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

By early next year (2005) Congress will convene and decide whether or not to push through the incognito FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). If this free-trade pact goes through successfully, a revolution inconceivable since America’s founding will sweep across the American front, unleashing widespread economic instability by uniting North America’s market with Mexico’s, and eventually South America’s. Together, this process will consolidate North and South America’s monetary system, trade, market, political hemisphere, and regional infrastructure. On top of this, the Bush Administration’s recently proposed “Amnesty” plan will compound the situation by flooding America with an influx of mass-immigration from Mexico and abroad, which will be a prelude to further diluting American culture and fleecing American jobs. So is this all just a shot in the dark, a fantasy or unreality? A matter of fact, this is not political hype, but as real as it gets. The process has already begun—ever so quietly—behind closed doors. Plans for the FTAA were opened publicly in 1994 at the Summit of the Americas in Miami, Florida. The Bush administration, mass media and a few inside sources have whimsically portrayed the FTAA and NAFTA as some kind of juvenile equal-status trade environment, which would supposedly create growth in business, jobs and the economy. It would be stupendous if this were so, but unfortunately the Bush administration has kept the FTAA and NAFTA’s true objectives and motives behind public scrutiny. The administration also forecasts that the FTAA will bring a huge boost in U.S. exports, but actually the opposite will occur. EU’s Free-Trade Mirrors American Free Trade

The European Union and the earlier European Community, are important subjects to examine for understanding the true nature of “free-trade”. The EC involvement with free-trade and the “Common Market” are almost identical to the Free-Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Europe’s “free trade zone” and “Common Market” for many years led people to believe that economic and social prosperity would benefit European communities. But the opposite has occurred. In 1970 European countries began witnessing a “free-trade zone” and Common Market system developing. Worsthorn, a well known writer for the London Sunday Telegraph commented on the deception that had been occurring. In a 1991 column, he said that: “twenty years ago [1971], when the process began [Common Market], there was no question of losing sovereignty.” Remarkably though, the creative charade of hiding behind the curtain didn’t surface its ugly head until the year 2000. Some undisclosed documents revealed true lies and mischievous deceit: “What these papers revealed more starkly than ever before”, says British journalist Christopher Booker, “was just how deliberately the Heath Government and the Foreign office set out to conceal from the British people the Common Market’s true purpose. They were fully aware that it was intended to be merely the first step towards creating a politically United Europe, but they were determined to hide this from view.” Booker continued saying that, “for 40 years British politicians have consistently tried to portray it [the Common Market and EU] to their fellow-citizens as little more than an economic arrangement: a kind of free-trading area primarily concerned with creating jobs and prosperity.” Ever since Europe’s Common Market and free-trade began emerging, it has created nothing but economic down-sizing, loss of jobs, under-development and degradation for Europe’s people. Since 1971, EU countries haven’t become stronger and more prosperous by free-trade and a Common Market, but steadily have become weaker in their ability to grow economically, populously, and independently. Whatever Euro-politicians have said or claimed about the prosperity of free-trade and the Common Market in the EU, they really are only contradictions to the reality of the situation. They say “all is well”, but statistics document otherwise. It is interesting that while Europe’s economy was crumbling and jobs were diminishing, that industrial and manufacturing jobs were being handed over to government and monopolistic corporations. Ironically, the same situation is currently happening in America today! The preponderance of deceit that EU politicians have wielded over their people for nearly 34 years resembles the same charade currently being used in America.. Back to present times, on December 17, 2003, U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick proclaimed that the Bush administration had manufactured a “cutting edge” Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) with South American countries—El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. Mr. Zoellick noted that the U.S. is “step by step, country by country, region by region…opening markets with top-notch comprehensive FTAs that set the standard”, referring to the nifty trade pacts he has been so diligently molding for the Bush Administration. It should be noted that CAFTA (Central American Free Trade Agreement) is a precursor to the more hemispherical FTAA—a stepping stone you could say. Continuing with Mr. Zoellich’s December 17th commentary—during a press release—he described CAFTA’s objective as being affiliated with a global agenda. “The culmination of a year of intense negotiations” says the release, “CAFTA fulfills a key U.S. objective of opening markets with free-trade partners, while continuing to push trade liberalization through the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and globally in the Doha talks in the World Trade organization.” Mr. Bush himself revealed the ultimate objective of the FTAA in a commentary just three days before the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec. He said that “[The FTAA] will make our hemisphere the largest free-trade area in the world, encompassing 34 countries and 800 million people.” It certainly will be a brave new world if free-trade is opened up to 800 million people. An Amnesty Nightmare

While the Bush administration continues eroding away our freedoms by continuing the unification of the western hemisphere, liquidating U.S. borders has become another objective. January 7, 2004, President Bush addressed the nation at the White House, calling for a “new temporary worker program” for illegal immigrants who presently reside within and out of the U.S. He said the legal status “will last three years and will be renewable.” Mr. Bush claims that “our current limits on legal immigration are too low,” (even though 75% of downtown Los Angeles—and numerous other metropolitan areas are owned largely by foreigners). He also called for implementations to “increase the annual number of green cards that can lead to citizenship” for illegal aliens presently occupied here, as well as any other illegal immigrants that wish to cross our unprotected borders. Mr. Bush’s “Amnesty” plan not only provides the occasion for the ten to fifteen million illegal immigrants currently living in this country to infiltrate the U.S., but also all those who live in foreign countries across the globe who seek to participate in the program. The solution to the immigration problem is deteriorating so quickly that America might as well put up a sign exclaiming: “All terrorist organizations and radical hate groups are welcome to participate in exploiting America—so come—cross our borders and take our freedom.” In light of Mr. Bush’s delightfully offered “amnesty”—which is branded for disaster—he inquisitively shows the up-most concern for America’s poor economic condition, yet mysteriously he continues opening up countless doors for American jobs to be outsourced by legal and illegal low wage takers. Over the past ten years, more than 2 million low-skilled American workers have been displaced from their jobs, “writes CNN financial analyst Lou Dobbs. And each 10 percent increase in the immigrant workforce decreases U.S. wages by 3.5 percent,” Dobbs says. Mr. Bush and his iron-clad followers, encouragingly stipulate that illegal immigrants are taking jobs nobody wants, however, Steve Camoreta of the Center for Immigration Studies, remarkably discerns that “what they really mean is that they are doing jobs that they as middle-and upper-class people don’t want.” It really is a matter of economics; for instance, as the illegal immigrant workforce out-sources middle and upper-class American jobs, the supply of labor goes up, therefore submerging its price [wage]. An example in correlation goes like this: When the amount of currency in the money supply is increased, (as relating to an immigrant workforce), the value of it decreases—therefore causing inflation. Instead of inflation of the money supply though, inflation of the immigrant workforce creates economic instability. The average middle and upper-class American job losses its wage [value], just as an increased currency in the money supply losses its value—so do middle class jobs that are replaced by a low wage immigrant workforce. The open-border policy that Mr. Bush has been currently undertaking for some time now was confirmed by Mexican President Vincent Fox, in a speech in Madrid, where he explained the important value of mixing, and finally eliminating the distinction between legal and illegal immigration—therefore blending the merger of Mexico with America. He remarked that: “Eventually our long range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada….an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the good of attending to future themes [such as] the future prosperity of North America, and the movement of capital, goods, services and persons.” If America follows in the footsteps which were spoken by President Vincent Fox and President Bush, America will no longer see borders protecting her, but instead, one regional border engulfing an entire Northern and Southern American hemisphere. In fact, soon after Mr. Bush took office, he and Mexican President Vincent Fox signed a document confirming such unification. In the “Guanajuato Proposal”, it states that their governments would “strive to consolidate a North American economic community whose benefits reach the lesser-developed areas of the region and extend to the most vulnerable social groups in our countries.” Whatever promotional tools that both presidents have used to term their provocative message of “integral immigration”—whether for painting an illumination of “prosperity”, or focusing on stimulating the “vulnerable”—truth speaks louder than words. Their globalist agenda will only reap disunity among social groups, bring instability in the economy, and fleece American jobs. And if their political master plan is left undetected, it will only lead to further destruction (if not entire destruction) of our constitution, and proceed to subjugating America’s sovereignty and obliterating our borders. If this scheme were to succeed, it would transform America into a supra trans-continental migratory trade highway!

The emergence of mass illegal and legal immigration, free-trade, and opening up trans-continental markets between North and South America will predominantly centralize the economies of the two continents and vamp political unity. Just as Mr. Zoellick confirms: “This agreement will further the regional integration that the Central Americans themselves have begun, and compliment our vital work on the Free Trade Area of the Americas.” 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). It is said that once economic union forms (which is what NAFTA and the FTAA are constructed to do) that political union follows in its footsteps. And once unionization is established, independent national sovereignty will give way to multi-regional international sovereignty. Most people relate to this kind of political/economical run system with globalism, socialism or a New World Order. In 1958, in the Congressional Record, (p.2560), Senator George W. Malone clarified in some words on what respectfully is associated with free-trade and immigration. He said: “A great editor, Mr. E.F. Tompkins, of the New York Journal-American, has written five important articles regarding the relationship between free-trade, free-immigration, and world government…..In a letter addressed to me, Mr. Tompkins stated: ‘The free trade movement is not a separate entity. It is related in this country to the opposition to immigration regulation, and both by adoption or devolution are parts of the world government movement’….On June 28, 1952, I said on the Senate floor—and my remarks were reprinted under the title “Free Economic System Versus Fabian Socialistic Program”: ‘The international socialism plan calls for (a) Reduction of all barriers to the flow of international trade, (b) Access to raw material of all sorts for all nations, (c) Access to markets for all nations, (d) World organization through which the nations can share freely in the supplies and the markets of the world. There can be only one result and only one final solution [if] these objectives are allowed to obtain, and that is, of course, the leveling of the living standards of the United States of America with the sweatshop-labor nations of the world’. It is remarkable how Mr. Malone’s remarks replicate 46 years later—to the tee— how America has followed his program description. From Mr. Malone’s analogy, (a) Reduction of all barriers to the flow of international trade: President Bush is further compounding this by opening up our borders to mass-immigration, and (c) He is opening markets through out the western hemisphere with trade-pacts such as NAFTA, FTAA, and CAFTA, and (d) The consolidation of the world’s economies which has not yet been fully replicated. There can only be one thing left to be said about free immigration and free trade, that is—if it took 40 years of opening markets and spreading free-trade across European countries, which then transformed into the European Union, then it very well could be that North and South America will similarly merge like the E.U., except it may only take a quarter the time to accomplish. What will our borders look like in just a year or two if the FTAA successfully passes through Congress in January 2005? It would be an event unparalleled in America’s two hundred twenty eight years of independence. What we see today in America as a single independent nation will no longer be in America tomorrow. Just as the Revolutionary War freed America from hierarchical governance in 1776, the FTAA and NAFTA will excavate any lasting remnant of freedom that existed from that period.

The problem is that if you state this in simple terms, its hard to get people to listen.

That depends on how the argument is presented and the audience.

In my opinion the best way to present this would be to compare it with NAFTA. Ben F. has given a good example about paying $2 billion to Mexico and overriding our judges because of this treaty. There are many, many more examples that Americans don't like.

We were sold a bill of goods that we would be all rich and wealthy with no illegal immigration. None of it happened.

In my opinion the best way to present this would be to compare it with NAFTA

There is no good way to do this. NAFTA is such a drop in the bucket compared to the FTAA. A lot of people think NAFTA was about trade, but it was only in part. It led the way for GATT and the creation of a global body for trade regulation. The purpose of GATT was to ensure "rapid and sustained expansion of export earnings of developing countries; - ensuring that less developed countries secure a share in the growth in international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development " It is all about, from the get go, prejudicing trade against industrialized countries (the USA) so that the wealth can be "shared" among developing countries. The easiest way to explain is to post the text of these agreements so people can see with their own eyes what the treaties and agreements are all about. Its not hard to understand, and attorney's know words have meaning, and they write these documents. When the treaties talk about strengthen the state to ensure a socially just state, they are talking about using the treaty to promote some flavor of socialism. Thats it.

Why don't more Americans read these treaties? Why can't people see if a statist treaty is enacted against the US that it will strengthen statism in this country, not keep us a free, or wealthy or sovereign nation? Because people don't want to understand the root of the problem, you will continue to see the degradation of our sovereignty with people wondering, how could this happen? Why don't our politicians listen to us?

The answer lies in these treaties, they are only following the imperative laid out by international treaties like the FTAA. To understand that, is to finally be able to act in a knowledgeable way to prevent further erosion of our form of government.

It is amazing that a 4 year old article is still on the server

Mexico has not, as yet, chosen to invoke a sanctioned retaliation, but there is a lot agitation in their legislature to disallow those US trucks that had previously been granted the right to operate in Mexico. Mexico knows that this is a sensitive subject and to invoke retaliation would be bad PR.

PR is always a significant consideration when a Chapter 11 violation is considered for arbitration or invoked after the arbitration has resulted in an award. Annother example is when Methenex dropped their air-tight case against California over MTBE.

Bush has recieved a lot of undeserved criticism over his efforts to conform to the NAFTA trucks and avoid the 2 billion award, which came less than a month after he walked thru the door.

If the US continues disallowing the Mexican trucks, it is likely that Mexico will eventually invoke santions. It is also likely that the US will face further arbitration.

After the Murray-Shelby amendment on safety and inspection passed congress and the details on cross border insurance were worked out, many US trucking companies bought into Mexican trucking companies. They will eventually take the US into arbitration.

Obviously there is a disconnect between what you say and what the leftists say. Lets look at the evidence.

Your evidence rests primarily on some "feel-good buzzword". Do you think that they would say that they are intent on creating social injustice?

Whats the evidence on the other side?

First, we look at NAFTA, and I don't mean the nuts and bolts. What has occurred regarding since NAFTA regarding Chapter 11/Investor Protections?

There have been numerous cases on Chap 11 violations and many awards. The most notable in the realm of social welfare never made it into arbitration because it was avoided by a threat of arbitration. You may recall this case, at the time it was covered extensively in the media.

Canada announced their intention to require(creeping regulation) US tobacco companies to put bizarre and frightening warning labels on their packages. The US companies threatened arbitration. Canada knew that they would lose and dropped it.

You should also consider that Chap 11 has created an all new area of law practice. It is called Investor-State Law. Of course, Investor-State Law deals not only with the investor protections in Chap11, but also the investor protections that are/will be found in other FTAs.

Second, we look at the Chile FTA. This is so new, there are no examples of its impact on social, enviro, and labor regulations. You could, however, search the leftist websites and find that they maintain that the investor protections in that FTA are identical to those in NAFTA.

Third, lets look at the lawsuits and legislation regarding the negotiating of the FTAs. The dems were able to pass legislation requiring Bush to give more consideration to social, enviro, & labor concerns when he negotiates. The pubs allowed this legislation to pass because it is toothless. Public Citizen sued Bush over transparency in negotiating. They won.

Which brings me back to your evidence.

Given all this, do you not see that Bush has to say that social justice is paramount.

I know your concerns. FTAs overide US law and thus threaten our sovereignty. It would be more accurate to say that these FTAs overide the US regulatory laws that are choking this country to death.

Your evidence rests primarily on some "feel-good buzzword".

In the world of international politics and global government, social justice is not just some feel good buzz word.

Equal justice is clearly not a feel good buzz word to Americans who care about the US Constitution. It is a pillar of our rights. Social justice is a pillar as well, but for a different kind of goverment that is based on alienable, state defined rights. A "buzzword" is not codified into national laws. Social justice, envrionmental justice and soon to be labor justice are being codified into law in governments and governmental organizations all over the globe. Our own President Clinton signed the executive order that implemented envrionmental justice in the United States and subsquently federal agencies and state governments have set up bureaucracies to define and enforce the unconstitutional concept of environmental justice.

You see, social justice is not a buzzword at all, but another tool to restructure our society away from sovereignty and individual self government.

Don't dismiss social justice because in hurts the United States in ways to numerous to list here. And if you get people to buy into social justice, and there is a literal blitz on the whole planet to do so, you have just given yourself a tool to overturn the US Constitution and put something else, something very bad, into place.

That's their own fault. It's been out there for everyone to see for a long time

Have you read it? If you have you will see that there are complete sections that aren't done, but they will be done after the FTAA is passed.

So even if you read it now, they can do just about anything to finish it after it passes.

So despite what people see, there are plenty of sessions that are held without the benefit of public disclosure or the press, since they are not bound by the same laws our government is, and none of the public knows what the final document will be.

That's going to be difficult too. Just seeing that Kerry didn't become President was tough. Who is electable is the bigger question. It's out of control, may end up a civil war, and that, if we're lucky.

I just saw on the news right now(KCAL channel 9 in Los Angeles)that the GOP has already endorsed Awnuld for their candidate for Guvnu in '06. With the talk of making changes in the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens to become President, it could happen for the Austrian socialist Kennedy connected RINO. Electability is the key, and no one looks good to me today.

I almost wish I never read this. Thanx philetus.

As journalist William Jasper noted following the Miami event, "the Summit of the Americas and the FTAA were conceived, nurtured, and brought to fruition by the Council of the Americas (David Rockefeller, founder and honorary chairman), the Americas Society (David Rockefeller, chairman), the Forum of the Americas (David Rockefeller, founder), the U.S. Council of the Mexico-U.S. Business Committee (Rodman C. Rockefeller, chairman), the Council on Foreign Relations (David Rockefeller, former chairman), the Trilateral Commission (David Rockefeller, founder and honorary chairman), the Chase Manhattan Bank (David Rockefeller, former chairman), and the Institute for International Economics (David Rockefeller, financial backer and board member)."

In a more recent article (see link to "Welcome Mat for Terrorists," below) William Jasper traces the roots of the FTAA back even further. Incredibly, the idea for a regional common market was first proposed by Fidel Castro at a 1959 conference in Buenos Aires, before Fidel’s Communist ties were publicly acknowledged. Less than two years later, internationalists and pro-communists in the Kennedy administration advanced Castro’s proposal as the Alliance for Progress:

"What we are now witnessing as the unfolding FTAA began as a revolutionary program of the Kennedy administration under the lofty sounding title of Alliance for Progress. The Alliance for Progress, designed on the pattern of the Marshall Plan, was established to funnel billions of foreign aid dollars to socialist parties and Communist movements in Latin America, with the aim of melding all of the region’s countries into a common market, just as the Marshall Planners had done after World War II in Europe."

Actually, the American Insiders driving the FTAA are not mere copycat observers of the EU example. American Insiders were, in fact, the principal architects behind the drive for a united Europe. A few years ago, declassified government documents revealed that our own intelligence community had funded and directed the Euro-federalist movement in the fifties and sixties.

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.