You raise a good issue, but it’s a different matter, one that’s separate from Schlafly’s misstatements.
Under current political reality, you are probably right that the border would unfortunately not be closed. However, it would be because U.S. officials (under the type of political pressure that produced the amnesty bill) were wrongly choosing to subordinate U.S. interests to Mexico’s. It would NOT be a result of the chairman of a coordinating committee being in the hands of Mexico, contrary to Schlafly’s contention.
When I said that the countries don’t give up their independence, I meant under the SPP. That was the context and what I was talking about, but it’s good to clarify that.
I beg to differ. Schlafly is not incorrect, and the previous president of Mexico, who signed the SPP, said the following:
"Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as the future prosperity of North America, and the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons."
-- Vincente Fox, then President of Mexico
May 16, 2002 | Before the members of the "Club Century XXI" in the Hall Conferences of the Eurobuilding Hotel, Madrid, Spain
[full text: Spanish | English]