PERSPECTIVE ON NAFTA : A ‘No’ Vote From the Front Lines : Areas already reeling from the impact of illegal immigration can’t afford the interim effects of this ‘long-term solution.’

I have spent considerable time looking into the proposed North American Free Trade Agreement, and I have come to the conclusion that, in its present form, it is a bad deal for the United States.

Being a border congressman, I understand that we must establish better working relations with Mexico. As neighbors, we have a great deal in common, but we need to develop closer educational, cultural and social links, as well as stronger economic ties. Only in the spirit of cooperation and collaboration can we solve the problems that face us on both sides of the 2,000-mile border we share. Yes, we need trade, but trade should improve life on both sides, not degrade it.

I cannot support NAFTA unless it includes environmental and labor protection, establishes a funding mechanism to clean up border pollution and improve infrastructure and addresses the issue of illegal immigration.

Some may criticize my desire for a comprehensive agreement--they will say that NAFTA is only a trade agreement and should not be looked on to solve all of our problems with Mexico. Others warn that NAFTA must be approved or Mexico will turn its back on the United States. The truth is that NAFTA is more than a simple trade agreement--it will set the foundation of our future economic, social and cultural relationship with Mexico. And since NAFTA is more than a simple trade agreement--since it is the marriage of our economies--other issues must be considered.

Much has already been said and written about the shortcomings of NAFTA as it affects labor and environmental standards. I will not go over those arguments again. But there is one issue that has been generally overlooked: NAFTA’s impact on illegal immigration.

Illegal immigration from Mexico is perhaps the most distressing problem confronting our two countries. When the maquiladora program started, bringing hundreds of assembly plants to border communities in Mexico, many people claimed that this would stem the tide of illegal immigration. In fact, it has only exacerbated the problem. People from all over Mexico are drawn to these factories; when they find the wages too low to support a family, they keep moving north, across the border and into the United States.

In defense of NAFTA, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari has said that it was his intention that Mexico export products, not people, to the United States. Yet this issue was purposefully excluded from NAFTA negotiations.

NAFTA proponents argue that in the long term, the treaty is the only solution to illegal immigration from Mexico. Yet both sides of the debate on NAFTA agree that in the short term--within the next five to 10 years--illegal immigration will increase.

A conservative estimate by a UCLA researcher sees 850,000 families working in Mexican agriculture displaced by NAFTA’s removal of government subsidies; 600,000 of those families are expected to make their way to the United States. If we assume four to five people per family, we can expect an increase in illegal immigration of 2.4 million to 3 million--in other words, we can expect illegal immigration to increase by as much as 100% if NAFTA is approved.

It is incredible that the most pressing issue affecting the United States and Mexico--and one of the most damaging side effects of NAFTA--was purposefully avoided during the negotiations.

The people I represent in my congressional district, which runs from San Diego south to the border, can personally attest to the many problems that accompany illegal immigration: crime, abuse and disregard of personal property, rising public-health costs, overcrowding in schools. If NAFTA is enacted, these problems will only get worse--and the costs to fix them, in both human and financial terms, will be staggering.

There are pressing needs on both sides of the border--housing, education, health care, infrastructure. Start addressing these--directly--together. Let the real needs of our people be the true object of our economic agreements--not a hoped-for side effect of a treaty that would merely make the world safe for multinational corporations.