U.S. Latinos Speak Up on Free Trade Accord

Local Latino leaders have served notice that they want a voice in the debate over the proposed U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement, and they are calling for specifics regarding the pact, which could have profound implications on both sides of the border.

The accord, already in effect between the United States and Canada, would remove tariffs and other trade barriers among the three North American countries. The addition of Mexico to the agreement has been hailed by business officials and President Bush and Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari as a means of creating jobs in both nations.

Until recently, the proposal had drawn relatively little public discussion among U.S. Latinos, except for several business organizations that have endorsed it and a few groups that have questioned its impact on immigration and the environment.

Now, however, Latino community leaders are becoming more active in the debate, either in support of the proposal, in opposition, or in calling for more detailed information of how the free trade agreement would work.

A Los Angeles Times Poll in September reflected an uncertainty about the free trade proposal, with 50% of U.S. Latinos saying they did not know enough about the plan to take a position. Meanwhile, 38% of Latinos supported the agreement and 12% opposed it. These figures are similar to results from all Americans that showed 29% in support, 16% in opposition and 55% not sure.

One of the biggest questions, according to Latinos attending a recent free trade conference at Rio Hondo Community College, is whether the trade pact will create the new jobs and other benefits its supporters promise.

They say thousands of U.S. workers might lose their jobs if American companies move to Mexico for cheap labor, while thousands in Mexico could lose their jobs if U.S. imports flood Mexican markets. They also are unsure of the effects on immigration and worry about harm to the environment if U.S. firms move south to escape this country’s stricter regulations.

Antonio Gonzalez, of the Southwest Voter Research Institute, said the conference, which was sponsored by his organization, was designed to foster a “vigorous debate” to “guarantee that Latinos, especially Mexicanos and Chicanos, will not be harmed and indeed will benefit from free trade.”

Andrew Hernandez, president of the Southwest Voter Research Institute, said that with “85% of our people in the working class,” Latino leaders must ask whether the trade agreement will “improve the material lot of the great majority of Latinos.”

U.S., Mexican and Canadian officials are negotiating terms of a North America trade agreement, which would link all three countries in one of the world’s largest free trade zones. Congress earlier this year granted the Bush Administration authority to negotiate the pact on a “fast-track” process, under which Congress can either approve or reject the trade agreement but cannot amend it.

Bush, in an interview with Latino reporters Sept. 19, said a free trade pact would mean “more jobs on both sides of the Rio Grande. . . . I’m convinced that a more prosperous Mexico is better for the (U.S.) worker.”

Raul Hinojosa, a UCLA assistant professor of political economy, said he has attended dozens of conferences on the free trade issue, but the Rio Hondo gathering was one of the first to bring a spectrum of Latino leaders together.

Others said Bush, who has invited Latino business leaders to the White House to seek their support on free trade, has not made an effort to involve a wide range of Latino viewpoints and obtain grass-roots comment.

According to Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, Latino groups “have been left behind in the discussion, and not by the Mexican government but by our own government.”

Salinas met recently with Mexican-American and Mexican community leaders in Los Angeles as part of his effort to promote the free trade pact.

In response to concerns voiced at that meeting about the agreement, Salinas promised that El Colegio de Mexico, a top Mexican university, will undertake a study regarding the labor effects on U.S. Latinos in the border states. Mexican Secretary of Commerce Jaime Jose Serra Puche said at the Rio Hondo meeting that the study would be done in coordination with a U.S. think tank or university.

Molina said, however, that there has been “no one, on the U.S. side,” coming to Los Angeles and trying to find out how the trade agreement would affect jobs and immigration here.

Los Angeles City Councilman Mike Hernandez said one of his concerns was the effect of the trade agreement on the many immigrants in his district.

Hernandez said he does not support the agreement as presently constituted because it would force “those who have not” to compete more with each other for fewer entry-level jobs in the Los Angeles area if U.S. companies move to Mexico. He said the agreement needs to ensure that “the rules will be the same on both sides of the border” regarding labor laws, the environment and other issues.

“Nobody came to us in the beginning and said, ‘How will this affect you?’ ” Hernandez said.

Groups such as the Los Angeles-based Latin Business Assn. and the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce support the agreement, but many others either support it only conditionally or say they have too little information to take a position.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, for example, says it has four major areas of concern: job retraining for workers who lose their jobs, the elimination of “restrictive” immigration laws, development designed to raise wages in Mexico, and strict enforcement of environmental laws.

The potential effect on immigration is one of the big unanswered questions, according to Juan Jose Gutierrez, executive director of the One Stop Immigration and Educational Center.

Gutierrez says supporters contend that the agreement will slow migration from Mexico to the United States by creating more Mexican jobs. But any slowdown will be a long time coming, Gutierrez said, as long as the causes, such as higher U.S. wages, continue to “generate mass migration into the United States from Mexico.”

According to UCLA’s Hinojosa, immigration trends and the trade pact’s other effects would depend on how the agreement is ultimately structured. He said it could produce positive results, such as the opening in July of A T & T’s state-of-the-art, 1,500-worker manufacturing plant in Guadalajara.

But it also could devastate corn-growing communities in Mexico, Hinojosa said. One of his studies showed that 750,000 Mexican families would have no way of making a living if U.S. corn is permitted to flood their markets.

Such a scenario would drive hundreds of thousands more workers into Southern California’s migrant labor pool, Hinojosa said. One way to avoid such problems would be to phase out trade restrictions slowly, he said.

Hinojosa said he hopes to conduct further studies on the trade proposal, including how it would affect low-paying manufacturing operations in Los Angeles.

Raul Pardo, a councilman from South El Monte, said his city, which has about 2,500 manufacturing and industrial firms, has already lost jobs as many furniture-makers have moved to Mexico to escape environmental regulations. Pardo said any free trade agreement should include training for workers who lose their jobs because of it.

U.S. Rep. Esteban Torres (D-La Puente), also voiced concern about jobs, telling the conference, “We want to ensure that our people do not lose jobs due to the low wages or the environmental laws that are not enforced (in Mexico).”

According to Raymond A. Hernandez, chairman of the international trade committee of the Latin Business Assn., the trade pact would mean more jobs in the United States “because, as our companies grow, we will create our own jobs for our own people.”

Hernandez said the business association supports the agreement, but those who are worried about lost jobs and other issues should “get involved and try to mold the free trade agreement so that we all get a piece of the pie.”

Rudy Acuna, a professor of Chicano studies at Cal State Northridge, said, “I don’t think it’s in the interests of our people to have the free trade agreement as it’s presently constituted,” Acuna said. “There needs to be a questioning process, and I don’t think there is a questioning process right now.”

The conference drew supporters of many causes, including human rights advocates who said any agreement should be linked to assurances that Mexico will curb rights abuses.

But Molina said there is a limit to the number of issues that can realistically be linked to the proposal. “I’m not so sure that you can attach everything to it,” Molina said. “You’re going to load it up so that this kite is never going to fly.”

The supervisor said that although Latino leaders have entered the discussion late, there is still time “to get our issues on the table.”

Latino leaders must “maximize the debate,” build a consensus and “formulate a strategy as to how to have an impact on this agreement,” Molina said.

Free Trade

Opinions on whether the United States and Mexico should establish a free trade agreement.

In U.S.

In favor: 29%

Oppose: 16%

Not sure: 55%

U.S. Latino

In favor: 38%

Oppose: 12%

Not sure: 50%

In Mexico

In favor: 61%

Oppose: 15%

Not sure: 24%

Source: Los Angeles Times Poll surveys conducted in the United States and Mexico last September.