Among the key selling points of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was the notion that the economic benefits of treaty's passage would slow Mexico-US migration. Whatever the ultimate extent of NAFTA's economic consequences, it is argued here that the treaty's implementation will stimulate more migration than it will stem. This is because neither the quality nor the quantity of the NAFTA-induced jobs on the Mexican side, the key ingredient in the migration-supression hypothesis, will be sufficient to deter many northern bound labor migrants. In addition, the economic integration process itself will entail job-losses in Mexico that will stimulate increased migration. On balance, therefore, outmigration will increase, rather than decrease. Despite this prediction, it is also argued here that Michigan, while sure to remain among the states most actively involved in financial dealings with Mexico, is not likely to be among the major receivers of the enhanced migration streams. Michigan will host little increased migration because most such migrants are likely to enter via existing trajectories which currently funnel large numbers of migrants. The best data available suggest that very little direct immigration from Mexico is currently steered toward Michigan. For example, the Mexican-origin population in the state grew at a very low rate during the 1980s, a decade of record Mexican immigration, and only a portion of this growth could have been due to migration. Indeed, in absolute terms, the state's Mexican-origin population grew faster in the 1970s than the 1980s, and it is likely that the portion of the growth due to migration came largely from other parts of the US, rather than from Mexico.