Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA Plus"

IRC Americas ^ | August 24, 2005 | By Miguel Pickard

[Conservative Firster]

“I would like you [of the press] to understand the magnitude of what this means. It is transcendent, it’s something that goes well beyond the relationship we have had up to now.” —President Vicente Fox, regarding NAFTA Plus, onboard the presidential plane returning to Mexico from George W. Bush’s Crawford ranch, March 2005.

NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) has been in effect almost 12 years and a new stage, NAFTA Plus, is in the works, referred to as “deep integration,” particularly in Canada. The elites of the three NAFTA countries (Canada, the United States, and Mexico) have been aggressively moving forward to build a new political and economic entity. A “trinational merger” is underway that leaps beyond the single market that NAFTA envisioned and, in many ways, would constitute a single state, called simply, “North America.”

Note: long article

[endthematrix]

It's that darn Bill of Rights...

Thank goodness for our Founders, who had vision to restrict abusive government.

[Heartofsong83]

That is, unless they actually sign the Constitution (and their own countries dissolve)...

[raybbr]

It is quite likely that Fox arrived in Washington ready for tradeoffs. In exchange for U.S. acceptance of more Mexican workers, Mexico would "seal" its own southern border, to detain and deport migrants from other regions, especially Central Americans, whose presence in the United States had skyrocketed since Hurricane Mitch devastated the region in 1998.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Those who support the North American Community should be dancing at the end of a rope.

[antisocial]

Thanks for the ping, hope to have time to read all of this today.

[JarheadFromFlorida]

To be renamed MexAmeriCan.

[swampfox98]

The trinational elites of the private sector will accrue greater benefits in this new space, but the American government and private sector will reap the greatest gains. The three countries will not be equal partners. As in the early 90s when NAFTA was negotiated, no pretense will be made now of taking into account the huge asymmetries between the United States and its smaller partners, likely leading to an erosion of sovereignty for Mexico and Canada.

This is a bunch of bull. Our politicians have been working hard to redistribute America's wealth to Mexico for years. Also, by taking half of Mexico into America and forcing the American workers to pay for the illegal's care, plus allowing illegals to take jobs away from Americans at half the wages and no benefits, has brought riches to the business class and helped the economic crisis in Mexico. This has all been done on the backs of the American workers, who are bearing the burden of establishing the North American Community for the elites.

By the time our politicians are finished with us, we will be as poor as the poorest Mexican before he came to America. It just amazes me that Fox has known all this for years, and has tried to tell the American public what is going on, and we still have the tin foil hat society going strong.

[Amalie]

Thanks for the post. This coming change, as much as I HATE to say this, appears irreversible. Frankly, I am not completely against it AS LONG AS the USA maintains its status as the leader and dictates most of the terms of the combination. Holding the entire continent (and kicking that little SOB out of Venezuela) against communism is not a bad idea...


Of course, the major problems about all of this are the free-for-all socialism policies of the US government(and socialism-lite that is part and parcel of the current Exec/Legi branches) coupled to similar policies already in place in these other governments. We cannot support the continent in the same way we are presently supporting our own culture (which is still likely to implode from the weight of these programs). Something will have to give to make this work; my hope is that it would be 'feel good' policies that benefit no one.
I may get flamed for this, fine...I just do not see there being any stop-gap for it, so let's do it on our terms. Statehood for Canada and Mexico, with representative government for all? Not as bad an idea as it sounds...

[Iscool]

bump

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The problem is, the fundamental goal of the "elites" is to destroy the Constitution and the American middle class.

We'll end up with a continent wide Mexico, and not the other way around. Go look up more of this plan. The (former)U.S. taxpayers will foot the bill for the rest of the continent, with free college for all mexicans and welfare for some sixty million more mexicans and twenty million canadians, plus we'll pay for all the new infrastructure to be built in mexico. We'll get nothing out of this but the shaft.

That will finish us off.

[Paul Ross]

Frankly, I am not completely against it AS LONG AS the USA maintains its status as the leader and dictates most of the terms of the combination. Holding the entire continent (and kicking that little SOB out of Venezuela) against communism is not a bad idea...

Just what makes you think the idea is to hold the place AGAINST communism? It is intended to CEMENT the control they already surreptitiously have under false colors.

[Designer]

"..AS LONG AS the USA maintains its status.."

Aye, there's the rub, now isn't it? Aarrggh! Now what if I was to say to ye; the U.S., she won't be hav'n her own sovreignty for much longer, due to congress ceding their responsibilities to the likes of the WTO. We're in it good now, I tell ye. And only a miracle can get us out.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

... The building of a new North American space is rapidly progressing, yet lacking civil society consultation and legislative oversight. By doing away with treaties or accords, the three chief executives are achieving deeper integration through NAFTA Plus by signing ?regulations,? thus foregoing the bother of seeing their plans bogged down in one of the legislatures....

This is treason.

[Paul Ross]

This is treason.

Agreed. It is time for Jeffersonian principles and some of his sage remarks to be bruited about...in GWB's earshot. "The Tree of Liberty, ..."

[Toddsterpatriot]

And the specific benefits of NAFTA have been...

Trade between the US and Mexico rose from $100 billion in 1994 to $266 billion in 2004.

Trade between the US and Canada rose from $243 billion in 1994 to $446 billion in 2004.

[hedgetrimmer]

Yes we traded away our schools, our hospitals, and our welfare system. They managed to put a lock on trade in low income housing-- we supply the housing they live in it. We also traded away at least $19billion a year that would have gone to pay for our infrastructure, but now goes to pay for Mexico's infrastructure. They traded us high crime, gangs, and persons who promote socialism and communism in our communities. They traded us our national language English, for border spanish and spanglish. They traded us equal rights for protected class. They traded us their poorest,most illiterate and desperate people so Goldman Sachs, Citibank, Wells Fargo and Bank of America could benefit.

[Clemenza]

And the negatives have been?

Yeah, I've hated that low unemployment, strong stock market and housing boom that has happened since NAFTA went into effect.

Truth, be told, NAFTA has had neither a wholly negative, nor positive effect on the economy.

On a related note:

1985: The Japanese are TAKIN' ER JAHBS! 1995: The Mexicans are TAKIN' ER JAHBS! 2005: The Chinese are TAKIN' ER JAHBS!

[hedgetrimmer]

TAKIN' ER JAHBS!

Who particularly are you slurring here?

[Clemenza]

Tavern-sitting populist yokels of all stripes, even if they sit behind a key board. ;-)

I guess you never saw a certain episode of South Park.

[Heartofsong83]

Since when is China part of NAFTA?