 |
 |
 |
 |
|
and the U.S. Among the key selling points of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was the notion that the economic benefits of treaty's passage would slow Mexico-US migration. Whatever the ultimate extent of NAFTA's economic consequences, it is argued here that the treaty's implementation will stimulate more migration than it will stem. This is because neither the quality nor the quantity of the NAFTA-induced jobs on the Mexican side, the key ingredient in the migration-supression hypothesis, will be sufficient to deter many northern bound labor migrants. In addition, the economic integration process itself will entail job-losses in Mexico that will stimulate increased migration. On balance, therefore, outmigration will increase, rather than decrease. Despite this prediction, it is also argued here that Michigan,
while sure to remain among the states most actively involved
in financial dealings with Mexico, is not likely to be among
the major receivers of the enhanced migration streams. Michigan
will host little increased migration because most such migrants
are likely to enter via existing trajectories which currently
funnel large numbers of migrants. The best data available suggest
that very little direct immigration from Mexico is currently
steered toward Michigan. For example, the Mexican-origin population
in the state grew at a very low rate during the 1980s, a decade
of record Mexican immigration, and only a portion of this growth
could have been due to migration. Indeed, in absolute terms,
the state's Mexican-origin population grew faster in the 1970s
than the 1980s, and it is likely that the portion of the growth
due to migration came largely from other parts of the US, rather
than from Mexico. Hardcopy Price: $3.00
|
|
|
 |
For more information, contact: |
