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]

You might also be interested in this Canadian website, discussing NAFTA's failures. I haven't read everything on here, naturally, but it does make some pertinent criticisms.

NAFTA at Ten - Lessons from Nafta

The corporate and political advocates of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) continue to defend this trade deal and even to claim that its effects on the workers and consumers of all three countries--Canada, the United States, and Mexico--have been enormously beneficial.

In fact, the impact of NAFTA on most of the people in all three countries has been devastating. The agreement has destroyed more jobs than it has created, depressed wages, worsened poverty and inequality, eroded social programs, undermined democracy, enfeebled governments, and greatly increased the rights and power of corporations, investors, and property holders.

NAFTA has also been used to weaken Canada’s sovereignty and promote its economic assimilation by the United States. It has led to greater pressure on Canada and Mexico to conform to U.S. foreign policy objectives. Most alarmingly, the three governments are bent on extending this failed model to other countries in Central and South America and the Caribbean in the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). Before leaping into that abyss, citizens and policy-makers throughout the hemisphere should stop and look at the concrete results of this trilateral trade agreement.

[snip]

[nicmarlo]

*smirk*

[texastoo]

Thanks for the article. I'll be back later today and continue the discussion.

[nicmarlo]

This article, posted by JesseJane in May 2005, might also be of interest:

Conclusions of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace/Global Policy
February 15, 2001

On February 15, 2001, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace International Migration Policy Program hosted a breakfast briefing featuring three members of the U.S.-Mexico Migration Panel, which released a report on February 14 to U.S. President George W. Bush and Mexican President Vicente Fox including proposals to change and improve the relationship of the U.S. and Mexico regarding migration.

* * *

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."

[William Terrell]

Except that the "task force" paper describes what is happening now, observable physical actions, and the point of the actions.

The document tells the story of merging Canada, the US and Mexico, with one common parameter border, which of course is exactly what is happening.

The question is, is this all Bush's plan and the document is describing what he is doing, or is this a description of a plan existing before Bush started which Bush is implementing.

If Bush is working from the planning the description of which is in this paper and the goal is destruction of US sovereignty, then this is ipso facto a conspiracy. The evidence that Bush is working from the plan is that this process started before the Bush administration.

The document is not a meeting. It is the result of planning and development which require, well, planning and development.

You see?

Most people aren't wearing your funny colored glasses.

Do we, or do we not, press 1 for English and 2 for Spanish? Do we, or do we not, see large populations that keep their customs and language while living in this country. Look up Balkanization, then put on some "funny colored" glasses so you can see.

[hedgetrimmer]

2005 Council on Foreign Relations Membership Roster
(as of June 30, 2005)

UPDATED ON APRIL 24, 2006

Rokke, Ervin J. (Lt. Gen., USAF) – former president of National Defense University (1994-1997)

[hedgetrimmer]

Have you read the whole document?

Yes.

[William Terrell]

I continue to respond to your posts as a courtesy. Nothing more.

A courtesy? Ok, then, it not required by me; you are relieved of the necessity. Stop responding, and I'll stop.

Hee.

[hedgetrimmer]

2005 Council on Foreign Relations Membership Roster (as of June 30, 2005)

UPDATED ON APRIL 24, 2006

Pastor, Robert A. – Vice President of International Affairs at American University; former NSC staff member under Carter.

Tell us about Mr. Pastor and his book Integration With Mexico: Options for U.S. Policy , and how he got the go ahead from the Clinton administration to pursue this.

[nicmarlo]

I was also interested in Pastor's recommendations. Thanks for bringing that up.

[hedgetrimmer]

He has been working on the concept of integration since he worked for the National Security Council. This has been in the works for some time.

[nicmarlo]

This has been in the works for some time.

That appears to be the case. It also seems that movement towards the "end-goal" has progressed more rapidly over the past couple of years.

[mjolnir]

You might also be interested in this Canadian website, discussing NAFTA's failures. I haven't read everything on here, naturally, but it does make some pertinent criticisms.

I agree it's good to get perspectives from other nations, but the website you site is full of anti-American Canadian socialist propaganda or which their opposition to free markets is just a part. Look at their take on Stephen Harper:

Across the country last night, Canadians who have been fighting for national social programs, day care, women's and worker's rights, equality for gays and lesbians, public education, medicare, aboriginal justice, environmental stewardship and Canadian sovereignty breathed a sigh of relief. The threat of a Harper majority, so close just a week ago, disappeared and the Conservatives barely made minority status.

Or their "Blue Planet Project": an international effort begun by The Council of Canadians to protect the world's fresh water from the growing threats of trade and privatization.--- in other words, like the anti-free trade leftist Garrett Hardin, they want to keep the enviromental commons under the control of governments. http://www.canadians.org/browse_categories.htm?COC_token=&step=2&catid=122&iscat=1

Or see their "Beyond Factory Farming" http://www.canadians.org/browse_categories.htm?COC_token=&step=2&catid=277&iscat=1

Or their pathetic position on the WOT http://www.canadians.org/display_document.htm?COC_token=COC_token&id=1417&isdoc=1&catid=377

Or their identification with leftist reporters in the media, although they think the media in Canada is biased to the right http://www.canadians.org/browse_categories.htm?COC_token=COC_token&step=2&catid=384&iscat=1 :

you are a social or political activist, you have heard the declaration a hundred times: the media is terrible – how can we win with such a biased media? The problem is that everyone complains about the media but few do anything about it. Word Warriors is designed to help you quit complaining and start acting.

As biased as they are, newspapers are still privately owned public institutions. We must, if we are serious, take advantage where we can. And one place is the letters to the editor pages – the one egalitarian part of the newspaper to which ordinary people have some access.

Letters to the editor are important political tools for two very practical reasons. First, the majority of Canadians share progressive social values, yet most feel they are alone when they read newspapers and watch TV. If people see their values expressed in letters to the editor their values are reinforced – their gut sense that things are terribly wrong is given a voice. People’s values start to become part of a collective consciousness.

Secondly, many if not most reporters are actually on the centre or left of the political spectrum. In many cases, they are simply not permitted to cover the issues they want to write about. Often the story ideas of reporters are rejected with the claim that “No one cares about [poverty] [P3s] [private health care]...” By writing letters about these issues we give reporters the evidence they need to convince their editors that these stories are important.

Word Warriors is a collective letter writing project whereby I send out periodic suggestions for letters to the editor along with data and analysis, and you use these to write letters to your local paper. If there are enough of us writing enough letters we can help change the political landscape.

[hedgetrimmer]

A North American Community

A Modest Proposal To the Trilateral Commission
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
November 1-2, 2002
DR. ROBERT A. PASTOR

Foreign companies would prefer to invest in the interior (where the workforce would be more stable), but the roads and infrastructure are inadequate. The World Bank estimates Mexico needs $20 billion a year for ten years, just for infrastructure. The three leaders should establish a North American Development Fund, whose priority would be to connect the U.S.-Mexican border region to central and southern Mexico. If roads were built, investors would come, immigration would decline, and income disparities would narrow. If Mexico’s growth rate leaped to twice that of its neighbors, the psychology of the relationship would be transformed.

Look for NADBank(North American Development Bank) projects. I'll bet 'transportation corridors' fall into the pervue of this 'bank'. This bank is set up like the Inter-American Development Banks which has been using tax dollars to fund infrastructure development in Mexico, central and south America.

Its odd, isn't it, that whatever Robert Pastor proposes, the government complies.

[television is just wrong]

I think we gave up our sovereignty when we signed NAFTA. That was the idea of NAFTA.

[nicmarlo]

As I said, I haven't read all their articles; what I found interesting is the fact that even they see the failure of NAFTA, despite claims to the contrary by NON socialists. They make numerous valid points, one being that Canada is selling out its sovereignty because of NAFTA. That fact is true, as well, with the United States.

[television is just wrong]

yep that is where we are headed. This is not a new idea. Bush GHWB, stated his NEW WORLD ORDER. Unfortunately, or fortunately, the UN is never going to amount to much of anything, because they are worthless.

[mjolnir]

As I said, I haven't read all their articles; what I found interesting is the fact that even they see the failure of NAFTA, despite claims to the contrary by NON socialists. They make numerous valid points, one being that Canada is selling out its sovereignty because of NAFTA. That fact is true, as well, with the United States.

That's because their anti-free trade agenda is of a piece with their socialism. It goes like this: Big Oil is evil and out for itself, Big Tobacco is evil and out for itself, Big Agriculture is evil and out for itself...

...Big government is good and only cares about the little guy.

That's why it's not some cosmic coincidence that Ralph Nader is against free trade while Rush Limbaugh and William F. Buckley are for it. That's why even Pat Buchanan would admit he believes in free markets only up to a point.

Look, being against elements of NAFTA or any other trade agreement is one thing. But if you think that higher tariffs and duties in and of themselves bring greater proseprity, you'll have to explain why Hong Kong has been so prosperous all these decades without either.

[hedgetrimmer]

But if you think that higher tariffs and duties in and of themselves bring greater proseprity, you'll have to explain why Hong Kong has been so prosperous all these decades without either.

Why is creating an 'external tariff system' so important to the North american integrators, if "free traders" can't abide by tariffs?

[nicmarlo]

And you have yet to address the fact that attacking America's sovereignty, as well as Canada's, appears to be one of NAFTA's goals.