Skip to comments.
PLP "secretly" agreed to join CSME since last December (CAFTA precursor)
The Nassau Guardian ^
| May 12, 2005
| TAMARA McKENZIE
Posted on 06/02/2005 2:09:47 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
Also focusing on a segment of the CSME known as the Right of Establishment, Mr Bethel warned that from the moment The Bahamas signs onto the CSME, the Right of Establishment becomes automatic. He said citizens of CSME counties will have a human right to enter The Bahamas and "set up shop" and vice versa. He added, however, that most of the traffic would flow into The Bahamas.
Mr. Bethel is a member of the Bahaman parliament.
There are a number of concerns voiced in this article about the "free trade" agreements that can be directly correlated to the "free trade" agreements the USTR is currently promoting including CAFTA. The "right of establishment" is ubiquitous in NAFTA, CAFTA and the FTAA.
To: texastoo; JesseJane; american spirit
Another article warning about the dangers of the "free trade" blocs currently being implemented in the Western Hemisphere.
To: hedgetrimmer; Justanobody
Thanks for the ping HT~!~
~fyi ping, justanobody~
I'll be MIA for a bit, but marking for reference..
3
posted on
06/02/2005 3:37:14 PM PDT
by
JesseJane
(Flush the RINO RATPACK 7 - ~Selling America to Soros~, Right McCain? Right Lindsay?)
To: JesseJane
A couple of things jumped out at me,
1. the progressives like trade blocs, but they don't admit it publicly (I have a feeling the same thing is happening in the US)
2. A lot of the negotiating and agreements happen in the dead of night (or out of country so US newspapers and sunshine laws don't know or have no effect)
3. No elected government has the right to sell out the sovereignty of a nation (be it the Bahamas or the US)
"This is almost an act of political treachery of the highest order "
4. Again the article decries the provisions which call for the 'free movement of people'-- which we have seen in from migration working groups set up for NAFTA, and in the Summit of the America's directives.
5.The Bahamians are asking for a referendum which is opposed by their governemt "people to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into the CSME by a "wicked, unresponsive and unpatriotic"-- this seems to be the modus operandi to establish these "free trade blocs" around the world.
6. the Right of Establishment, of which I was unaware of until recently, says that any foreign national in the trade agreement area, can come to any country in the trade agreement area and set up a business. They don't need to follow immigration protocol or get business or professional licensing. If you interfere with the right of establishment you are interfering with a "trade agreement" and subject to any fines or penalties associated with that.
To: hedgetrimmer; JesseJane
JJ - Thanks.
4....migration working groups set up for NAFTA
6. the Right of Establishment...If you interfere with the right of establishment you are interfering with a "trade agreement" and subject to any fines or penalties associated with that.
hedgetrimmer has uncovered the reasons why we see NO action regarding our illegal invader problem. They, per NAFTA, are not illegal. I guess this is why they are alway referred to as "migrants" instead of illegals. Sigh...
5
posted on
06/02/2005 4:31:37 PM PDT
by
Just A Nobody
(I - L O V E - my attitude problem!)
To: HiJinx; SandRat; gubamyster; Willie Green; A. Pole; the gillman@blacklagoon.com; lodwick; ...
You might be interested in post #5
To: Justanobody; ninenot; sittnick; steve50; Hegemony Cricket; Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; FITZ; ...
hedgetrimmer has uncovered the reasons why we see NO action regarding our illegal invader problem. They, per NAFTA, are not illegal WOW!
7
posted on
06/02/2005 5:42:36 PM PDT
by
A. Pole
(Mikolaj Rej: "A niechaj narodowie wzdy postronni znaja, Iz Polacy nie gesi, iz swoj jezyk maja.")
To: hedgetrimmer
AAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!
8
posted on
06/02/2005 5:43:11 PM PDT
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: Justanobody
No borders, no nationality, no Natural Rights of Englishmen (the basis for the US Bill of Rights ...)
9
posted on
06/02/2005 5:47:07 PM PDT
by
GOP_1900AD
(Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
To: hedgetrimmer
10
posted on
06/02/2005 5:51:28 PM PDT
by
monkeywrench
(http://ciudadano.presidencia.gob.mx/peticion/peticion.htm -Tell Vicente)
To: SandRat
Dangers of CSME (CAFTA precursor)
When you have a single market economy, which CAFTA would create with Central America and the United States, you will get unlimited immigration, out of country students demanding in-state tuition, and unlicensed individuals working in areas where national and local licensing controls existed.
Here are some definitions of phrases that come out of "free trade" agreements:
the right of establishment==any foreigner can open a business in your country
the right of capital mobility==any foreigner can take capital out of your country , like remittances
free movement of labor== unlimited illegal immigration
national treatment == illegals must be afforded the same rights as "nationals" i.e. citizens
To: hedgetrimmer
AAAAARRRRRGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!
12
posted on
06/02/2005 5:54:57 PM PDT
by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
To: GOP_1900AD; All
Starting with the WTO,and through NAFTA to CAFTA to the FTAA, rules have been established regarding "the right of establishment" and the "national treatment" of migrants.
The right of establishment means that any country within the "free trade" area designated in the treaty has the right to establish business in any country in the "free trade area". That is why the article mentions the right of establishment, it is one mechanism for establishing open borders and unlimited immigration.
What the right of establishment does is force country's with migrant or temporary worker labor to give "national treatment" to the foreign nationals working in that country. National treatment means you must treat them the same as citizen workers, and allow them mobility to go to any job they want(no guest worker program that ties them to a specific employer, because that harms their economic freedom). The mobility issue could also be behind the push for illegal immgrant drivers licenses.
CAFTA clearly creates a "national treatment" and provides the "right of establishment" for professional workers, which is the camel's nose under the tent for other migrant labor in the hemisphere as soon as the FTAA is signed.
NAFTA has clear "right of establishment" and "national treatment" rules for Mexico. It is one proof that "free trade" promotes illegal immigration.
If you want to educate yourself about the fuzzy phrases that don't sound harmful to American sovereignty, but really are, I suggest you read up on how the "right of establishment" has harmed sovereignty in the EU, the "right of establishment" in the NAFTA, CAFTA, the FTAA and what "national treatment" means in "free trade" agreements.
To: hedgetrimmer
14
posted on
06/02/2005 6:15:03 PM PDT
by
monkeywrench
(http://ciudadano.presidencia.gob.mx/peticion/peticion.htm -Tell Vicente)
To: hedgetrimmer
We have been so hung out to die. A beautiful country sold. It's price?.. Everything. Liberty, freedom, sovereignty, individual rights, rule of law, it's future...gone.
15
posted on
06/02/2005 8:15:52 PM PDT
by
JesseJane
(Flush the RINO RATPACK 7 - ~Selling America to Soros~, Right McCain? Right Lindsay?)
To: monkeywrench
At a continental level, the N.A.F.T.A. is ultimately aimed at allowing the free movement of labour and its products across national boundaries. Ongoing restriction of this movement is supposed to allow the public and private sectors to adjust to a continental market, before starting the free movement of workers across borders. While this seems like a logical process, it can equally be argued that these restrictions, once again, benefit only the largest corporate interests within all three nations, while dooming smaller companies and individual workers to a type of regional labour bondage, which in turn legislates an ever deepening pit of poverty for the vast majority, and a non-competitive profiteering environment for the elite minority. At times it seems the true objective of the N.A.F.T.A.'s implementation schedule, is to make sure huge corporations get all the cream out of the free trade environment, before smaller entrepreneurs can get a look-in.
Canadian Association of Labour Lawyers
Sheila Greckol, Jeffrey Sack, Claude Melançon
http://www.naalc.org/english/review_annex5_can.shtml
To: 1rudeboy; Toddsterpatriot; Dog Gone
To: hedgetrimmer; 1rudeboy; Dog Gone; LowCountryJoe; Mase
the N.A.F.T.A. is ultimately aimed at allowing the free movement of labour and its products across national boundariesWow, some Canadian lawyers said this!!! That's almost as good as it being in the actual treaty.
Try again? And this time why don't you quote some AFL-CIO leaders, E.P.I., Harry Reid or, heaven forbid, the treaty itself.
Wait, here is a quote for you "Yesterday, Toddsterpatriot said that anyone who thinks a trade treaty grants citizenship rights to illegals is a freakin' idiot!!!" I like that quote best. Feel free to use it.
18
posted on
06/02/2005 9:05:53 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(If you agree with Karl Marx, the AFL-CIO and E.P.I. please stop calling yourself a conservative!!)
To: Toddsterpatriot; hedgetrimmer; Justanobody; texastoo
Hey todd, did you leave of the /s tag? There are several of us following this, and digging deeper into the relationship with NAFTA as well... I'll speak for myself, but others would probably agree, we are looking at a set of trade criteria which is completely out of sinc with what Americans believe America should be doing for her own citizens.. And it's being done behind our backs, but yet in plain sight if you go to our government websites to read it for yourself. Therein lies a problem, for me anyway.. there is absolutely no media focus on this 'evolution' of the Americas, nor the cost to Americans, and their sovereign voice. So, with that, I'll accept your arrows and insight.
19
posted on
06/02/2005 9:18:35 PM PDT
by
JesseJane
(Flush the RINO RATPACK 7 - ~Selling America to Soros~, Right McCain? Right Lindsay?)
To: JesseJane
I'll speak for myself, but others would probably agree, we are looking at a set of trade criteria which is completely out of sinc with what Americans believe America should be doing for her own citizens..Be specific.
nor the cost to Americans, and their sovereign voice.
What cost? What loss of sovereign voice?
20
posted on
06/02/2005 9:36:06 PM PDT
by
Toddsterpatriot
(If you agree with Karl Marx, the AFL-CIO and E.P.I. please stop calling yourself a conservative!!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-67 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson