Parting Shots on NAFTA : Latinos Will Prosper, and Not Just Financially : Apart from prosperity, this promises a historic breakthrough against myriad forms of discrimination.

On the central question--whether to embrace or to shun change--Latinos have little choice; we must embrace change if for no other reason than the status quo is unacceptable. Despite the fact that we “play by the rules,” Latinos already tend to be concentrated in dead-end jobs, earn the lowest wages of any identifiable ethnic group and are more likely than other workers to experience job dislocation.

But we should not embrace change without first preparing for it. In response to our concerns, the Clinton Administration has negotiated side agreements to NAFTA that promise to address the problems of dislocated workers, environmental degradation and unequal working conditions and wages on both sides of the border. I believe the Latino community can now enthusiastically and unequivocally endorse NAFTA.

There are other considerations, beyond the agreement itself, that make NAFTA a crucial issue for Latino support.

For those of us who have opposed discriminatory domestic immigration control policies, NAFTA is critical. Although researchers disagree as to whether NAFTA alone will reduce illegal immigration in the short term, everyone agrees that it is an absolute prerequisite for reducing long-term incentives for migration from Mexico.

We have a keen, mutual interest in promoting development of Mexico’s economy, in part because Latino entrepreneurs and workers here will benefit directly from increased trade. Indeed, for the first time in my lifetime, being bilingual and bicultural in Spanish is likely to be an advantage, rather than a disadvantage, in the labor market after NAFTA.

The financial and cultural integration of the U.S. and Mexican economies promises to have a profound positive effect on perceptions of Latinos. Our community currently suffers from an image problem; Latinos typically rank at the very bottom of opinion surveys that test the social “standing” of ethnic groups. It is my belief that this image problem is related to negative perceptions of our countries of origin; the fact that the United States has treated all Latin American countries as inferiors for the past 200 years has contributed greatly to negative stereotypes of Hispanic Americans. With NAFTA, the United States and Mexico have come to the table as equals; the passage of NAFTA, and the resulting economic and social integration will improve, in perhaps intangible but very important ways, the prestige and image of U.S. Latinos.

Furthermore, no one who understands Mexican politics believes that killing NAFTA can lead to the negotiation of a better agreement, improvements in Mexico’s human-rights record or further democratization of the Mexican political process. Indeed, many predict that a NAFTA defeat would send a shock wave through the Mexican economy and Mexican society.

And, since so much of anti-NAFTA rhetoric is implicitly or explicitly racist--the image of the “dirty Mexican” is as prevalent today in the NAFTA debate as it was when I was growing up in South Texas in the 1950s--NAFTA’s defeat holds the prospect for sending the message that the promotion of demeaning stereotypes is not just acceptable in public discourse, but it is also a sound political strategy.

NAFTA is a substantively modest, but symbolically bold step toward a new, more prosperous and equitable future for all Americans. Latinos have both an obligation and an opportunity to help guide our country toward that future.