and possibly, ultimately, cause the type of gentrification we have seen in the US due to the increasing disparity between wages for workers in the middle and working classes. It could, ironically, also result in a reverse migration where US workers head south, through the desert, to cross the border in search of a better life in Mexico. The role of organizations like No More Deaths would be reversed from assisting migrants who have already crossed the border to preparing those getting ready to start the journey from Arizona.

All of these scenarios create new challenges for migrants, they all lead to long, dangerous journeys, hardship and upheaval for families, and greater inequality. If there must be a North American Free Trade Agreement, then it must include freedom of movement for people as well as capital. Only by opening the borders and allowing human beings to move across them as freely as car parts, money and technology can the US, Canada and Mexico create an agreement that does not cause people to risk their lives through migration and result in more families creating memorials to their loved ones at the Nogales border barrier.

Sources:
BorderAngels.org
No More Deaths Border History
US Trade Representative NAFTA Fact Sheet