The security and well-being of its citizens are at the pinnacle of any government’s responsibilities.
You say the purpose of our government is the protection of individual right and private property. Jefferson would describe that as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I don't see that any of those statements differ from each other significantly. Certainly protecting life and liberty could be described as providing security, or as you state it, protecting the individual's rights and private property. Jefferson adds pursuit of happiness and the CFR document adds well being. Frankly, I think your statement more closely parallels the CFR document than Jefferson's, but again, the differences do not seem that significant between any of them.
"At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are shared as never before."
"That is because the certain individuals in OUR government decided that trade could be used to integrate these countries without the consent of the governed."
But it is "the governed" who provide both the supply and the demand of the trade equation. In other words, the actions of the government regarding trade would be irrelevant if the governed didn't jump right in and provide a market. And clearly H. Ross Perot campaigned actively against NAFTA in the 1992 elections. The "governed" decided to ignore his warnings and voted for a NAFTA advocate in the form of Clinton. Now, according to data listed on page 1, paragraph 3-4, almost 1/3 of US trade is with Mexico and Canada. Trade among the three countries has tripled in the last ten years, Canada and Mexico are our primary sources of imported oil, and 90% of our natural gas comes from Canada. Again, none of this would happen if there weren't American consumers (the governed) generating the demand.
"NAFTA did not originate from the people."
No international treaty or trade agreement ever does. And they never have.
"As a result, all three countries face a historic challenge: Do they continue on the path of cooperation in promoting more secure and more prosperous North American societies,"
"To claim that Americans have prospered from NAFTA is disingenuous."
It may be true that the citizens of Canada and Mexico have benefited more from NAFTA than US citizens. I honestly don't know, and this document doesn't say. I've already listed the stats on the oil and gas we get, but it could be argued that we would buy that without NAFTA.
"property owner have suffered from illegals trespassing, taxpayers have suffered mightily to pay for the housing, education, medical care and other expenses for the people who broke our laws and entered our country."
NAFTA did not include any provision legalizing illegal immigration. That was a problem long before NAFTA. And it could be argued that if we really did lose a significant number of jobs to Canada and Mexico, that would have actually reduced the number of people flowing into our country illegally. It clearly hasn't. However, the northern portion of Mexico has benefited greatly from provisions of NAFTA and that has greatly reduced immigration from that area of Mexico. Page 5, paragraph 1 of the CFR document says states in Northern Mexico have grown ten times faster than central and southern regions. Lack of opportunity in the central and southern regions is a key contributer to the illegal immigration and drug trafficking that makes its way into our country.
"Individuals wages are their property and the government shouldn't extort this money through taxes to pay for lawbreaking aliens to live in this country."
I think almost all our taxation is a form of extortion, and it is up to us to vote in representatives who will reduce it. That is our job as voters and if we don't, we pay (literally) for what we get. We have been paying for illegals for decades. Yet, it is rarely an election issue. When Californians voted to end funding of illegals' education, they were overturned by federal judges appointed by democrats elected to office by the people. Yet, for decades, Californians have continued to send democrats to the Senate and to a majority of their House seats. They've also voted consistently for the democrat Presidential candidate. Clearly, they aren't so concerned about the issue that they are willing to vote in leaders who will appoint conservative judges. Again, we live in a democracy. We choose our leaders. If our leaders fail us, it is up to us to vote them out. When we don't, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
"or do they pursue divergent and ultimately less secure and less prosperous courses?
"Oh, are the authors predicting the future here?
Yes. They are being presumptuous here. However, they support their presumption starting on page 3 under the title "What We Face". In short they highlight growing problems in security with the rising terrorist threat, increased competition in international trade, and the increasing problem of illegal immigration stemming from poverty in Mexico. They have a point.
"Do they claim that if the US doesn't merge with Mexico we will be less prosperous?"
That is a silly and fallacious argument that is certainly NOT being advocated in the CFR document. I'm not going to discuss it either.
"if important decisions are not pursued and implemented, the three countries may well find themselves on divergent paths.
"What important decisions? Open borders, integration of transportation systems, creating a customs union, creating the Amero to replace the dollar?"
Decisions regarding North American security, economic growth and economic development. That is what the rest of their recommendations involve. None of which include, by the way, open borders or the Amero. Better integration of transportation systems and combining customs efforts are already underway and play an important role in our security.
"Nowhere in this document was it suggested that the US take the Constitutional course. It would mean that the CITIZENS of Mexico would have to vote to become a territory of the US.
Where did that come from? Certainly not this document. Nothing I have read even hints of making Mexico a US territory.
"Why doesn't this document suggest the Constitutional solution? Can you tell us Rokke?"
You were doing so well and then you took a flying leap off the deep end. NOTHING in this document suggest making Mexico a US territory. Exactly opposite. So why would they talk about "a Constitutional solution"?