North American Union formed by Bush

[hmkpoker]

I just don't see what the point is. There is NO CONFLICT between any of these countries. Why do we need to impose another government upon ourselves?

[BluffTHIS!]

hmk,

Although as the OP suggested I view all this as conspiracy theory garbage, anyone who actually would favor such a plan, which wouldn't really be a total political union, would perceive there to be benefits from going further than NAFTA to a common currency and fiscal/monetary controls. The issue that would sink a EU type of plan though is that it probably could not succeed without their much more liberal borders and residency policy as Mexican immigration is such a contentious issue now, though not to me as I favor liberal immigration regulations. Of course they would no doubt argue that the benefits to the Mexican economy would result in greater prosperity that would neutralize a lot of the desire to emmigrate to the US.

And regarding more onerous sovereignty-surrendering political policies like the EU constitution, those aren't necessary for the EU to function more effectively as an economic bloc as France and the Netherlands IIRC have rejected same.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main objections to such a north american union is first that the canadians will insist on making the british monarch our collective titular head of state meaning we have to have that 80 year old woman's picture on our money and stamps when we fought a revolution to shed the monarchy. And secondly the mexicans will demand that Poncho Villa's birthday be a national holiday when we sent troops to kill that guy. Plus they might even makes us accept some mariachi music as our national anthem. But my third objection is the real deal killer, which is having to include Quebec. If we could exclude those whiny francophone [censored] then I might consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT are conspiracy theories too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently, this guy does (from Congressional Debate)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qb5RT1My1k

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see what the point is. There is NO CONFLICT between any of these countries. Why do we need to impose another government upon ourselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably, if you believe Lou Dobbs and his "elitist theory," the idea is for the elitists who are extemely wealthy and own large corporations to make lots more money and get a lot more power by using cheaper Mexican labor (as a result of the open border) instead of American labor. According to Dobbs, America's middle class will be killed. Dobbs is laying his years of reputation on the line to fight what he believes is an elitist element that is not for the people but for himself.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My main objections to such a north american union is first that the canadians will insist on making the british monarch our collective titular head of state meaning we have to have that 80 year old woman's picture on our money and stamps when we fought a revolution to shed the monarchy. And secondly the mexicans will demand that Poncho Villa's birthday be a national holiday when we sent troops to kill that guy. Plus they might even makes us accept some mariachi music as our national anthem. But my third objection is the real deal killer, which is having to include Quebec. If we could exclude those whiny francophone [censored] then I might consider it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think NAFTA, CAFTA, and GATT are conspiracy theories too?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the discussions I've had about this, most see NAFTA (passed under Bush I) as the forerunner to this. According to some of these people (some of which are extreme), Perot knew about this Bush agenda and ran in 1992 to boot Bush out of office. He gave the American people what they wanted and quit while leading in the polls in order to lose some points and come back. He ran a fairly conservative platform, so as to suck more Bush votes away (although many state that he drew from both parties equally). Once Perot was assured Bush wouldn't win, he was done with his plan. NAFTA got passed anyway and Perot ran again...this time to win.

I have several criticisms of the above-mentioned theory but I will mention those later so as not to sway the thinking.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see what the point is. There is NO CONFLICT between any of these countries. Why do we need to impose another government upon ourselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

People want to build a GIANT FENCE along the US-Mexico border. If I were an anarchist I would see a loose federal union as a way to check the stupid excesses of government, not increase them.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see what the point is. There is NO CONFLICT between any of these countries. Why do we need to impose another government upon ourselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

People want to build a GIANT FENCE along the US-Mexico border. If I were an anarchist I would see a loose federal union as a way to check the stupid excesses of government, not increase them.

[/ QUOTE ]

That or just cut redistribution, so that anyone wanting to come here does so for work opportunities (nothing wrong with that). Stepping in the opposite direction (disempowering the federal government) would be an anarchist solution.

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
People want to build a GIANT FENCE along the US-Mexico border. If I were an anarchist I would see a loose federal union as a way to check the stupid excesses of government, not increase them.



[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think a loose federal union would reduce the power of government? I am guessing adding another layer of government, would only increase government power, not reduce it.

If this comes to fruition, won't there be pressure for every country to have similar laws and practices? If so, that would include nationalized health care, more generous welfare benefits etc..like Canada has. I have a hard time believing a North American style EU community will result in smaller government and less taxes. I am willing to bet on it.

[AlexM]

The USA already is the American Union...

[Mempho]

Dr. Pastor, who is an integral part of this intitiative for the government, is the head of the Center for North American Studies at American University in Washington, DC. On the univesity's website, he has posted a proposal he gave to the trilateral commission a few years ago. Although the government denies wanting a unified currency, Pastor is apparently for it as well as a North American Parliament. See the bottoms of pages 4 and 3 respectively.

http://www.american.edu/internationa...Trilateral.pdf