Posted on 07/18/2007 7:40:00 AM PDT by JKrive
I posted more information on Critical Mass
NA SPP bump
bump for later
To Global George:
Well **** you very much...
Maybe you missed the part about “The SPP is not a treaty or agreement”. IMHO, Corsi is fear mongering.
Despite my knee jerk reaction that such a union would be plain wrong, are there any arguments that the joining would be beneficial in any way ?
Not really. In purely economic terms, even a union with Canada would be a problem. They have natural resources and an educated workforce, but culturally they are more accustomed to government “over-reaching” than we. Mexico has oil, and tequila. That’s about it. Bad idea.
Beneficial or not—this monkey is working for us!
I know, ever since G. Washington turned us down, we have been electing xxxx-house “kings” in hopes of their being our sugardaddies and taking care of all our “needs”!!!
All that crap is now coming to a head. And we have only left a population of wimps that got us this way, and ensures they will remain in power.
Mexico also has heroin, methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana.
You purport to know---What, then, is it? And, if neither a treaty nor an agreement, why is time, energy and money being devoted to the SPP?
I look forward to your clarification.
There is nothing about the above statement that gives any credence to the creation of an NAU. Everything in that statement is a good idea. Creating an NAU is not!
Oh, sure! Join with socialist canada and practically anarchist mexico. Drag 2 foreign languages (at least) in here. But it will save money on border guards and fences and stuff like that. Good stuff!
Yeah right!
Anyone who fails to stay within the bounds of pc, non-suckups (or “patriots,” in their own estimate)—gets labeled...this or that. It’s an old story, one that I no longer hear nor respond to, generally.
It’s soley for the “grab over and bend yer ankles” crowd and their herd mentality.
Semper BS!
Pertinent excerpts:
Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.
Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.
Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.
Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.
Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.
Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.
Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.
Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.
Leaving aside the question of whether we want to bring in the Canadians and Mexicans, there’s another, more basic question.
Doing it without following the constitutional route of STATEHOOD—the way we brought in Alaska and Hawaii most recently, and other states earlier—would destroy our constitution and our constitutional system of law.
It’s the same problem as the EU. You can’t just PASTE states with different cultures and law codes and constitutions and electoral systems together. You need to have a uniform system, not an unaccountable bureaucratic superstructure.
I’m sorry to say that President Bush, despite his many good points, seems to think this way. But you cannot expect to fix anything by adding another layer of bureaucracy on top of it.
If we bring in Canada, it should be one province or one state at a time. And the same with Mexico. You can’t just paste them together without entirely destroying the rule of law and handing the whole mess over to a bunch of Brussels style bureaucrats.
All very well, but that’s what the perps say.
Which are the myths, and which are the facts? Are you saying that they just have to say it, and that makes it true?
We have already seen supreme court justices saying that their decisions should be based on “international law and custom,” whatever that means. And we have already seen the EU at work. And we have already seen 20 million Mexicans come in over the border at the invitation of our government, which claims that it cannot do anything to solve the problem.
Good job. Many thanks.
Goggle the name Dr. Robert Pastor and see what you come up with.
Mexico has huge tourism potential and lots of land for building homes, retirement homes, businesses, etc. Also there is much potential in fishery and agriculture.
In addition, if American companies had free reign in Mexico they could employ all the potential ‘illegals’ right there ... no need to cross the border to get a low wage job. A Mexican could stay home and get a low wage (factory or service sector) job ... the same exact jobs they have when they move North.
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.