United States And The Maquiladoras Program

As America begins to grow, we see an expansion of industrializations. For Mexicans trying to provide food and shelter to their families this meant an

The extraordinary Mexican migration that delivered millions of immigrants to the United States over the past century is one difficult to ignore. At times the border did not exist, however in more recent times the US has created policies to curb Mexican migration into the states. The relationship the US has with it’s southern neighbor has always been a complicated one. Both countries have a relationship like no other two countries in this world, in which depending on the time period is a give and take relationship. Each group of immigrants have their own story about coming to America, but none quite like the stories of Mexican immigrants. The Bracero Program, planted the seeds of Mexican migration between 1942 and 1964. An estiminated 4 million of Mexican men were contracted to work in the United States as part of a war effort called the Bracero Program.Of the millions U.S. Mexicans, who self-identified as being of Mexican, trace their family’s arrival to the United States to a Bracero.Cheap and foreign labor has always played an important role in the development of agriculture in the United States. And for the first time, an official program for migrant farm workers was developed and Mexican ‘Braceros’ - Bracero loosely translates into “arms”- flocked to the United States in order to harvest crops. The most important concept to understand about the Bracero Program, was that these men were not seen as humans, but instead as commodities that should be

On one perspective, the Maquiladoras compete with Americans for these jobs. Capitalists want the Maquiladoras because they are cheaper labor than the American workers. The capitalists also would have more regulations on labor and would have more taxes if they used the American workers.

maquiladoras were required to locate within 20 miles of an international border or coastline, but to this day the regulation of the maquiladora industries have change a tremendous amount.. In 2000, 57% of the adult population lived in the capital region, in which Mexico City is located, or in surrounding central states. During the 1990s, the share of the population in the border region, in which most maquiladoras are located, rose slightly from 17% to 18%. This small increase in the border population is remarkable, given the dramatic growth in maquiladora employment and in the population of large cities, such as Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez, that occurred in the region. Border employment has grown primarily through firms attracting workers from

Maquiladoras are factories in Mexico that are foreign-owned and their products do to countries outside Mexico. The maquiladora addressed in the paper by Morales et al., (2012) refers to a chemical plant in the city of Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. This city borders El Paso, Texas (2012, p.1). This plant called “Solvay” (p. 5) is a large producer of hydrofluoric acid (p. 6). This acid is used by countries all around the world for the productions of pharmaceuticals, high-octane gasoline, and refrigerants (p. 6). This acid is corrosive and toxic. The fumes from this acid can “be fatal” (p.10). Although Solvay is located in Mexico it does not provide much to the community except low-skilled labour and an increase in exports (p.8). In other words, a large part of the benefits are taken by the multinational company who owns the plant and the locals are set to take on most of the risk.

The border region has seen “rapid transformation in a short span of time, changing from a cattle ranching and mining area that attracted U.S., Mexican and European capitalists…to the center of a lucrative vice and pleasure-based tourist industry, to a region that …attracted an extraordinary amount of international capital to its manufacturing and services sector”. (Ganster/Lorey 2) Events and years such as the implementation of the railroad, the years before the Mexican Revolution, the land reform in 1936 and 1937, the implementation of the maquiladora program and the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had a significant impact on the U.S. Mexican Borderlands.

As a major contributor to the global economy, Mexico’s sweatshops have contributed to the United States’ wealth and economic growth. It is the unfortunate truth that many individual workers have suffered as a result of this prosperity. The sweatshops, known as maquiladoras, are in debate because of the ethical and lawful reasoning behind their existence and conditions. How can we, as a First-world nation, allow such industries to exist where people are denied basic and fundamental human rights? What, if any, laws and regulations are put into place for the maquiladoras? Are these laws and regulations hindering, harmful, or helpful? Are they enforced emphatically? If not, how does this affect development? After

Many Mexican workers lost their jobs when the U.S. program ended, and with the sweep of globalization moving throughout these neighboring countries, “maquiladoras were to provide an employment alternative in the manufacturing sector” for these unemployed agricultural workers (Gruben 12). Although the concept of the maquiladoras was centered on the positive idea of stimulating industrialization in Mexico and developing a mutually beneficial economic partnership with the United States, with the failures associated with NAFTA, maquiladoras are costing American manufacturing jobs while immensely decreasing the standard of living in a rapidly-polluted Mexico. Rather than creating binational economic prosperity, NAFTA has made it possible for many American manufacturers to conveniently cross the border lines into Mexico to take advantage of the plummeting labor costs, exploit defenseless workers who are unaware of their rights, and destroy Mexico’s seemingly disconnected environment, obliviously thinking that it will not be a detriment to their own as water and air pollution travels freely into the United States.

way, and then ships them back to the United States – perhaps for more processing. The

Mexican dependence on the U.S. is notable. After the failure of the drive to diversify trade patterns in the 1970s and eighties (the local equivalent of Canada's Third Option policy), a 'realist' approach began to mark the nation's traditional nationalist and protectionist economy. From opposition to excessive U.S. dependence, Mexico moved to welcome it as inevitable. With time, the Mexican economy became even more dependent on the United States than the Canadian economy.2

According to Pop, Res, Dev p 6-11 of the United Nations development is defined as the "Improvement in human welfare, quality of life, social well being. Satisfying the population's needs and wants. Measured using a range of socio-economic indicators".The socio-economic indicator of the measure of development of my choosing is Gross Domestic product (GDP). As "GNP per capita is the most used indicator of development'"(Harpercollege.edu, 2017).

However, to answer the question ‘what is development?’ is not simple. Development is contentious and ill-defined meaning different things to different people. Some scholars claim that development is a state or a short-term outcome of a desired goal. Szirman (1999), for instance, claims that development is a state of economic growth, while Bellu (2011) from the FAO defines development as a state of improvement, which can include economic, social and territorial improvement. According to these theorists, development is results-based as it is determined by

Generally, the word development is always linked to the concept of economic growth, but this is not necessarily true. The well-being of the members of society is more important than economic resources. Therefore, development ultimately consists on expanding people’s opportunities to live a dignified life based on better health, education, employment and political freedoms. Development is inherently political because it represents society’s most important goods.

Firstly, development can be seen as progress and growth which builds over time at both societal and individual levels. There are also three senses in which the word

According to an economist the idea of development is a situation whereby there is an increase in a nations GNP and GDP, leading to an increase in growth .but to a sociologist this is a surface definition as development or rather a country is regarded as developed when such increase is affecting the living condition of its people even to the smallest group in the society. Where we don’t only calculate numbers and figures and structures but can see the positive change of things in the life of the people, both the rich, average and poor. Then such a society would be regarded as developed. For example the living conditions of the USA.