Canada and Mexico must unite

[rightleft22]

Mexican president cancels Trump summit
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38760671

Canada and Mexico must unite, says Agustin Barrios Gomez
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-will-turn-on-canada-1.3952216

"I don't think appeasement is the way to go [for Canada]," he said, calling it "the Neville Chamberlain approach"

"I think it would be a grave mistake if Canada did not act on principle, because when you sacrifice your principles for short-term gain, you end up losing both," said Barrios Gomez.

"This is a threat to peace and prosperity in North America, just so we understand."

[TheDeamon]

No, it is a threat to peace and prosperity in Mexico. Trade between the US and Canada didn't change much with NAFTA, and if NAFTA went away, it probably would revert back. What would change is trade in and out of Mexico. As Mexican access to Canada becomes much more complicated if it needs to transit the US first, and Mexican trade to the US also likewise suffers a major blow.

Of course, Canada also suffers because they run into comparable problems when it comes to trying to transport goods to Mexico through the US.

Disruption of US <-> Canada trade is a MUCH bigger threat to Canada than anything involving Mexico.

Further, Mexico going down the proverbial toilet isn't much of a direct concern for Canada in the first place because they don't share a border with Mexico, that will be a problem for the United States to deal with.

But that is international politics, Mexico has to try to sell their own interests as being in the interest of everybody else. In this case, there would certainly be an impact for the Canadians, so he's correct in that much. However, he is overstating it significantly.

Besides which, Canada isn't a "labor threat" to the US like Mexico is. Labor is more expensive in Canada(well, depending on the exchange rate at the time), and they're on par with us technology/automation wise, so they're an "Apples to Apples" marketplace for us. As such, Trump is going to be playing softball with them, they're "not a threat" in the context of foreign trade//American Jobs.

Mexico on the other hand, is another matter entirely.

[Pete at Home]

Mexican president cancels Trump summit
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38760671

Canada and Mexico must unite, says Agustin Barrios Gomez
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trump-will-turn-on-canada-1.3952216

"I don't think appeasement is the way to go [for Canada]," he said, calling it "the Neville Chamberlain approach"

"I think it would be a grave mistake if Canada did not act on principle, because when you sacrifice your principles for short-term gain, you end up losing both," said Barrios Gomez.

"This is a threat to peace and prosperity in North America, just so we understand."

To avoid any reader confusion, Barrios Gomez is a nobody, and not the Mexican president.

Canada is going to be very sweet on Trump right now, since Trump's building a very controversial pipeline that Americans don't want, and that exists for Canada to sell oil to China.  I'm not sure what "principles" Barrios Gomez is speaking of.  Pride isn't a principle.  Despite NAFTA, amazing natural resources, a wonderful culture, and some of the hardest working people in world history, Mexico's government has been such a kleptocracy that its primary source of income comes from oppressing its poorest people and driving them north to send money back to their relatives. 

OTOH, I think the wall's not going to do what Trump supposes it will do, and President Pena Nieto was correct and perfectly respectful to cancel the conference after President Trump's tweet.  Pena Nieto states correctly albeit creatively that he was simply following Trump's request.  I'll add that this is the first act by Pena Nieto that I find admirable without qualifications.  Here, both presidents are doing their jobs, and this isn't an issue that can get resolved through negotiation.  What will happen is that Trump will ask Congress for legislation to take money that's being transferred to Mexico, in order to pay for the wall.  And that act, more than building the wall itself, could provide some remedy for out of control immigraton.

It would have been an excellent idea 10 years ago, but right now, I fear that Mexico is already on the verge of collapse.

[TheDeamon]

It would have been an excellent idea 10 years ago, but right now, I fear that Mexico is already on the verge of collapse.

As callous as it may be, in some respects, I'm inclined to say that may be a long-term benefit, depending on what else happens in association with it. The Mexican Government is simply hopelessly corrupt. But knowing the international community, and the track-record of the US itself as well in all of this. I'm inclined to think they're not going to "win" with a happy outcome in any case. Too much internal, and external pressure to remain a single nation.

Getting the illegal drug trade in hand within the US would help immensely however. The American drug habit has been one of the biggest and longest standing disruptive influences in Mexican society for generations now, and not just in Mexico, because of the power/money it grants to the cartels.

The long-standing joke has been about the only real positive outcome they potentially have to look forward to is that the United States resumes the practices of the the 19th Century and starts assimilating increasingly larger portions of Mexico once more. Sadly it may be less of a joke than the actual truth. The only issue there is the cultural and political assimilation aspects. We definitely wouldn't want to make an attempt at doing it wholesale in "one go."

Of course, the political reality of it also is that at this point I think the Republicans would seriously balk at the idea, given the voting history of Mexican-Americans. While the Democrats would likely object for other reasons. Which isn't to mention the furor that would happen on the international scene if the US started expanding its borders.

[Pete at Home]

That's what occurred to me when I read Pena Nieto's rhetoric about the wall "dividing us" rather than "uniting us."  You really wanna be part of the United States?    But they don't.  And most of America would not want them.  We're not that expanding country anymore.  Plus doing that would green light China and Russia to do the same.

[TheDeamon]

Plus doing that would green light China and Russia to do the same.

Yup, which is why I commented about the international side of that.

Although I do think the world is "due" for a round of redrawing national borders. Considering how many of those border were drawn in the first place, and the realities of the present era. Some of those borders just don't make sense. But hey, the dynamic for International Liberals that's in style is "no borders" rather than "different borders" so whatever.

[Pete at Home]

Plus doing that would green light China and Russia to do the same.

Yup, which is why I commented about the international side of that.

Although I do think the world is "due" for a round of redrawing national borders. Considering how many of those border were drawn in the first place, and the realities of the present era. Some of those borders just don't make sense. But hey, the dynamic for International Liberals that's in style is "no borders" rather than "different borders" so whatever.

But the world cannot afford the redrwlawing that China would take.  The Great Wall of Sand and the bottom-scraping fishing China is deploying in the area is murdering the planet, destroying the planet's ability it oxygenated and deacidify the oceans.

[cherrypoptart]

If Canada and Mexico want to have a free trade deal with each other then we should consider giving them an easement of sorts through America so they can transport their goods efficiently back and forth, for a nominal fee of course.

[TheDeamon]

If Canada and Mexico want to have a free trade deal with each other then we should consider giving them an easement of sorts through America so they can transport their goods efficiently back and forth, for a nominal fee of course.

Hey, I'm an American and I'm helping them transport those goods back and forth from Canada. So I'm one of the people very directly impacted by Trump rattling sabers on NAFTA.

And we already have provisions in place for such trade to happen, although NAFTA makes it easier for the border crossing I'm sure. Big part of that is they'd otherwise be getting assessed import/export fees for bringing into the US and again for moving it out. Instead they place the stuff "in bond" when it enters, and get the bond money back(less a fee) upon exit.

Most Mexican firms don't bother to operate north of their border, it will either be an American or Canadian from that point on. Equipment Regulatory compliance requirements, never mind other factors, tends to discourage them from bothering.

The only outlier in everything is California, because they have the strictest equipment (emissions) requirements of everyone, so sometimes not even the Canadians will bother going there, they'll get an American to move it out of California at the least.

[Pete at Home]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ryan-grim/nafta-and-the-drug-cartel_b_223705.html

During the first year of his administration, President Bill Clinton made free trade a top priority, pushing for the passage of the controversial North American Free Trade Agreement. It wasn’t an easy task. Having helped Democrats take the White House for the first time in twelve years, organized labor was in no mood to see manufacturing jobs shipped to Mexico.

The debate was difficult enough without having to talk about the sprawling Mexican drug trade and its attendant corruption. And how the agreement would also end up benefiting the cartels.
So he ordered his people not to talk about it.

“We were prohibited from discussing the effects of NAFTA as it related to narcotics trafficking, yes.” Phil Jordan, who had been one of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s leading authorities on Mexican drug organizations, told ABC News reporter Brian Ross four years after the deal had gone through. “For the godfathers of the drug trade in Colombia and Mexico, this was a deal made in narco heaven.”

The agreement squeaked through Congress in late 1993 and went into effect January 1, 1994, the same day that the Zapatistas rose up in southeast Mexico. With its passage, more than two million trucks began flowing northward across the border annually. Only a small fraction of them were inspected for cocaine, heroin, or meth.

Now NAFTA had presented Mexican cartels with one more unintended opportunity springing from U.S. policy. In a 1999 report, the White House estimated that commercial vehicles brought roughly 100 tons of cocaine into the country across the Mexican border in 1993. With NAFTA in effect, 1994 saw the biggest jump in commercial-vehicle smuggling on record—a 25 percent increase. The number of meth-related emergency-room visits in the United States doubled between 1991 and 1994. In San Diego, America’s meth capital, meth seizures climbed from 1,409 pounds in 1991 to 13,366 in 1994.

According to Huffington, NAFTA played in creating the modern Meth epidemic:

The return of meth—or, more precisely, the evolution of meth—was a throw-your-hands-up moment for drug warriors. Federal surveys show a long and slow decline in the use of amphetamines in the United States from 1981 to the early nineties. But between 1994 and 1995, meth use climbed in the United States. Among nineteen- to twenty-eight-year-olds in the Michigan survey, annual use ticked up by a third. (It remained lower, however, than the American media would have you believe: Even after the jump in meth use, only 1.2 percent of the survey’s total respondents admitted to using it.)

[TheDeamon]

The two are only tangentially inter-related. Most of Mexico's internal problems, in particular as it relates to Crime, has to do with the International Drug Trafficking Trade that leads into the United States.

None of which is NAFTA approved.

NAFTA just provided more chances for them to move the product across the border. Commercial trucks are great for that, as there are more chances and places to try to hide the stuff. I've read reports of the cartels packing trailer wheel axles with drugs before. And the wheel axle on an 18 wheeler is pretty big.

[Pete at Home]

The two are only tangentially inter-related. Most of Mexico's internal problems, in particular as it relates to Crime, has to do with the International Drug Trafficking Trade that leads into the United States.

None of which is NAFTA approved.

NAFTA just provided more chances for them to move the product across the border.

Well yes, that would account for the whole 25% increase within NAFTA's first year, and subsequent increase, neh?

Commercial trucks are great for that, as there are more chances and places to try to hide the stuff. I've read reports of the cartels packing trailer wheel axles with drugs before. And the wheel axle on an 18 wheeler is pretty big.

Sure, but with NAFTA, more trailers and vehicles coming across the border?

[TheDeamon]

Commercial trucks are great for that, as there are more chances and places to try to hide the stuff. I've read reports of the cartels packing trailer wheel axles with drugs before. And the wheel axle on an 18 wheeler is pretty big.

Sure, but with NAFTA, more trailers and vehicles coming across the border?

Yup. I was more trying to make clear that argument wasn't one I was making.

But yes, more traffic across the border means either devoting more resources so you can give each crossing the same amount of attention, or giving each crossing less attention on average, and thus increase the odds of an illegal shipment making it across the border. So more volume crossing for legal reasons means more chances for the illegal stuff to either cross with it(such as the packed axle, the driver doesn't need to be involved at all--he's just the poor guy pulling the trailer loaded with Legal goods as far as he knows), or to masquerade as a legal crossing in its own right(driver may or may not be involved--it is very common for Drivers(or ship/train crews) to transport loads across international borders without seeing what is in the trailer/container they're moving. All they know about it is what is on the cargo manifest).