Tancredo: Bush planning to integrate U.S. into borderless North American superstate
posted at 12:26 pm on November 22, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Update: In his haste to accuse Michelle of having become a “caricature of herself,” Michael Illions neglected to check the byline on this post. She didn’t write it. I did. — AP
***
Oh lord.
“People have to understand what we’re talking about here. The president of the United States is an internationalist,” said Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo. “He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that – it’s an idea. It’s not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where this guy is really going.”
Tancredo lashed out at the White House’s lack of action in securing U.S. borders, and said efforts to merge the U.S. with both Mexico and Canada is not a fantasy.
“I know this is dramatic – or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic – but I’m telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it’s not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it…”
We get e-mails from those people all the time. We … do not publish them.
I’d hoped never to have to serenade TT with our official conspiracy-theory theme song. But I fear the hour has arrived.
Update: Captain Ed activates the ‘bat signal:
This is absurd. George Bush may not have responded very well to immigration concerns from his base, but he’s done more than his father, Bill Clinton, and even Ronald Reagan in bolstering border security. Tancredo is engaging in mindless demagoguery with these doomsday descriptions, and moving closer to the realms of paranoia.
The immigration problem needs attention. It doesn’t need more conspiracy theories about supposed New World Orders. Tancredo should know better than to fan these flames just to garner attention to the issue of immigration, but apparently he’s most concerned about attracting attention to himself.
Update: Hot Air commenters (most of them) agree: Tancredo’s a prophet whose only crime is seeing too clearly the nefarious machinations towards one-world government that are happening under our very noses!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
True, true. I just don’t think it’s likely. Americans still have more life in them than Europeans, and maybe you could even draw some connection through our frontier-rebellion past as contrasted to their more feudal-socialist path, etc. I suspect, as ugly as it is surely going to get, that there will never be in this country widespread surrender in to a supranational authority.
Alex K on November 22, 2006 at 9:04 PM
Sorry, I meant to quote the text that is linked, and also to add this:
Laura on November 22, 2006 at 9:05 PM
You posted that while I was still writing…
I sincerely hope you’re right.
Laura on November 22, 2006 at 9:16 PM
Even if exaggerated, maybe especially if exaggerated, Tancredo’s remarks have the effect of poisoning any of Bush’s plans along these lines; and I think we can all admit that Bush has at least some open borders plans in the works.
Tancredo is the most hated man at the White House and they don’t want to see the “Tancredo Was Right!” headlines and the ensuing Tancredo presidency.
It’s a tactic that the Democrats found out works extremely well against Bush. “Bush wants to take old people’s Social Security away and make them eat out of garbage cans and sleep in boxes”..voila, no more talk about SS reform.
Perchant on November 22, 2006 at 9:19 PM
To answer the first highlighted question, my guess is that W., aka Mr. New Tone, naively believes that if he just grants amnesty and does not enforce the border that it will appease Hispancs en masse and they will all just rush to show their gratitude by voting Republican forevermore. Karl believes the same, as do many open-borders Republicans.
The answer to the second question? Easy - the Wall St. Journal-cheap labor lobby has his ear, and given that he is already seeking Hispanic votes, it’s easy for that lobby to convince him that he’s doing something good for both them and those that will do “the jobs Americans won’t do”.
That alone is enough to damn his immigration policy and horrendous record thereon without being dragged down into the muck of accusing him of some nefarious conspiracy to get rid of the U.S. as we know it.
(however, I do disagree with Captain Ed on his assessment of Bush’s record in this area - it’s terrible and worse than his predecessors)
thirteen28 on November 22, 2006 at 9:48 PM
Are you sure about this?
If you look around, there are a lot of folks out there who are lucky to know what’s happening in their own homes - let alone the country or world.
You cannot get them off of their PS II (or III’s), TV’s DVD’s, cable, etc..long enough to get them involved in educating themselves……they are truly anesthestised and numb to everything except the latest reality show, drama, or episode of “jerry”.
Keep in mind that Europeans used to be quite a spunky bunch before PC, tolerence, diversity, and all inclusiveness…..
used to be.
If not careful…. so will we.
Emmett J. on November 22, 2006 at 10:27 PM
People are so busy raising their kids and making sure the know all the latest gossip so they can appear hip in the lunchroom, that they are absolutely CLUELESS to what is going on in this country. They just don’t care…yet.
JustTruth101 on November 23, 2006 at 12:01 AM
Things like this remind me of the old saw:
“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean that there AREN’T a bunch of people out to get you.”
Maybe no actual ’star-chamber’ type conspiracy going on, (I kinda think there is, but I could be wrong) but there IS beyond any doubt a de facto effort among the ‘Globalists’ (on ‘both sides of the aisle’ and both sides of the border) and the ‘Wall Streeters’ to erase the borders for financial and/or political gain, and to heck with the American working man and woman.
When I was young(er) and dumb(er) and operating a small, very remote, mining operation down in Mexico pre-NAFTA, I didn’t believe in the border; It was so inconvenient for getting anything done efficiently.
But after some decades of seeing what an essentially open border for those going north does to nice neighborhoods along the ‘immigration corridors’, I’m all for a Berlin Wall type deal for 2,000 miles, even if it would have made it harder for this ex-cross-border businessman to make a buck.
LegendHasIt on November 23, 2006 at 12:55 AM
Where are heading with this? United States of Canamerico
Ouabam on November 23, 2006 at 2:18 AM
grammar error
Where are we heading with this?
Ouabam on November 23, 2006 at 2:19 AM
Ugly on November 23, 2006 at 3:25 AM
D’oh
Ugly on November 23, 2006 at 3:26 AM
Wow, and I thought Tancredo had jumped the shark with his “nuke Mekka” hypothesis.
(actually, all I really am aiming for with this comment is to get one, just one, “nuke Mekka” comment on HotAir. I’m goofy like that)
Vinnie on November 23, 2006 at 3:28 AM
I think this thread is one of the most intriguing I’ve had the pleasure to read on Hot Air. I’d like to see more threads here about the topic of the North American Union.
Because something scary is going on with the globalists.
Gregor and his fellow commentators are not moonbats, folks. Not by a long shot. I laughed about the NAU when I heard Lou Dobbs make a reference to it a few months back. Then I started investigating. It’s more than a map showing a superhighway stretching from Mexico to Canada. As the links already posted show–in nauseating detail–we’ve got folks like the CFR advocating integration between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada. Sure, they talk about shared economies and the like, but all other things flow from the economy. History, religion, politics, culture–none would exist without economics. How many studies have you read about the history, politics, and culture of hunter/gatherers? Very few. That’s because these people had an extremely limited economy. They killed and picked food and stuck it in their mouths, giving them precious little time to ponder philosophical questions about the social sciences. But once man figured out how to create a sustainable economy that could store and transfer goods, we started seeing things like written language, history, political hierarchies, and all that other stuff. If you doubt the importance of economics to the social sciences, I suggest you pick up a few books from Fernand Braudel. He wrote extensively about how economic flows shaped every aspect of European life.
ANYWAY, what I’m trying to say is that economics shapes us (or more ominously, changes us) in ways we don’t easily recognize. And by creating superstates based on economics, cultural and social changes soon follow. Look at the European Union. The Euro begat legal bodies issuing all sorts of bizarre pronouncements about what member states could or could not do in things totally unrelated to the economy. You’re not going to have something like NAFTA and CAFTA (and other economic trade agreements we’re trying to forge with countries like Peru) without some serious changes in our society.
You know, I had a lot more to say about this but I’m just too tired and I need to rest in order to stuff on turkey later today. I could go on about how labor is increasingly seen as just another commodity, another product, that should move about as easily as a HD television set. I won’t. I will leave you with one important statement about superstates made by a man who wrote a little book quite a few years ago:
“We’ve always been at war with Eastasia.”
jaleach on November 23, 2006 at 4:32 AM
O.K., one more link before I go. Let’s see if I can get this to work:
jaleach on November 23, 2006 at 4:40 AM
Darn it! Let’s try again:
jaleach on November 23, 2006 at 4:41 AM
Grrrr. One more time:
jaleach on November 23, 2006 at 4:43 AM
O.K. I give up. It was a link to Robert Pastor’s book about the North American Community over at Amazon. It’s called, “Toward a North American Community: Lessons From the Old World for the New”. If someone could provide a link that works on this thread, I’d appreciate it.
Who is Robert Pastor? Here’s his bio at Amazon:
One assumes that Dr. Pastor knows a thing or two about the topic at hand. Especially when it comes to U.S. relations with Latin America.
Are we moonbats? Maybe. Frankly, I hope so. If you ever wake up with a pocket full of Ameros, however, you won’t be laughing for long.
jaleach on November 23, 2006 at 4:51 AM
You only have to look around a little to notice that the only people who think an open border is a bad thing are about 80% of the American voters. The Democratic Party loves the open border concept(voted against a fence, registered a lot of illegal aliens to vote). The Republicans love the open border concept (look at the Prez and the Senate for instance). Even libertarians want open borders but I suspect that’s tied to that legalization of marijuana thing.
Huge agribusiness wants open borders, construction wants open borders, literally every corporation in America wants open borders and tons of illegal immigrants. Face it NAFTA does nothing to better Mexicans living quality, it’s all about GM etc. making more profit and that’s exactly what is driving Washington DC these days.
The Democrats don’t give a fig about the Mexicans and if they were looking out the labor unions that support them every 4 years they would have put up a fence themselves years ago. Every Democrat I saw running for office this time was “against Illegal Immigration” but they never said they were going to accomplish this by making any Mexican who crosses the border automatically an American.
The Globalist Republicans don’t’ care about the Mexicans either. They care about huge mega corporations who rely on illegal aliens to give them ever bigger profits until the day that they can outsource every job in America that pays more than the minimum wage.
Apparently the majority of Americans have little or no voice in this matter. Our Government has decided that their job has little to do with representing the voters who elected them to office and much more to do with representing corporations who fill their pockets with donations and gifts.
As time goes by the concept of a North American Union conspiracy seems less and less far fetched.
Buzzy on November 23, 2006 at 6:56 AM
Good Lord. Bush Derangement Syndrome is contagious.
billy on November 23, 2006 at 7:12 AM
Okay, ladies and gentlemen.
I have read the CFR, SPP, NASCO documents at their websites that you’ve posted. I have even read Corsi’s article (again).
Here is what I have NOT read:
The words “POLITICAL UNIFICATON” at the CFR, SPP, NASCO websites — the official ones.
The words “ECONOMIC UNIFICATION” as in a SINGLE UNIT OF CURRENCY.
The words “MILITARY UNIFICATION” beyond the existing treaties between the USA and Canada, including NORAD and the already existing memos of understanding between the USA and Canada.
Now, I have an open mind. However, I find little in the way of evidence the (1) the United States of America is going to be subsumed into a North American Union (or whatever it gets called), (2) that the United States Constitution will be discarded by the United States or its people, and (3) that SPP is anything OTHER than a plan to coordinate tariffs, CDL issuance’s, “mutual assistance” if the avian flue strikes, and other similar tasks.
Now, I’ve just read 114 postings, and frankly, all I’ve seen are FEARS being spoken aloud, but with little or not hard evidence to back up your claim.
I have an open mind, but you should know — extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. And those of you who believe the premise have provided almost no evidence of your assertions.
So, convince me.
georgej on November 23, 2006 at 7:24 AM
This sh*t is in the air everywhere: Yesterday Putin had a piece in the Paris le Figaro entitled Why Europe and Russia Shouldn’t Fear Mutual -Dependence. Or something like that. He had the international bureaucratese down perfectly. It all sounded so well-considered, so reasonable, so unthreatening. True, that his government is under suspicion for the attempted hit-job on that Russian dissident in London did add a more than a little spice to Putin’s otherwise turgid transnationalist prose.
Of course, Putin has the oil that Europe depends on, which is gives you an idea of what kind of “mutual dependency” Czar Vladimir has in mind: Empire.
The difference is that Putin is an old fashioned Russian patriot while our rabbit-faced elites really do mean to sell-out this country.
dhimwit on November 23, 2006 at 7:28 AM
Translation: My commenters did not agree with me (how dare they!), therefore you can expect at least one ‘Tancredo sucks’ post a day!
EF on November 23, 2006 at 7:42 AM
Those are reasonable, valid points. Will you concede that there is no logical reason those things would be publicized until the last possible moment they have to be? They weren’t in the case of the EU - if you will recall it was only about trade and economics for a long time and the other things crept in. And will you take a look at this BBC timeline for the EU, and notice that those types of unification have happened/ are happening? Politically we’re at about 1968, more or less, in the EU timeline, but we’ve made nearly as much progress toward a common market as they had by the mid-80s with NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.
The EU is well on the way to political unification, has already achieved a fair degree of judicial unification, which came first, and is gradually building up a military.
The African Union, in only about five years, is much further along than the EU was at that age. It already has a parliament, a justice system for human rights abuses which can be expanded, and an Economic, Social and Cultural Council which will cover huge areas of daily life. (Things like narcotics control, “human rights” which includes things like hate speech, and the alleviation of poverty. So with the EU as a model - and because the countries are less developed - they have been able to do more in far less time.
With those examples, I think reasonable conclusions can be drawn about the various treaties and homogenization through immigration of North America.
Laura on November 23, 2006 at 9:49 AM
Bush like many politicians is pandering to a powerful ethnic group “Hispanics” is nothing more than that.
Its the politics of apeasing a powerful minority. Republicans cant make inroads into the black vote so they aim for the hispanic vote.
Is no grand conspiracy beyond that. And to image more is just stupidity.
William Amos on November 23, 2006 at 10:36 AM
With all due respect - wake up and open your eyes.
No conspiracy - see here, here, and here.
Nope, no conspiracy - just what is.
By the way, I would bet that the people of Czechslovakia thought that the President of Czechslovakia was just pandering to Germany and appeasing Mr. Hitler in 1938, as well -
prior to their being taken over. The rest, as they say, is history………….
That’s the beauty, you don’t have to imagine, just actually look and see.
Emmett J. on November 23, 2006 at 11:14 AM
When you want to argue that a highway running from North to South is proof that a massive conspiracy is underway I think you might want to add just a little more info that that critical fact.
William Amos on November 23, 2006 at 11:20 AM
Heh. You are very good with words Allah. I see you have chosen them carefully. So tell me what is an America without a Northern and Southern border? As a “political entity” we could still be intact, though no longer a physical entity, just a politcal idea. What happens when we do not have a border and people start to disagree about what exactly our politial entity is and should be? What then Allah? Tell me you are comfortable with that…
And tell me Allah you know the exact extent to which the border is not being enforced. Tell me you have heard the former Federal DA in a radio interview say that in the 80’s people were deported by the tens of thousands a year, and now deportation is a farce. Weak border enforcement? How about none. The IRS has 9 million W-2’s that do not match the names, we know who is hiring and where they are, are you blind? Workplace fines for hiring illegal aliens? Try 3 this year. Tell me you know that the government is alreay trying to merge our social security systems. OUR government not Mexico. So without a physical border, Canada, and Mexico’s population added to our own, America ceasing to exist as a political entity is a few years and a few strokes of the pen away. You. Know. It.
I still have yet to see you post any information to the contrary? Where is it? We are just right wing moonbats then show me the evidence that the government explicitly intends to have a secure border and not merge our economic systems EU style. All available evidence I have seen points to this conclusion, if not refute it. It would put me at ease…
Theworldisnotenough on November 23, 2006 at 11:32 AM
Again, no massive conspiracy - nor was one alluded to except by you.
However, you have to start somewhere if you are aiming to integrate fully an entire continent. The EU was not created in a day, either (and arguebly not even now), nor will the NAU.
These things take years and decades. But they do happen.
A highway is but what is up front - there are many, many more sites and links - one can but go so far. Not all of the links are credible, however, most are sufficient to demonstrate that there is an intent to create a NAU.
Likewise, one has merely to be able to see beyond what is directly in front of them. Tunnel vision works the same way - one only sees what they want to see.
The difference is that now in the modern day it is advertised as “doing business”, or “being global” instead of what it is.
Nothing wrong with international and free trade - but most do not want more than that, whether in America or elsewhere.
Most people want to retain their culture, their heritage, their history, their uniqueness - what makes them who they feel they are and more inportantly, want to be - their national and cultural identity, in other words.
If there is a conspiracy, then at worst it would be by business interests and corporations.
Personally, I do not believe that the mass will be willing, once they figure it out, to give up that uniqueness for any entity - whether it be government or business based.
If nothing else, we may agree to disagree upon salient points here and there but in the long run we are all Americans first and foremost. That gives you and I the right to enter into discourse here in this forum whether we agree or not.
It has also shaped us into who we are, individually and collectively.
Maybe I am an old fuddy-duddy, but I love my country (America) and want it to be the free, independent land that our forefathers envisioned it to be and become. Not a part of something else which takes away from that.
Chances are, I would also bet you don’t either.
Have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Emmett J. on November 23, 2006 at 11:46 AM
It pains me to say this, because I think it’s clear what side I come down on in this debate. BUT it’s not Allah’s or anyone else’s responsibility to prove us wrong. We’re the ones coming in with what some call a conspiracy theory and I call history + current events. To insist that someone prove we’re wrong reminds me too much of the Truthers. I think we’ve laid out a lot of info - but people can believe it, or not. I think history - for that matter, the next 2 or 3 years! - will prove us right. In the meantime, all we can do is dig in our heels and persuade whomever we can that this is a real concern that needs to be dealt with just as much as radical Islam.
Well, I’m off to the kitchen. (God help my family… I’m *much* better at the gun range than the kitchen range.)
Laura on November 23, 2006 at 11:47 AM
I guess there are many of us being moonbats for this idea.
Like you, I want to see the evidence to refute what seems to be voluminous info to the contrary.
Like you, it would set my mind at ease.
Unfortunately, I do not see us beng at ease any time soon. So far, folks seem to only be able to shift focus, not address the real issues - or answer them - or refute them.
Merely to make others look bad. Same tactic the left uses to discredit others.
Ironic, isn’t it?
Happy Thanksgiving!
Emmett J. on November 23, 2006 at 11:53 AM
You are absolutely right. I would add that it seems that people who point this out are being (or people are attempting to) discredit them with the same tactics that the left uses to discredit those they do not agree with.
Not that we are wrong - we merely disagree - and that is enough for them to attempt to discredit.
Turn the focus upon the messenger and people will not pay attention to the message.
Happy Thanksgiving!
Emmett J. on November 23, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Id like to think that the US is more than just its borders.
There are things that keep us uniquely american. Our system of government our Constitution, our way of life.
There will always be changes. And with those changes comes challenges to our old way of life. We must reject those that conflict too badly with what we are and modify those that can be integrated into what we are now.
Im sorry but politics is always a process. You, me and everyone else has to make decisions all the time it will never end.
We must fight for our core beliefs in what makes this country but never to extent that we reject anything and everything that is different or new.
In a sort of way America’s borders have always been open. It was immigrants who created this vibrant way of life here. So the argument that immigrants threaten the US is in itself anti American.
They true threat isnt people its creaping socialism. The very idea that our country can control the destiny of all its citizens.
We must fight to limit the power of government always. But never at the expense of the people itself. I care less about an immigrant coming to this country trying to find a better way of life. That has always been America. What is different now is that the social engine that was created in the 1920s and 1960s threatens to undermine our entire society. Its this proliferation of government that is what is bring down the US not immigrants. We must target the true threat not someone who benefits from false promises.
This is where we lose the immigration debate. We make it aobut people and not about the government beauracracy itself.
William Amos on November 23, 2006 at 11:58 AM
America is not going to “subsumed”. America well be the initiator of this action. And how exactly does America mot become partially erased if there is not a Northern or Southern border? Any truck coming from Mexico could enter cross our virtual border (line on a map) at will. Did you read that or not?
The Constitution does not have to be discarded. It only has to be intrepeted to be subservient to international treaties and our laws intrepeted along the lines of international law. Have we not already seen our constitution bastardized? The second amendment is a joke. The enumerated powers have grown into the leviathan of a government we have today.
I am a newbie as far as following SCOTUS is concerned. What I have seen leads me to be believe there are a great many judges that would intrepet our constitution along international lines. Scalia is dead set against this. Do you think every other potential SCOTUS nominee believes this as well? I have seen Scalia debate the topic a couple of times, enough to know that Living Consitutionalist judges could use their opinions to further the internationalization of American law.
Did you read the entire thing? The SPP intends to merge our economic systems entirley. It stated goals have no defineable boundaries. How many times does the website have to use the term North America?
“Strengthen North America’s energy markets by working together, according to our respective legal frameworks, to increase reliable energy supplies for the region’s needs and development, by facilitating investment in energy infrastructure, technology improvements, production and reliable delivery of energy; by enhancing cooperation to identify and utilize best practices, and to streamline and update regulations; and by promoting energy efficiency, conservation, and technologies such as clean coal, carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and renewable energy.”
Translation. We want their oil. No treehuggers to get in the way. As long as we are getting it from “Mexico” and not drilling in “America”. That NAFTA superhighway is going to have an oil pipeline running beside it.
“Work towards the freer flow of capital and the efficient provision of financial services throughout North America (e.g., facilitate cross-border electronic access to stock exchanges without compromising investor protection, further collaboration on training programs for bank, insurance and securities regulators and supervisors, seek ways to improve convenience and cost of insurance coverage for carriers engaged in cross border commerce).”
Nope nothing to see here. Economies not merging… These open ended goals are just looking to be exploited and taken to their limit. Do you think the framers of the constituion menat the enumerated powers to turn into the vast array of government agencies we have today? What to prevent goals as far reaching as this to comlpetely alter our financial system. Think about it, how exactly do you trade between American dollars, Pesos, and Canadian dollars? Maybe the same way you trade between Pounds, Deutsche marks , Francs. While these currencies are still solvent what would prevent economic hard times in the UK forcing them to accept the Euro? Nothing really. The UK’s already had a collapse and had to take a loan out from the IMF. Our debt makes this little trip down globalization lane a very, very, risky one.
Theworldisnotenough on November 23, 2006 at 12:05 PM
Moonbats get proven wrong repeatedly. Popular Mechanics does it for us. Moonbats discredit themselves by creatng their own evidence. I loved the rabbit cage on fire demonstration…
Were our immigration laws being enforced, this entire line of thought would be turned on its head. Were a constructionist judge appointed to SCOTUS then the NAU does not have a chance. Were we to kickout the dozens of Mexican consoulates in the U.S. (That by the way are advertising on Spanish language television to come on down and get signed up on welfare, and L.A. Mayor Antonio Villa
regosareconquista wanted to create a welfare office at an actual Mexican consulate) then this theory, with lots of facts and history behind it, would make us moonbats. Were the border fence to be erected, not a “virtual fence”. then really who could complain. Were we to vigorously find all illegal whtehr we deport them or not, so we know who is here then this anti-NAU thing goes bye bye. But do you see ANY of that happening? Me neither, except Janice Brown getting pushed through the Senate. Tester, Brown and Webb seem like they would vote for her. Maybe I’m just hoping on that one.*sigh* I’m done.
Theworldisnotenough on November 23, 2006 at 12:19 PM
Go read “Watership Down” by Richard Adams. While reading it consider the current welfare/nanny state, the gun-control movement, etc., and the above topics. You don’t encat these things all at once. It takes time to cultivate the appropriate environment. Once cultivated and operational, consider how much freedom you think you have compared to what you really possess, what little is remaining, and what you stand to lose.
AZ_Redneck on November 23, 2006 at 12:23 PM
Oops. “encat” = “enact”
AZ_Redneck on November 23, 2006 at 12:24 PM
Okay, I keep dropping in because I’m so interested in this topic. And it beats cooking.
Not really… these trade agreements/treaties are much more at issue. The effectively open borders just speeds up cultural homogenization, it doesn’t affect these new laws and regulations.
Laura on November 23, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Laura wrote: “With those examples, I think reasonable conclusions can be drawn about the various treaties and homogenization through immigration of North America.”
Let me begin by stating that NAFTA is *NOT* a treaty. It is a law passed by the Congress, not an agreement ratified by the Senate. It is not the “law of the land,” as a treaty would be. NAFTA can be repealed by a simple bill and a simple majority with the President’s signature (or have his veto overridden with the requisite majority).
In fact, given that NAFTA was passed under a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS for a DEMOCRATIC President, it would not surprise me that the unions and the rest of our favorite Democrat lobbyists would work overtime to get this Democratic Congress to REPEAL NAFTA.
Nevertheless, I do not agree that “reasonable conclusions” lead to a political union of Canada, Mexico and the United States through the possible creation of a “super highway” transiting the United States connecting Mexico and Canada. If that were the case, then why wouldn’t the “Pan American Highway” be proof that both North and South America would be undergoing political, military, and economic unification.
“Unification” is a difficult concept to prove because it requires a suspension of disbelief in what nationhood really is not. Quebec is an example of the difficulty of unification. It is far more likely that Quebec will leave the Canadian confederation that Canada and the United States would unify with Mexico as a single political, economic, and military unit, in my opinion.
Laura again: “I think history - for that matter, the next 2 or 3 years! - will prove us right. In the meantime, all we can do is dig in our heels and persuade whomever we can that this is a real concern that needs to be dealt with just as much as radical Islam.”
I agree with you that time will tell.
I do not agree with you that this is a real concern at this time.
But let me ask those of you who find the concept of the “superhighway” being the precursor of political, military, and economic union with Canada and Mexico to be a “done deal” or inevitable, this question:
IF, either part or all of Canada VOTED to petition Congress to request admission into the United States as states and to submit to our Constitution as their constitution, with (for example) their Provinces becoming new States (and stars on our flag), would you still feel threatened? Would it be a good thing for America?
Years ago, the above idea was floated in the western provinces of Canada, who were tired of being taken for granted by Trudeau’s government and the Quebec separatist movement. Nothing ever came of it, but it shook up the rest of Canada for a time and resulted in a number of political concessions from Ottawa.
Or, how about this: Panama already uses United States currency as THEIR national currency — 3 decades after Jimmy Carter gave away the Canal. English is either a primary or secondary language for most Panamanians. Panama City is undergoing a major development boom building homes and condos for retiring Americans the way Miami had nearly a half century ago, because the cost of living is low and a pension goes a long way.
WHAT IF the government of Panama asked for political unification with the United States? Would this be a threat to the sovereignty of America?
Frankly, given that the creation of Panama as an artificial state was done only in order for America to build the canal, and that America was so deeply involved in Panama, including making the “Canal Zone” a defacto part of the United States for nearly a century, the scenario of Panama joining the United States seems to me to be a whole lot more plausible than Canada (or parts of it) or Mexico (who has fought and lost a war with us and is extremely jealous of their own independence) requesting the formation of a new political entity: “The North American Union.”
But that’s just my opinion.
Laura, have a happy thanksgiving. And keep punching out the “X-Ring”.
georgej on November 23, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Naaaaah. America can’t afford all of the illegal immigrants it’s already got. If it merged with Mexico, America would be bankrupt in a heartbeat. And let me reassure you: Canada will never merge with the United States. We want our business transactions to go as smoothly as possible and we want to remain allies but we’ve been separate nations ever since you guys rebelled and that’s that. (Americans call it the War of Independence but we like to think of it as the rebellion.)
Josephine on November 23, 2006 at 1:02 PM
First off, I am the wife of Emmett J. and he wrote the previous entries. We debate issues and talk over past and current events nearly every day. I work in an environment where I speak with folks from all over the United States. The interesting thing is that there are are many in agreement with what is happening to this country - as to the infiltration of illegals, terrorists included, that could very well walk in with the illegals crossing our borders.
The ’super highway’ that is being planned to connect South America and Canada through the central United States is real. It is all about big business and not about the true security of the American People.
Think about what our current situation is. We had a Congress that sat on their thumbs and a president who seems confused. To be fair, I voted for Bush the first time and the second time thinking that things would get better, but like so many others across the nation, I have been so very disappointed to see the outcome. ..His wanting to grant amnesty to illegals is more than an outrage!
This sort of thing is a disaster to our forefathers vision and a slam to the constitution that is the foundation that our country was built upon in the first place.
Then for him (Bush) to go to Vietnam, of all places, and essentially state that “we win by losing” and “we win unless we quit”, is not only a slap in the face of our brave soldiers who have fought his war, but in those who fought and died in Vietnam as well. It is likewise a slap in the face of all Americans. I have to ask, what in the world are you thinking and who are you trying to placate, Mr. President?
The war is yet another issue. Our men and women are fighting the good fight against not only the terror, but the evil spiritual issue at hand. Our country has never faced this type of thing on this scale, nor has the world for that matter until this century.
There have been religious wars in various parts of the world, but not of this scale. Every country is facing some type of problem that is terror related.
We need to stay united in this country and fight back, speak up while we may, because our freedoms are being slyly stolen away by those in government.
We are supposed to be more educated, more informed, but yet, we turn our heads and live on like nothing could ever happen here on our soil. All one has to do is look at history and the near and current events that have taken place on our soil. They are more than warnings.
The Islamic Fascists have hundreds of years of history and they are more than willing to force that on us, but we have to be more than willing to just sit back and let that happen.
Stand up America!
We must stay united mentally, physically, and spiritually. All nationalities that are here legally and citizens of the United States MUST stand up now!
We love our country and want it to remain the free nation, the secure nation that it was meant to be. We must come together and stand for what we believe in. We are one nation under God - and even if there are those who choose not to believe in God, they have that freedom, too. We must get back to the basics of what our forefathers penned on that parchment over 200 years ago! Lisa J.
Emmett J. on November 23, 2006 at 1:25 PM
Good points you brought up. I was being figurative on the “moonbat” thing, though - definitely not literal.
Said well and right on target!
You’re right - doing it with business is so much faster.
To all, though - Happy Thanksgiving!
Emmett J. on November 23, 2006 at 1:34 PM
Theworldisnotenough asked of me: “Did you read the entire thing? The SPP intends to merge our economic systems entirley.”
Answer: Yes, I read the entire web site, and no, I do NOT see economic unification as a goal. I see the elimination of tariffs, not a common economy, as a goal. I see American investiment without the usual Canadian and Mexican protectionism concerning ownership getting in the way as a goal of OURS. What I see is the current AMERICAN ECONOMIC DOMINANCE over Mexico and Canada being extended.
FACT: 38% of the Canadian economy consists of trade with America. Fact: less than 16% of the US economy consists of trade the other way.
Canada needs the United States of America for the very survival of their economy. So does Mexico.
I do see an initiative in SPP to improve the joint security of all three nations, not unification of three countries into one state.
FACT: While NATO countries are spending more than 1% of their GDP on their militaries, Canada spends less than that and is completely dependent upon the United States for their national defense. Canada, under decades of liberal government, has shrunken their “Defence Forces” (they merged their army, navy and air force into one) to well below that capable of defending their country without massive US military assistance.
You should read [Canadian] Mark Steyn’s website and his scathing remarks about Canada’s military posture.
“That’s the problem for Canada: the dawn of this new century is an era of hard power. The Graham/Pettigrew approach - speak softly and carry a very small twig - advertises our impotence - in contrast, say, to the robust utterances of John Howard, Prime Minister of the nation that now fills Canada’s vacated slot as the doughty third warrior of the Anglosphere.
“Without armed forces a state does not exist,” says my eminent colleague at The Daily Telegraph, Sir John Keegan. Hard power does not mean military might alone. But military might is, in the broadest sense, a reliable indicator of how serious a country is. Here’s a small news item that caught my eye the other day: the Kingdom of Tonga, our Commonwealth cousins in the Pacific, have just dispatched 45 of their Royal Marines to Iraq. 45 guys? Big deal. Easy to scoff, especially if you’re John Kerry, Jimmy Carter or one of those enlightened progressive Democrats who like to sneer about “Bush ’s fraudulent coalition” and “nations you can buy on e-Bay”. But hold on. Tonga’s population is 100,000. A proportional deployment by Canada would be 13,500 troops.
13,500 troops? Canada couldn’t deploy that many if the enemy had landed at Halifax and were marching on Ottawa. We demand that Washington wine and dine us and whisper sweet nothings in our ear and then maybe, if they’re very nice, we’ll find a couple of hundred Princess Pats or Van Doos to send to Kabul. Tonga is a small poor nothing state in the middle of nowhere. Canada’ s a member of G7 and Nato. Which of us is punching below its weight?” [Mark Steyn, CANADIAN, in “SPEAK SOFTLY AND CARRY A SMALL TWIG”]
Canada needs America’s military for their national survival. The newly elected government has committed to change this, but it will take years of increased defense budgets to accomplish what is necessary.
The United States *already* has more than 200 military agreements with Canada, including the NORAD treaty, for the “mutual” defense of both countries.
Mexico, of course, is not a member of NATO and does not have any significant defense treaties with the United States.
SPP changes none of this. At best, SPP is a Canadian and Mexican attempt to reverse Homeland Security’s mandate that Americans will now need a passport to visit Canada and Mexico.
TWINE wrote: “Nope nothing to see here. Economies not merging…”
Correct on both counts. The economies are not merging. But, both Mexico’s and Canada’s economies will become even more dependent upon America’s markets, while (they hope) our capital investiment dollars (and jobs) flow their way. The latter *IS* and OUGHT TO BE a concern and to us, given the history of NAFTA.
In my humble opinion, you haven’t made the case that there is a move to subsume the United States into a “North American Union.”
georgej on November 23, 2006 at 1:38 PM
There are already highways that connect Canada with the U.S. There is still a border where we have to show our I.D. That wouldn’t change with another highway, no matter how “super”.
The difficulty with the passports is that it will make it more difficult to conduct business between Canada and the U.S., because it will take a lot longer for truckers and business people to be cleared at the borders. This would be hard on a lot of businesses. It’s got nothing to do with becoming one country.
Individuals already have to show I.D. at the border but they’re balking at having to pay to have a current passport. I don’t care. I think the United States has a right to protect itself and if they want to be able to check passports, then that’s their right. But people who live in border towns are accustomed to spending their lives on either side of the border and it’s getting harder to do that. They might live on the Canadian side but buy their groceries and get their hair cut on the American side. If it becomes too much of a hassle, with an hour-long wait at both sides of the border, they’ll stop doing it, and both communities will lose out.
Josephine on November 23, 2006 at 1:54 PM
Do you consider illegal aliens to be “immigrants”?
One big difference between immigration now and immigration in the past is that the US is in the process of a demographic change which will profoundly change the country.
The US Census Bureau has already projected that caucasians will no longer be a majority by 2050 and recent policy decisions and threatened decisions will push that date forward a considerable span.
If Mexico was about to lose its Hispanic majority to say Chinese flooding to that nation in boats, it wouldn’t be anti-Mexican for those Hispanics to feel threatened by immigration.
Perchant on November 23, 2006 at 3:34 PM
OK, Ladies and Gentlemen. Help me understand. Bush loves to butcher the English language and I can only assume Spanish as well. Big BIG friends in BIG BIG BUSINESS.
2,000+ ACRES of Texas ranchland that YOU AND I will provide SUPERB border security for —FOR HIS LIFETIME.
Mr. Tancredo is NOT sounding all that nuts.
DON’T BOTHER to pile on me about the propriety of Presidential security…OF COURSE HE NEEDS IT, and will get it—-BUT folks, PLEASE—-see things from his PERSONAL VIEWPOINT.
BUSH HAS “HIS”—-do you have “yours”???
I’m just sayin’ y’all……….THINK about THAT.
seejanemom on November 23, 2006 at 7:47 PM
Dont know if I’m being repetitive, lots of posts here today. SO.
And now for the money part:
Thats more than a QUARTER OF A TRILLION DOLLARS !!!!!!!!
I’m moving to the high mountains.
shooter on November 23, 2006 at 9:46 PM
I hate it, because I had some strong sympathies for him, but Tom Tancredo has jumped the shark, with me.
I’m as concerned as anyone is about the putative “North American Union” stuff, but someone is going to have to show me evidence, in the form of enabling legislation and whatnot first.
In the absence of that, it’s Moonbat City, and he just took up residence there.
Bummer. I thought he had potential.
jefferson101 on November 23, 2006 at 10:15 PM
“Hot Air commenters”: I need to be helped to understand why a worldwide government would be bad. Clearly, it’s easy to imagine many forms of worldwide government that would be very bad. However, it appears that if the Americans’ own federal government were first largely brought back to its original form, it would afterward, in the long run, become capable of providing federal government to the entire Earth. Many general and particular problems would have to be solved along the way; doing so might require a couple of centuries. However, I do not understand what it is about the Earth or about the original plan of the American federal government that makes it simply wrongheaded to favor extending that government over the entire Earth in the course of time.
Kralizec on November 24, 2006 at 12:05 AM
Come on folks. I know the border is not secure and the “amnesty” plan is more on the table now that Republicans no longer control the House, but we are not about to merge with Canada and Mexico in one giant “super-state”. Think about the logistical problems in government, in constitutional authorities: they vary widely from the U.S. to Canada, to Mexico. There are so many complications to work out. This would be, literally, a decades-long progression as to easily be uncovered before now.
thedecider on November 24, 2006 at 12:43 AM
In theory, this is a great argument. In reality, government of the people, by the people, for the people is not understood by too many societies in the world today. A Parliamentary government (in Britain, for example) is contrary to our form of goverment, and - as you suggest - would take many, many years of convincing to implement on a global scale. What you suggest is a monumental task that is unlikely to succeed in the global environment today.
thedecider on November 24, 2006 at 12:48 AM
Since when have “logistical problems” ever stopped this government from attempting to undertake anything? Show me an insurmountable problem and I’ll show you a group of bureaucrats who think they’ll solve it in a second. We all know how that works.
jaleach on November 24, 2006 at 2:59 AM
We are seeing them worked out, in the EU. Just because the EU Constitution wasn’t passed (yet) that did not repeal every other step they took to get to that point. And in the beginning it was repeatedly promised that this was about trade and economics, and would not turn into a political entity.
As for the NAU, what makes you think the end result would have much in common with our current system?
For the folks who want a smoking gun; why, yes, we’d love to have that too. And if we could possibly have caught OJ in the courtyard with a knife, while his victims were still alive to testify against him, that would have been just peachy.
Our whole point is that this is being enacted in a stealthy way, to prevent the kind of public outcry that stopped the EU constitution from being passed in France. But it’s easy enough to list things that already chip away at our sovereignty, and will have a cumulative effect. These NAFTA tribunals are one example. Even the NY Times and John Kerry figured out this is a bad idea. After the fact, of course.
Laura on November 24, 2006 at 6:49 AM
LAURA —I’d like to check your website—YOU SEEM LIKE A SMART WOMAN—but I can’t get it to load. Is it “pursuing holiness.com”?
I’m www.seejanemom.com
Allah—please leave this thred up—in addition to all that sweet potato pie—this ia A LOT to digest.
seejanemom on November 24, 2006 at 8:05 AM
What a nation of lemmings. 4 inch red newspaper headline has everyone peeing in their pj’s.
Horsepotatos. Big steamy pile of horsepotatos blocking traffic. Public panic. Film at 11.
Limerick on November 24, 2006 at 9:11 AM
Jane, thanks, you’re very kind. That is the address, and the server is back up now, it just needed a good kick. But I rarely blog on this topic anyway. I read the hysteria sites like WND, stopthespp.com and several others, then go find the source documents if they’re available, to try to confirm if there’s anything to it. Although I think the overwrought tone of those sites is unhelpful and often unjustified, looking at what’s actually happened so far in the EU, what’s actually happening here like the tribunals, the implications of regulating the “superhighway”, etc., the other regional blocks like the African Union, and found it hard to conclude anything other than a NAU forming. Well, reasonable people can differ, and we’ll know for sure in a few more years.
Laura on November 24, 2006 at 11:55 AM
You’re partially right - our nation, collectively, is a bunch of lemmings!!!
Except no-one will show any clips, there will be no public panic shown, and no film at 11.
Because - people like you and the masses you seem to represent and mock, will not even notice what is happening - and more importantly, will not care about losing your national identity.
No one cares less about a highway - there are already many linking our lands.
It is what is behind the facade - no conspiracies, just facts.
Check it out for yourself instead of merely scoffing. Then, after educating yourself, if you still disagree, we can agree to disagree.
Either way, like Laura said, we’ll know for sure in a few years.
Emmett J. on November 24, 2006 at 12:20 PM
And what makes you think that people have not been working out those “logistical problems”.
You cannot, after all, build, for example - a continent spanning super highway without having worked out many “logistical problems” - can you?
But that’s just wacky conspiracy thought - isn’t it? No one would ever actually build one, would they?
Just like they won’t be doing the other things that you won’t see and won’t care about.
Emmett J. on November 24, 2006 at 2:32 PM
My comments have never failed to post. But then I don’t, as a rule, use profanity
conservativecaveman on November 24, 2006 at 2:43 PM
EmmettJ….
My 1/2 Costa Rican son, fighting in the cavalry, and his full Costa Rican mother, working hard and voting regularly, will disagree with you. So here is to you….and to them, America isn’t going anywhere America hasn’t already been. Seems like a pretty good country to me. To you? Who knows?
Limerick on November 24, 2006 at 4:23 PM
Who says he has to do during his term of office?? Maybe that’s why the left is winning… because they think long term, generations, and, like the terminator, they never, ever give up. I don’t recall ANYBODY saying that Bush was single-handedly planning on, or going to create a N American union. No, he’ll just wedge in here, and adjust that there.
There’s an old Arab saying, “if you let the camel stick his nose under the tent, pretty soon you’re sleeping with a camel.” Another says “You can’t get a man to eat a whole can of peas at once, but you can get him to eat a whole can of peas… one pea at a time”. This is how our social landscape has been changed since the cultural revolution. Each step is merely hinted at and suggested in the media, and laughed at by the public. One starts out say, “of course no one wants women in combat or unisex bathrooms”… then a decade later you showcase a female captured during a supply convoy. You promote shows like “Alley McBeal” with its unisex bathroom. Pretty soon, everyone’s used to thinking the way you want them to.
So I don’t expect Bush to do it in his term. But I fully expect those who wish a N American union to have their wish within 20 years.
Hiraghm on November 24, 2006 at 4:45 PM
Hmm. I’d feel a lot better about things he were defined as an AMERICAN who happens to be of partial Costa Rican descent.
LegendHasIt on November 24, 2006 at 7:15 PM
Whew. I read through it all and I still can’t find one reasonable refutation of what Tancredo has said. The SPP has concerned me ever since the little black helicopter of an idea appeared on my radar screen several months ago.
For the blogs on the right, including apparently this one, who wish to pillory Tancredo for raising an alarm, I have a few questions:
1) What, exactly did Tancredo say that you can objectively refute with facts, not ad hominems?
2) What would be your reasons, if there are any, that Americans should not be demanding an opening of the books and a forensic accounting of what the SPP is up to and has agreed to behind the scenes?
It certainly appears that there is something going on that smacks of there already being “binding agreements” in place that might be subversive and extra-constitutional.
kdaddy on November 26, 2006 at 8:05 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]