North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA

HumanEventsOnline ^ | May 30, 2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[NapkinUser]

In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Econom�Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernaci󮠃arlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.

Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.

This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.

And again, the June 2005 SPP report stresses:

The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.

Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.

What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.

Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.”

The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”

The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)

The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:

Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)

What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:

While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.

The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)

Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Kelo was a finding by the Court that there was no FEDERAL interest in the property seizure by the city of New London and that such things were matters to be handled under STATE constitutions. It was nothing new or unusual since most of these seizures ARE entirely state and local matters. What is interesting is that precisely those who typically DEMAND that the feds stay out of local concerns are the ones getting hysterical about this case. Nothing to do with CFR.

Our southern borders are NOT and will NOT be a threat for terrorism and have nothing to do with CFR. Naturally the Illegalaphobes cannot even recognize the REAL danger and that is the Northern border. Only an idiot would try and sneak in from Mexico where there is a 1 in 3 chance of getting caught. They will come in from Canada which harbors thousands of terrorist sympathizers and where there is almost NO chance of getting caught.

The Trans Texas Corridor is a transportation project designed to improve transportation in Texas. Nothing to do with any conspiracy.

Punta Colonet is a project to build a new city and port in Baja California nothing to do with CFR. One would think that even Illegalaphobes would like to see Mexico devolop and modernize and reduce the pressure to emigrate to the US. But noooooo not when there is crackpotism to spread.

The last phrase has no meaning since the object of both bills is to reform imigration policy. Neither have anything to do with CFR.

[justshutupandtakeit]

If you are willing to accept the assumptions used by peoples you can "prove" anything. Does anyone REALLY believe that study? Or do you just WANT to believe it?

[hedgetrimmer]

However, there is no doubt who are the ones clamoring in the streets about "Globalists" and they are NOT conservatives or even pretend conservatives.

Clearly Hegelian synthesis is used in this example to coerce the independents into a predetermined globalist outcome.

[hedgetrimmer]

The Trans Texas Corridor is a transportation project designed to improve transportation in Texas

Wrongo. It is a significant link in the Western HEMISPHERIC multimodal transportation system. Like the transcontinental railway, this project is important--a transhemipsheric highway system can also be used to integrate the United States politically, socially and economically with the corrupt, communist, socialist and poverty stricken countries south of here.

[calcowgirl]

If you are willing to accept the assumptions used by peoples you can "prove" anything.

I don't understand your comment. "assumptions used by peoples"?

Does anyone REALLY believe that study? Or do you just WANT to believe it?

Have you read it? What is not to believe? You don't think the millions of illegals here today will bring some family? You don't think the increases in legal immigration limits will result in more immigration? What do you find unbelievable? What assumptions do you find unrealistic?

[hedgetrimmer]

Our southern borders are NOT and will NOT be a threat for terrorism . If you are willing to accept the assumptions used by peoples you can "prove" anything. Does anyone REALLY believe that? Or do you just WANT to believe it?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Look I have read this stuff for DECADES and started looking at that from the TLC back in the 70s. It has had NO more impact than the studies and position papers of other groups which believe they have good ideas about how things should work. Often these groups are the ONLY ones taking a long term approach to policy. Business often has a very short time line as do politicians.

Some of the CFR positions are good some are not but NONE are automatically or even likely to become policy.

"Elites" do not make policy in the US that generally comes from whatever hysteria is sweeping the electorate at points of decision. From the very beginning the demagogues and Know-Nothings have railed against "elites" controlling things. In ALMOST EVERY case it has been bullshit. Washington was an "elitist" because he was a Mason, Hamilton was an "elitist" because he proposed a National Bank, Masons were "elitists" because they had secret ritual. All BUNK.

I don't see any real "discussion" here just vague speculation heavily larded with nonsense. And "sourcing" an argument with crackpot ideas and "facts" from those who have NO credibility does no good. Such arguments are no better than using the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion to "support" the claim that Jews control the world.

If your posts are from people without credibility all that can be expected is hilarity. Take one issue, the creation of the Federal Reserve, but do not expect the opinions of that wacky Congressman McFadden to have any impact. Now all I could do would be to point out that it had been demanded for three decades by the Populists in the West totally resisted by the big Eastern banks. But they changed their tune and supported its formation by 1913. This is claimed by the conspiracists to show a conspiracy by the Eastern Banks. But it WAS NOT their idea at all.

[justshutupandtakeit]

LoL, clearly so.

[Smartass]

"Kelo was a finding by the Court that there was no FEDERAL interest in the property seizure by the city of New London and that such things were matters to be handled under STATE constitutions. It was nothing new or unusual since most of these seizures ARE entirely state and local matters. What is interesting is that precisely those who typically DEMAND that the feds stay out of local concerns are the ones getting hysterical about this case. Nothing to do with CFR."

That'a what think.  The usurption of the Constitution by SCOTUS, by just one word was to far reaching to just affect Kelo.  The Trans-Texas Corridor will cross five states, where it will eventually tie into the Trans Canadian Highway.   Lots, and lots of land to be condemned for just Texas.  The CFR is directly related to EVERY GLOBAL OPERATION, including that one.   

"Our southern borders are NOT and will NOT be a threat for terrorism and have nothing to do with CFR. Naturally the Illegalaphobes cannot even recognize the REAL danger and that is the Northern border. Only an idiot would try and sneak in from Mexico where there is a 1 in 3 chance of getting caught. They will come in from Canada which harbors thousands of terrorist sympathizers and where there is almost NO chance of getting caught."

"Our southern borders are NOT and will NOT be a threat for terrorism."  Bad answer.  You didn't do your homework.   Middle Easterners have already been apprehended on both sides of the border.  

"The Trans Texas Corridor is a transportation project designed to improve transportation in Texas. Nothing to do with any conspiracy."

NOT TRUE.  Why is it then, begining at Laredo, Texas.  When, and who hatched it? 

"Punta Colonet is a project to build a new city and port in Baja California nothing to do with CFR. One would think that even Illegalaphobes would like to see Mexico devolop and modernize and reduce the pressure to emigrate to the US. But noooooo not when there is crackpotism to spread".

NOT TRUE AGAIN.  The purpose of Punta Colonet is to eventually close, relocate ALL container operations in the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, and San Francisco.  Again, you didn't do you homework.  And yes, the Tri Lateralists, and CFR are very much in the mix.

 

The last phrase has no meaning since the object of both bills is to reform imigration policy. Neither have anything to do with CFR.

[justshutupandtakeit]

World trade integrates all countries. The portion in Texas of the project states its purpose and has nothing to do with CFR or any conspiracy unless you fear capitalist planning for economic needs to be a conspiracy.

Now you fear roads, railways, airlines, shipping? I guess the modern world is just too frightful for you shrinking violets.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Cranking up a model assuming certain parameters and letting the computer run iterations and extrapolations can be fun. However, let us not put uncritical faith in such things.

The Heritage paper should get the same critical evaluation you would give one which came to the opposite conclusion. If you do this I do not believe you will honestly accept the claim that another 100 millions will come here. Not even in 20 years.

[Smartass]

"The last phrase has no meaning since the object of both bills is to reform imigration policy. Neither have anything to do with CFR."

The below article speaks for itself.

---

Source:

click here

 

Sovereignty and globalisation

Author:	Richard N. Haass, President

February 17, 2006
Project Syndicate

The world’s 190-plus states now co-exist with a larger number of powerful non-sovereign and at least partly (and often largely) independent actors, ranging from corporations to non-government organisations (NGOs), from terrorist groups to drug cartels, from regional and global institutions to banks and private equity funds. The sovereign state is influenced by them (for better and for worse) as much as it is able to influence them. The near monopoly of power once enjoyed by sovereign entities is being eroded.

As a result, new mechanisms are needed for regional and global governance that include actors other than states. This is not to argue that Microsoft, Amnesty International, or Goldman Sachs be given seats in the United Nations General Assembly, but it does mean including representatives of such organisations in regional and global deliberations when they have the capacity to affect whether and how regional and global challenges are met.

Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function.

This is already taking place in the trade realm. Governments agree to accept the rulings of the World Trade Organisation because on balance they benefit from an international trading order, even if a particular decision requires that they alter a practice that is their sovereign right to carry out.

Some governments are prepared to give up elements of sovereignty to address the threat of global climate change. Under one such arrangement, the Kyoto Protocol, which runs through 2012, signatories agree to cap specific emissions. What is needed now is a successor arrangement in which a larger number of governments, including the United States, China and India, accept emission limits or adopt common standards because they recognise that they would be worse off if no country did.

All of this suggests that sovereignty must be redefined if states are to cope with globalisation.

At its core, globalisation entails the increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows within and across borders of people, ideas, greenhouse gases, goods, dollars, drugs, viruses, emails, weapons, and a good deal else, challenging one of sovereignty’s fundamental principles: the ability to control what crosses borders in either direction. Sovereign states increasingly measure their vulnerability not to one another, but to forces beyond their control.

Globalisation thus implies that sovereignty is not only becoming weaker in reality, but that it needs to become weaker. States would be wise to weaken sovereignty in order to protect themselves, because they cannot insulate themselves from what goes on elsewhere. Sovereignty is no longer a sanctuary.

This was demonstrated by the American and world reaction to terrorism. Afghanistan’s Taliban government, which provided access and support to al-Qaeda, was removed from power. Similarly, America’s preventive war against an Iraq that ignored the UN and was thought to possess weapons of mass destruction showed that sovereignty no longer provides absolute protection. Imagine how the world would react if some government were known to be planning to use or transfer a nuclear device or had already done so. Many would argue correctly that sovereignty provides no protection for that state.

Necessity may also lead to reducing or even eliminating sovereignty when a government, whether from a lack of capacity or conscious policy, is unable to provide for the basic needs of its citizens. This reflects not simply scruples, but a view that state failure and genocide can lead to destabilising refugee flows and create openings for terrorists to take root.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Kosovo was an example where a number of governments chose to violate the sovereignty of another government (Serbia) to stop ethnic cleansing and genocide. By contrast, the mass killing in Rwanda a decade ago and now in Darfur, Sudan, demonstrate the high price of judging sovereignty to be supreme and thus doing little to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Our notion of sovereignty must therefore be conditional, even contractual, rather than absolute. If a state fails to live up to its side of the bargain by sponsoring terrorism, either transferring or using weapons of mass destruction, or conducting genocide, then it forfeits the normal benefits of sovereignty and opens itself up to attack, removal or occupation. The diplomatic challenge for this era is to gain widespread support for principles of state conduct and a procedure for determining remedies when these principles are violated.

The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalisation, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.

The basic idea of sovereignty, which still provides a useful constraint on violence between states, needs to be preserved. But the concept needs to be adapted to a world in which the main challenges to order come from what global forces do to states and what governments do to their citizens, rather than from what states do to one another.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Unfreakin' believable. States have ALWAYS been able to seize land through eminent domain for transportation projects especially. Kelo did nothing to make this easier and had NOTHING to do with such projects but was to increase the tax base. And there is something mysterious and creepy about building a transportation system that actually CONNECTS to others? OMG where are those "roads to nowhere" we all love so much?

Middle Easterners trying to sneak in to work NOT terrorists. Terrorists are not that stupid. And please do not post the "diary" "found" "proving" Arabs are coming in since it is written in Farsi you will only look stupid.

Hilarious stuff about the ports and the strange thing about Laredo. Imagine establishing a transportation system which goes from one end of the state to the other? Why such devious thinking PROVES a conspiracy.

The Port project is 180 miles south of the US border and will never replace the US ports you mention. But please do not let facts get in the way of full blown paranoia.

Now you are afraid of Mexico developing too much? Hilarious.

[texastoo]

Good article. However, some people keep their heads in the sand.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Perhaps you should select some of the points made in that paper which you would like to discuss. There are clear truths within it worthy of discussion.

[Smartass]

In the event you didn't already know justshutupandtakeit , "Hutchison-Whampoa" is directly involved in "Punta Colonet" Mexico.  They will invest 20 billion in the "new city" project.   Lots of money for a new sleepy Mexican village don'tcha think!!!

 

---

 

Chinese Company Continues to Encircle the World

Phil Brennan
Wednesday, June 13, 2001

A huge, multibillion-dollar company closely tied to the Chinese army has set up operations in ports all around the world.

From Panama to the Philippines, an arm of Hutchison-Whampoa, Hutchison Port Holding (HPH), has become the world’s largest seaport operator, embedding itself in strategic seaports all across the globe.

Hutchison holds the exclusive contract to operate the Panama Canal.

An animated map on the Hutchison-Whampoa Web site shows the extent of the encircling movement with seaport operations in Africa (Tanzania International Terminal Services Ltd.) in the Western Hemisphere with seaport services in Beunos Aires, Argentina; Freeport, the Bahamas; Veracruz, Mexico; and at both ends of the Panama Canal.

HPH’s latest acquisition, announced last month, involved eight Philippine ports. New ports in Mexico, Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Tanzania and Thailand make Hutchision-Whampoa the world’s largest private port operator with 23 cargo berths, bringing its worldwide total of ports to a staggering 136.

Other ports include Jakarta, Indonesia; Karachi, Pakistan; India (where the company runs the cellular phone services); Burma; China; and Malaysia. There are port operations in Britain at Harwich, Felixstowe (Britain’s largest port), and Thamesport, and in the Netherlands at Rotterdam. The last acquisition has caused alarm at the European Commission.

According to the latest reports, the company is interested in locating at South Korea’s largest port, Pusan, and has finalized an agreement to operate out of Kwangyang, another South Korean port.

The company boasts of its worldwide scope on its Web site: "The World of Hutchison Port Holdings covers a broad spectrum of port operations and related service companies spanning the entire globe. With operations and services ranging from container ports, mid-stream operations and river trade to cruise terminals, warehousing, haulage and e-commerce companies, HPH has become a key provider of comprehensive logistics services for the global supply chain.”

Just what is Hutchison-Whampoa?

According to a 1999 investigative report by the American Foreign Policy Council, "Hutchison Whampoa, through its Hutchison International Terminals [HIT] subsidiary or Panama Ports Company, has substantial links to the Chinese communist government and the People's Liberation Army.

"The Panama Ports Company is 10 percent owned by China Resources Enterprise [CRE], which is the commercial arm of China's Ministry of Trade and Economic Co-operation. In its investigation into China's attempts to influence the 1996 U.S. presidential campaign, the U.S. Senate Government Affairs Committee identified CRE as a conduit for ‘espionage - economic, political and military - for China.’ Committee Chairman Senator Fred Thompson said that CRE has ‘geopolitical purposes. Kind of like a smiling tiger; it might look friendly, but it's very dangerous.’”

Sen. Trent Lott has described the Hong Kong firm as "an arm of the People's Liberation Army."

The company is headed by a Li Ka-Shing, the chairman of Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. Intelligence sources say he has deep connections with the Chinese Communist government.

"Li has invested more than a billion dollars in China and owns most of the dock space in Hong Kong. In an exclusive deal with the People's Republic of China's communist government, Li has the right of first refusal over all PRC ports south of the Yangtze river, which involves a close working relationship with the Chinese military and businesses controlled by the People's Liberation Army,” the AFP report stated.

"Li has served as a middle man for PLA business dealings with the West. For example, Li financed several satellite deals between the U.S. Hughes Corporation and China Hong Kong Satellite [CHINASAT], a company owned by the People's Liberation Army. In 1997 Li Ka-Shing and the Chinese Navy nearly obtained four huge roll-on/roll-off container ships, which can be used for transporting military cargo, in a deal that would have been financed by U.S. taxpayers.”

According to the Thompson Committee, Hutchison Whampoa's subsidiary, HIT, has "business ventures with the China Ocean Shipping Company(COSCO) which is owned by the People's Liberation Army.”

COSCO, which failed in a notorious Clinton-backed attempt to lease the former U.S. Naval base in Long Beach, Calif., has been criticized for shipping Chinese missiles, missile components, jet fighters and other weapons technologies to nations such as Libya, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, the AFP report revealed.

"In 1996, the U.S. Customs Service seized a shipment of 2,000 automatic weapons aboard a COSCO ship at the port of Oakland, California. The man identified as the arms dealer, Wang Jun, is the head of China's Polytechnologies Company, the international outlet for Chinese weapons sales. Jun also sits on the Board of CITIC, China International Trust and Investment Corporation, the chief investment arm of the Chinese central government. It is also the bank of the People's Liberation Army, providing financing for Chinese Army weapons sales and for the purchase of Western technology.”

Li is also a board member of CITIC. U.S. intelligence sources have described the company as a front for China's governmental State Council.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., has stated that CITIC has been used as a front company by China's military to acquire technology for weapons development.

Last year a report by NewsMax.com.’s Christopher Ruddy and Stephan Archer noted that a declassified report by the U.S. Southern Command's Joint Intelligence Center, prepared in October 1999 and obtained by the government watchdog Judicial Watch, said that "Hutchison Whampoa's owner, Hong Kong tycoon Li Ka-Shing, has extensive business ties in Beijing and has compelling financial reasons to maintain a good relationship with China's leadership."

The military intelligence report also warns that "Hutchison containerized shipping facilities in the Panama Canal, as well as the Bahamas, could provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or prohibited items from the West to the PRC, or facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas."

Adm. Thomas Moorer, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has noted that "the Chinese have always indicated that the proper way to fight a war was not to make a frontal assault but rather to get around behind the enemy and cut off all their supplies.”

[nicmarlo]

A huge, multibillion-dollar company closely tied to the Chinese army has set up operations in ports all around the world.

From Panama to the Philippines, an arm of Hutchison-Whampoa, Hutchison Port Holding (HPH), has become the world’s largest seaport operator, embedding itself in strategic seaports all across the globe.

Hutchison holds the exclusive contract to operate the Panama Canal.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

[hedgetrimmer]

World trade integrates all countries

No it doesn't. The "free trade" system does that, and that is precisely why Karl Marx opined that "free trade" could be used to create a global socialist society.

The portion in Texas of the project states its purpose and has nothing to do with CFR or any conspiracy

Trade traffic and the additional traffic resulting from the state’s economic growth of late have combined to put a great deal of stress on the Texas road network. Most notable is the Interstate Highway 35 corridor, which originates at Laredo and has become the primary trade corridor between Mexico and all parts north. Other affected highways in the state include US Highway 281, originating at McAllen; US Highway 77, originating in Harlingen; US Highway 59, originating in Laredo; and US Highway 277, originating in Del Rio. Also heavily affected are the various arterial roads providing connections between the border and Interstate Highway 10 in El Paso. Congress has designated these NAFTA corridors, along with other highways that connect to them, as parts of “High Priority Corridors on the Nation’s Highway System

These corridors will help extend NAFTA trade north and south. By 2010, some 2,000 barriers to the movement of goods, services, and money among the three signatory nations will be eliminated, with Texas retaining unsurpassed links to its hemispheric neighbors.



Immigration laws are a barrier to trade in services, btw.

[texastoo]

Try this link:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:uFV8Tz4oSDUJ:www.immigrationforum.org/documents/NewsClips/0705/DC070505.pdf+falfurrias+terrorist+illegal+mohammad&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2#9

Go to page 9.