Posted on 07/31/2006 3:05:40 PM PDT by Reagan Man
The hottest issue at the grass roots is illegal immigration and what our government is not doing to stop it. The question most frequently heard is, "Why doesn't the Bush administration get it?"
Maybe the Bush administration doesn't want to stop the invasion of illegal immigrants and plans to solve the problem by just declaring them all legal through amnesty and guest-worker proposals. Maybe the Bush administration is pursuing a globalist agenda. Consider this chronology.
On March 23, 2005, President Bush met at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, with Vicente Fox of Mexico and Paul Martin of Canada in what they called a summit. The three heads of state then drove to Baylor University in Waco, Texas, where they issued a press release announcing their signing of an agreement to form the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
On May 17, 2005, the Council on Foreign Relations issued a 59-page document outlining a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter" to achieve "the freer flow of people within North America."
This document is full of language spelling out an "integrated" strategy to achieve an "open border for the movement of goods and people" within which "trade, capital, and people flow freely." The document calls for "a seamless North American market," allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access," "totalization" (the code word for putting illegal immigrants into the U.S. Social Security system), massive U.S. foreign aid, and even "a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution."
Tying this document into the Bush-Fox-Martin March 23 Summit, the Council of Foreign Relations stated that the three men on that day "committed their governments" to the North American community goal, and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
On June 9, 2005, Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar, R-Ind., held a friendly committee hearing that featured task force member Robert Pastor, a professor at American University and author of the 2001 book "Toward a North American Community" (Institute for International Economics, $28). He revealed further details of the plan for a "continental perimeter," including "an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure that includes new North American highways and high-speed rail corridors."
Pastor asserted that President Bush endorsed North American integration in the Guanajuato Proposal of February 16, 2001, in which Bush and Fox promised that "we will strive to consolidate a North American economic community." Bush followed up on April 22, 2001, by signing the Declaration of Quebec City in which he made a "commitment to hemispheric integration."
On June 27, 2005, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff attended a North American Security and Prosperity Partnership meeting in Ottawa at which he said, "We want to facilitate the flow of traffic across our borders." The White House issued a press release endorsing the Ottawa report and calling the meeting "an important first step in achieving the goals of the Security and Prosperity Partnership."
In July 2005, the White House let it be known that it is backing a coalition called Americans for Border and Economic Security organized by former Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie. Its purpose is to conduct a political-style campaign to sell the American people on a guest-worker program wrapped in a few border-security promises and financed by coalition members who each put up $50,000 to $250,000.
On March 31 President Bush met at Cancun, Mexico, for a spring frolic with Fox and the new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Their press release celebrated what they called the first anniversary of the partnership, and Bush demanded that Congress pass an immigration bill with a worker permit program.
On May 15 Bush made a nationally televised speech in which he enunciated the amazing non sequitur that we can't have border security unless we also have a "comprehensive" bill including legalization of illegal immigrants now in the United States and the admission of new so-called guest workers.
Thanks to the investigative work of Jerome R. Corsi, we have learned that the partnership's more than 20 working groups are already quietly operating in the North American Free Trade Agreement office in the U.S. Department of Commerce, which refuses to reveal the groups' members because, in the words of partnership spokeswoman Geri Word, the Bush administration does not want them "distracted by calls from the public."
Corsi discovered recently that the partnership issued a "Report to Leaders" on June 27, 2005, that shows the partnership's extensive interaction with government and business groups in the three countries.
On June 15, 2006, the partnership's North American Competitiveness Council, consisting of government officials and corporate chief executive officers from the three countries, met to "institutionalize the partnership and the North American Competitiveness Council, so that the work will continue through changes in administrations."
The Bush administration is using a series of press releases, without authority from Congress or the American people, to shift us into the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership with "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."
BRAVO!
There are two version of Globalism one is of the Lord and the other program is the opposition!
This is the seperation of the wheat from the tares each will arive at their chosen destination!
I still feel Bush mission is for good who knows what the elected offical agenda will be!
The trouble is she is right.
Check out some of the responses on this thread. Chills! Spills! Hegelian dialectic! [hoot]
What are the negative effects brought about by imports? No feelings, just facts, if you could?
Let me guess, you don't think we manufacture anything here anymore?
Maybe on your planet. Meanwhile, back on Earth......
Economics 101.
Trade between the US and foreign countries have both positive and negative consequences. A positive effect of trade is the creation of jobs, but trade also destroys jobs. Increases in U.S. exports tend to create jobs in this country, while increases in imports tend to reduce jobs and for good reason. Imports displace goods that otherwise would have been made in the US by domestic workers.
You guessed wrong.
Next.
How much of our economy was manufacturing in the 1980s? How much is manufacturing now? Why has the reduction hurt us? Is our GDP smaller than in the 1980s? Is our household net worth lower?
Not only that but "free trade" agreements enable the displacement of Americans by foreign workers in the domestic workforce. Even if the jobs are maintained, it isn't necessarily citizens who get them. So you see a net reduction in jobs, and further reduction in the number of American citizens employed because of displacement by foreign workers.
That's funny!
but trade also destroys jobs.
Who trades more than the US? Who has a lower unemployment rate than the US? Maybe you can tell me how many jobs each $1 billion in imports destroys?
while increases in imports tend to reduce jobs and for good reason.
We import more than ever. We have more jobs than ever. The evidence doesn't seem to support your position. Maybe you have a source that does?
Well ya think? I'm just shocked, shocked I tell you! Who would have EVER considered the idea that Bush might pursue a globalist agenda.....
Peak manufacturing levels in the US hit its high in 1979 with about 20 million employed in production related businesses. Today there are roughly 15 million American workers engaged in manufaturing jobs. Even though the US has stayed somewhat competitive against low wage countries through innovation, its quite obvious we aren't the manufacturing giant we once were. In the early 1980`s the US became a nation of service workers. 20 yeasr ago GM was the largest employer in the US. Today the largest employer is a service company called, WalMart. Service related jobs businesses have outpaced production manufacturing jobs. Making the US a service oriented country in the 21st century.
Calm down now. Never said the US didn't have the best AND biggest economy in the world. However, the overall trends during the last 20-30 years indicate the USA is no longer the economic force in the world it once was. The dollar has faded, our trade deficit is at an all time high and we are not eduacting our chidlren properly. The rest of the world is catching up to the US. That's why its so critical the Feds apply the brakes to the America's ever expanding globalization efforts. The Feds need to stop signing trade deals with nations that aren't concerned with looking out for America's best interests.
Please clarify, we manufactured more in 1979 than today? Or we employed more in manufacturing in 1979 but we manufactured less?
Even though the US has stayed somewhat competitive against low wage countries through innovation, its quite obvious we aren't the manufacturing giant we once were.
How much in $$$ terms do we need to manufacture to be a giant again?
In the early 1980`s the US became a nation of service workers.
If we only had 20 million in manufacturing in 1979, we were already a nation of service workers. Or are you claiming we used to have 50% of all workers in manufacturing? 50% of GDP from manufacturing?
Service related jobs businesses have outpaced production manufacturing jobs. Making the US a service oriented country in the 21st century.
And yet we employ more people, make more money, increase net worth, manufacture more and increase GDP every year. So why are you complaining?
That's funny! I don't suppose you have any facts to back up your supposed trend? So this trend makes us poor?
The rest of the world is catching up to the US.
If we grow 3.5% a year and the rest of the world grows 4%, is that a bad thing?
The Feds need to stop signing trade deals with nations that aren't concerned with looking out for America's best interests.
You need to get your head out of the zero sum hole you've got it in. You really don't understand how trade works, do you?
Trade benefits both sides of the transaction.
And the Iceman and blacksmith jobs just disappeared. But guess what? New jobs came along - like the refrigerator repairman and the auto mechanic.
The world is changing and we have to change with it. We can't seal ourselves into a 1977 Tupperware bowl and keep the economy just as it was. With every change there are winners and losers.
Globalization is going to happen whether we like it or not, with or without George Bush. It's better to learn to use the changes to our advantage then to just sit and complain about them.
Even though the US has the best and biggest economy in the world today, I'd like to see America remain #1 in that regard. I don't support the globalization of America, and I don't support what Bush41, Clinton and Bush43 have been pushing for the last 17 years. What I don't want to see happen, is for the US to continue advancing globalist policy that allows for unfair trade practices by foreign nations as a weapon of choice to be used against MY country.
And I'm done playing 20 questions with you. If you need more feedback, pick up a book and get informed.
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.