No. As I indicated: there are over 800 posts on this thread. I suggested that for each comment made on a particular post wherein articles or links are made and/or referred, if you take issue with the statement made regarding that post, you should provide evidence to prove that your contradictions are factual and the posters' are false.
That is not mind-reading, nor proving the poster's point. It's you who take issue with their point but do not post anything but your own opinions in refutation to their points. The articles/links/excerpts are all on the thread (with comments at the time they are made), whether posted by me, TigersEye, hedgetrimmer, calcowgirl, or others.
And much to my relief, I see you've actually posted some supporting excerpts to discuss.
As indicated earlier, that's been done all along the thread, except for when you refuted my (and others') points or made demands that I report specifics to back up my earliest points, posted with links and/or excerpts. You, however, provide and offer nothing but your own opinion for your refutations. Even this post of yours continues with SOLELY your own opinions.
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?
That paragraph was posted as an example of wording used in one document and one document only on the spp website. My point was merely to show that the website, itself, has dozens of pages from which to ensure and encourage ease of travel between the three countries. It does depend upon what the intent for "streamlining" means. In the Joint Statement, it was proferred thusly:
our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary. Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff [i.e., the perimeter of the entity now known as the "North American Community"] and an outer security perimeter [id.] within which [id.] the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe.This one paragraph (which cannot be taken as an isolated statement of intent, there are others in the other documents which expand upon this idea), is yet another suggestion that there will be a strong line, if you will, drawn around the entity now known as the "North American Community" with an almost indistinguishable division within the three countries. The suggestion of which I speak is legitimate, in that the beginning sentence states the entity's "security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary," as if it were one organism, as if it has been melded into one country. Thus, the sovereignty of each country, Canada, the United States of America, and Mexico, has been removed.
Hong Kong is a separate entity which is allowing ease of travel for it's visitors. The suggestion above goes way beyond the idea of merely "ease of travel" for visitors whose intention is depart soon after their arrival.
"* 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?
See above comments and discussion, as this excerpt is part and parcel of the paragraph cited for illustration purposes at the spp.gov website.
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.
That's all well and good, however, I quoted this from that particular article: "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." That you dislike the article in question is irrelevant. That was not the point. The point was, that statement is specific AND accurate regarding what I have been addressing, and speaks directly to the Joint Statement. The author of that article wrote what he sees coming down the pike if there is a MELDING of the three countries into an entity called the "North American Union." I find his reasoning consistent with what American citizens would must/give up for that to be achieved, i.e., American sovereignty, its Constitution, and our Bill of Rights, upon any such melding or "union."
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?
Convergence is a matter of where they meet or come together, rather than that which marks the respective countries' sovereign boundaries. It's all in how one views what the line is there for: a line to defend and protect against outsiders crossing, or merely a transitional line for whomever to cross over.
So let me get this straight. You claim a document says something it doesn't say, and I am supposed to prove the article doesn't say what you says it does. OK. Here you go. Links to the two articles in question. They don't say what you say they do.
Building a North American Community
SSPPNA Statement
Prove me wrong.
"Even this post of yours continues with SOLELY your own opinions."
First point...I explained the factual process of airline pilots transiting through international airports to demonstrate the process and importance of streamlining the movement of low risk traffic across borders. Everything I said was factual. Point 2...I demonstrated through personal experience the process of crossing the Canadian border to explain the need for more efficient crossing facilities. That isn't opinion. It is fact. Point 3...I asked you if developing new security technology was a bad thing. Is it?
"That paragraph was posted as an example of wording used in one document and one document only on the spp website."
Well there you have it. Once again I've proved I'm a terrible mind reader. Here I thought you were trying to actually engage in a debate on the article you posted, but instead you were trying to prove why you don't need to support your points. In case I haven't already made it obvious enough, I have been literally begging for someone to engage me in a discussion of the articles I linked above. To my surprise, it would appear that after first requesting the debate over 700 posts ago, Hedgetrimmer has finally decided the time has come. There is plenty to talk about in the CFR document. I have no desire to engage in a simultaineous debate on that document and the seemingly unlimited sources you might choose to pull up on a Google search. Again, I falsely assumed you were finally ready to discuss the article you posted. Apparently not. Let me know if you change your mind.