The basic idea is one that most conservatives agree with, as well as the idea of free trade in a global market. It is where to draw the lines that is the problem. There are some things that should remain sacrosanct, that are preeminently for and in our own interests.
We might argue the rules and boundaries, but it is apparent, at least to me, that matters of sovereignty and security must be paramount, as there is no USA, no Constitution, and no Bill of Rights without that sovereignty in place.
More than any other thing, the illegal immigration flap has proven to me how far the powers that be will go to get their way. There is no, and I do mean no reasonable explanation for leaving the borders wide open and pardoning millions of soon to be Democrat voters, other than a bare attempt to subvert our sovereignty, and to manipulate our ability to govern ourselves.
Attempts to subject our navy to the whims of the UN via the LOST treaty, and putting our troops under the authority of international courts... These too show an orchestrated and insidious desire to subvert our sovereignty, and to limit our independence, authority, and global reach as a nation.
I would expect such treason (and yes I do mean treason, for that is what it is), from the Democrats, but all these things and more (think Eminent Domain, ports for sale, advocating against the RKBA in Washington DC, etc.) have been promoted, propagated, or allowed, by Republicans. REPUBLICANS! It is intentional and pervasive, and it_is_wrong. I ask you, who is able to exert such influence upon the party of patriots? Who can be propping these Republican jackals up?
You are correct, none of us know Reagan's mind, and what he may or may not endorse. But I feel quite confident he would be strongly against such matters, and would never consider any affront to our national sovereignty. And had he been a king rather than a president, the border would have been sealed a long time ago.
I leave you with the quote you provided:
Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”
'Cross boundaries more freely' implies that boundaries exist, and 'more freely' is less than 'freely'.
BTW there is no need to put ‘free trade’ in scare quotes, its a real concept.
I put 'free trade' in quotes to differentiate it from what free trade ought to be- that which folks assume it to mean.
“We might argue the rules and boundaries, but it is apparent, at least to me, that matters of sovereignty and security must be paramount, as there is no USA, no Constitution, and no Bill of Rights without that sovereignty in place.”
No disagreement.
But some people act as if the very existence of zero tariffs and/or no trade barriers is a loss of sovereignty and that is silly. It is simply a lack of Govt taxation of goods crossing borders.
As someone who like lowers taxes, I am pro-free trade and pro-NAFTA in that it is helpful to our prosperity.
“More than any other thing, the illegal immigration flap has proven to me how far the powers that be will go to get their way.”
Uh, this is no different from special interests that gouge us on ethanol subsidies, or the trial lawyers and teachers unions that muck up attempts at reform there. We need to be wary of the special interests for cheap immigrant labor, but that is not worse than interest groups demanding other things from Govt.
” There is no, and I do mean no reasonable explanation for leaving the borders wide open and pardoning millions of soon to be Democrat voters, other than a bare attempt to subvert our sovereignty, and to manipulate our ability to govern ourselves. “
Well, talk to the open-borders folks at Cato, or the ‘let them all come’ liberals, and they have some philosophical justification for open borders. The “they do jobs Americans wont do” argument for our economy. They benefit and we benefit - to a point. The problem has been a deliberate subversion of orderly immigration in order to satisfy economic and other interests. how? Because instead of patiently waiting for changes to legal immigration law, impatient employers went with illegal immigrant labor. govt sector workers looked for clients and didnt care about immigration status. And immigration lawyers drummed up business. The corruption is more prosaic that wanting any harm to USA, tis just greed over civic responsibility.
The solution is to get back to rule of law in immigration.
But I think you are conflating issues. we were talking about NAFTA and you switched into immigration. Goods vs People. And then LOST ...
“Attempts to subject our navy to the whims of the UN via the LOST treaty, and putting our troops under the authority of international courts..” ... which is a whole other concern entirely.
It doesnt help to tie up these separate items in one ball, when they are different issues.
“You are correct, none of us know Reagan’s mind, and what he may or may not endorse. But I feel quite confident he would be strongly against such matters, and would never consider any affront to our national sovereignty.”
One things Reagan was FOR: He was FOR freedom; he was FOR America trading freely with other countries; he was FOR (legal) immigration. He would be against isolationism and protectionism, which is where some of the sentiments against NAFTA lead us. Its a dead-end.
You are right that Reagan wouldnt sell out our soveriegnty. And he was pro-NAFTA. The obvious conclusion must be that claims that NAFTA sells out our sovereignty are Red Herring arguments.
Viewpoints that conservatives once supported are now vilified: “Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”
The fact remains that if George Bush evinced the same sentiment and words as Ronald Reagan, he would be called a traitor and worse.