From May 19 to 27 I
was in Arizona and Nogales, Mexico to try to grasp what is happening to
migrants since the U.S built a wall along parts of the border. The delegation
of 17 U.S. citizens was led by School of the Americas Watch founder Fa. Roy
Bourgeois. We were hosted by
BorderLinks in Tucson, AZ which is
part of a network of organizations working together to provide humanitarian aid
to migrants and to change U.S. immigration policies that both criminalize the
migrants and militarize our 2000 mile long border with Mexico. Within the network we met with
Southside Presbyterian Church in Tucson, No More Deaths, the Kino Border
Initiative, Casa Mariposa and Hogar
de Esperanza y Paz (HEPAC) in Nogales, Mexico.
NAFTA is the North
American Free Trade Ageement, passed by Congress in 1994, and hailed as
mutually beneficial, especially in the area of employment.
The tale is not over without talking about NAFTA, a nefarious agreement
if ever there was one, a service to U.S. corporations and a disaster to the
majority of Mexican small farmers.
The plot is revealed in the requirement that Mexico eliminate Article 27
of its Constitution. This Article
guaranteed a system of land sharing called “ejidos”, wherein groups of farmers
cultivated land in common. There was no private ownership of land, and
foreign ownership was forbidden. Under NAFTA Article 27 disappeared, and
foreign ownership became legal. NAFTA
also demanded that Mexico not subsidize agricultural production, even though
the U.S. would continue this practice.
Mexico agreed to receive U.S. grown corn at a low price, in return for
which the U.S. would import fruits and vegetables from Mexico. The ejido system gone, farmers received deeds to a plot of
land on which they could grow corn as they always had. But, as cheap U.S. corn flooded the
Mexican market, Mexican farmers
could not compete, and thus were forced to sell their land. U.S. corporations were ready and bought
up much of it. Two million farmers
were thus pushed off their ancestral lands, the source of their livelihood,
Other U. S. corporations were ready with factories inside Mexico needing
cheap labor. These factories, mostly located near the border, became known as
“maquiladoras” because they assemble parts from the U.S. and send back the
finished products. We observed
long lines of huge semi’s going back and forth across the border from Nogales,
Arizona to Nogales, Mexico -- NAFTA on the move. Products can cross; people
cannot.
On May 25 we observed another common phenomenon, workers who had been
locked out of their maquiladora without warning and without pay. We went to the Legacy factory in
Nogales which made ink cartridges, and found a group of laid-off workers outside the locked factory under a small
tent trying to shield themselves from the hot sun. They have been holding a 24 hour a day vigil there since the
day in February when all 166 workers lost their jobs. The purpose of the vigil was to prevent the company owner
from removing the machinery before granting them the severance pay due them by
Mexican law. The machinery is the
only leverage they have. Of the 166 workers, some have had to look for other work, but a core of 20--30 men
and women maintain the struggle .
Legacy is owned by an American, Frank Day, who apparently owns several
chains of restaurants in the States, and is wealthy. He owes back taxes to Mexico. We plan to find him.
The workers explained that their salary for assembly line work is no
more than $10 a day, six days a week, with no benefits. (The average salary in maquiladoras is
$70 a week.) The Mexican
government has had a huge part in this displacement of farmers into factories, as it promoted the establishment
of maquiladoras instead of the cultivation of food products as it had
promised. As of 2010 there were
25,000 maquiladoras in Mexico.
So, when we wonder why so many migrants risk their lives and separation
from their families to enter the U.S., we must remember NAFTA. And NAFTA should remind us of the wall
which the U.S. started to build the same year NAFTA was passed. And the wall should signal that we have
chosen militarization as a means of controlling the human reaction to loss of
land and livelihood. And we might ask
ourselves if this reflects our values.