North American Union to Replace USA? ("is this the plan?" alert!)

HumanEventsOnline.com ^ | 5/19/2006 | Jerome R. Corsi

[Dark Skies]

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada, setting the stage for North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.

The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:

The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.

Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?

[nicmarlo]

only a mushroomed fool could think otherwise.

As someone said earlier, deny at your own peril.

[Plutarch]

McLellan reacted with disdain.

"I don't buy into ill-informed, alarmist rhetoric," she said later. "What we're talking about is a partnership."

Like the sculptor of Ozymandias , the writer of this piece well those passions read.

(Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read.)

[Arizona Carolyn]

Lot of mushrooms in them there woods...

[Arizona Carolyn]

Rush is on a roll on this today -- he is really p.o.ed especially at McCain, Graham, etc., over the social security issue and their wink and a nod at benefiting from doing something illegal.

BTW our paper has an article today -- I believe it is AP out of Mexico City called:

"Mexico Works to bar non-natives -- Limiting Immigrants"

I haven't seen it here yet, but haven't been online much this morning. If people haven't seen it I can give the highlights of the article.

[hedgetrimmer]

Hong Kong existed as an independent national economy for decades

Now how can that be? Before it was a special administrative region for China, it was a British Dependent Territory, and before that it was a British colony.

[hedgetrimmer]

Here is another pro integration piece:

Mapping the New North America[1]
Western Washington University
February 28, 2005
Stephen Blank
http://www.cbe.wwu.edu/cib/events/..%5Cblanktalk.htm
It is vital to identify key leadership constituencies that drive efforts to maintain open borders and to increase the efficient operation of the North American economy

The impetus for making the political decisions that are needed to build a more open, efficient and representative North American system must come from constituencies that feel directly the impact of economic integration.

Jean Monnet, the “father of the European Community”, felt that people could only unite behind a vision they shared. Monnet also understood the importance of building informed and committed constituencies, groups that would press governments to realize the vision. Through the Action Committee, Monnet sought to mobilize constituencies that would support a European Community. He describes the “constant outside pressure” that the Action Committee brought to bear, and “the moral influence the Committee exerted on the established authorities in each country”.[13]

In North America, constituencies already exist. They consist of companies that run continental production, supply and marketing systems; cities where jobs depend upon efficient North American transportation and logistics networks; and communities living on the borders. Most of their leaders understand how these systems and networks operate.

The task is to mobilize these groups to educate their representatives in state and national capitals about the impact of North American economic integration on jobs and economic development in their own communities. To apply the “constant outside pressure” and “moral influence” Monnet described—to create a true voice for North American integration in our government. To create a voice in our governments that enunciates the goals of North America integration and inclusion and presses for new policies to achieve these objectives.

I am sure the author is speaking about the mass demonstrations we just witnessed.

[nicmarlo]

From "Building a North American Community":

Develop a North American Border Pass. The three countries should develop a secure North American Border Passwith biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region. The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian ‘‘NEXUS’’ and the U.S.-Mexican ‘‘SENTRI’’ programs, which provide ‘‘smart cards’’ to allow swifter passage to those who pose no risk. Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs for a security clearance would obtain a Border Pass. The pass would be accepted at all border points within North America as a complement to, but not a replacement for, national identity documents or passports.

It's already implemented. See here for information on "biometrics" used at the border, and also what has already been implemented:

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, April 5, 2005

QUESTION: Can I just continue that clarification? To get a NEXUS card right now or, if you're a Canadian trucker applying for a FAST card, you do not need a passport and you will not need a passport and there are already biometrics in those two. Are all three of those things correct?

MS. DEZENSKI: That's correct. The only caveat is that this is a proposal. What we're proposing is that these would be the documentation requirements, so it's not final. It's not a must until the rule is final.

* * *

QUESTION: But NEXUS and FAST have biometrics?

MS. DEZENSKI: Both do. Yes, that's correct.

* * *

Now, the third phase is getting into the land borders and that's where we think we have some flexibility to utilize some other types of documentation. So, in addition to the passport, what we're proposing is the popular use of four different documents.

The first would be what we call a BCC, or Border Crossing Card, which is issued to Mexican nationals and requires a passport. And it's similar to applying for a visa, but instead of getting a visa you would actually get a Border Crossing Card. It's utilized by Mexican nationals who come into the country on regular basis, to visit family, for work purposes, whatever the case may be. So that's one option at the southern border that we think will be flexible in terms of those document requirements.

The second option is what we call the SENTRI card and the SENTRI card is also used at the southern border. It can apply to U.S. citizens, Mexican citizens or third-party citizens who cross that border on a regular basis. And in order to get a SENTRI card, you do have to present some documentation that verifies your citizenship. And that's really the key: Does the alternative document allow us to verify your identify and where you're from?

The third option would be what we call our NEXUS card, and the NEXUS card is also applicable to U.S. citizens as well as Canadian citizens and then any third-party nationals who might also be interested. But it applies to crossing on the northern border. Similar to SENTRI, there are requirements that would verify your identification and your country of origin.

The fourth option is what we call our FAST Card, Free and Secure Trade, and that applies to commercial truck drivers on both the northern and the southern border. So if you're crossing routinely -- we have, actually, many FAST Cards already in use and that is one document where we think we have the right level of security and could utilize that in lieu of a passport for those commercial drivers.

So those are the four options that we're proposing at this point. As we move forward with the implementation of this program, it is possible that additional types of registered traveler programs could be available. We'll look at that on an evolving basis as we continue to work through those issues within the department, but we think there is some flexibility that we can look at for the land border, which is really where we have the most challenges in terms of facilitating a great number of people and doing so in a way that doesn't slow things down too much.

[nicmarlo]

I saw that. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[hedgetrimmer]

What makes you think that Americans want economists to run their country? Because that is what you are proposing. Econoomists nowadays seem unaware of the function of the nation-state, and that people are governed by laws, not economic theory pushed by transnational corporations whose loyalities do not reside with the American people. Yet the freetards among us think you can supplant a self governing nation with theoretical economics which eliminate citizenship of nations and replace it with consumers of regional residency.

[nicmarlo]

The task is to mobilize these groups to educate their representatives in state and national capitals about the impact of North American economic integration on jobs and economic development in their own communities. To apply the “constant outside pressure” and “moral influence” Monnet described—to create a true voice for North American integration in our government. To create a voice in our governments that enunciates the goals of North America integration and inclusion and presses for new policies to achieve these objectives.

Yeah. Sounds like there's even a "play book" already well-scripted for various applications by different "interest" groups to "perform."

[mjolnir]

Hong Kong existed as an independent national economy for decades. Now how can that be? Before it was a special administrative region for China, it was a British Dependent Territory, and before that it was a British colony.

The same way that Hong Kong is still an almost completely independent economy! Look, I understand, given that you're against free trade in principle that you may not want to answer my question. But the answer is obvious: that Hong Kong's free market policies at home and abroad constitute the main reasons why it's so prosperous. Remember, the thirteen colonies revolted becuase their own economic independence was threatened; distance and development created that space. P.J. O'Rourke wrote a great book a while back called "Eat the Rich" that mentioned this and he talks about Hong Kong here as well:

Hong Kong was also fortunate in having a colonial government which included some real British heroes, men who helped of these the place stay as good as it was for a s long as it did. The most heroic of these was John Cowperthwaite, a young colonial officer sent to Hong Kong in 1945 to oversee the colony's economic recovery. "Upon arrival, however," said a Far Eastern Economic Review article about Cowperthwaite, "he found it recovering quite nicely without him." Cowperthwaite took the lesson to heart, and while he was in charge, he strictly limited bureaucratic interference in the economy growth or the size of GDP. The Cubans wont let anyone get those figures, either. But Cowperthwaite forbade it for an opposite reason. He felt that these numbers were nobody's business and would only be misused by policy fools.

Cowperthwaite has said of his role in Hong Kong's astounding growth: "I did very little. All I did was to try to prevent some of the things that might undo it."

He served as the colony's financial secretary from 1961 to 1971.In the debate over the 1961 budget, he spoke words that should be engraved over the portals of every legislature worldwide; no, tattooed on the legislators' faces:

….in the long run the aggregate of decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is less likely to do harm than the centralized decisions of a government; and, certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.

Even Newsweek has been forced into admiration: "While Britain continued to build a welfare state, Cowperthwaite was saying 'no': no export subsidies, no tariffs. No personal taxes higher than 15 percent, red tape so thin a one-page form can launch a company."

During Cowperthwaite's "nothing doing" tenure, Hong Kong's exports grew by an average of 13.8 percent a year, industrial wages doubled, and the number of households in extreme poverty shrank from more than half to 16 percent.

"It would be hard to overestimate the debt Hong Kong owes to Cowperthwaite," said economist Milton Friedman. And it would be hard to overestimate the debt Hong Kong owes to the Chinese people who sanctioned and supported what Cowperthwaite was doing or, rather, doing not. Because Hong Kong did not get rich simply as a result of freedom and law. Economics is easier than economists claim, but its not as easy as that. Chinese culture was a factor in Hong Kong;s success. And yet, almost by definition, Chinese culture must have been a factor in mainland China's failure. Culture is complex. Complexities are fun to talk about, but, when it comes to action, simplicities are often more effective. John Cowperthwaite was a master of simplicities....Hong Kong does not have import or export duties, or restrictions on investments coming in, or limits on profits going out. There is no capital-gains tax, no interest tax, no sales tax, and no tax breaks for muddle-butt companies that can't make it on their own.

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2004/2004_National_Trade_Estimate/2004_NTE_Report/asset_upload_file343_4771.pdf#search='Hong%20Kong%20independent%20economy'

http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Reports_Publications/2004/2004_National_Trade_Estimate/2004_NTE_Report/asset_upload_file343_4771.pdf#search='Hong%20Kong%20independent%20economy'

[hedgetrimmer]

I am against the internationalist "free trade system" that is destroying our domestic economy, yes.

Please understand this one point. Hong Kong is NOT a nation. It is a special region or was a territory
of Britain or China. It doesn't function under the same rules as a nation, because it isn't one.
You assert that its prosperity comes from its free market policies, but Hong Kong is just
a shopping mall. It doesn't provide for its own defense, it bases its government on the government
of the nation controlling it. The people there have no independence, they can only do what the country
which has jurisdiction over it says it can do. It really cannot be compared to the US or used as an example
for our own economy because its really just a shopping mall, not a nation!

[mjolnir]

You're confusing the freedom to buy and sell goods with the destruction of borders. Hayek, for instance, warned that if the United States encouraged immigration without limits and taught multiculturalism to its citizens, it would fade away into what he called the road to serfdom and eventutally perhaps cease to be a nation at all.

Hayek was of course as determined an opponent of transnational progressivism as he was a proponent of free trade. http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/archives_roll/2002_04-06/fonte_ideological/fonte_ideological.html

[nicmarlo]

if the United States encouraged immigration without limits and taught multiculturalism to its citizens, it would fade away into what he called the road to serfdom and eventutally perhaps cease to be a nation at all.

And that is exactly what is happening.

Hayek was of course as determined an opponent of transnational progressivism as he was a proponent of free trade.

We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road,
progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road;
in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

-- C. S. Lewis

America's definitely on the wrong road.

[mjolnir]

You assert that its prosperity comes from its free market policies, but Hong Kong is just a shopping mall. It doesn't provide for its own defense, it bases its government on the government of the nation controlling it.

So I take it you're claiming that Hong Kong's prosperity is largely based upon the fact that it doesn't have to provide for its own defense?

[The Mayor]

It's coming....

[hedgetrimmer]

Hayek, for instance, warned that if the United States encouraged immigration without limits and taught multiculturalism to its citizens, it would fade away into what he called the road to serfdom and eventutally perhaps cease to be a nation at all.

Like Building a North American Community?

[hedgetrimmer]

Hong Kong's prosperity is largely based upon the fact that it doesn't have to provide for its own defense? is a shopping mall, a popular shopping mall, I'll grant it, not a nation. Its economy now solely rests on the indulgence of the Chicoms.

[mjolnir]

C.S. Lewis was indeed correct. That's why the word "progressive" is simply a term of self-congratulation.

America has rarely been altogether on "the wrong road" and it is not in that situation now. There are good things http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551802/posts and bad things. What else is new?

[mjolnir]

You're deriding Hong Kong's economy as a "shopping mall" begs the question as to why other ports haven't developed so robustly and constitutes what Thomas Sowell calls the physical fallacy.

"In WW2, war prisoners developed markets in the camps even though everyone’s rations and Red Cross packages were identical. Trade occurred because people’s preferences for the items differed and because the contents became more valuable if they were saved until most packages had run out. Some people—middlemen—saved their rations and arranged trades, providing services that others wanted. But they were also resented.

Why? Sowell explains that the prisoners accepted the “physical fallacy.” Physically, the cigarettes and food packages were all the same. Trade occurred because the values increased when the items were moved through space or time.

But since the physical qualities of the items did not change, many people thought the value hadn’t changed. Prisoners who received what they thought was a pittance for their cigarettes were resentful when the middleman resold them for a higher price. And the people who paid the higher price felt cheated by the middleman who had obtained them so cheaply. Indeed, the failure to understand the role of the middleman helps explain the resentment of people who fulfill this distributive role throughout the world and over centuries."
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=3116