Debate Info

Debate Score:20
Total Votes:31
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph

Debate Creator

joecavalry(38104) pic

Could NAFTA be America's answer to the EU?

Staying alive

5% of the world's population consumes 30% of the world's resources. This cannot be sustained. Sooner or later the rest of the world will want a share of those resources.

The EU is growing in strength and so is China. This can be the demise of the U.S. unless the U.S. can get cheap labor, lower its debt and starts producing again. NAFTA may allow the U.S. to do just that. But is it too little too late? Only time will tell.

Add New Argument
4 points

Only if it was just Canada and the USA. Mexico is so corrupt that I don't really think they could be of service in any other way than selling drugs to other nations. And I know that it isn't Mexico that is selling the drugs, rather the drug lords who take refuge in Mexico, but the Mexican government would be doing the opposite of helping us out until they get their country all sorted out first.

Side: Canada and USA No Mexico
Loudacris(912) Disputed
0 points

I think Mexico is going to turn out to be a crucial part of the equation. Read this excerpt from The World is Flat by Tom Friedman:

"Mexico, on paper, seemed perfectly positioned to thrive in a flat world. It was right next door to the biggest, most powerful economy in the world. It signed a free-trade agreement with the United States and Canada in the 1990s and was poised to be a springboard to Latin America for both these huge economies. And it had a valuable natural resource in oil, which accounted for more than a third of government income."

"China, by contrast, was thousands of miles away, burdened by overpopulation, with few natural resources, with its best labor crowded onto a coastal plain, and with a burdensome debt legacy from fifty years of Communist rule. Ten years ago, if you took the names off these two countries and just gave someone their profiles, he surely would have bet on Mexico. And yet China has replaced Mexico as the second-largest exporter of goods into the United States. And there is a general sense, even among Mexicans, that even though China is thousands of miles away from America, it is growing closer to America economically, while Mexico, right on America's border, is becoming thousands of miles away."

"I am by no means writing Mexico off. Mexico, in the fullness of time, may turn out to be the slow-but-sure tortoise to China's hare. China still has a huge political transition to get through, which could derail it at any moment. Moreover, Mexico has many entrepreneurs who are as Chinese as the most entrepreneurial Chinese. Mexico would not have exported $138 billion worth of goods to the United States in 2003 if that were not the case. And you have many rural Chinese who are no more advanced or productive than rural Mexicans. But on balance, when you add it all up, the fact is that China has become the hare and Mexico has not, even though Mexico seemed to start with so many more natural advantages when the world went flat. Why?"

Supporting Evidence: The World is Flat (
Side: Mexicans to the rescue
-1 points

We need the cheap labor.

Side: Mexicans to the rescue
0 points

We do indeed. Unfortunately, many Americans only see the costs, not the benefits, of allowing labor to move as freely as goods do. When the Irish began to arrive on our shores and began working on the cheap, there were complaints that general wages would drop and that it would ruin the economy. Similar complaints were directed towards the Italians, blacks who migrated north after the Civil War, etc. But despite the accelerated immigration of the early 20th century, the U.S. saw major economic progress until the Great Depression came on due to factors that few economists would probably attribute to immigration. Today, many Mexican immigrants are, unfortunately, receiving the same treatment as was doled out to many of our own ancestors, and for the same reasons. This is not to say that there aren't some economic problems that arise from immigration. On the whole, though, I suspect that history may be inviting us to consider its many lessons regarding the benefits of individual liberty.


For one, there are some massive differences between the European Union and NAFTA:

1. The EU is a transnational government whose policies are enforced onto its constituent Republics.

2. The EU allows almost free mobilization of the populations within it. Immigration and Emigration are allowed freely.

3. NAFTA is a simple free-trade agreement; one policy. The EU is a government that produces policies.

4. The EU has a single currency; NAFTA does not unify currencies.

5. The EU acts as a socializing agency, it uses government money to fund programs, give grants, and aid economic development; NAFTA simply allows Capitalists free reign to invest and industrialize.

NAFTA is going to collapse; the benefits it promised have not been realized and a wave of sympathy and guilt has been spreading among the middle classes. It is no longer okay for American companies to ship jobs away from adult working-class Americans to Caribbean and Mexican children; from union industries to places where workers are abused, silenced, paid pennies on the dollar, and murdered so our shoes can cost a few dollars less (Or, in the case of designer goods, the same high price anyways).

Secondly; NAFTA, if it survives, will never be able to bring about the mobility the European Union has provided. The United States is obsessed with security, protecting its culture, and has an acute distrust, dislike, even hatred of Mexicans. Few Americans want an open border with Mexico; no Democrat has suggested it and most liberals would rather see a relaxation of security, not a free-for-all.

There will never be a single currency for the United States, Mexico, Canada, and the Caribbean. None of the members would benefit; the dollar is too weak, the peso is worthless, and the Canadians are already fed up with the results of the current Free Trade zone's failures to benefit their citizens in any appreciable way.

Side: NAFTA is a Failure

And I thought NAFTA did allow for workers to cross over freely.

But what about the Amero?

Maybe we'll join the EU to counter the Chinese.

Americans aren't obsessed with protecting its culture, nor do they have an acute distrust, dislike, even hatred of Mexicans. Americans just don't want to see their standard of living decline.

Side: NAFTA is a Failure
2 points

Isn't NAFTA like a bad thing? Because it allows more illegal supplies to cross our national borders afterall. So like, in the end, shouldn't we temporarily disband NAFTA until some countries (Mexico) get under control? and if we kick out Mexico, then it wouldn't be NAFTA anymore, it'd be something like NNAFTA (Northern North American Free Trade Agreement) or NAFTANCM (North American Free Trade Agreemen Not Counting Mexico)?

Side: Canada and USA No Mexico

To do:

Find articles on the web that explain how NAFTA may help get the U.S. out of it's financial problems and maintain its supremacy in the years to come.

Side: Canada and USA No Mexico

Yeah this is the argument for the North American Union which will come from NAFTA and the Security and Protection Partnership. The sad truth is that the way things are being set up right now we may have no choice but to save our "lifestyle" with the Amero and the Union of North America. America won't ever be a producer like it was. Our economy is being setup to mostly export media and I guess what one could call culture. We'll never have a problem with food in the US compared with the rest of the world.

The Euro will have a time of slightly dominance until we see the emergence of the other regional currencies. The Union of South America, which exists now by the way, is talking about their own regional currency as well.

Side: Canada and USA No Mexico