Posted on 07/17/2005 11:10:40 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
Congress will soon take up the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which many see as an extension of NAFTA and a precursor to the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas that would convert all of North and South America into one integrated market.
Opinions about CAFTA's impact on the regional economy vary widely among members of Congress based largely on what the agreement will do for their constituents. But in the rush to highlight who wins and who loses when these trade barriers come down, almost everyone has overlooked the troubling non-trade provisions that are tucked into the voluminous document.
CAFTA would do more than just phase out tariffs and open new markets ---- a lot more. For example, buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of "cross-border trade in services." This definition would give people in Central American nations a de facto right to work in the United States. CAFTA is more than a trade agreement about sugar and bananas. It is a thinly disguised immigration accord.
The immigration provisions are cloaked as "service agreements" in the document that have become standard fare in most trade agreements.
One article of CAFTA reads, "Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service ... by a national of a party in the territory of another party." CAFTA goes on to stipulate that member nations take care to ensure that local and national "measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services," and to guarantee that our domestic laws are "not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service."
What those provisions mean is that a foreign company would be empowered under CAFTA to challenge the validity of our immigration laws. If an international tribunal rules against us, Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws or face international trade sanctions. These tribunals have the authority to rule that U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements, or even licensing requirements and zoning rules are "unnecessary burdens to trade" that act as "restrictions on the supply of a service."
This hidden legislation to open the U.S. border is only the beginning.
The chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversees most international trade matters, believes that these kinds of immigration provisions are fair game for future trade deals as well.
If CAFTA were really just about trade, the agreement would be little more than a few pages long, declaring that tariff treatment for U.S. and Central American goods will be on a reciprocal basis. But it isn't. In reality, CAFTA is about expanding a growing body of international law that supersedes our own.
If CAFTA is approved, Congress' "exclusive" authority to regulate immigration policy will be subjugated to the whim of international tribunals and trade panels ---- in much the same way that Congress' once supreme constitutional authority to "regulate commerce with foreign nations," has already been largely ceded to the WTO.
They're sell-outs.
They're selling American soveregnty to the enemies of America.
Time for a change. Time for: Tancredo for President 2008/2012
Because that's really high on their agenda too...
I was recently hit with the same realization myself. It is shocking and amazingly devious.
The premier candidates that would oppose this destruction of our sovereignty in the past have been systemmatically misrepresented, vilified, sabotaged, embarassed, marginalized. Take your pick: Keyes, Buchanan, and now Tancredo (ever since 2000, Rove has had it in for him).
The whole stupid thing is just a charade.
Most of the big media moguls are in the club, as are most of both sides of the Senate, as well as George Soros, and Bush's dad, and Bill Clinton, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice.
Agreed. Ever wonder why Fox News stays silent on the issue too? Rupert Murdoch is building a huge mansion in Bejing...he sees the writing on the wall as well, and likely is going along either because he believes in it too, doesn't care, or is afraid to buck those forces dedicated to it.
I suspect Brit Hume is not on board, but he apparently has to answer to higher powers.
The only one in the MSM that is blatantly NOT on board with the sell-out agenda is Lou Dobbs...which has always struck me as mysterious because Time-Warner and Ted Turner presumably are his bosses. If those two groups aren't in favor of the globalization, who is? Anyways, look how Dobbs is being vilified even here by supposed free traders.
"We think CAFTA is bad, everyone should go to the CFR site and read this thing!"
Anyone that thinks the CFR is a threat wears a tin-foil hat. It's true, I heard it right here on FR. In fact, there ain't no such thing as the CFR.
Yes.
I was disgusted to see some of the slurs tossed at Phyllis Schlafly when I posted her summary of the CFR North American Community crap.
I bet if Rush or Ann Coulter came out against this nonsense they would immediately be thrown under the bus as well.
You never see anyone post Michelle Malkin's columns anymore.
" What makes you think they don't already know about, and support it?"
What makes you think they can read?
Yes, opposing these "managed trade agreements" makes one "anti-business"
By that standard- opposing the porn industry makes a person "anti-business".
I stand with Bush on most issues, but not on "free" trade. I am not willing to sacrifice our sovereignty (and our middle class) in order to fatten the wallets of a handful of CEOs.
Call me a protectionist, communist, whatever. I want to see our country remain a sovereign nation that puts its own citizens first.
Anyway you can include el Fox's mug on there someplace?
:~)
They've taken to waiting for a thread to die and then sneaking in comments that nobody sees but them.
Or maybe, just maybe, they are examining some of the evidence sent their way.
Nah!
Have you seen Tancredo's statement on CAFTA yet?
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.