[DesScorp]

“I am under the impression that this is a treaty requirement.”

It IS treaty requirement, a treaty signed into law overwhelmingly. Which is why this is a symbolic vote...the Senate knows SCOTUS will do their dirty work for them and overturn it. Meanwhile, they get to look tough.

Too many people here are equating illegal immigration with free trade...which isn’t about people, but goods and services, regulated by the rule of law. NAFTA never authorized increased legal immigration rates, let alone illegal immigration.

[jedward]

“which isn’t about people, but goods and services”

You must not have been presented with the “Degrees of Freedom” presentation by the free-traders amongst us here at FR. It talks all about individuals and their rights. It’s cool-aid, and it’s not to be consumed.

[NapkinUser]

Which is why this is a symbolic vote...the Senate knows SCOTUS will do their dirty work for them and overturn it.

This reads more like your own wishful thinking than fact.

[Colorado Buckeye]

It IS treaty requirement, a treaty signed into law overwhelmingly. Which is why this is a symbolic vote...the Senate knows SCOTUS will do their dirty work for them and overturn it. Meanwhile, they get to look tough.

You are wrong. See post #201. NAFTA is not a treaty. The Seanate vote is not symbolic.

[gondramB]

>>It IS treaty requirement, a treaty signed into law overwhelmingly. Which is why this is a symbolic vote...the Senate knows SCOTUS will do their dirty work for them and overturn it. Meanwhile, they get to look tough.

Too many people here are equating illegal immigration with free trade...which isn’t about people, but goods and services, regulated by the rule of law. NAFTA never authorized increased legal immigration rates, let alone illegal immigration.<<<

What about the people like Colorado Buckeye who are saying it wasn’t approved by 2/3 of the senate and cannot be a treaty?