North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA

North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA by Jerome R. Corsi Posted May 30, 2006

In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture, transportation, and health.

SPP is headed by three top cabinet level officers of each country. Representing the United States are Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Representing Mexico are Secretario de Economía Fernando Canales, Secretario de Gobernación Carlos Abascal, and Secretario de Relaciones Exteriores, Luis Ernesto Derbéz. Representing Canada are Minister of Industry David L. Emerson, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Public Safety, Anne McLellan, and Minister of Foreign Affairs Pierre Stewart Pettigrew.

Reporting in June 2005 to the heads of state of the three countries, the trilateral SPP emphasized the extensive working group structure that had been established to pursue an ambitious agenda:

In carrying out your instructions, we established working groups under both agendas of the Partnership – Security and Prosperity. We held roundtables with stakeholders, meetings with business groups and briefing sessions with Legislatures, as well as with other relevant political jurisdictions. The result is a detailed series of actions and recommendations designed to increase the competitiveness of North America and the security of our people.

This is not a theoretical exercise being prepared so it can be submitted for review. Instead, SPP is producing an action agreement to be implemented directly by regulations, without any envisioned direct Congressional oversight.

Upon your review and approval, we will once again meet with stakeholders and work with them to implement the workplans that we have developed.

The success of our efforts will be defined less by the contents of the work plans than by the actual implementation of initiatives and strategies that will make North America more prosperous and more secure.

Reviewing the specific working agenda initiatives, the goal to implement directly is apparent. Nearly every work plan is characterized by action steps described variously as “our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles …” or “we have signed a Memorandum of Understanding …,” or “we have signed a declaration of intent …” etc. Once again, none of the 30 or so working agendas makes any mention of submitting decisions to the U.S. Congress for review and approval. No new U.S. laws are contemplated for the Bush administration to submit to Congress. Instead, the plan is obviously to knit together the North American Union completely under the radar, through a process of regulations and directives issued by various U.S. government agencies.

What we have here is an executive branch plan being implemented by the Bush administration to construct a new super-regional structure completely by fiat. Yet, we can find no single speech in which President Bush has ever openly expressed to the American people his intention to create a North American Union by evolving NAFTA into this NAFTA-Plus as a first, implementing step.

Anyone who has wondered why President Bush has not bothered to secure our borders is advised to spend some time examining the SPP working groups’ agenda. In every area of activity, the SPP agenda stresses free and open movement of people, trade, and capital within the North American Union. Once the SPP agenda is implemented with appropriate departmental regulations, there will be no area of immigration policy, trade rules, environmental regulations, capital flows, public health, plus dozens of other key policy areas countries that the U.S. government will be able to decide alone, or without first consulting with some appropriate North American Union regulatory body. At best, our border with Mexico will become a speed bump, largely erased, with little remaining to restrict the essentially free movement of people, trade, and capital.

Canada has established an SPP working group within their Foreign Affairs department. Mexico has placed the SPP within the office of the Secretaria de Economia and created and extensive website for the Alianza Para La Securidad y La Prosperidad de Améica del Norte (ASPAN). On this Mexican website, ASPAN is described as “a permanent, tri-lateral process to create a major integration of North America.”

The extensive working group activity being implemented right now by the government of Mexico, Canada, and the United States is consistent with the blueprint laid out in the May 2005 report of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled “Building a North American Community.”

The Task Force’s central recommendation is the establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter. (page xvii)

The only borders or tariffs which would remain would be those around the continent, not those between the countries within:

Its (the North American Community’s) boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America. (page 3)

What will happen to the sovereignty of the United States? The model is the European Community. While the United States would supposedly remain as a country, many of our nation-state prerogatives would ultimately be superseded by the authority of a North American court and parliamentary body, just as the U.S. dollar would have to be surrendered for the “Amero,” the envisioned surviving currency of the North American Union. The CFR report left no doubt that the North American Union was intended to evolve through a series of regulatory decisions:

While each country must retain its right to impose and maintain unique regulations consonant with its national priorities and income level, the three countries should make a concerted effort to encourage regulatory convergence.

The three leaders highlighted the importance of addressing this issue at their March 2005 summit in Texas. The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America they signed recognizes the need for a stronger focus on building the economic strength of the continent in addition to ensuring its security. To this end, it emphasizes regulatory issues. Officials in all three countries have formed a series of working groups under designated lead cabinet ministers. These working groups have been ordered to produce an action plan for approval by the leaders within ninety days, by late June 2005, and to report regularly thereafter. (pages 23-24)

Again, the CFR report says nothing about reporting to Congress or to the American people. What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned. Right now, the only check or balance being exercised is arguably Congressional oversight of the executive bureaucracy, even though Congress itself might not fully appreciate what is happening.

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15240

The State at War with the Nation
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted May 30, 2006

"Our Enemy, the State" was a minor classic by Albert Jay Nock that young conservatives consumed in the Goldwater days of long ago.

In the 1970s, however, "conservatives" tasted power under Nixon. In 1980, they captured the White House. Today they control the government. But along that long road to power, many shed principles and convictions as they came to relish the wielding of power for its own sake no less than the liberals of the New Deal and Great Society.

Many now in power are in reality conservative impersonators, the sort of people the conservative movement was first mounted to run out of town. Indeed, under George W. Bush, the party of Goldwater and Reagan has become a second party of government. Social spending has soared as rapidly as it did in the salad days of LBJ.

Last week, the title of Nock's classic came again to mind. For "Our Enemy, the State" is an exact description of a regime that seeks to convert into law a Senate amnesty for millions of illegal aliens, while authorizing transnational companies to go abroad to bring hundreds of thousands of foreign workers here every year to displace Americans.

Three-in-five Republican senators voted "no" to amnesty. It sped to passage, however, with the backing of George W. Bush, John McCain, Bill Frist and nine of every 10 Senate Democrats.

That proposed amnesty, and the bipartisan support it won, is a textbook example of an establishment against the people, and a state at war with the nation. For that bill would alter the face, fate and future of America against the expressed will of the nation.

Rather than stand with the people who put them in office, Bush, Frist, McCain and 21 GOP senators, in the defining collision between K Street values and Main Street values, went with K Street.

Since the Immigration Act of 1965, Americans, in every poll and referendum, have demanded reductions in immigration, an end to the invasion through Mexico, no amnesty, a resolute defense of America's borders. Yet, not until a firestorm of protest erupted after he called the Minutemen "vigilantes" did Bush begin to speak up for border security.

Given the collapse in enforcement of U.S. immigration laws in his first five years in office, it calls for a great leap of faith to credit Bush's sincerity now. One senses the president is tossing pennies to the House to buy their support of the amnesty-guestworker plan on which he and Vicente Fox have been colluding for years.

Now it comes down to the people's House. And the question is a simple one: Will the House that, last December, voted for the toughest border security and enforcement bill in our lifetime capitulate to the president and his allies from Harry Reid to The New York Times to La Raza?

But this is not only a test of the House. It is an opportunity for the House. It is a chance for the House to declare its independence of the national establishment. If the House will say to the Senate and Bush, "No amnesty, no deal!" it will have not only done its duty by the people who elected it, it will have rejected dishonorable compromise in favor of what is right for America.

But if the House goes along with a Senate bill with which, by its own December vote, it disagrees, a bill that will break the hearts of people who put it in power, what will be the remaining argument for keeping the House Republican?

Answer: There is none. This immigration bill is not only about America's future, but the continued relevance of the Republican Party as the party to rule and run the nation.

The Senate, by opening the door to U.S. citizenship for millions of illegal aliens, has cheapened something Americans used to consider priceless. That the Senate would put on a path to U.S. citizenship people who, only a month ago, were marching under Mexican flags is a manifestation of national decline.

In 1963, as Churchill was approaching death, a debate was held in our country and Congress on whether that friend and ally in World War II should be granted U.S. citizenship, an honor previously accorded only to the French hero of the American Revolution, Lafayette.

That is how we treasured citizenship then. But like the dollar and much else, it has been badly depreciated under this generation.

In its decision whether to accept or reject the Senate amnesty-guestworker plan, the Republican House -- which rejected that course last December -- will define itself and the GOP. To the nation, it will be seen as either an independent House to be respected and re-elected as the only people's House in this capital city, or it will be seen as but a tool and rubber stamp of the White House and Senate.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50451

Southern border blurs for global trade

Posted: June 1, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

The Texas segment of the NAFTA Super Corridor is moving rapidly toward approval. When built, the Trans-Texas Corridor, or TTC, will be a major super-highway with six lanes moving in each direction, twelve lanes across in total, described in the 4,000 page draft environmental study as including separate lanes "for passenger vehicles and large trucks, freight railways, high-speed commuter railways, and a corridor for utilities including water lines, oil and natural gas pipelines, and transmission lines for electricity, broadband and other telecommunications services."

The TTC is expected to follow the current lines of Interstate 35, stretching from Laredo, Texas, on the Mexican border, heading toward Oklahoma City on the Texas border with Oklahoma.

An artist's rendition shows what the projected super-corridor highway is expected to look like.

The idea is to extend the rebuilt I-35 NAFTA super-corridor highway all the way from Laredo, Texas, to Canada, with extensions in Canada to be built out to Montreal in the east and Vancouver in the west. In Mexico, the super-corridor will connect via Mexican railroads with the port at Lazaro Cardenas.

A core design feature is to create a hub in Kansas City. Here the "Lazaro Cardenas – Kansas City Transportation Corridor" will open up a north-south route through the United States to bring in containers from the Far East. As described by Kansas City's Smart Port website:

The Lazaro Cardenas – Kansas City Corridor refers to a trade route linking Kansas City to key Asia-Pacific Markets via a ships-to-rail terminal at the port of Lazaro Cardenas in the State of Michoacan, Mexico. Thanks to an innovative series of international agreements, infrastructure improvements and new technologies, this corridor is a reality.
As the American economy expands and the economies of the Far East ramp up production to meet our demand for goods, the pace of international trade will exceed the ability of major West Coast ports such as Long Beach and Los Angeles to accommodate the flow of goods into the United States.

The NAFTA Super Corridor will be constructed largely by private companies that intend to operate the new I-35 as a toll road. North America's SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., or NASCO, is a "nonprofit organization dedicated to developing the world's first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor" Already, NASCO has received $2.5 million in earmarks from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The NAFTA Super Corridor plan is ultimately to reduce the transportation costs of using cheap labor in China, South Korea and Indonesia to produce goods for American markets. Bypassing West Coast ports in the U.S. means bypassing U.S. union wages. Mexican port and rail transport are expected to keep the shipping costs low. Also, allowing free access to the U.S. to Mexican trucks means that the containers can be moved through the U.S. by Mexican nationals, again bypassing Teamster union wages and benefits typically paid U.S. truck drivers.

To get a feel for how transportation planners are influenced by globalist economic thinking, consider this 2005 analysis written by Leonard Krouner in the Voice of San Diego:

The Los Angeles/Long Beach and Seattle/Tacoma harbors are the only two West Coast ports between Alaska and Chile that can be used by super-cargo "post-Panamax" ships with a 4,000 standardized cargo container capacity. The ability to off-load, move, unload, store and distribute cargo from these ships requires expansion of California's transportation infrastructure. Delays increasing costs for cargo movement at the Los Angeles/Long Beach port such as those extant during the 2003 longshoreman labor unrest, and the 2004 arrival of too many ships in a single time period with cargo for distribution prior to the Christmas holidays are motivating mega importers Wal-Mart and Home Depot to invest in warehouse facilities in less expensive states such as Georgia.
None of this would be possible without the extensive work being done by the U.S. Department of Commerce working groups charged with implementing by new regulations the Strategic and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP. The SPP agreement was reached between President Bush, President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin during their March 2005 summit meeting in Waco, Texas. The Bush administration plan is to create a North American Union along the model of the European Union, put in place by administrative regulations and departmental working groups under the SPP umbrella.

The U.S. Department of Transportation is actively working on a Free and Secure Trade program that would create special lanes to allow trucks from Mexico to cross the U.S. border with minimal electronic inspection, reducing the U.S. border with Mexico to no more than a speed-bump for authorized Mexican trucks entering the country.

On June 7, 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Department of Transportation v. Public Citizen ruled in favor of the Bush administration's argument that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration lacked the authority to exercise environmental controls to prevent Mexican trucks from openly operating in the U.S. under NAFTA. This ruling was key in the Bush administration's determination to open U.S. borders to Mexican trucks under the trade agreement. Had the Supreme Court decided otherwise, the NAFTA Super Corridor project would have suffered a setback.

I continue to argue that a "follow the money" strategy must be utilized to understand why President Bush has refused to close our border with Mexico, pushing instead for "comprehensive immigration reform" legislation that would allow the vast majority of illegal immigrants now in the U.S. to remain under a "guest worker" or "pathway to citizenship" provision. The underlying agenda of the Bush administration seems to be to create a NAFTA-plus environment in which workers, trade and capital will be allowed to flow unimpeded within the trilateral North American community consisting of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

Think about this: a Mexican Customs Office in Kansas????

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50500

COMING SOON TO U.S.: MEXICAN CUSTOMS OFFICE

By Jerome R. Corsi

Posted: June 5, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

Kansas City is planning to allow the Mexican government to open a Mexican customs office in conjunction with the Kansas City SmartPort. This will be the first foreign customs facility allowed to operate on U.S. soil.

City leaders voted last month to give the facility an innocuous name to hide its true identity as an arm of the Mexican government, staffed by Mexican officials.

In fact, Kansas City is so enthusiastic about the opportunity, the cost of building the $3 million dollar facility for Mexico will be paid for by Kansas City taxpayers, not by the Mexican government.

The current plan for the NAFTA Super Corridor calls for the construction of a 12-lane highway (six lanes in each direction) along Interstate 35. The Kansas City SmartPort is designed to be the central hub in the planned NAFTA north-south superhighway cutting through the heart of the United States.

Supercargo ships, carrying goods made by cheap labor in the Far East and China, will unload in the Mexican port at Lazaro Cardenas, eliminating the need to use costly union longshoremen workers in Los Angeles or Long Beach. Rather than transporting the containers by trucks from the West Coast, using Teamster drivers, or on rail, with the assistance of railroad labor in the United Transportation Union, the containers will be loaded onto Mexican non-union railroads at Lazaro Cardenas. At Monterrey, Mexico, the containers will then be loaded onto Mexican non-union semi-trailer trucks that will cross the border at Laredo, Texas, to begin their journey north along the Trans-Texas Corridor, the first leg of the planned continental NAFTA Super Corridor.

To speed the crossing at Laredo, Texas, the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America working groups within the U.S. Department of Commerce will allow Mexican trucks to be equipped with electronic FAST technology so the trucks can cross the border in express lanes.

At the Kansas City SmartPort hub, the containers can be transferred to semi-trailers heading east or west, or simply stay on the Mexican trucks all the way into Canada.

According to the SmartPort website, in March 2005, Kansas City signed a cooperative pact with representatives from the Mexican state of Michoacan, where Lazaro Cardenas is located, to increase the cargo volume between Lazaro Cardenas and Kansas City. The whole point is to move cargo fast, using cheap, below union-wage scale Mexican workers to move the containers from Asia into the heart of the USA.

Shipments will be pre-screened in Southeast Asia, and the shipper will send advance notification to Mexican and American Customs with the corresponding ''pre-clearance'' information on the cargo. Upon arrival in Mexico, containers will pass through multiple X-ray and gamma ray screenings, allowing any containers with anomalies to quickly be removed for further inspection.

Container shipments will be tracked using intelligent transportation systems, or ITS, that could include global positioning systems or radio frequency identification systems, and monitored on their way to inland trade-processing centers in Kansas City and elsewhere in the United States.

As the Kansas City SmartPort website brags: ''Kansas City offers the opportunity for sealed cargo containers to travel to Mexican port cities with virtually no border delays. It will streamline shipments from Asia and cut the time and labor costs associated with shipping through the congested ports on the West Coast.''

Kansas City Southern, or KCS, has just completed putting together what is being called ''The NAFTA Railroad.'' On Jan. 1, 2005, KCS took control of The Texas Mexican Railway Company and the U.S. portion of the International Bridge in Laredo, Texas.

Then in April 2005, KCS purchased the controlling interests in Transportacion Ferroviaria Mexicana, which KCS promptly renamed the Kansas City Southern de Mexico, or KCSM.

Again, the Kansas City SmartPort website notes that ''Kansas City Southern is installing Spanish-language versions of its computer operating system (MCS) in an effort to increase train speeds, reduce waiting times at terminals and enable the free flow of locomotives and rail cars between the United States and Mexico via Kansas City Southern's railroad bridge at Laredo, Texas.''

No stop is planned for customs inspection for KCSM trains until the Mexican customs facility located at Kansas City. The only security check planned at the U.S. border with Mexico is electronic, with the KCSM railroad moving along pre-approved KCS rail lines.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=15345

Admits He Doesn't Know Bill's Consequences
Sen. Lugar Has No Idea How Many Immigrants He Approved
by Amanda B. Carpenter
Posted Jun 05, 2006

Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.) admits he has no idea how many new immigrants will be allowed into the country as a result of the Senate immigration bill he supported.

“No, and nor does anyone else,” Lugar said, contesting a Heritage Foundation report published by HUMAN EVENTS, which estimates that the bill would allow 66 million new legal immigrants over the next 20 years.

Lugar’s admission—made in response to a question about the Heritage report—is characteristic of the combined negligence and arrogance of those who voted for the bill. They have no idea what its consequences would be. They don’t want to know. And they won’t seriously examine the sort of reasoned analysis done by the Heritage Foundation.

As the Senate prepared to vote on the bill, I asked other senators the same question she asked Lugar.

The Heritage Foundation has estimated this bill could bring in 66 million immigrants in the next 20 years. Can you tell me is this too much? Could our country handle it?

Sen. Jim DeMint (R.-S.C.): There’s no way we can acclimate and work into our culture that many folks coming from all over the world. It’s probably a reasonable estimate, and if you look at where we were in 1986 with amnesty and the multiple where we are now, that could even be an underestimate. But what it does is show people from around the world we’re not going to enforce our laws. So, it would probably create a huge invasion, in effect, because the folks can come here and they know they’ll be forgiven. They’ll be accommodated, they’ll even be rewarded. I think it’ll do a disservice to immigration, because once immigration becomes a wave that overwhelms and I think that’s what the American people are feeling now. There’s not a commitment to learn English and to be assimilated. We’re still forcing doctors, hospitals and government agencies to have translators instead of insisting people who are here learn English, at least nominally. So, that disturbs a lot of us. We don’t see a commitment to secure the borders, don’t really see a commitment to assimilate, don’t see a commitment to really be fair to American workers versus guest workers. I think the Heritage Foundation, as far as conservative groups, has been moderate in their thinking, and they have sent out the alarms on this one big time.

I’d like to ask you about the numbers for the immigration bill in terms of immigrants in the next 20 years. The Heritage Foundation is estimating 66 million. Is this too many or not enough in your opinion?

Sen. Carl Levin (D.-Mich.): Is what too many?

To bring in 66 million legal immigrants in the next 20 years? Do you think that would be a problem?

Levin: I haven’t seen the basis for that.

But we don’t know what the numbers are. Does that bother you about this bill?

Levin: I’m skeptical of numbers until I see them.

The Heritage Foundation says that the Senate bill will increase immigration by 66 million over the next 20 years. Is this too much?

Sen. Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.): I have no idea what the basis for the Heritage Foundation may be.

Do you know what number you think would be adequate?

Lugar: No, and nor does anyone else. This is purely in the rhetoric of the debate.

Do you plan on supporting this bill?

Lugar: Yes. Those opposed to it have figured out it’s 110, 120 million, there’s almost no end of potential estimates of almost whole countries that could come over.

That doesn’t bother you?

Lugar: It does bother me, if that would be the case. But I see no conceivable way that could occur under this bill.

The Heritage Foundation is estimating [the Senate immigration bill] would bring in 66 million immigrants. Is this number too high or too low or maybe right for the House of Representatives, especially with the Democrats?

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.): I respect your representation of what the Heritage Foundation did. I have no idea what the basic premise or methodology of the Heritage Foundation is in determining that number. I’ve said before and I’ll say again: What we need is comprehensive immigration reform that protects our borders, protects American workers, protects the workers coming in from exploitation, unites families and has a stiff procedure for a path to earned citizenship. That’s what we should have.

The Heritage Foundation is estimating that the Senate bill is going to increase the amount of immigrants by 66 million over the next 20 years.

Sen. John Thune (R.-S.D.): Right.

Too much or not enough?

Thune: Is that, are you talking about legal, or illegal? Or both?

It’s the legal migration with the chain migration and bringing their parents in and all the other things that will be legal under this bill—66 million in the next 20 years.

Thune: That’s what? Three and a third of a million a year, so about 3.5 million. That’s considerably more than what’s coming in today. I think it does bring up a lot of issues. The Heritage Foundation has tried to quantify what it’s going to cost by having that many new people come into the country. It seems to me, at least, that’s probably going to be a concern if it’s that high.

Do you plan on supporting this bill?

Thune: Probably not.

I’ve been taking the information that you have used from Mr. Rector at the Heritage Foundation and been asking senators if the increase of immigration by 66 million is enough or too much. The response has been, “We don’t know.” Can you explain to our readers why paying attention to this report is important?

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R.-Ala.): It is very important because the sponsors of the bill say they want comprehensive reform. How in the world could they offer a bill that first they don’t have any idea how many people will come in and second, whether the rate that the bill appears to allow, which is at least three times the current rate, is the right rate for America based on job needs and that kind of thing?

Do you think that alone should be enough to sink the bill? The fact that we don’t know how many people it will bring in?

Sessions: I do. I think that’s one of the more important issues in the bill. The argument that I heard from supporters of the legislation was: “We have reached some sort of agreement with some groups somewhere and this is a grand compromise and you can’t read it and complain about it.” This is breathtaking. I’m convinced they didn’t know how many people would be brought in by the bill. [Sen. Jeff] Bingaman’s [D.-N.M.] amendment that was accepted was huge.

That brought it down to 66 million from 100 million, right?

Sessions: Yes. The Heritage Foundation estimated that it would be 103 million and could be 193. My staff calculated that it could have reached 217 million. But I think even three times the current rate is too much. I’ll say this: Some increase in immigration will probably be approved and will probably be right in legal immigration, but three times without any thought is unacceptable.

Do you think they are turning a blind eye to reports like this because they know how devastating to the debate it could be? Or is it simply too late in the game to bring it up?

Sessions: You’ll remember they tried to pass it a month or so ago without any amendments and [Senate Minority Leader Harry] Reid [D.-Nev.] thought they could just pass the bill. They had all these flaws in it and we’d never find out. The American people care about this legislation, and I think if they knew how much had been moved forward below the radar screen and how big the impacts would have been, they would be more upset than they are.

What do you think you are going to hear at home over break on this?

Sessions: I think the American people are going to continue to be heard. They claim they had a temporary guest-worker program, but as you study the bill all those workers are able to become permanent residents and citizens in short order. Every one of them. So there’s no temporary guest-worker program. That was another misleading statement by the bill.

Miss Carpenter is Assistant Editor for HUMAN EVENTS.

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.

North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA
	Posted by NapkinUser On News/Activism 05/30/2006 12:01:14 PM CDT · 366 replies · 3,951+ views HumanEventsOnline ^ \| May 30, 2006 \| Jerome R. Corsi In March 2005 at their summit meeting in Waco, Tex., President Bush, President Fox and Prime Minister Martin issued a joint statement announced the creation of the Â“Security and Prosperity Partnership of North AmericaÂ” (SPP). The creation of this new agreement was never submitted to Congress for debate and decision. Instead, the U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union working agenda in a wide range of areas, including: manufactured goods, movement of goods, energy, environment, e-commerce, financial services, business facilitation, food and agriculture,