Maybe some of you have seen on the news the idea of making a huge highway from Mexico to Canada. And, as you probably know, borders aren't being improved. I have recently seen on more than one political program that the US is taking steps toward making a North American Union. Much like the Europeans made the European Union. They did it really slowly. They established a shadow government, let borders fade away, and then suddenly everything fell together, the Euro was born, and the US Dollar was beaten.
Supposedly, if we were united with Mexico and Canada, Mexicans could unload our imports from China faster and incredibly cheaper. Also, We could ship things around North America faster and cheaper. Plus, our combined currency would destroy the Euro. Is this why borders are being left alone? Is this why the highway is being planned?
Another strange thing: In one of Orwell's old books, he predicted that in the future there will be only three world superpowers, all going by fantastic nicknames. The scary part: The European Union exists, Red China is growing, North American Union...

Do you think we will become one superpower?? Search 'North American Union' on Youtube.com, watch some of the videos(really interesting!) Then please give your thoughts.

I've proposed that it's really going to be difficult to solve illegal immigration issues with our neighbors via conventional means. The Southwestern part of the US and Northern Mexico shared real estate at one time. Actually it was a Mexican territory first before Sam Houston came on the scene to put a halt to Santa Ana. We have had continuous shared cultures and peoples for approximately two hundred years plus going back to the first Caucasians that explored the territory. Economics solutions and using combined resources is one possibility. I'll check the "Youtube" when I get time. Thanks.



Bobby

Gallivant

You are correct in that a similar process that could eventually lead to an EU model is in the works here in North America ;and yes it is incremental in design . It is not a foregone conclusion that it will happen . I have no issue with bilateral and regional trade agreements but I will stubbornly oppose processes that weaken or eliminate national sovereignty .

The blueprint for this effort can be found here : "Building a North American Community" published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

http://www.cfr.org/content/publicati...a_TF_final.pdf

Since then the leaders of Mexico ,the USA ,and Canada have met in a series of negotiations under a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" plan .

SPP Home

It is argued that this is why President Bush has consistently gone against his own party on issues like border security and the status of illegal aliens.

Currently the SPP is nothing more than an economic and post 9-11 security arrangement .So long as it remains as such I do not oppose it.But I watch developments with a wary eye. If it moves as you suggest towards an EU model I will oppose it.

North American Trade Union has not been approved by congress or the house, Bush has signed a agreement without congressional approval.

Now, part of he NATU is a super highway from mexico to canada through the heart land of america, for truck traffic.

The borders would be wide open, to alleged terrorists.

The President can sign treaties and agreements all he wants to . Treaties are not ratified until the Senate ratifies them . There is a difference between treaties and agreements but as this essay points out ;the lines have been blurred since the mid- 20th century .

US Constitution Annotated - International Agreements Without Senate Approval

Most of the rest of the world considers trade agreements the equivalent of treaties but the US system does not. Congressional -Executive Agreements(CEAs )and executive agreements need only majority votes for passage. Treaties require 2/3 majority of the Senate.

There are constitutional scholars who claim these agreements are un-constitutional . But SCOTUS has ruled otherwise.

Regarding a North American Union, I have to ask, what's in it for us, the USA? We take on the poverty and crime of Mexico, and the socialist medical infrastructure of Canada, but what do we get in return? Mexicans get jobs, an infusion of capital, a crackdown on crime, all thanks to the USA. Canada gets the American doctors it so desperately lacks. We get an increase in poverty, medical costs, crime, and government spending to deal with these problems. What do we get in return for this? What's in it for us?

I think it's a bad idea. I've said so before, and nothing I have heard since makes me change my mind.

Elliot

Hello galivant:

Hmph...

I think there's a lot in it for us. We'll have a large pool of willing workers. That should REDUCE crime here, because we have a lot MORE than Mexico does. We'll be able to buy beach front property. All our draft dodgers from times earlier would be within our reach. Health care would be improved (even if that pisses off the rich). We can all start saying ayyy. Our borders would be the oceans, and much easier to guard.

I don't know. I don't think it's a bad idea as long as we make Canada and Mexico our 51st and 52nd state.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Regarding a North American Union, I have to ask, what's in it for us, the USA? We take on the poverty and crime of Mexico, and the socialist medical infrastructure of Canada, but what do we get in return? Mexicans get jobs, an infusion of capital, a crackdown on crime, all thanks to the USA. Canada gets the American doctors it so desperately lacks. We get an increase in poverty, medical costs, crime, and government spending to deal with these problems. What do we get in return for this? What's in it for us?

I think it's a bad idea. I've said so before, and nothing I have heard since makes me change my mind.

Elliot

---

Our imports from China can be bigger and go right to Mexico(instead of squeezing through the Panama Canal and going to Florida). Plus, we will have the Mexicans doing labor for us for almost no money. So, pretty much what the Mexicans will do for us, is be slaves.

I guess the name of our new country will be "Camero"... :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicespringgirl

I guess the name of our new country will be "Camero"...:D

---

Thank you ,nicespringgirl, for the in depth response to my information. LOL

The European Union is NOT one country. It is a group of countries w/ the same currency and some trade agreements. France is still France, etc. If this NAU does go forward we won't be throwing the constitution out the window and probably won't be changing it in any way. People need to know what they're talking about before crying wolf. There will not be one "North American Nation" when/if this thing goes through. There are reasons that this is a bad idea but that's not one of them.

P.S. I'd be interested in reading more official government document on the issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

All our draft dodgers from times earlier would be within our reach.

---

As a vet, I'd like to see the dodgers brought to justice. I'm not going case by case and saying all were concientous objecters, because many didn't want to even do non-combat work to support our efforts.

But at the same time I don't think they should be persecuted anymore for their actions by leaving when they feared to serve, while ill-imm's can simply be absorbed as low wage workers without reprisal. Are we being fair? I don't think so.

On the other aspect of this post, I admit that I have no personal experience with the EEU but from what I've heard, the undertones, many of the countries that are a part of it, aren't as happy as they had hoped. They just never saw the disadvantages until it was too late. A lot of us were concerned when NAFTA was approved and more jobs are leaving, not less.

Building a big fat highway doesn't mean prosperity for all. Commerce and tourism will florish. But so will black-market smuggling and car theft, IMO. Anytime something good happens, crime will follow. If anything, maybe the bottle neck will allow closer scrutiny.

Quote:

---

If this NAU does go forward we won't be throwing the constitution out the window and probably won't be changing it in any way.

---

I don't know about that . Already SCOTUS cites international law in constitutional decision. There are many who believe that UN decisions supersede our laws

A North American Union would not create a new single country. This is about business, and business is highly related to border security these days. There is plenty of business back and forth across the CAN/USA/MEX borders so it makes sense to have common economic/border laws. Yes, this is happening behind closed doors, but there are two options: (1) A simultaneous triple-coup to overthrow the Canadian, US, and Mexican governments and replace them all with a single NAU dictatorship to enable common economics, or (2) all three respective governments will have a chance to vote up or down on a final joint proposal in a slow, arduous process. I'd say the latter is more likely.

One way of looking at the proposal would be to look at the European Union and ask, “Has it been good or bad for the people in those countries?” On the one side it has grown one of the largest and most successful economies in the world. It has promoted Democracy through interdependence, integration, and free trade.

Interestingly, it is just this week a trial basis for Mexican trucking throughout the US has begun. Canada has been allowed to do this for sometime.

One step closer to A New World Order?

It's been my experience that neither the Canadian's, as a whole, nor the Mexican's have an overall high opinion of US policies. But, all three would be in favor of the benefits that would be derived from the collaboration, I'm thinking the US would bear the greater burden.

washingtonpost.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nicespringgirl

The European Union is NOT one country. It is a group of countries w/ the same currency and some trade agreements. France is still France, etc. If this NAU does go forward we won't be throwing the constitution out the window and probably won't be changing it in any way. People need to know what they're talking about before crying wolf. There will not be one "North American Nation" when/if this thing goes through. There are reasons that this is a bad idea but that's not one of them.

P.S. I'd be interested in reading more official government document on the issue.

---

I know the European Union is not one country. I also didn't mean the North American Union will become one country, but a supranational union ( I think I did write country though in the last sentence on accident, but fixed it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

Regarding a North American Union, I have to ask, what's in it for us, the USA? We take on the poverty and crime of Mexico, and the socialist medical infrastructure of Canada, but what do we get in return? Mexicans get jobs, an infusion of capital, a crackdown on crime, all thanks to the USA. Canada gets the American doctors it so desperately lacks. We get an increase in poverty, medical costs, crime, and government spending to deal with these problems. What do we get in return for this? What's in it for us?

I think it's a bad idea. I've said so before, and nothing I have heard since makes me change my mind.

Elliot

---

What's in it for the US is easier trade, in both direction. It would make it easier for the US to buy low cost goods made in Mexico and would make it easier to sell goods to Canada, one of it's biggest trading partners. Trade (in both directions added together) between the US and Canada is estimated at nearly $2 Billion per day.

As mentionned by a few people it wouldn't actually make North America one country it would just mean easier trade and maybe in the future one currency.

Do you think that the US will sell out it's currency so easily? I mean the Euro is beating us by only about 30 cents right? The English didn't sell out to the Euro(maybe they should have, but they didn't). I guess only time can tell.