ERASING AMERICA'S BORDERS....(Expo)sing the Truth on Illegal Immigration and Free Trade

Sierra Times ^ | 01. 21. 05 | Nathan Victor

[hedgetrimmer]

While the push by the cities vying for FTAA headquarters kept its momentum throughout 2004, the push for the actual hemisphere wide pact has only recently begun to revive itself after almost a year of inactivity.


According to reports by Reuters, during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland last week, Co-chairs of the FTAA Trade Negotiations Committee, Brazilian Foreign Minister, Celso Amorium and U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick met separately to explore ways of breathing life into the stalled trade talks.


Mr Zoellick told reporters after the meeting that the two explored avenues that would allow them to relaunch the FTAA process soon.


Director General of CRNM said that since the meeting, the TNC co-chairs planned a second meeting for the end of February.

http://www.thenassauguardian.com/bixex/296571451794211.php

[-=[_Super_Secret_Agent_]=-]

it make sense to do "free" trade with Canada, but Mexico????
I don't consider Mexico part of north america.

[hedgetrimmer]

Do you think states should change their laws when nations that are party to trade agreements ask them to? Do you think some nations would be more sympathetic to the US than others (say, Venezuela)?

"Like all states, Maine receives frequent requests from other nations to adjust its laws and procedures based on the language of trade agreements. "

http://www.bangornews.com/news/templates/?a=107979

[F16Fighter]

To fully understand the depravity and future jeopardy of the FTAA and NAFTA all one needs to do is look at Europe, where 30+ years of free-trade and “harmonization” of business, industry, agriculture, transportation, immigration, education, and soon to be defense, have amounted to nothing but a transfer of power from the people to the government. “Harmonization” (as so quoted by our leaders) is nothing more than consolidation and centralization of the economy and political sector. It is a process of transferring civil powers to multi-national and international political powers (which was the case in the creation of the monstrous E.U).

Ha! What New World Order??

And who among us after reading the game-plan still feels the President of the United States is NOT selling out America?

Only those refusing to pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

We ARE a lobsters in the water...simmering....

[hedgetrimmer]

The FTAA will provide the beginnings of “constitutive groundrules” for hemispheric governance, whether intended or unintended.

http://sociology.berkeley.edu/faculty/evans/evans_pdf/Democracy_FTAA.pdf#search='ftaa%20hemispheric%20governance'

[spodefly]

BTTT

[F16Fighter]

"The FTAA will provide the beginnings of 'constitutive groundrules' for hemispheric governance, whether intended or unintended."

IOW, NWO guidelines and laws which shall soon be superceding the U.S. Constitution whether American citizens like it or not.

Who's selling us down the river??

Shhh....the initials are...G....W....B.....

[hedgetrimmer]

The Path Toward Integration


Generally speaking, steps toward economic collaboration have been pursued via two main paths: on a global as well as a regional level. Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jeffrey J. Schott have summarized this integration process into five elements:

1.the significant reduction of trade barriers in goods and services (NAFTA, CAFTA)

2.greater openness toward investment
(Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Small Business Association etc opening offices in Mexico and South America)

3. the free movement of labor
(amnesty for illegal aliens and open borders)

4.the harmonization of monetary and tax policies;
(Social security for illegal aliens)

5. and the establishment of supraregional institutions to oversee arrangements and to resolve disputes between associate countries (Hufbauer and Schott 1994,
(the Summit of the Americas and the OAS)


In Pursuit of Western Hemispheric Integration
http://www1.appstate.edu/~stefanov/proceedings/debenedictis.htm

[Designer]

"Life must be hell when you find yourself setting on the same side of the table as the unions and Ralph Nader."

Only seems that way to the casual observer. The leftist elements you mentioned are not truly against the FTAA, but rather want it to be more socialistic, with them having more input. Remember; the union leadership got behind NAFTA much to the chagrin of the rank and file.

[Ben Ficklin]

What you say in reply 49 only seems that way to the slightly less casual observer. Let me explain.

There is some truth to your statement that the leftest elements want these FTAs and regional trade agreements to be socialistic, but more to the point, they want them to be more/highly regulated. You see, the greatest advantages of the FTAs are the investor protections, such as Chapter 11 of NAFTA. Without these, the FTA trade is like any other trade.

During the 20th century, the US created a lot of business regulatory law. This was accomplished legislatively, judicially, and administratively. These regulations dealt with social, labor, and environmental law.

In 1984, Epstein published his "Takings" book. His thesis was that business is property and regulations are regulatory takings. If govt wants to effect a change, they are entitled to do that, but mandating to business to accomplish the change is a taking. For example, if govt thinks that there is a minimum wage that a worker needs, govt could subsidize that worker. The money to subsidize that worker(s) would come from taxes paid by the taxpayer/citizen. When the govt mandates business to pay the minimum wage, business passes on the cost in their price and the citizen/taxpayer pays for it. One way it is a tax, the other way it is a hidden tax. Apply this concept to all the regulatory of the 20th century.

In 1985, the Reagan Whitehouse began composing the investor protection language that would become known as Chapter 11. Epstein was a Federalist and Reagan had many Federalist working for him. These concepts of regulatory takings were considered. As we have seen, Chapter 11 provides a significant degree of protection from regulation. Not just US regulatory law, but also Canadian and Mexican. There are advantages to those doing business under NAFTA over those doing business solely within the US.

Since NAFTA, and the recognition of the anti-regulatory implications of the investor protections, the left has been on a crusade to prevent these protections from being included in the subsequent FTAs. For sure, the protections are in the Chile and Singapore FTAs. I can't say about the Australian FTA. No doubt the protections are in un-ratified CAFTA and will be in FTAA.

The left perceives the potential of a hemisphere wide set of laws governing business activity different from and versus our nation wide set of laws governing business activity. They also perceive that if this happens, a Supreme Court with the right make-up of judges could find that all those regulatory laws of the 20th century are un-constitutional.

To understand this "right make-up of judges on the Supreme Ct, return to my statement above regarding Epstein and the many Reagan employees being Federalists, or members of the Fedralist Society(feddies). Scalia and Thomas are feddies, if he did not predate them the Chief Justice would be a feddie, two others lean that way.

The left fears and loathes the feddies.

The Senate dems will do anything to block any and all of the Bush feddie judicial nominees. Hillary has pronounced the feddies as the prime movers behind the VRWC. Bush, the Republicans, and the feddies are trying to "roll back the New Deal". Trying to "roll back" the 20th century.

When the 9th Circuit ruled for the left(Teamsters,Public Citizen, & Earth Justice) and against the Mexican trucks, one of the judges made the statement that foreign trade was a great thing but NAFTA doesn't trump US enviro reg law. He didn't mention the fact that in 2001 Mexico was awarded $2 billion per year for the US's refusal to admit Mexican trucks. If those US regulatory laws/takings are applied to NAFTA activity, it is going to cost.

So you see, when the left says that they support FTAs, but only with more consideration for the environment, labor, and social justice, what they really mean is that they support an FTA that is not truly an FTA.

[hedgetrimmer]

So you see, when the left says that they support FTAs, but only with more consideration for the environment, labor, and social justice

You note in your post that social justice is a leftist ideal and you are correct. Social justice is a communist political philosphy that has NO place in a constitutional government based on equal justice. Yet here, straight out of the "trade" organization you promote, is this:

To this end, THE FTAA MUST FOLLOW EXPLICIT POLICIES DESIGNED TO PROMOTE:

1- Strengthening of the State under the principle that the State is restored to and based on social justice.

Now please be aware the following text is straight out of the FTAA, third draft. Also note that it is leftist to create public/private partnerships, which this section says must be done.The section describes how the "trade agreement" will affect national sovereignty with respect to the environment. Also note that environmental laws to the letter almost always collectivise property rights which is antithetical to the US Constitution.

Mechanisms that facilitate voluntary action to protect or enhance the environment, such as partnerships involving businesses, local communities, non-governmental organizations, government agencies, or scientific organizations, or voluntary guidelines for environmental performance.

Incentives to encourage protection of natural resources and the environment, including market-based mechanisms where appropriate, such as: financial incentives for conserving, restoring, or enhancing the environment; incentives for the exchange or trade of environment-related permits, credits, or other instruments that facilitate efficient achievement of environmental goals; and public recognition of facilities or companies that are superior environmental performers.

The above paragraph is pure UN gobbledy gook and it is the trade agreement that you are promoting that the US sign. It has nothing to do with freely trading, but instead imposes restrictions on countries that promotes a collectivist global world view.

but NAFTA doesn't trump US enviro reg law

Read the following quote from a Maine newspaper. It is true in all states that trade agreements are forcing the federal and state governments to change laws to comply with the trade treaties and agreements ratified by Congress:

"Like all states, Maine receives frequent requests from other nations to adjust its laws and procedures based on the language of trade agreements. "

Supporting the FTAA supports socialist leftist social justice and a global socialist world view that penalizes industrialized nations to give preferential treatment to third world economies.

To give the benefit of the doubt to those posting in favor on this forum, I would say they are participating in a public/private partnership with the government to promote it or have some investments that they believe will make them money when this is passed, I don't believe a logical person can read any of the things on the FTAA website and in the FTAA itself and not see the utterly socialist implications of this treaty.

[hedgetrimmer]

Strengthening of the State under the principle that the State is restored to and based on social justice.

This statement from the FTAA completely scares me. Because when we sign this treaty, it will destroy equal justice in this country, because once signed, we will be a mere "state" among the 34 signatories of the FTAA.

Look at the language they use in this organization/treaty. Strengthen the STATE and restore the STATE to SOCIAL JUSTICE.

Its incredible that Americans say they support this, IMO. Doesn't anyone remember the Soviet Union? The millions dead at the hand of Stalin? The thousands who are dying today in South America at the hands of the Marxists and communists in Peru, Venezuela, Columbia etc?

[BurbankKarl]

What border?

You would be amazed at the number of vehicle with Mexico plates driving around Southern California. Law Enforcement has no recourse, as there is no wanted/stolen database to check against.

[hedgetrimmer]

See post number 48, the path toward integration. Step 3. the free movement of labor has pretty much been accomplished one way --> into the US. Thats all anyone cares about, no one lobbies for Venezuela or Peru to open their borders to us. Not many Americans want to live in a country about to be taken over by a Marxist insurgency, but our leaders in Washington sure will sign away our sovereignty and security so that the global socialists can have their western hemispheric union.

[F16Fighter]

"Look at the language they use in this organization/treaty. Strengthen the STATE and restore the STATE to SOCIAL JUSTICE."

This isn't a treaty; It's a death sentence for a sovereign America.

[hedgetrimmer]

Show this to everyone you know. America does not need a to team up with stalinist countries if it wants to remain free.

[F16Fighter]

"I would say they are participating in a public/private partnership with the government to promote it or have some investments that they believe will make them money when this is passed, I don't believe a logical person can read any of the things on the FTAA website and in the FTAA itself and not see the utterly socialist implications of this treaty."

Right-o. NO other way to construe these treaties.

[Ben Ficklin]

You know, everything you post is a rant. And whats worse, in one paragraph you rant on one side of the coin, and in the next paragraph, you rant on the other side of the coin. Its incoherent.

May I suggest that you try to find some organization or group that best represents your views and stick to that. Surely there is someone, whether its the AFL-CIO, the John Birch Society, or whomever, that you can align yourself with.

[texastoo]

He didn't mention the fact that in 2001 Mexico was awarded $2 billion per year for the US's refusal to admit Mexican trucks.

Interesting, as I remember the case. So what you are saying is that we have paid Mexico $2 billion a year for at least 3 years. Does the US have a "fund" set aside to pay this. Is this being discussed with the Bush budget? From what fund would this money come? Is this money hidden in foreign aid or is this coming from the Bush budget cuts? Where is this in our budget?

I would like to see any links on this that you have.

[hedgetrimmer]

Please respond to the post. I have posted text exactly out of the third draft of the FTAA. You say the leftists oppose the FTAA because they want social justice, well my post proves the FTAA codifies social justice in a treaty. Now,if you can show me that the FTAA codifies freedom and liberty rather than socialist social justice then you win. But I'll bet you can't.

Insulting responses are beneath dignity.

If you think defending freedom and opposing global socialist treaties is ranting, I'm sorry for you.