QUIETLY, QUIETLY BUILDING THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

Freedom 21 Santa Cruz ^ | October 5, 2006 | Steven Yates

[Toddsterpatriot]

Reducing inspections at the border and allowing foreign sealed trucks access to our highway system.

NAFTA reduced inspections? Perhaps you'd cut and paste the section? Why would we allow sealed trucks to access our highways? Maybe so we could inspect them later?

You clearly don't know what they say. Get back to us when you do.

Why don't you tell me what they say?

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Hmmmmm......I don't remember the advertising section of NAFTA. Did it include a section on billboards advertising new jobs in the north?"

Nope. Didn't have to to contribute to this problem. NAFTA was sold, by the way, as a means to REDUCE illegal immigration.

"You never explained how CAFTA makes life more dangerous for us."

NAFTA (CAFTA is a 1000-page expansion of NAFTA to Central America) created a tribunal that has ordered full access for Mexican trucks on our highway system outside the 20 mile commercial zone. The lack of an actual inspection of these foreign vehicles not only enables drug smuggling, but terrorists. Couple this with the lower standards for driver training and health as well as vehicle safety with Mexican vehicles, and we're "less safe".

I'm also uncomfortable with the treatment by the government of this "agreement" as a "treaty". It's not.

"Unfortunately, my understanding of economics is more advanced than yours, so I'm afraid we'll always disagree about trade."

I don't consider trade more important than country... and you can stuff your "noob" comments, kid.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"NAFTA reduced inspections? Perhaps you'd cut and paste the section?"

Actually, the NAFTA tribunal reduced inspections....

"Maybe so we could inspect them later?"

Little late for that once they're inside the country and there isn't the manpower to not only inspect the CARGO at a transhipment site at the border but the VEHICLE too.

"Why don't you tell me what they say?"

NAFTA and CAFTA amounts to nation building. No agreement that merely require reciprocal tariffs would need to be that long.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't consider trade more important than country...

Neither do I, but I understand that trade is good for America.

and you can stuff your "noob" comments, kid.

An October 20, 2006 signup date doesn't make you a noob? What was your original signup date? And I'm not your son. I know you're old, but you're not my father.

[1rudeboy]

NAFTA was sold, by the way, as a means to REDUCE illegal immigration.

For those of you keeping score on the logical fallacies-thing, the above is called a strawman argument.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Neither do I, but I understand that trade is good for America."

These agreements involve more than "trade". No "trade agreement" needs be that long.

"An October 20, 2006 signup date doesn't make you a noob? What was your original signup date?"

I find it both amusing and pathetic that you find validation in your signup date on a website.

"I know you're old, but you're not my father."

It's an expression. In this case, one of polite contempt.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"For those of you keeping score on the logical fallacies-thing, the above is called a strawman argument."

Are you going to claim now that reducing illegal immigration was NOT one of the claims made for NAFTA by its supporters?

Rewrite history much?

[1rudeboy]

An increased standard of living in a country reduces the incentive for people to leave. That is a fact. That is what was claimed. Your failure to consider whether illegal immigration increased for other reasons is the very heart of your illogical approach to the problem.

Do you even understand what you're doing? Someone told you that the car you are buying is more fuel-efficient, and now you are complaining that the price of fuel has risen. Moreover, you are pointing to the fact that the price of fuel has risen as evidence that your car is less fuel-efficient.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"An increased standard of living in a country reduces the incentive for people to leave. "

That's a theory. It doesn't always work in practice.

"That is a fact. "

Not if the standard is still higher north. Not if the wealth doesn't filter down. Mexico isn't like here.

NAFTA has not had the claimed effect, therefore the push to expand it is foolish if the "tide raising all boats" theory is going to be applied over the entire hemisphere. The verbiage of the NAFTA and CAFTA agreements makes clear that it is a socio-political accord far greater than a mere tariff act.

"Moreover, you are pointing to the fact that the price of fuel has risen as evidence that your car is less fuel-efficient."

A better analogy would be purchasing a car with a claimed fuel efficiency, finding out that was false, and then proceeding to buy another of the same model and hope for the best.

NAFTA got people moving off of the southern Mexico farms to find jobs in the cities. There have been too few of those jobs, so they move north. THAT is a FACT and is WHAT has happened here. There are plenty of other reasons to oppose it from an American perspective. The extra-national tribunal it has formed and the fact our government VIEWS THIS AS A TREATY is of extreme concern.

[Toddsterpatriot]

These agreements involve more than "trade". No "trade agreement" needs be that long.

A shorter agreement would have had fewer bad effects? How?

You never did say if trading with Japan was okay. Or Ireland. What about Switzerland? Or should we only trade with Americans?

I find it both amusing and pathetic that you find validation in your signup date on a website.

I find it amusing that calling you a noob would upset an old guy like you as much as it did.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"A shorter agreement would have had fewer bad effects? How?"

Nothing that is merely a tariff normalization requires that much verbiage.

"Or should we only trade with Americans?"

Our trade policy should be to the benefit of our national security. That REQUIRES that we maintain adequate self-sufficiency.

"I find it amusing that calling you a noob would upset an old guy like you as much as it did."

Pathetic. Really pathetic. I'm somewhat puzzled why you think I'm an "old guy"....

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm somewhat puzzled why you think I'm an "old guy"....

All the son and boy talk. You must be older than me.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nothing that is merely a tariff normalization requires that much verbiage.

Politicians talk too much? I'm shocked.

Our trade policy should be to the benefit of our national security. That REQUIRES that we maintain adequate self-sufficiency.

$1.79 trillion in manufactured goods isn't enough? How much would make you happy?

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"You must be older than me."

Not necessarily. That is usually used in this situation to be condescending. Sad I have to explain that to you....

[Toddsterpatriot]

Got it. You're not an old noob, you're a young noob. Thanks for clearing that up.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Politicians talk too much? I'm shocked."

There are political aspects to those agreements that have no place in a simple trade agreement. The apparent intent is to form a hemispherical common market at some point.

"$1.79 trillion in manufactured goods isn't enough? How much would make you happy?"

Define "manufactured goods". Our government accountants often include food preparation in "manufactured goods". Much heavy shipbuilding capacity has gone elsewhere. Heavy machinery manufacturing like that needs to remain here. All YOU see is the money to be made.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"Got it. You're not an old noob, you're a young noob. Thanks for clearing that up."

At least I don't define myself by a sign-up date on a website.

Not that it matters, but my "sign-up date" on the Internet itself very likely predates yours by a decade.

[MissAmericanPie]

Don't worry about printing this article, you won't wake anyone or stir any action such as protest marches, confronting politicians, emails, faxes, etc.

I tried for a couple of years using the quotes of Bush, V. Fox, quotes from the FTAA treaty and all that happened was Freepers buried their heads deeper in the sand.

[Toddsterpatriot]

At least I don't define myself by a sign-up date on a website.

I'm not defining myself, I'm defining you.

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"I'm not defining myself, I'm defining you."

Even more pathetic of you.