Bush Administration Erases U.S. Borders With Mexico and Canada

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), signed by President Bush with Mexico and Canada in Waco, Tex., on March 23, 2005, was fundamentally an agreement to erase our borders with Mexico and Canada.

As I have documented below, the SPP “working groups” organized within the U.S. Department of Transportation are signing trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements with Mexico and Canada designed to accomplish the open borders goal incrementally, below the radar of mainstream media attention, thereby avoiding public scrutiny. Congress is largely unaware that SPP exists, let alone knowledgeable about the extensive work being done behind the scenes by the executive branch to advance the agenda articulated by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) to establish a North American Union as a new regional super-government by 2010.

The June 2005 “Report to Leaders” references that the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America was announced at the Waco summit in March 2005. Yet, the SPP declaration was neither a treaty nor a law. The legal status of the declaration was not much more than a press release issued by President Bush, President Vicente Fox, and then-Prime Minister of Canada Paul Martin. Still, somehow SPP.gov conveys the impression that the Waco declaration created de facto a new NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries that is designated the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” or “SPP” for short.

Evidently using this quasi-press release as legal justification, the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) has proceeded to organize extensive “working groups,” drawing freely from the executive branch. These SPP working groups are housed under the auspices of the SPP program in the NAFTA office, as directed by Geri Word, a DOC administrator. The June 2005 SPP “Report to Leaders” makes clear the extensive implementing work already undertaken:

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 series of detailed actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.

Ms. Word confirmed by telephone that the membership of these “working groups” had not been published, not even on the Internet. Neither have minutes or transcripts of the many meetings with “stakeholders” and others been published, nor the “actions and recommendations” of the working groups. This revelation prompted a Freedom of Information Act request designed to bring these materials into the light of congressional public scrutiny. I also cannot find U.S. congressmen or senators who will identify any specific congressional examination or oversight that have been exercised over these SPP working groups that apparently have been convened to implement what amounts to only a joint press release declared from the trilateral summit in Waco.

More than 20 working groups are identified in the June 2005 “Report to Leaders” and decisions have been made to open U.S. borders and skies to virtually unlimited “migration” and trade from Canada and Mexico.

Regarding “open skies,” three working groups are working on aviation issues, groups designated as “Aviation Safety,” “Airspace Capacity,” and “Harmonized Air Navigation Systems.” I am told that a tri-lateral agreement to create a North American Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) was signed in 2005, and that five WAAS stations were planned to be put in place in Canada and Mexico in 2005. Implementing WAAS in Mexico and Canada involved sharing the U.S. Global Positioning System with Mexico and Canada. I am told that the three countries executed a Reduced Vertical Separation Minimum (RVSM) agreement in January 2005 to allow for Mexican and Canadian aircraft to confirm to U.S. air spacing requirements. I found that the three countries released a North American Aviation on a Joint Strategy for the implementation of performance-based navigation in North America. This initiative included Area Navigation (RNAV) and Required Navigation Performance (RNP) in North America.

None of the referenced agreements are found on the SPP website. Yet, the working groups on aviation appear to have already accomplished opening U.S. skies to free and unrestricted navigation by Mexican and Canadian aircraft. It could be concluded that aviation authorities in Mexico and Canada have been given the tools to identify the location of all aircraft flying over the United States at any time, including military aircraft. I found no discussion on the SPP website that establishes the SPP aviation working groups were acting within specific authority granted by Congress, or even that the SPP aviation working groups were reporting to Congress.

Later in the June 2005 “Report to Leaders” I found that SPP working groups have already established a “trusted traveler” program for North America, including procedures “to enhance the use of biometrics in screening travelers destined to North America with a view to developing compatible biometric border and immigration systems.” Moreover, “a single, integrated global enrollment program for North American trusted travelers” would be implemented within the next 36 months.

These descriptions suggest that all “trusted citizens” of the U.S., Mexico and Canada would be considered “trusted citizens of North America,” issued the type of biometric identification that would make crossing the border as simple as passing your credit card through a charge-out terminal at a retail store. Once these procedures are fully in place, the SPP working groups will have eliminated “illegal immigration” for the most part. By definition, all “trusted travelers” in the three countries would be permitted to “migrate,” and supposedly to work, wherever in North America they choose to be. Again, there is no SPP reference to congressional authorizing legislation or oversight.

In reference to commercial truck traffic in North America, the June 2005 “Report to Leaders” notes that FAST lanes are being developed at North American ports of entry such that within 12 months “trusted trade” commercial trucks with SENTRI electronic identification will be permitted rapid entrance into the United States. This will allow Mexican trucks carrying containers from China off-loaded in Mexican ports such as Lazaro Cardenas to pass through the border at Laredo, Tex., as fast as a U.S. car today equipped with an E-Z Pass zips through toll stops on U.S. limited access highways. Again, there is no SPP reference to Congress.

SPP “working group” executive branch activity expands over every facet of commerce, trade, environment, and health imaginable -- ranging from e-commerce, to “a fully integrated auto sector,” to North American harmonized energy and steel policies, to clean air, a reliable food supply, and “a healthier North America.” Throughout the document there are references to “North America” as the province for the ultimate planning and regulations, always with an assumption that the current disparate regulations of the United States, Mexico and Canada will be “harmonized” or “integrated” into a trilateral structure of common and compatible regulations.

None of the many “memoranda of understanding,” “trilateral agreements,” or other accords to which the June 2005 report refers are printed in the report or listed through links to Internet addresses where the relevant compacts can be reviewed.

What the SPP June 2005 “Report to Leaders” documents is the knitting together of a new regional super-government, the North American Union, being accomplished in executive branch closed committees whose membership remain unnamed. The United States has never experienced a coup d’etat, let alone a coup d’etat pulled off by the executive branch under cover of “working groups.” Yet, what has been described in the June 2005 SPP “Report to Leaders” demands being scrutinized to see if that charge is here supportable.

I have filed a FOIA request to get the information needed to determine exactly what is going on within the Bush Administration's SPP policy. Is the United States being replaced by a North American Union? This is a question Congress should also demand be answered. Why aren’t congressional hearings being scheduled?

If the plan is to evolve the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America into a new regional North American Union super-government through executive action, the American people have a Constitutional right to know the truth. Is what is going on within SPP.gov is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution definition of executive branch rights and responsibilities, or not?

President Bush needs to come forward and explain SPP to the American people, explicitly and directly, and he needs to do so soon.

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.

Gee, hardly ANY of those roads go to Mexico.

But guess what soon will be...your Social Security Fund monies will be going South of the Border by the mega billions. And the Administration is either delusional or knowingly lying about the numbers.

GAO report: Proposed Totalization Agreement with Mexico Presents Unique Challenges (NOTE: The GAO report was published before enactment of the Grassley provision outlined on this page)

Social Security “Totalization” Agreements,
Committee on Ways and Means Fact Sheet

Mexico Totalization Agreement,
Committee on Ways and Means Fact Sheet

Should there be a Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico?
— Hearing before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims (9/11/03)

Should there be a Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico? House Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims

Understanding ALL the Facts About a Potential U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement: Dear Colleague letter from Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) (rebuttal to the Shaw/Matsui letter below)

Understanding the Facts About a Potential U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement: Dear Colleague letter from Reps. Robert Matsui (D-CA) and Clay Shaw (R-FL)

U.S. Social Security Ties with Mexico is Bad for America, by James R. Edwards

Social Security 'Totalization'
Examining a Lopsided Agreement with Mexico, by Marti Dinerstein

Vicente Fox on the Transition, NAFTA, Corruption, Drugs, the Economy...

HOT TOPIC: Totalization - Social Security for Illegal Aliens

The U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement

The U.S. Commissioner of Social Security signed a totalization agreement with the Director General of the Mexican Social Security Institute on June 29, 2004. Now that the agreement has been signed, it must be reviewed first by the State Department, and then by the White House, which will submit it to Congress. Congress will have then have 60 "legislative" days to review the agreement. During this period, current law authorizes either Chamber to pass a Resolution of Disapproval of the agreement, or it will take effect automatically at the end of the 60-day period. In addition, the Mexican Senate must affirmatively approve the totalization agreement.

"Totalization" agreements are bilateral agreements between the United States and another country to coordinate their social security programs. These agreements eliminate the need to pay social security taxes in both countries when companies in one country send workers to the other country, and they protect benefit eligibility for workers who divide their careers between the two countries. The United States currently has totalization agreements with 20 countries, including Canada, Chile, South Korea, Australia and most of Western Europe.

For additional details, see the NumbersUSA Proposed Immigration Bills in the current Congress page, which contains links to H. Res 20 and H.Con.Res 50 and other relevant information.

Social Security Benefits for Illegal Aliens

U.S. law bars aliens living here illegally from receiving social security benefits. However, until 2004, the law permitted aliens to claim credit for work performed while here illegally if the aliens either left the United States or obtained legal status in the United States. If such work - either alone or in combination with work performed while here legally - amounted to the 40 quarters of work required to become eligible for social security benefits, these aliens (and their spouses and dependents) would receive full benefits.

In February 2004, Congress passed H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act, which includes a provision authored by Senator Grassley (R-Iowa), Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, that prohibits aliens (and their spouses and dependents) from claiming social security credit for work performed while in the United States illegally unless the alien obtains legal status at some point. Although this represents a major improvement in the law, it does not entirely close the loophole that permits benefits to be paid on the basis of work performed by illegal aliens. As noted in the Senate Finance Committee's report on H.R. 743, "individuals who begin working illegally and later obtain legal status could still use their illegal earnings to qualify for Social Security benefits" despite this new provision (Senate Rpt.108-176, p. 24).

This law applies to aliens of all nationalities, regardless of the existence of totalization agreements. The agreements compound the problem, however, by increasing the pool of foreign workers who can qualify for U.S. social security benefits on the basis of work performed while here illegally. Under totalization agreements:

Foreign workers can qualify with as few as 6 quarters of work, rather than 40 quarters (benefits would be prorated to reflect only credits earned in the United States); and

More family members of workers are entitled to benefits, because the agreement waives rules that restrict certain payments to non-citizen dependents living outside the United States. Under current law, non-citizen spouses and children must have lived in the United States for at least five years (lawfully or unlawfully), and the family relationship to the worker must have existed during that time in order for them to receive benefits while outside the United States. A totalization agreement overrides this requirement.

What Makes the Mexico Agreement Different from the Others?

While the text of the agreement with Mexico has not yet been made publicly available, it is likely to be virtually identical to the 20 other agreements. The impact of the Mexico agreement is likely to be significantly different, however, because there are critical differences between Mexico and the other countries with which the United States has totalization agreements, including:

The economic disparity between the United States and Mexico, combined with the fact that our countries share a land border, has generated migration from Mexico to the United States at levels not comparable to any of the other 20 countries; and
The Department of Homeland Security estimates that Mexicans represent almost 70 percent of the 10 million illegal aliens currently residing in the United States. Among the other 20 countries, South Koreans and Canadians comprise the next largest shares - 0.07 percent each -- of the illegal population

The Costs of the Mexico Agreement

The Social Security Administration (SSA) estimates that a totalization agreement with Mexico would:

Result in 50,000 additional Mexicans qualifying for social security benefits during the first five years;
Cost the U.S. social security system $525 million over the first five years;
Cost $650 million per year by 2050;
Have a "negligible long-range effect" on the Social Security Trust Fund; and
Save 3,000 U.S. workers and their employers about $140 million in Mexican social security and health insurance taxes over the first five years of the agreement

In a review requested by Congress, the GAO found that:

SSA's cost estimate does not account for any of the millions of Mexicans living and working here illegally who may become eligible for benefits;
SSA "assumes that the behavior of Mexican citizens would not change and does not recognize that an agreement would create an additional incentive for unauthorized workers to enter the United States;"
The agreement with Mexico involves "highly uncertain" costs and would affect the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund if SSA has underestimated the number of beneficiaries by more than 25 percent (or 16,000 additional beneficiaries).

DHS statistics show that more than 28,000 Mexicans who had entered the United States illegally at some point were granted legal permanent resident status in 2002. Another 121,000 Mexicans who were already living here were granted legal permanent resident status in 2002, despite the fact that DHS had no record of them being lawfully admitted to the country. Under current law, these immigrants can claim credit for any work they performed while here illegally, in addition to work the perform after obtaining legal status. And these numbers reflect only one year.

Can the U.S.-Mexico Totalization Agreement Be Stopped?

Once the President submits the agreement to Congress, which was expected to happen after the elections in November (but has not yet happened), it goes into effect automatically unless the House of Representatives or the Senate adopts a resolution of disapproval within 60 legislative days. According to the Congressional Research Service, however, the resolution of disapproval mechanism currently in the Social Security Act is an unconstitutional legislative veto, based on the Supreme Court's decision in INS v. Chadha (462 U.S. 919 (1983)), in which the Supreme Court struck down a similar provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Since Congress has never rejected a totalization agreement, the fact that the mechanism for disapproval is unconstitutional has not been an issue. Unless the law is changed, though, it is likely that passage of a resolution of disapproval would give rise to a judicial challenge, potentially resulting in a determination that the agreement is effective.

However, Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ) has taken the lead in the fight to stop the U.S.-Mexico totalization agreement from taking effect. He has introduced H. Res. 20, a resolution of disapproval in the House.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.