Further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across our shared borders* Develop and implement a border facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo at ports of entry within North America.
* Identify, develop, and deploy new technologies to advance our shared security goals and promote the legitimate flow of people and goods across our borders.
A couple links and excerpts I have posted are found at #321 (i.e., The new architecture would include a free trade zone protected by a common security perimeter, within which goods, people, and capital would move freely across what had once been firmly established international borders) and #644 (i.e., Conclusions of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel), and #655 (i.e., Pastor calls for replacement of the dollar with "Amero" [Pastor is an integral cog in this wheel; he is an integral member of the CFR who proposes the creation of a North American Community; therefore, anything he suggests should not be outright dismissed]. Additionally, #680 (i.e., although they "claim" they "must maintain respect for each other's national sovereignty," it appears that's not really what they MEAN. For example, that statement contradicts Mexico's actions...).
The SPECIFIC information is on this entire thread concerning MIGRATION, BIOMETRIC CARDS, faux claims to assured "sovereignty" of the respective countries (which is NEGATED by the very words "interdependence" and/or "dependence" upon or between Canada, Mexico, and/or USA), BORDERS (which has been heavily emphasized, in the discussed literature, on the outer perimeter of the entity now known as the "North American Community" (i.e., what was once only known as the sovereign and independent countries of Canada, United States of America, and Mexico, respectively), and a de-emphasis on the respective INNER borders of Canada/USA and USA/Mexico).
This is only scratching the surface of what has been posted on this thread. I simply will not spend the hours of time necessary to repost what has been posted. Many paragraphs have the pertinent ideas/words/goals/plans highlighted, underlined, italicized. This thread has been growing by the day. I won't play the game of whack a mole with you. Nor will I engage in an effort in futility of reposting posts on yet another post. The above examples illustrate well enough that the material referred to, or excerpts thereof, PLAINLY exists on this thread, and where it is not, links are provided directly to the source.
I suggest YOU go back through the over 800 posts on this thread and for each comment that was made on that particular post wherein articles and or links are made and/or referred, if YOU take issue with the statement made, you provide the evidence required to prove that your contradictions are factual and the posters' are false.
Otherwise, all you are doing is stating your contradictory opinion sans evidence in refutation to another poster's article which gave rise to the original comments of same.
Prove your points? Read your mind? I didn't even know you were referring to a "Google toolbar" when you told me to Google words. It is your job to support your statements. No one else's.
And much to my relief, I see you've actually posted some supporting excerpts to discuss. For the sake of arguement, I will assume you posted them to support your statement..." Focusing on the borders of the North American Union is plainly spelled out. Reducing focus on internal borders, i.e., Canada/USA and USA/Mexico, is plainly spelled out." To prevent losing this fleeting opportunity forever, let me repost them and open a discussion on them. You posted the following excerpts...
"Further streamline the secure movement of low-risk traffic across our shared borders
Now, what is the threat to our sovereignty if we streamline the secure movement of low risk traffic? If we can streamline the movement of that traffic, we can focus more energy on monitoring the movement of higher risk traffic. As an example, I fly all over the world as a FedEx pilot. When I fly into an international airport, I am met by a FedEx representative of the country I am entering and escorted through customs and immigration very quickly, and often without even showing my passport. Yesterday I flew in and out of a city in China. It took me 10 minutes to get through security and I never even took out my passport. Instead, I had to show my credentials as an airline pilot, and a general declaration letter explaining my visit. In Hong Kong, if you are a frequent foreign visitor to the city, you can get a special pass which permits you to enter and leave Hong Kong without going through the whole customs process. The system is designed to facilitate international commerce and trade. And it works beautifully. And Hong Kong is growing into the world's primier foreign finance center as a result of their efforts.
"* Develop and implement a border facilitation strategy to build capacity and improve the legitimate flow of people and cargo at ports of entry within North America."
Again, how is this a bad thing. They are talking about improving our border crossing facilities. Have you crossed into Mexico or Canada recently? I'm sure if you did you were on completely legitimate business. But the last time I crossed into the US from Canada I waited for over an hour in a traffic line that stretched through the whole Canadian town I was waiting in. It was an irritation for me. It is a deal breaker for a trucking company. The facilities need improvement.
"* Identify, develop, and deploy new technologies to advance our shared security goals and promote the legitimate flow of people and goods across our borders."
Again...is this a bad thing?
The article excerpt in your post #321 includes this sentence..."First of all, it would require that U.S. citizens effectively surrender their citizenship in the independent constitutional republic founded in 1787." What a bunch of garbage. I'm not even going to ask support for that because it doesn't exist.
Apparently the "US-Mexico Migration Panel in your post #644 was a Carnegie Endowment for International Peace initiative that took place before 9/11. They said "The panel's report calls on the U.S. and Mexico to craft a "grand bargain" that would be mutually beneficial, make migration safe, legal, orderly, and predictable, and decrease migratory pressures over time. The report calls for a reconceptualization of the border as a "line of convergence rather than a line of defense." I personally have no idea what "a line of convergence" means, but then I don't know what most of what they come up with ever means. Do you know how they define that?
I disagree with Pastor completely about the Amero. So do most people. No argument with me there.
And finally, your post #680 quotes a very supportable point from the CFR and then tries to counter it with some statement from the Mexican government. So what? The CFR clearly does not speak for the Mexican government, and the Mexican government does not speak for the CFR.
Now, this is what happens when you post specifics. For the LIFE of me, I cannot understand why you resisted doing that. You did just fine. Now I invite you to rebut my responses. I welcome it. It would be SUCH a refreshing change on this thread.
The main reason I even entered this thread was because of the intermodal transportation plans that set the basis for the upcoming California Ballot initiatives asking voters to approve of a $100+ Billion dollar plan, something that was discussed in the first 400 or so posts and somehow got lost when some started calling folks conspiracy theorists. California's plans also include coordination with Mexico and border infrastructure investments (not border enforement, but enhanced mobiliby projects). Hedgetrimmer posted some great links around post #446 regarding the North American Trade corridors. I need to get back and study those more.
I'd love to keep this thread going, assuming we can keep on topic (in my mind that means to explore what IS happening and IS fact and not digress into some of the other hyperbole).
Sums it up nicely.