Skip to comments.Gov Perry embraced President's Fox vision of a North American Union in 2001
Posted on 08/29/2011 10:53:20 PM PDT by unseen1
In Aug of 2000 President Fox laid out his vision for the future of North America.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Mexicos president-elect, Vicente Fox, has spent the past week in Canada and the U.S. outlining his vision for a more integrated North America. Perhaps most provocative was his proposal to open the U.S.-Mexican border once the wage disparity between the two is narrowed. Fox spoke on the NewsHour last night.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/latin_america/july-dec00/mexico_8-25.html
VICENTE FOX: Im talking about a community of North America, an integrated agreement of Canada, the United States, and Mexico in the long term, 20, 30, 40 years from now. And this means that some of the steps we can take is, for instance, to agree that in five years we will make this convergence on economic variables. That may mean 10 years we can open up that border when we have reduced the gap in salaries and income.
One year later Gov Perry embraced that vision in a speech:
President Foxs vision for an open border is a vision I embrace, as long as we demonstrate the will to address the obstacles to it. An open border means poverty has given way to opportunity, and Mexicos citizens do not feel compelled to cross the border to find that opportunity. It means we have addressed pollution concerns, made substantial progress in stopping the spread of disease, and rid our crossings of illicit drug smuggling activity. Clearly we have a long way to go in addressing those issues. At the same time we must continue to deepen our economic ties, expanding opportunities for Mexican and U.S. companies to do business on both sides of the border. The outlook is promising, even if the road to prosperity is a long one. We share a bond as neighbors, and we find our culture north of the Rio Grande to be increasingly defined by the strong traits of people of Hispanic descent. Texas has long enjoyed a unique identity, an identity forged by an independent spirit, and the convergence of many different peoples. We must welcome change in the 21st Century as we have in every century before it.
lol. same names? I haven’t posted on FR for several weeks. So how could my name be popping up “bashing” him
Perry’s speech was given in aug of 2001. You know 2001 three weeks later 9/11 happened. You remember 9/11? It stopped the open borders crowd in its tracks.
NAFTA was a duly enacted treaty. If you read your constitution, you will see that treaties are the highest law of the land, just under the constitution itself. The TREATY called for Mexican trucks to be allowed access to our roads, provided they met safety standards.
Perry argued for following the treaty provisions, which were the law of the land. I suppose some would have liked for him to call for unlawful acts, but I don’t know why they would expect that.
I very much like Rick Santorum too! I really wish his numbers were better.
I can’t find it now, but there was an article that went into the visceral hate that Perry has for Romney. It appears he was making moves to support whoever would beat Romney. There were no good candidates to support in ‘08 anyway, so I don’t blame anyone for backing whoever. They all sucked.
Here. Found the piece. It was WSJ but you can’t get the whole thing on line so here is a summary.
Building a straw man? ;-o
Yes, do listen to the video, so you can see it doesn’t say exactly what SoConPubbie keeps saying it says even after I posted the actual transcript (which I wish I had saved on my computer now, because I can’t find it in my posting history).
She makes it clear she is not READY to support any of the candidates; she clearly also says she is still evaluating the candidates, as well as some who hadn’t entered yet, to see if there are any she could support. So she did NOT rule out supporting an existing candidate.
Note the subtle twist in the wording. She said there was no one in the race she would back YET; not that there is no one in the race YET that she could back.
“Read the speech.”
I already did. I prefer to look at what he’s done....and the historical context in which he took those actions.
it is a washingtonpost article
BTW, the reason I keep re-explaining this is that I believe there is a non-zero probability that Palin will decide not to run, and will then throw her support to someone in the race.
If you accept SoConPubbie’s interpretation of what she said, that would make Palin a liar if she doesn’t run. I don’t think she’s lying.
Nafta is one of the worse ideas I have seen in a long time.
You are correct. I watched the entire video....precisely because I suspected that what she said had been interpreted incorrectly.
Not him specifically. Bachmann or whoever else you think is in the way for Palin to get in.
You remember 9/11? It stopped the open borders crowd in its tracks.
Yeah. It really stopped them. That is why we are still arguing over it today and the borders are totally unsecured. I asked also about your NAFTA issue. Do you suppose we should end it and which candidates are advocating ending it?
Do listen to the tape. Here is the quote you will hear:
Palin: Still listening to the debate and the discourse and the GOP lineup right now, and still looking for that candidate whom I can put my heart and soul behind to support, if I don’t see that person here in short order I would be willing to put my name forward in the name of service, I’m impressed with the lineup
Meghan (interrupting): Have you not found him or her yet?
Palin: no, I’m impressed with the lineup, but there’s still is quite a long process, there will be a lot of comings and goings with this lineup,
Note she did NOT say there was “no one in the race she could support”. She said she was still listening, and looking for, that candidate she could support. She is evaluating the current and possible future crop of candidates. It’s not just the person entering the race, she wants to see how they do. It is absurd to pretend she said she had rejected the current candidates, since she didn’t say that at all.
fair enough. I tend to look at 9/11 as throwing a wrench in the open borders crowd plans
OK, just so long as you aren’t advocating a president ignore the laws that you think are absurd. because if they can ignore the laws you don’t like, they can ignore the laws you do like. And if they have that power, they are likely to use it for many things you don’t like.
There are a lot of people to either credit or blame for NAFTA, but Rick Perry isn’t one of them.
I like free trade, but then again, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter.
“I tend to look at 9/11 as throwing a wrench in the open borders crowd plans”
And thank goodness! Though a lot of states and private citizens are working on securing that border, we need a president who will use the full power of that position to solidify it.
I apologize, I forgot the sarcasm tag.
Here are some recent Texas laws signed by Perry. Note particularly the voter ID law. Illegal aliens cannot obtain the required ID and will not be able to vote.
fair enough. I tend to look at 9/11 as throwing a wrench in the open borders crowd plans
I could never find a transcript, so I finally sat down and wrote one by listening to it over and over.
I had to do that with Greta’s interview with her as well, after so many people mis”quoted” her by writing an interpretation of her words.
I like quoting Sarah Palin, because she often makes sense, and it sometimes protects you from being attacked.
Yes, it's inconvenient that his past actions keep coming back to haunt him. Forgive me for finding these two things hard to overlook: His endorsement of instate tuition for illegals, and free access to US roads for Mexican trucks. How many times do US citizens have to storm the capitol with pitchforks before the politicians stop trying to cram this stuff down our throats?
And with that, I’m out. It’s like 3:30am here. And it seems all I ever post to anymore are Perry threads. I’m really tired of it.
Do a little more research, please.
same here late
Did you read the whole thing? One pandering sentiment after another. The problem is we have not ready for prime time Bachmannm, we have Mitt whom no conservative could want to vote for and we have Perry who from everything i read is in the same class as Jorge Bush when it comes to illegals.
Every post about Perry leads to the exact same thing. Those on one side who i suspect are more anyone but Mitt and those who have drawn a line in the sand about illegals.
Fact is we have no good choices.
Nothing about this article but we have a president today who ignores laws he doesn’t like, This is reality is it not? Your first paragraph describes obama to to T.
Why not Rick Santorum?
I've actually found an FR thread from 2002 or so with several commenters attacking Rep. Issa - yes, the same Rep. Darryl Issa - as a pro-Muslim sympathizer. I'm sure those posters would be embarrassed to recall their words now, given Rep. Issa's more recent doggedness in exposing frauds.
Now to my point. Has Gov. Perry shown any embarrassment, or expressed any regret, about those words he said back in the heady days of August 2000?
Still, the question remains. Back then, there was less anger over illegal immigration because it was mostly seen as less trouble-causing then than now. Has Gov. Perry expressed any regret or shown any embarrasment?
I have no antipathy towards him but friends in Pa. don’t speak highly of him. I’m getting too old to tilt at windmills which is how i see the candidates getting 5% in the polls.
You'll have to put a little more effort than that into your proselytizing. If you're such a Perry supporter, you'll spend a few minutes to enlighten me right here. I have no incentive to spend my time reading his campaign material. I don't like the guy. It's going to take a lot of solid evidence to convince me that he's not just another bought-off corrupt politician.
Actually, I was not proselytizing.
Gov. Perry is the candidate at the top of my list PRESENTLY because I see him as having the greatest probability of defeating Obama and helping undo the horrendous mess of his inept and “agendized” administration.
As a voter, you should take the time to thoroughly read ALL the pros and cons of potential candidates.....whether or not you “like” them.
This might be a good beginning: http://peskytruth.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/rick-perrys-negatives
The Gardusil and TTC issues are what bother me the most. For Perry to say these were "mistakes" is a misuse of the word. True, they were mistakes for him politically. But "mistake" usually implies something done with little forethought, when little time is available for a more careful decision. These two fiascos were not mistakes; they were deliberate and calculated actions. The Gardusil mandate harmed people. 28 deaths and thousands of injuries have resulted from Gardusil. Lives have been ruined. Perry's action was unnecessary and illegal. I am willing to give Perry the benefit of the doubt with regard to his intentions. Perhaps he meant well. But it demonstrates that he is either weak minded or weak willed. He let the fast talking charmers at Merck sell him a bill of goods. This does not bode well for someone who wants to become the most powerful man in America.
I don’t think he has but I am not 100% positive about that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.