Posted on 05/20/2007 7:09:31 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Calls for speedier regional economic integration between U.S., Mexico
WASHINGTON – The controversial "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007," which would grant millions of illegal aliens the right to stay in the U.S. under certain conditions, contains provisions for the acceleration of the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a plan for North American economic and defense integration, WND has learned.
The bill, as worked out by Senate and White House negotiators, cites the SPP agreement signed by President Bush and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada March 23, 2005 – an agreement that has been criticized as a blueprint for building a European Union-style merger of the three countries of North America.
"It is the sense of Congress that the United States and Mexico should accelerate the implementation of the Partnership for Prosperity to help generate economic growth and improve the standard of living in Mexico, which will lead to reduced migration," the draft legislation states on page 211 on the version time-stamped May 18, 2007 11:58 p.m.
Since agreement on the major provisions of the bill was announced late last week, a firestorm of opposition has ignited across the country. Senators and representatives are reporting heavy volumes of phone calls and emails expressing outrage with the legislation they believe represents the largest "amnesty" program ever contemplated by the federal government.
In its current form, the bill would offer probationary legal status to the estimated 15 million to 20 million illegal aliens who were in the U.S. before Jan. 1, 2007. Those who then met a series of requirements — including payment of a $5,000 fine and $2,000 in processing fees — could gain citizenship within an estimated 12 to 13 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Good point. I’ve thought of that too. There is also the implied possibility of violence - witness the takeover of our major cities last year on May 1 (and this, but less so), and the continuing chaoes south of the “border.” I honestly could see how people think this is in the best interest of the country, especially if all they have to go on is what La Raza, corporate interests and Bush’s people tell them. Probably also seen as a way to lower costs here to better compete with the present 3rd world.
I certainly hope what you posted is not ture. I simply can not believe it.
just more poor to have to take from us for.
April 25, 2007 April 25, 2007 Next week, government officials and academics from the three countries will gather in Calgary for the two-day North American Future 2025 Project (see page 6)where they'll brainstorm ideas on how the continent should implement policies to deal with various challenges - including security, energy and labour.
But it's the agenda on water that has activists concerned, given that the discussions will be held behind closed doors without public scrutiny, said Maude Barlow, national chairwoman of the Council of Canadians.
''We want this out in the light of day. We tried contacting them and they said this meeting is private,'' Barlow said. ''How could it be private if it is setting up the political and policy framework for the future of North America?''
An outline of the proceedings states that climate change is expected to greatly exacerbate water shortages in the United States and Mexico while Canada, which has the world's largest supply of fresh water in the Great Lakes and elsewhere, is not expected to suffer to the same extent.
It goes on to state that ''creative'' solutions - such as water transfers and artificial diversions of fresh water - may be needed to address the ''profound changes'' that are bound to occur south of the border.
Water transfers is something that's hotly debated in Canada ...(search google under Canada "bulk water") but you don't hear much about it in the lower 48--though President Bush has mentioned his support for the idea. Asked about the possibility of water transfers world renowned water expert Peter Gleick said the economics simply weren't there. Mr. Gleick says.
I actually think this enormous controversy over bulk water exports is a little bit silly because no one's going to be able to afford it," he says."And frankly I think some of these people who complain because they have been prohibited from doing it, I think we've saved them a lot of money. I think they should have been allowed to do it and go bankrupt."Santa Barbara looked into the idea several years back and decided on water desalination even at then current prices. Never the less, according to a joint report entitled Global Water Futures produced by the CSIS and the Sandia National Laboratories.
Finding 5: Solutions must be innovative, revolutionary, and self-sustaining. Current trajectories for improvement in freshwater availability and quality are inadequate to meet global needs in a timely way. Innovative solutions must be found and employed that replace steady, incremental rates of progress with dramatic, revolutionary changes. These solutions must be designed to be self-sustaining over the long-term.Given the recognized urgency of the need for water solutions and the fact that the meetings are behind closed doors, it looks like much of the time & effort will be put into expediting Bush's desire for water transfers--rather than doing any actual brain storming. This is a shame. Especially as likely it will suck up what federal institutional energy there is behind water desalination R&D. Its especially shameful because the feds could get so much more bang for their buck out desalination R&D.
Thanks for the ping.
I was surprised, CNN did an excellent job covering this issue.
I have said before, that in something like this with the potential to forever change our country and our lives....the citizens of this nation should be able to vote on it, not those corrupt treasonous pimps for big business, sitting in Congress...and sure as heck not George Bush...I think he has lost his mind, and I am not kidding.
Ted Kennedy must have lobbied for that provision personally...;-)
Cheers!
GIVEN SCUBA TEDDY’S PROCLIVITIES, IT’S A WONDER IT WASN’T SET AT 100 DUI’S.
Sigh.
I do not think there is much room for doubt as to whether this President will sign it or throw it out since it is his “baby” and he’s been pushing for this, probably since he took office.
Of course, this was all kept hush hush, till last year someone demanded to see the agreement signed by him..under the “right to know” provision.As I recall, who ever posted those first items telling about this agreement made with the devil, were really given a hard time.
Well, I don’t think anyone should be laughing now...if you are, you really should pull your head from where ever it is, and take a good look at where we are headed...thanks to Bush and this no good Congress.
The excerpt I posted in #2 is language buried in the immigration bill to be addressed in the Senate tomorrow. While it primarily covers the legalization of illegals, there are other topics included—the bilateral actions with Mexico are one of those.
As to when the Security and Prosperity Partnership got started, your recollection sounds right to me. It’s been about a year since I really looked into it in depth. I did snip the following links for a general timeline. Hedgetrimmer may be able to fill in the blanks.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-1.html
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Prosperity Agenda
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-2.html
Joint Statement by President Bush, President Fox, and Prime Minister Martin
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-3.html
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America Security Agenda
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-4.html
Fact Sheet: Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/03/20050323-5.html
President Meets with President Fox and Prime Minister Martin (transcript)
Interesting stuff. Thanks.
You and I are just losers, kooks, nutburgers, and conspiracy theorists, don't you know.
I have noticed that no one on this website in the last week or two has been calling World net Daily by the euphemism World Nut Daily.
Do you understand they will vote on this before anyone gets to read it all?
Sen. John Cornyn has introduced legislation for the past several years with the same language as the section we’re talking about. It didn’t make it, so they’re sticking it in here.
I don’t care about the “NAU”, etc, etc. It’s bad enough that WE are going to spend more millions of tax dollars to bring Mexico into the 21st century. It is NOT going to happen no matter how much money we throw at it.
So did Bill “Overly Big Mouthed” O’Rielly!!!
He actually seemed to have Tony breathin pretty darned hard on this one!!!
It falls right in line with legislation to promote the SPP that Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas) has been introducing for years. He doesn’t get support for it, so it hasn’t gone into law, so perhaps they’re slipping it in here.
Article about Cornyns bill:
www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51222
THE NEW WORLD DISORDER
Senator ditches bill tied to ‘superstate’
Makes decision after WND points out link to ‘North American Union’
Posted: July 25, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas
Responding to information from WorldNetDaily, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has taken steps to ensure the Senate will not act on a bill that would further a plan to create a European Union-style alliance in North America.
Cornyn made the decision after WND pointed out Friday the legislation – the North American Investment Fund Act – would constitute an attempt to pass a key piece of American University Professor Robert Pastor’s plan to create a “North American Union.”
Yesterday, Cornyn’s office notified WND the senator had been assured by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that no action will be taken on Senate bill 3622 in the 109th Congress. If the Senate Foreign Relations Committee does not act, the bill will expire at the end of the term in January.
Hewitt spent all weekend going through the 200+ pages. He brags that he was asked by Sen. Kyl and Tony Snow to review it. He hates the bill (although his opinion carries little weight since he’s wrong on so many things, lol). He posted in 8 separate posts (for each Title of the bill)
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/
Funny, everybody seems to hate it for one reason or another—both left and right.
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.