It’s no secrete that GW Bush is an open borders guy (with the two other major North American countries).
Personally, I think this is an idea we HAVE to persue in one form or another if we want to stay dominant on the world level. But I’d venture that most Republicans and Democrats and those here at Free Republic don’t share that view.
I think it is exactly what is behind the recent amnesty bill. If any Mexican can come to US and be legal then what is the difference? I don’t believe the jokers in DC really are that stupid to believe any illegal will start folowing any rules no matter what.
It is vital to the American people to retain sovereignty of the US.
One thing though is certain, if there is to be such a creature, it won't be because the President and Congress shoved it down out throats.
Sovereignity? What’s that, some kind of global test?
Ah, the Bush conspiracy.
The fact is, Bush is doing what every American president since 1965 has done on the borders. Next to nothing. There are enormous practical interests on both sides of the border driving immigration. I agree that immigration needs to be slowed but nattering about conspiracies doesn't advance the cause.
The pro-immigration forces are tolerably open about their intent. The two groups operating in bad faith are organized labor and the environmental/slow growth lobby, both of which should be strong for effective border control and lower immigration but prefer instead to import more eventual democrats, sacrificing their own nominal principles to political expediency.
I don't think that's possible. The nature of the United States Constitution doesn't lend itself to that. Mexico may be admitted as a state perhaps, and sovereignty be retained, but do we want that? It's not worth the liability.
FRED THOMPSON NEEDS TO CLARIFY HIS POSITION ON THE SPP BEFORE I’LL SUPPORT HIM.
The idea of a North American Union of three nations is a cracked-pot idea. But one would be mistaken to underestimate the appeal of cracked-pot ideas. Let’s look at some.
Marxism/Communism. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Sounds nice. But there were really no implementing details. More importantly, it was contrary to human nature. It became the greatest engine for mass murder the world has ever seen.
We all know that Nazism is evil. But Nazis held many of the fashionable beliefs of their time, and ours.
Submission to the will of God sounds reasonable enough. But forced submission is an important aspect of Islam. Islam is strongly associated with the greatest savagery the world has ever seen.
So, a stealth North American Union has appeal too. It is another bad idea. But this bad idea should not be ignored. One test is this. If it were a good idea, why would we have to impose it through stealth, trickery, and coercion? There are answers, but no good ones. Will this North American Union be more like America? or more like Mexico? Advocates believe the former. Dream on.
Here is the only way I could see Union working. Individual Canadian or Mexican provinces/states could apply for statehood in the greater United States. We would consider individual requests. Some might have to change first in some ways, before we would accept them. A greater, mutually voluntary United States could work. It would make sense too for any Mexican or Canadian state or province. If they can’t see that, then we don’t want them.
The great danger in any sort of North America union is who or what would run it.
The answer we find is that groups of unelected bureaucrats would be in charge. This, in itself, is a repudiation of our republican representative form of govrenment. In fact, it’s the establishment of a soviet socialist style of government where unelcted bureaucrats rule by writing law, enforcing the law and judging that law.
Two recent examples of this form of government include the former soviet socialist states and the functionairies who ran fascist Germany.
Once bureaucracies are established, citizens lose the right to govern themselves through elected representatives. In essence, a dictatorship has been established. And how do citizens remove corrupt bureaucrats who are engaged in theft, chicanery and gross violations of individual rights?
The answer is 1776 - a declaration of war against the ruling, unaccountable elite.
Any North American union binding the citizens to control by an unelected elite is sowing the seeds for a future revolutionary war. Those who are in favor of unelected regional councils governing us are, if Americans, traitors, and the rest are oligarchs looking for power to enrich themselves.
As an Aussie, you have been privy to extremely stringent immigration control.
Look at it this way: What if your borders were open to everyone within your proximity, i.e., all those from every Asian state and South Africa with no control over who enters.
Do you think your economy would survive? Do you think your natural resources and living spaces would survive not to mention the infrastructure of schools, courts, police and every day services like roads and garbage pickup?
Not likely. Even with our resources, we cannot absorb another 500 million people to the 300+ million we have here now.
Historically, a president’s number one job is two-fold, to conduct foreign policy and to protect the country from all threats, foreign and domestic.
It is the Congress’s job to pass out the freebies and keep our large malcontent contingent reasonably and temporarily “happy”
We survived very well before we started being told that we should adapt to a “changing world”. I’ve SEEN those changes and want no part of it (for my country).
Trade is one thing, submission is another.
“Althought this article was posted on FR in June 2006 it seems timely now to repeat. I’m an Aussie. I have no wish to be critical of the President of the United States of America. I’m not even convinced yet that, under the circumstances, the North American Union isn’t such a bad idea, implemented in such a way that your nation does not lose it’s precious sovereignity.”
Thank you Fred for posting it and I wish to thank our Aussie friends for their support of “We the People”. Our elites in Washington need reminding by our Western allies we so drastically influenced in earlier times about the value of freedoms and that this is worth dying. All of us must be reminded also that first and foremost preservation of such freedom and our prior national values such as “love your neighbor as thyself” and “what better honor to die on behalf of friends” is FAR more important then the god of materialism we see prevelant in our nation.
Australia is much more free then America is today. It is not the same country it was growing up in the 70’s. It is more like a socialist republic like Rome, where corrupt Senators sell out the people like Judas for 40 pieces of silver to build more palaces. I live in New Hampshire, the supposed ‘Live Free or Die’ state. What a joke. Feminazis rule our states’ judicial system, social democrats from Massachusetts have flooded our state for cost effective real estate and law enforcement focuses on petty affairs such as driving offences (do agree with DWI enforcement) domestic squabbles and weed smokers instead of murders, theft and other serious crimes. Why? Because the petty crimes drive massive amounts of state revenues.
Unlike the Roman era however, this is the information age and We the People are empowered at the end of the day with arms and information to change such national suicidal policies of the elite socialists.
Much pain will come to correct our current course but Lord Jesus Christ whom so many of us adore will help give us the will to remember the good principles I mentioned and this will allow us to defend our nation from enemies and resume good works for our people and the rest of the world.
There is no way possible way to make such a thing without each nation loosing a great part, if not the majority, of its sovereignty.
There would be no reason to implement that kind of union but to cede power to a central entity superimposed on top of the nations. 
Corsi is a genuine conformal tinfoil shill.
1) It’ll never happen
2) I like fighting as much as anyone, but we don’t need any more here over silly stuff like this. :)
No one in their right mind would consider Jerome Corsi a liberal or a leftist... His conclusions... "We are close to a coup d'etat by the executive branch... a military coup plot against civilian government... not being conducted by the U.S. military. Rather, it is being achieved through men who place commerce and commercial interests at the top of what mankind is about. It is very Hegelian and Marxist, at its center encompassing a belief that people are primarily motivated by economics and materialism, that trade and commerce and having material goods are the primary factors in creating a peaceful world. The policymakers who hold those attitudes have had immense influence on George W. Bush.Marx borrowed (and altered) the Hegelian dialectic. Marxism has *nothing to do* with trade and commerce, apart from an adversarial position to it.
d@## those materialistic Marxist Republicans!!!
Dems Want You to Take a Hike - The hottest domestic issue of the next two years: TAXES
The Wall Street Journal | May 24, 2007 | Pierre DuPont
Posted on 05/24/2007 7:28:27 AM EDT by Zakeet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1838946/posts
The hottest domestic political issue of the coming two years will be federal income taxes.
The Democratic Party is for a big tax increase, via repeal of the Bush tax cuts. Its three major presidential candidates are for it (Hillary Clinton and John Edwards voted against the 2003 Bush tax cuts and Barack Obama against their extension). House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are for it. Bill Clinton is for it because he believes the 2003 Bush tax cuts were “way too big to avoid serious harm.” And the party’s newspaper, the New York Times, is for it, stating that the 2003 tax cuts were “economically unsound” and would “increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Republicans, arguing that the 2003 tax cuts have helped the economy grow, created jobs, increased federal tax revenues, and thus reduced federal deficits, are mostly against raising tax rates.
Economic indicators show that since the 2003 tax cuts the GDP has grown an inflation-adjusted average of 3.3% a year, and eight million new jobs have been created over 44 consecutive months of job growth. Unemployment has fallen 25%, from 6.1% to 4.5%, with strong declines across all ethnic groups. Productivity growth has expanded 2.8% a year since 2001, outstripping the past three decades’ average. So according to all these economic indices, the 2003 tax cuts have strengthened the American economy.