The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada

[-Cp]

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html

 

[archangel]

http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/july05/05-07-13.html

I really do not have the time,energy or desire to read all the links....please post at least a paragraph or two for response purposes!

 

[Annie]

I really do not have the time,energy or desire to read all the links....please post at least a paragraph or two for response purposes!

CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada
by Phyllis Schlafly
July 13, 2005

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) has just let the cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries. A 59-page CFR document spells out a five-year plan for the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

"Community" is sometimes called "space" but the CFR goal is clear: "a common economic space ... for all people in the region, a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely." The CFR's "integrated" strategy calls for "a more open border for the movement of goods and people."

The CFR document lays "the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America." The "common security perimeter" will require us to "harmonize visa and asylum regulations" with Mexico and Canada, "harmonize entry screening," and "fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals."

This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin "committed their governments" to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details...

Seems they are saying that it's open borders season?

 

[onedomino]

"Community" means integrating the United States with the corruption, socialism, poverty and population of Mexico and Canada. "Common perimeter" means wide-open U.S. borders between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

Community could mean abolishing corruption, socialism, and poverty in Mexico. It could mean abolishing socialism in Canada. Why would not the Community be lifted to US standards, rather than the US falling into socialism, etc. A North American superstate will not occur for a long time, if ever. But there are economic reasons why such a superstate could be very successful. By the year 2050, a North American State would have a population of more than 600 million (400 million of these in the US). It would have the technology, labor force, natural resources, and capitalist business structure, necessary to dominate world economics. Lanuage would be an issue: by 2050, two-thirds of the 600 million would speak English (with a small bit of French), while one-third would speak Spanish.

 

[Annie]

Community could mean abolishing corruption, socialism, and poverty in Mexico. It could mean abolishing socialism in Canada. Why would not the Community be lifted to US standards, rather than the US falling into socialism, etc. A North American superstate will not occur for a long time, if ever. But there are economic reasons why such a superstate could be very successful. By the year 2050, a North American State would have a population of more than 600 million (400 million of these in the US). It would have the technology, labor force, natural resources, and capitalist business structure, necessary to dominate world economics. Lanuage would be an issue: by 2050, two-thirds of the 600 million would speak English (with a small bit of French), while one-third would speak Spanish.

Not mine. I just posted a couple of the paragraphs from the article.

 

[onedomino]

Not mine. I just posted a couple of the paragraphs from the article.

Right, I realize that. I messed up the quote thingy on the reply screen. Anyway, do you think that a North American superstate is necessarily a bad thing, as implied by the author of the article?

 

[Annie]

Right, I realize that. I messed up the quote thingy on the reply screen.

No problemo!

 

[Annie]

Right, I realize that. I messed up the quote thingy on the reply screen. Anyway, do you think that a North American superstate is necessarily a bad thing, as implied by the author of the article?

Since you asked my opinion, Yes. IMHO we have little in common with Canada as far as foreign policy goes, less with Mexico.

 

[onedomino]

Since you asked my opinion, Yes. IMHO we have little in common with Canada as far as foreign policy goes, less with Mexico.

Yes, the foreign policies differ, but do you think that will be the case in the long term? The socialism in Canada and Mexico are disconnected from economic reality and destined for the economic scrapheap. In the coming decades, I think that there will emerge large economic units capable of competing with the US, e.g., the EU, China, India, etc. North America will be better able to compete in the future if its economies are integrated. The economic arguments favoring the integration of the EU are valid. The French will be ill-served in the long-term by their rejection of the EU. Now France will be less able to globally compete, compared to if it were part of an integrated EU with 600 million people.