On Mike Pence

The New York Times front page profile on my friend, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), "Star of the Right Loses His Base at the Border," is really all about the anti-immigration, far-right group led by Tom Tancredo of Colorado to oppose any broad-based immigration reform whatsoever--and to label any proposals for temporary workers, or even Pence's 17 year citizenship path, as "amnesty."

This word "amnesty" is being used to attack absolutely any conceivable immigration compromise. I could go on forever on this subject. I have written several columns on it. But at the end of the day, the Tancredo crowd, which includes Pat Buchanan, just wants border security to keep out immigrants.

They also want to deport all illegal or undocumented immigrants. "Border security" and "deportation" are their watchwords. They manage to completely ignore the economics of the problem, whereby Mexicans seeking higher paying jobs in the U.S. rather than the faltering Mexican economy can produce are coming here to work. After all, living conditions in the U.S. are a lot better for all but the richest people than they are in Mexico.

If we ever deported the 10-15 million undocumented workers, then the U.S. economy would be severely damaged. New studies show the Mexicans actually help the U.S. economy and wages actually rise overall, (though there are small losses in border town wages). Even unskilled American workers benefit from lower priced goods and services generated by these new Mexican worker-immigrants.

Pat Buchanan attacks me as "worshipping at the church of GDP." But in a CNBC Kudlow and Company interview, I reminded him that I also worship at the church of Catholic Mass, as do the vast majority of the Mexican immigrants. These faith-based folks would create a new blue-collar middle class that is sorely needed in this country if we let them.

They would also finance Social Security over the next fifty years. Though it should be noted that academic research shows that 2/3rds of them pay Social Security with phony ID cards and will never receive the benefit as matters now stand. And, of course, they pay the sales tax on whatever purchases they make in stores.

The problem will never be solved unless we legally permit roughly 400,000 per year to fill the demand for U.S. jobs that are currently available. This resembles the Bracero Program and it must be part of any solution. It's just plain common sense that at any given productivity rate, a larger labor force generates more GDP growth to the benefit of the U.S. economy. During the high tide of immigration, over the past twenty years, the U.S. has enjoyed unrivaled prosperity at low unemployment. So, again, I ask, if immigration is so bad, then why are things so good?

Yes, there should be tough border security. Yes, there should be foolproof ID cards, with biometrics, for Social Security and employment purposes. Former Sen. Alan Simpson of Wyoming, the co-author of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli immigration reform bill, has said the failure of that bill was a function of the lack of an ID card system.

But the intransigence of the Tancredo-Buchanan crowd is a remarkable political event which is all out of kilter with poll after poll that shows a substantial majority of respondents favor broad based immigration reform.

If these guys win, the Republican Party loses, and the nation loses. Unlike the big countries of Western Europe and Japan, the U.S. benefits from immigration that keeps our population rising. (In fact, harking back to the Catholic Mass, roughly 45 million unborn children have been killed since the abortion wave was launched by Roe v. Wade in the early 1970's. We have an opportunity to replace this extraordinary loss of human life with hard headed but compassionate and economically sound immigration reform).

Incidentally, I wrote the article for Human Events when that newspaper awarded Congressman Pence its "2005 Man of the Year" award. I know Mike. The man is a wonderful, Reagan-thinking conservative. His life is governed by religious values, a belief in a strong national defense, and a pro-growth approach to low taxes and less government spending.

This Tancredo-Buchanan backstabbing does this rising GOP star a great disservice. If allowed to go unanswered, it would represent another devastating blow to the Republican Party.

While the Pence-Hutchinson immigration reform idea is not perfect, it does represent a useful discussion point for future action. As diplomatically and kindly as possible, with all the greatest respect for differing points of view, let me just say that the Tancredo-Buchanan attack on Mike Pence is nuttier than a fruitcake.

We have bigger problems than an Immigration BIll:

Congressman presses on 'superstate' plan
Asks Bush administration to fully disclose its activities

Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala.
A congressman is pressing the Department of Commerce to fully disclose a congressionally unauthorized plan to implement a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that critics say could lead to a North American union.

Referring to an attached letter from a constituent, Rogers wrote to Gutierrez:

Judging by information contained in this letter, a number of legitimate concerns are raised regarding the implementation and operation of the SPP, including the membership and charge of its working groups; potential memoranda of understanding with foreign countries; and whether there has been any Congressional oversight of these working group, to name a few.
Rogers concluded by asking Gutierrez for a prompt review of the issues and for a response "as soon as possible."

The attached constituent letter was written by Eunie Smith, president of Eagle Forum of Alabama and by Bob Couch. They posed the following questions to Rogers:

What is the membership of the 30 SPP working groups?

What is the charge/working agenda of each of the 30 SPP working groups?

Please provide to me any trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada.

Please provide findings, reports and presentations of the working groups.

Under what congressional action are these working groups constituted?

What congressional oversight is there of this process?

Are the working groups redefining American laws to make them tri-lateral?

What specific plans are there for reporting to Congress?
The constituents' letter also suggested four lines of inquiry should congressional hearings be convened to examine SPP working group activities:

Is the sovereignty of the United States threatened since it has been reported that a North American court and a parliamentary body are being proposed, complete with the "Amero" to replace the U.S. dollar?

Wouldn't an "outer security perimeter" remove the capacity of policing our borders from the hands of United States citizens?

Isn't "harmonizing entry screening and visa and asylum regulations" code for a quantum leap in liberalizing our country's immigration laws?

What about the May 2005 CFR Task Force documents calling for a "seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico" and for a "permanent tribunal for North American dispute regulation," as well as calling for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the U.S.
The constituents' letter also attached a copy of a July 2005 article by Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly entitled, "The Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada."

Schlafly was one of the first analysts and commentators to question the purpose of SPP. In her article, she wrote that the Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled "Building a North American Community" let the "cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries."

Schlafly argued the CFR task force report "spells out a five-year plan for the 'establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community' with a common 'outer security perimeter.'"

She commented:

This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
Rogers' letter to Gutierrez supports a demand for information made last month by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.

Smith, on behalf of Eagle Forum of Alabama, told WND she is "very pleased" with Rogers' commitment to inquire into the SPP operations.

Additional information:

Tancredo confronts 'super-state' effort
[Demands full disclosure of White House work with Mexico, Canada]

Responding to a WorldNetDaily report, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is demanding the Bush administration fully disclose the activities of an office implementing a trilateral agreement with Mexico and Canada that apparently could lead to a North American union, despite having no authorization from Congress.

As WND reported, the White House has established working groups, under the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the Department of Commerce, to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership, or SPP, signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and then-Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005.

The groups, however, have no authorization from Congress and have not disclosed the results of their work despite two years of massive effort within the executive branches of the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

Tancredo wants to know the membership of the SPP groups along with their various trilateral memoranda of understanding and other agreements reached with counterparts in Mexico and Canada.

Tancredo's decision has been endorsed by Jim Gilchrist, founder of the Minuteman Project.

"It's time for the Bush administration to come clean," Gilchrist told WND. "If President Bush's agenda is to establish a new North American union government to supersede the sovereignty of the United States, then the president has an obligation to tell this to the American people directly. The American public has a right to know."

Geri Word, who heads the SPP office, told WND the work had not been disclosed because, "We did not want to get the contact people of the working groups distracted by calls from the public."

WND can find no specific congressional legislation authorizing the SPP working groups nor any congressional committees taking charge of oversight.

Many SPP working groups appear to be working toward achieving specific objectives as defined by a May 2005 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, which presented a blueprint for expanding the SPP agreement into a North American union that would merge the U.S., Canada and Mexico into a new governmental form.

A Sovereign United States of America or North American Union?

On March 23, 2005, Presidents George Bush, Vicente Fox of Mexico and Prime Minister Paul Martin of Canada issued a joint statement announcing the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).

In May 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) issued a task force report entitled “Building a North American Community” to “provide specific advice on how the partnership [SPP] can be pursued and realized.” It calls for:

· “a common security perimeter by 2010”

· a “North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers”

· “a freer flow of people within North America”/”full labor mobility”

· “trinational ballistics and explosives registration”

· “increase[d] information and intelligence sharing … in both law enforcement and military organizations”

· “a North American Investment Fund” for “essential infrastructure and educational projects in Mexico”

· “a North American energy and emissions regime” with “a tradable voucher system for emissions”

· moving “beyond the confines of current legislative and regulatory frameworks” to “regulatory convergence”

· a “permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution … capable of … establishing precedent”

· “a trinational competition commission - continental anti-trust agency - to address harmful subsidy practices”

· “open skies and open roads”, “allowing North American transportation firms unlimited access to each others’ territory”

· “a North American Education Program”

Is our federal government taking this report seriously?

· It is on a U. S. Embassy website. (http://www.usembassycanada.gov/content/can_usa/northamericancommunity_TF_final.pdf )

· It was the subject of a friendly hearing held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 9, 2005.

· Vice-Chair of the Task Force and principal editor of the report, Robert Pastor was invited to address North American policy by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the US House International Relations Committee, and the Canadian House of Commons. He was an advisor to every Democratic Presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter, and was nominated by President Bill Clinton to be ambassador to Panama.

· Many of Pastor’s proposals from his 2001 book Toward a North American Community, his other statements, and the Task Force Report are already being implemented:

o CFR member Rep. Katherine Harris sponsored H.R.2672 to enact many proposals in the CFR Task Force Report including creating a common security perimeter around the US, Canada and Mexico; promoting the flow of people and goods across our borders; international technical and biometric standards for travel documents; sharing information and intelligence by law enforcement and the military; and development assistance to Mexico’s economy. Sen. Richard Lugar’s S.853 is very similar.

o Sens. John Cornyn and Norm Coleman sponsored S. 3622, the North American Investment Fund Act, to “construct roads in Mexico” and “improve the quality of … education in Mexico”.

o New highway corridors linking the three North American countries, and high-speed rail corridors are being built (the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor with passenger car, truck and high-speed rail lanes).

o International merger of railroads (the NAFTA Railway formed by the merger of Kansas City Southern and Transportacion Ferroviaria Mexicana)

o A “trinational competition commission” was formed (the North American Competitiveness Council).

o A “North American identity” is being promoted by government agencies and big foundations.

· President Bush has evidenced agreement with the report ever since he took office in 2001:

o In February 2001, he and Mexican President Fox jointly endorsed the Guanajuato Proposal, which read, “After consultation with our Canadian Partners, we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community …”

o In April 2001, at the Organization of American States’ Summit of the Americas, he signed the Quebec Declaration calling for the “integration of the Americas”.

o He has refused to respond to intense public and Congressional pressure to control our borders.

o His joint statement with the leaders of Canada and Mexico announcing the SPP and the very limited information that has been available since are certainly consistent with the Task Force Report.

Which other CFR proposals are being planned by working groups that are now implementing the SPP - the harmonization of laws and regulatory policies, a North American ID card, a common currency (the Amero)? Why is there no public debate? Do our leaders agree with Robert Pastor that national sovereignty is an “outdated conception”?

Margaret Brown, Policy Director, Eagle Forum of Alabama,

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.