Timothy Birdnow

I generally agree with essays I see at The Federalist Patriot, but here is one I just couldn't stomach a bit. Seems one Lewis Morris is arguing for the U.S. to remain in NAFTA and in fact not really renegotiate it, despite what Donald Trump promised.

For example:

"Scrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was one of Trump’s campaign promises although congressional Republicans and many members of the business community caution against such a move. An open letter to Trump from over 300 state and local chambers of commerce last October pointed out that NAFTA is responsible for 14 million jobs and $3.3 billion in trade on a daily basis." End excerpt.

So what? The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many local chambers have also been advocating for unrestrained illegal immigration and amnesty for millions who have already invaded our country. Just because some business interests don't want to change back to the way things were doesn't mean it is a bad thing for the country. Oh, and in case everyone has forgotten, a large swath of the medical community and insurance companies supported Obamacare and fight against repeal even now, despite the fact that it is failing and a terrible deal for most Americans. There is nothing conservative about sticking with the stinking just because we've had it for a few years.

Morris continues:

"The auto industry alone could face the loss of over 50,000 jobs if the U.S. were to walk away from NAFTA. As it stands now, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer wants to tighten the rules of origin provision for autos, requiring that cars crossing the borders duty-free be 85% NAFTA made, up from the current 62.5%. He also wants to add a clause that requires these cars to be 50% U.S. made. Neither Mexico nor Canada are likely to agree to this change, which is likely a Trump-style "overreaching” negotiating chip"

End excerpt.

What is this loss of jobs business based on? The author fails to give his source. I would also point out that it is counter-intuitive that we would lose jobs by requiring more imter Nafta vehicles be purchased when we import cars; that is to stop foreign competitors from dumping in Canada or Mexico to circumvent our quota system. Foreign dumping costs jobs by any reasonable measure.

He also argues:

"...Farm products sent to Mexico and Canada have quadrupled since the beginning of NAFTA, and they currently account for a third of all U.S. farm exports. Leaving the agreement would bring a sharp rise in duties on American poultry and wheat, among other items...."

So now I suppose Mexico and Canada are going to start importing from, say, Asia? Those exports are going to continue, but at a fair price and with imports not being dumped on us.

Look around and see how many vegetable farmers you find in middle America. Few, right. Why? Because we are bringing all these imported vegetables and fruits from Mexico, that's why. Outside of California nobody bothers to grow produce because they can't compete with what's coming from south of the border. But that is only because the NAFTa allows Mexico to undercut us, and so American farmers don't grow these items. That would change if we were to actually buy our own produce.

Yes, we can sell more grain or meats, but at less than what we would get if we were supplying our own needs. And we become dependent on other countries for many items. That was the whole point of NAFTA, to be the seed for a future North American Union modeled on the European Union which started as a steel entente between Germany and France and grew into a the Common Market. The globalist wanted to do this same thing with NAFTA, get us dependent on each other.

The author also fails to take into account the sharp population increases since NAFTA was put into effect; between 2000 and 2010 Mexico's population grew 15%, from 97.362 million
to 112.337 million. Between 2010 and 2012 it grew to 114,975,406! During the '90's their growth rate was a whopping 20%! Such massive population growth means you either have a growing economy or you are in big, big trouble. And that is just Mexico; in the U.S. the population grew at an all time high 32.7 million people. Plus we took in millions of illegal aliens from Mexico, alleviating their poverty problems. Between 2011 and 2016 Canada's population grew by 1.7 million, a pretty fast rate given the low population of our northern neighbor. The fact is, population growth has as much to do with the increase in economic activity as anything, not NAFTA.

If anything, our open border policy and NAFTA have worked to drastically increase the population of all three countries, and I do not think that is a good thing. Mexico cannot feed her poor, so they dump them on us. Canada does fine, but Canada is being filled by immigrants too, and many from Islamic hellholes. Population growth is good for getting new taxpayers, but do we really want a country that is stuffed to the rafters with people, especially when we have trouble assimilating them?

The U.S. is the third most populous country on Earth, I might add. And we are the second largest Spanish speaking nation, believe it or not. That is a bad thing long-term because it means we are losing our culture and traditions and fracturing into an empire, much like the Austro-Hungarian empire. Everybody hated the Hapsburg monster when it existed, and few shed tears with the breakup. America will wind up in the same boat.

Mr. Morris concludes:

"The American economy has grown significantly under Trump, but much of that progress could be undone by walking away from NAFTA or by altering it too much."

End excerpt.

Immediate economic growth is not the end game; long term sustainable growth is, and that can only come from a solid market-based economy and a strong nation. NAFTA may have given us some temporary growth, but at the expense of Americans in so many ways; manufacturing jobs, mining, agriculture, all of those things that paid the average American well. And in the process we've been invaded by millions of people with little connection to our culture or heritage and no intention of really joining us. It is not a long-term solution. NAFTA was a solution in search of a problem when Bill Clinton imposed it on us, and it is a problem needing a solution now. If we are a sovereign nation we shouldn't be so entangled with foreign powers, especially a third wolrd basket case like Mexico.

Nobody is calling for protectionism, or for rebuilding America as a merchantilist market, but we do need to set some boundaries because we are simply being absorbed into the Borg collective. I would argue we will be more prosperous and successful by promoting our own interests rather than carrying everyone else, which is what we have been doing.

I say Trump needs to keep his promise and pull us out of this trojan horse agreement as soon as possible.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:36 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 1200 words, total size 7 kb.