[ravingnutter]

Okay, after visiting several websites, I found that I was not aware of some disparities, such as the 10 yrs. vs. 24 years vesting issue. HOWEVER, this agreement has to be sent to Congress and in the 2 1/2 years since it was signed, this has not been done and given the opposition to it in Congress, it's just not going to happen. I checked on Hayworth's bill and that particular one is stuck in committee, HOWEVER, his amendment to HR 3010 just passed(with some changes) and that prevents a Social Security totalization agreement with Mexico so I believe that renders your whole argument moot. So...I learned something and you learned something...that is what debate is about.

NAFTA Highway: The jury is still out on whether this is myth or fact. In reference to KELO, the Govt. has been using eminent domain since the early 1900's...they are just getting more aggressive now since KELO, so many states have now passed their own eminent domain laws to protect citizens against abuse, as they should. The veto by Rick Perry on the Texas bill is one reason I consider him a traitor, the other is his toll road crap. As to the word "soveriegnty" I NEVER said you used that word, you apparently have taken something out of context, I merely said it doesn't affect soveriegnty, which is a measure I use when making my decisions about such matters.

About the studies...where do you get that it is for unifying electrical usage? I read the whole text of the bill and it is talking about impact studies on auquifers. As far as the fence goes {Sigh}, as usual, some people just love to put words in other people's mouths when it comes to that issue. I NEVER said I was not for a fence, I am just not as delusional as some on here are about it, I realize that it is the Dems that are holding this up:

June 15, 2007 - WASHINGTON – House Democrats voted down legislation offered by Congressman Jerry Lewis Friday to require full funding for 854 miles of double fencing and other security measures that were mandated in the Secure Fence Act passed by Congress last year. Lewis criticized the vote as undermining efforts to provide real security to the nation’s Southern border. Congressman Jerry Lewis

WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has provided an early indication that the new Democratic congressional leadership is prepared to abandon all pretense of enforcing U.S. immigration laws and our borders, warns the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). In a statement Tuesday, Hoyer declared that construction of the 700-mile security fence approved by Congress last fall is unlikely to receive the funding necessary to move forward. Instead, Hoyer vaguely referred to "other ways" that Congress would look into dealing with illegal immigration and securing the nation against terrorist infiltration. Past statements by the Democratic leadership indicate that their approach to dealing with illegal immigration would include another massive illegal alien amnesty program and another set of vague promises to enforce immigration laws in the future. Democrats, who have repeatedly excoriated the Bush administration for its failure to bring America's borders under control and for failing to take necessary steps to secure the nation against future terrorist attacks, now appear prepared to scuttle the one real initiative that has been put forth to end the dangerous and chaotic situation that exists along the southern border.

Democrats Indicate That They Are Ready to Backtrack on Border Fence, Warns FAIR

On tax incentives...do you even bother to read the text of these bills...the incentives are for US citizens, no money is going to Mexico under that bill.

On consumer protection, it just keeps banks from gouging legal aliens and residents with high fees for sending money out of the country. Do you favor gouging legal aliens and residents? I hope not. Maybe they could have put a stipulation in there about illegals, but if they did, it probably wouldn't have passed.

On detention beds, you can't have it both ways. If you want these people detaineed and deported, that means more beds are needed. Otherwise, we are back to catch and release. As to private prisons, I don't see a problem with that if they can be run more efficiently. So what if someone makes money off of it...it is one less bureacracy the FedGov has hands in.

As for the Mexican border patrol, they will be assisting by guarding THEIR side of the border so that illegals won't make it to OUR side of the border. They aren't going to be on US property, so I don't understand where you are coming from on this.

On the North American Investment Fund Act, you can "read" it any way you want, but I don't have to agree with your assessment, especially in light of the fact that you consistently "read" nefarious intent into many issues, intent that is just not there.

[nicmarlo]

The bills I posted are excerpts. They are not ALL the bills pertaining to these issues. Had I not read them, then why would I post them? Obviously I have, or I could NOT have spoken concerning them, at all. That some are related to studies, that some are related to tax incentives, and that some have to do with prisons, does not mean they are not, indeed, promoting or helping with the promotion of a particular CAUSE. Obviously, if the end goal is the North American Union, there are HUNDREDS of issues that must be put into place before that can ever happen. That these issues seem disconnected and disjointed as a multitude of bills are proposed and passed does not mean they are. Connect the dots. For there to be a North American Union means that the three countries must cooperate with borders, migration, prisons, infrastructure, policing, sharing of resources, and a host of other issues. That they are doing this in piece meal is how they keep people from being able to completely connect the dots. There is absolutely NO reason to be funding a military entity, unaccountable to the US, for Mexico's southern border. In the same breath, they refuse to build up the defenses of our border because "we just can't" or "we don't have enough money." You clearly cannot see behind the smoke screen. That is but one example of the smoke screens in place. As far as the NAFTA highway, that is not a myth. It is a FACT. I've already posted, earlier, maps put out by the Trans Corridor which CLEARLY SHOWS the future plans and links to documents and articles which state how this will be accomplished and specifically, what cities it will be going through. If you wish to believe the government's self-serving propaganda that "it doesn't exist", and refuse to, on the other hand, read the bills that are funding the very highway improvements and infrastructure the NAFTA highway requires, then go ahead and believe the government fairy tales. I'm looking at the green dollar bills that are being allocated toward the funding. In other words, they're putting the money up for this highway, and then telling you the highway doesn't exist. Yeah, right. Funny how there's maps showing you the physical design and description for what "doesn't exist." There are a great many farmers and towns that are right now fighting the confiscation of their properties. Funny how Bush didn't file an amicus brief on behalf of the citizenry, and against government seizure of land in KELO.

That you wish to also treat that as fiction where you have to willingly suspend disbelief is not to your credit.