Immigrants Enlisted for Trade Pact

Washington Post ^ | April 7, 2005 | Krissah Williams

[Dog Gone]

ROFL

[hedgetrimmer]

I'm at a loss as to why those would be bad things.

So it isn't bad that these trade agreements are unconstitutional because they are negotiated by a trade minister and not Congress? It isn't a bad thing that the American taxpayer doesn't know his money is being sent as foreign aid through these trade agreements when only Congress by law has the authority to give foreign aid? It isn't a bad thing that the so-called "trade" agreement covers a lot more than trade, and will open the border to illegal immigration from all of central America, just like NAFTA opened the border for illegal immigration from Mexico? It isn't a bad thing a stated purpose of these agreements, to bolster the economies of foreign nations, is accomplished by socialist wealth redistribution policies?

The bad thing is that the American people are being betrayed by their government-- which has given their authority over to unelected ministers, councils and representatives of foreign governments who will erase our borders and integrate our nation with communist, socialist and totalitarian nations.

[hedgetrimmer]

All those sites talk about a hemispheric supernation (your words). You said most free traders wouldn't support hempispheric supernations, yet you can clearly see from the links that a plan to integrate the hemisphere has been active since 1994 using trade agreements.

[Toddsterpatriot]

It isn't a bad thing that the American taxpayer doesn't know his money is being sent as foreign aid through these trade agreements when only Congress by law has the authority to give foreign aid?

See, trade is the same as foreign aid!!

It isn't a bad thing that the so-called "trade" agreement covers a lot more than trade, and will open the border to illegal immigration from all of central America, just like NAFTA opened the border for illegal immigration from Mexico?

Specifically, where did NAFTA open the border for illegal immigration? Did we have no illegals before NAFTA?

Where does the new agreement open us up to illegal immigration from central America? Is it before or after the section that gives the OAS ultimate power over the hemisphere?

[Dog Gone]

Well, let's just look at your objections individually.

So it isn't bad that these trade agreements are unconstitutional because they are negotiated by a trade minister and not Congress?

I'm not aware of a constitutional requirement that Congress negotiate anything except among themselves. I do know that Congress explicitly agreed to the current arrangement and that no successful challenge to its constitutionality has been made. So your premise is simply wrong.

It isn't a bad thing that the American taxpayer doesn't know his money is being sent as foreign aid through these trade agreements when only Congress by law has the authority to give foreign aid?

Not a single provision in CAFTA provides for anything of the sort. You've made this allegation before and it wasn't any more true then.

It isn't a bad thing that the so-called "trade" agreement covers a lot more than trade, and will open the border to illegal immigration from all of central America, just like NAFTA opened the border for illegal immigration from Mexico?

Yes, they also cover such things as patent protection for US products. They specifically state that they do not change any immigration laws of any country, so at this point it looks like you're just making stuff up.

It isn't a bad thing a stated purpose of these agreements, to bolster the economies of foreign nations, is accomplished by socialist wealth redistribution policies?

That's essentially a restatement of your earlier false assertion about this being a redistribution of wealth from America to these countries. Just stop the nonsense. It's false. Point me to the provision within CAFTA that does this. You can't, because it's not there.

What CAFTA will do is help GROW the economies of those countries, and if you understood economics you would know that economic growth in one country does not have to come at the expense of another country. We can all get richer together.

[Dog Gone]

Integrating trade under fair rules is not the creation of a hemipheric superstate. It's a voluntary and reversible agreement to cooperate for the benefit of all in trade matters.

[hedgetrimmer]

The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations. Not an unconstitutional "trade minister".

[Mase]

"The potential impact of the agreement will likely go far beyond trade"
= = =

Well, I certainly hope so. Do you doubt that more open markets will improve the economies in the region and that will lead to more investment and a higher quality of living for people in our own hemisphere?

History has proven that as markets open the rule of law develops which is fundamental to long term democracy. Do you deny that it is in our best interest to have as many solid democracies as possible in our hemisphere?

You guys carp about trade with China but as soon as we look to our own neighborhood as an alternative you conjure up some crazy fears of supra-natural bodies eager to dominate the free world.

All we're talking about here is the remaining 20% of goods and services that do not currently enter the USA duty-free from six countries.

In Ag products alone this will mean an additional $1.5 billion in sales for American suppliers. How many new jobs will that kind of revenue create?

The benefits are not limited just to agriculture. Information systems, construction equipment, pharmaceuticals, paper products and medical and scientific equipment manufacturers are just some of the many industries that will benefit from this agreement.

You guys howl at the movement of industry and jobs overseas to places like China but can't seem to say anything good about an agreement that will create large numbers of jobs in this country while promoting democracy and self sufficiency in our own back yard.

[Dog Gone]

Which is why Congress is required to vote. Your objection is silly. We've never sent Congress overseas to negotiate tariff reductions or anything remotely like that. Your interpretation of the Constitution is unique.

[hedgetrimmer]

Is using US government resources in foreign countries a form of wealth redistribution? I think so. Is it wealth redistribution give money away so that foreign countries can build roads and infrastructure with it? I think so. Many of the programs the TAXPAYER is paying for would be the responsibility of the business if we were still operating under a free enterprise system. But in the world of "free trade" the taxpayer pays for everything and the businesses reap the profit.

There are signifcant giveaways in CAFTA. Here are some:

Highlights of Trade Capacity Building Initiatives in Support of U.S.-CAFTA Negotiations

The U.S. Department of Labor is funding a number of programs that aim to enhance implementation of labor laws and improve the lives of workers in the region. GIVEAWAY

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, drawing on experts in other U.S. agencies, will provide training to improve food safety and animal health inspection systems in Central America.GIVEAWAY

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USAID, together with the Central American Commission for Environment and Development (CCAD), train environmental compliance inspectors in Central America, thus strengthening the regional environmental enforcement networks and improving enforcement of environmental laws in each country.GIVEAWAY

USAID will purchase computer equipment for the Ministry of Industry and Commerce in Honduras.GIVEAWAY-- (the Honduran government won't even buy computers for its own officials??!!)

USAID will purchase, install, and provide training on computer software that will help manage realtime trade data (exports, imports, tariffs, etc.) for all five countries.

In Nicaragua, USAID will support the government’s fiscal reform process, funding studies on how to replace government revenues reduced through tariff cuts.

USAID will work with Central American Trade/Economic ministries to develop websites for the collection of public comments on US-CAFTA, as well as for the dissemination of information about the negotiations to the public.

***
All tax money, all given away. If the government were buying computers and setting up programs for businesses at taxpayer expense here in the US you'd see quite rightly a very angry reaction. But they step over the border, and this type of socialistic money giveaway is OK? In the world of the "free trader" logic and consistency fall by the wayside to futher the agenda.

[hedgetrimmer]

Congress does not negotiate these agreements. That is unconstitutional because Congress is ELECTED and therefore must represent CITIZENS. Congress is supposed to DEBATE before the PUBLIC so that CITIZENS are INFORMED. That is why there is a congressional record. NONE of these agreements is brought to the American people for debate, they are just presented as complete for a Yay or Nay vote. That is not the process the Constitution allows for. The fact that government officials are going to immigrants to get them to lobby as agents for their home country governments(the article that started this thread) is corrupt.

[hedgetrimmer]

Integrating trade under fair rules is not the creation of a hemipheric superstate

Which is exactly the opposite of current events. These are not simply "trade" agreements. The rules are not "fair. They are a stepping stone to hemispheric government.

[hedgetrimmer]

Do you doubt that more open markets will improve the economies in the region and that will lead to more investment and a higher quality of living for people in our own hemisphere?

Do you think that a business should take the risk for going into a foreign country to trade? After all, they reap the profit shouldn't they pay for the risk? Or do you think that the US taxpayer should be forced to pay what used to be an expense of doing business?

[Dog Gone]

I don't recall any of that being in CAFTA. Are you bringing in some proposed side initiatives to muddy the water?

And out of curiousity, are you opposed to spending any money to build up Iraq's infrastructure or to help with tsunami relief efforts in Sumatra? How about money to help Columbia fight the FARC insurgency?

It's just bizarre that you falsely claim that CAFTA will encourage illegal immigration while decrying any US program that would improve the lives of workers in that region, thus providing them a reason to stay in their home countries.

[Dog Gone]

Congress is supposed to DEBATE before the PUBLIC so that CITIZENS are INFORMED. That is why there is a congressional record. NONE of these agreements is brought to the American people for debate, they are just presented as complete for a Yay or Nay vote.

What makes you think they're not debated? Or that there isn't a congressional record? The only restriction on Congress, which they passed on themselves, is the ability to amend the agreements after they've been negotiated and signed. They're certainly able to debate points and even turn the agreements down.

[hedgetrimmer]

And out of curiousity, are you opposed to spending any money to build up Iraq's infrastructure or to help with tsunami relief efforts in Sumatra? How about money to help Columbia fight the FARC insurgency?

It's just bizarre that you falsely claim that CAFTA will encourage illegal immigration while decrying any US program that would improve the lives of workers in that region, thus providing them a reason to stay in their home countries.

You are confusing the US government with a global charity, I'm afraid.

[G-Man 1]

The USA don't need anymore stinking trade agreements. We have too many already.

[Dog Gone]

Do you think that a business should take the risk for going into a foreign country to trade? After all, they reap the profit shouldn't they pay for the risk? Or do you think that the US taxpayer should be forced to pay what used to be an expense of doing business?

I'm arguing with a brick wall. There is nothing in these agreements which takes business risk away from businesses and puts it on the taxpayer.

I mean, if you can't even stick to what's in the agreements, then let's cut off this conversation. It's pointless.

[hedgetrimmer]

I don't recall any of that being in CAFTA

Yes and you don't see any potential for hemspheric integration in CAFTA either. But here you go, this is the title, it is a document on www.ustr.gov.

Highlights of Trade Capacity Building Initiatives in Support of U.S.-CAFTA Negotiations

Oh and congress did not negotiate this foreign aid. And they didn't vote on whether to do it or not. Its all the doing of the run amok office of the USTR.

[hedgetrimmer]

I agree!