Gerardo Robles González

Carlos Alberto Trujillo Arellano

Gabriela Flores Rivera
09/05/11

“Migration in North America” by Jazmeen Abu-Laban

In this Critique we intend to analyze the point of view of Jazmeen Abu-Laban about the
Migration in North America and the consequences of this situation for Canada, United
States of America and México.
We are also going to revise the rights and the politicization of borders in North America
and the effects of the regional economic integration (NAFTA).

“The NAFTA provisions and their implementation have not radically challenged
existing migration patterns between the three countries; rather, they have served to
reinforce existing class, gender, and national inequities in migration between them”1

“It was supposed to be the magic wand that took care of immigration. The North
American Free Trade Agreement was to make Mexico rich and create enough
employment incentives to keep its people at home. It has been anything but. More than
ten years after the signing of the treaty, economic growth has been anemic in Mexico,
averaging less than 3.5 percent per year or less than 2 percent on a per capita basis since
2000; unemployment is higher than what it was when the treaty was signed; and half of
the labor force must eke out a living in invented jobs in the informal economy, a figure
ten percent higher than in the pre-NAFTA years. Meanwhile, jobs in the runaway
maquiladora industry that left the United States to profit from free trade and cheap
labor commonly pay close to the Mexican minimum wage of U.S. $7.00 per day, an
amount so small in the now “open” Mexican market as to force people into informal
jobs or across the border.”2

“Migration relations between the United States and Mexico went through three main
phases between the late 19th century an the 1990’s: mostly laissez faire policies prior
World War II, with both countries imposing modest unilateral controls; a brief period of
managed migration giving way to a veneer of bilateralism during the wartime Bracero
Program; and a “policy of no policy” in Mexico and de facto acquiescence to illegal

1
Jazmeen Abu-Laban, Politics in North America: redifining continental relations. (University of Toronto Press, Toronto:
Higher Education Division, 2007), 349.
2
Alejandro Portes, “NAFTA and Mexican Immigration” Social Science Research Council [July 31, 2006 (cited May 5, 2011)
Migration Policy Institute] www.ssrc.org : available at http://borderbattles.ssrc.org/Portes/
migration in the United States beginning in the 1960s through the 1990s. The late 1990s
through 2001 marked a fourth phase in relations, an apparent turning point, as the two
countries took small but significant steps toward a more collaborative approach,
culminating in a breakthrough agreement to begin comprehensive bilateral migration
negotiations in September 2001. The terror attacks later the same month derailed those
negotiations, however, and while the two countries continued to cooperate on a number
of enforcement measures, the have failed to place broader migration issues back on the
table.”3

The Author is analyzing how the NAFTA agreement far from being a Trilateral
relationship kind of situation, has become a two different relations for the USA, which
are USA–Canada and USA–México. This is affecting the fulfilling of this agreement
and its creating new kind of problems for the region such as political and economic
issues and the most important problem today, the discrimination between countries and
the creation of special legislation and physical barriers to keep the immigrants out of the
USA, specially since 9/11 when the USA latter on remarked that México could be a
entrance for those terrorist immigrants that attacked their country and future ones so
they created new and stronger laws that enforced the barriers of their frontiers and this
has encouraged the abuse and discrimination situation against Mexicans in the USA.

In addition we think that the basis of this problem come from the Bracero Program
created by the USA government and also the Maquila Program in the North frontier of
México created in a joint effort by the Mexican and the USA governments where they
were trying to improve the economy of both countries, but most for México because the
thought that through this new program the immigration problem would be solved as
result of the improvement and enhancement of the Mexican economy, in the end the
promise of enough jobs and new opportunities were an incentive to approve the NAFTA
but this was implemented only during its first years and then it just became one more
case of abuse due to the fact that American companies take advantage of the low rates in
labor force and the lack of legislation to protect this workers from the Mexican
government so now the companies exploit and abuse its workers with very long

3
Marc R. Rosenblum, “Obstacles and Opportunities for Regional Cooperation: The US-Mexico Case,” Migration Policy Intitute
[April, 2011 (cited May 5, 2011) MPI www.migrationpolicy.org: available at
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/USMexico-cooperation.pdf
working shifts, low rates, bad working facilities and no benefits whatsoever for the
workers because they are compelled by their economic situation to remain working at
the maquilas, so in the end it generated the problem of illegal immigration in the USA
and the Drugs and Security situation in México.

Migration has always been an issue between countries sharing borders and it’s up to the
governments of these countries to come up with a solution to this problem. Through the
years different programs have been put into practice some with success others with such
a very little difference that have not lasted much. But the implementation of a Free
Trade Agreement is so much more than a program because it is also an economic
integration between the countries that are part of it.  In terms of entry into the country
we can see the difference that exists between these three nations, visa it is only required
for Mexicans and both Canada and USA have free access which is prejudiced and
wrong. In addition these visas are not for all, only a certain sector of the population,
usually business people and professional carriers can obtain it, also if the other part of
the population want to get it, they have to go into different filters and the consuls decide
whether the solicitant gets it or not. We can also see how the government in order to
decrease the rate of immigrants entering the US have created new laws and barriers, for
instance Mexican truck drivers cannot enter the US if there are not certificated
according to what the US government requires and also their trucks must be American
otherwise they the entry is forbidden from the country unless they are certified
according to the same law. NAFTA has improved a lot of things for the commerce and
negotiation of goods and services but when it comes to resolve the barriers for human
resources of Mexico it becomes rough. Refugees, migrants have negative response in
the "other side" and are persecuted and discriminated, but something must be done to
this problem because it is increasing a lot especially now that the world is facing
problems of economic stability.

The fundaments of the argument of the author are based in three specific issues in which
relations among countries of North America are based.
First of all she analyzes NAFTA and its implications on the subject, the negotiations
and the relations that this agreement has developed between these nations, and then she
revises the relations between the members of the agreement and the ones that are non-
members of it, thru the politicization of its borders. And finally she remarks that the
United States of North America being the most important member and one of the first
world’s most developed countries is the one that shape the relations with the members
into bilateralism instead of the trilateralism that should be.

In our opinion, the argument that the author gives it is valid and we fully agree in the
sense that migration agreements of the three countries in North America lack of
dynamic in both directions and so they need to work in negotiations in respect to this
issue; the argument is acceptable to us because migration policy is not only complex but
restrictive and it is a challenge to be able to get to a possible solution, but by having a
Free Trade Agreement it is suppose to obtain a collaborative approach to begin a
positive response. Mexico has always had emigration problems with the northern border
because there is large amount of people trying to enter illegally and so that´s why the
government of United States reinforces both physical and political barriers as an effort
to stop the flows of irregular migrants.
The argument is well constructed because the author is supporting her opinion with
different papers in the subject showing that she has all the necessary information to
write a complete chapter on the area.
In all the articles we took into consideration to our critique the conclusions reached the
same results in most of the points on the three main elements that the author took into
consideration in her argument.
Studies such as these one we think can strengthen the awareness on what has been done
in the area. It helps demonstrate that the results are not as positive as they should
according to the objectives that we want to achieve.
This can apply pressure to find a solution to these problems and work to get the results
that benefits us all.