North American Union? NAFTA Superhighways? Amero?

[Brainster]

Has anybody here looked extensively into this? Jerome Corsi outlines the conspiracy theory:

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The NAFTA Superhighways story has been picked up by CTs like Alex Jones and Uncle Fetzer. Corsi claims:

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.

Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new “SENTRI” system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City.

As incredible as this plan may seem to some readers, the first Trans-Texas Corridor segment of the NAFTA Super Highway is ready to begin construction next year. Various U.S. government agencies, dozens of state agencies, and scores of private NGOs (non-governmental organizations) have been working behind the scenes to create the NAFTA Super Highway, despite the lack of comment on the plan by President Bush. The American public is largely asleep to this key piece of the coming “North American Union” that government planners in the new trilateral region of United States, Canada and Mexico are about to drive into reality.

The Amero comes into the story here:

[Robert] Pastor’s 2001 book “Toward a North American Community” called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor’s thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity. Pastor has also called for the creation of a new currency which he has coined the “Amero,” a currency that is proposed to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar, and the Mexican peso.

From what I can see, Corsi's mostly using paranoid interpretations of diplomatic boilerplate in various statements and documents. For example, he gets the idea that the borders between the US, Canada and Mexico will be eliminated from this:

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

Note that it does not say that the movement of people, products and capital will be "free"; just legal, orderly and safe. Only a paranoid mind would go from that non-controversial statement to this:

Why doesn’t President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union.

Does anybody really believe that? Corsi seems to be taking advantage of anti-immigration fervor to claim that this is really Bush's goal. Is there anybody in America that favors uniting our country with Mexico? Yet Corsi sees it not only likely, but imminent:

What we have underway here with the SPP could arguably be termed a bureaucratic coup d’etat. If that is not the intent, then President Bush should rein in the bureaucracy until the American people have been fully informed of the true nature of our government’s desire to create a North American Union. Otherwise, the North American Union will become a reality in 2010 as planned.

Of course, Bush won't even be in office in 2010. Would President Hillary Clinton or President John McCain (or Barack Obama, or Rudy Giuliani) be presiding over this unification?

It's tempting to just laugh this stuff off with insults, as talk show host Michael Medved did in a recent Townhall column:

But aside from the chilling prospect of a “Monster Highway” (why is a new road in Texas supposed to be so scary?) there’s no reason at all to believe in the ludicrous, childish, ill-informed, manipulative, brain dead fantasies about a North American Union. The entire chimera has been conjured up to scare people over nothing—to solicit contributions to fight a non-existent threat, and then when that threat never materializes the exploiters and charlatans who’ve been lying to you about this nonsense can beat their chests and say, “Look at that! We stopped the globalists in their evil, diabolical plans to terminate American sovereignty—now send us even more money!”

The insults are useful for quickly convincing people who are not into the CT that there's nothing there, but as we all know it doesn't substitute for solid debunking with those intrigued by Corsi's claims.

Note: I'd like to keep this discussion confined to the claims made regarding the NAU, the NAFTA Superhighways, and the Amero. Let's not get too much into the left/right politics on this, please.

 

[jhunter1163]

I've seen this before, and it makes no sense to me. Why would the US, the world's 800-pound economic gorilla, CHANGE ITS CURRENCY? Why wouldn't we just say to Canada and Mexico, "OK, you guys are gonna start using the US dollar come 1-1-10, OK?"

And I don't think three years would be NEARLY enough lead time for such an enterprise. How long did it take to come up with the EU? Decades. So, I'm not too worried about the whole thing. Thinly disguised xenophobia, is all.

 

[Horatius]

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA politically, setting the stage for a North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

I've seen this before, and it makes no sense to me. Why would the US, the world's 800-pound economic gorilla, CHANGE ITS CURRENCY? Why wouldn't we just say to Canada and Mexico, "OK, you guys are gonna start using the US dollar come 1-1-10, OK?"

This is exactly the problem with these guys. Even if their NAU fantasies were true, why would anyone expect the US to be the junior partners in this enterprise?

Does anyone seriously think that the guys in DC would meekly accept orders form some Canuck in Ottawa? Or from someone in Mexico?

If anyone should be worried about the loss of sovereignty in a hypothetical NAU, it should be Canada and Mexico.

Pastor’s 2001 book “Toward a North American Community” called for the creation of a North American Union that would perfect the defects Pastor believes limit the progress of the European Union. Much of Pastor’s thinking appears aimed at limiting the power and sovereignty of the United States as we enter this new super-regional entity

Who is this Pastor guy, and exactly how does his calling for limits on US power translate into any actual chance of that happening?

 

[Brainster]

Good point about the relative size of the respective economies. I just looked up the GDPs of the three countries at the CIA World Factbook.

Canada's GDP is $1.035 trillion at official exchange rates. Mexico's is $693 billion. The United States' GDP is $12.49 trillion. The US economy is over seven times as large as Mexico and Canada combined.

 

[jhunter1163]

So, in the proposed NAU, the US would have about 85% of the economic activity, not to mention about 75% of the population. I think it would be EXTREMELY unlikely that the will of the NAU would be anything but the will of the US.

Not that the NAU is anything more than a figment of Pastor's overheated imagination.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Assuming anything about this idiocy actually leads to a democractic union (and we all LOVE democracy), goodbye the GOP's control of the government.

 

[WildCat]

Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway, four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Tex., to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minn.

Now that is funny! A 400 yard wide highway? Lets see, here in Chicago the Dan Ryan Expressway (I-94) is less than 100 yards wide, the paved part only. That's 14 lanes of traffic (more on the way though) and a light commuter train line in the center. So a 400 yard wide highway would be what, at least 56 lanes of traffic? That's just ridiculous!

Why do CT's exaggerate everything to the point of being just silly?

 

[T.A.M.]

All I have to say is Swing Dangler is gonna owe me $100 (and that better be in USD Swing).

TAM

 

[LashL]

bump

 

[David Wong]

So a 400 yard wide highway would be what, at least 56 lanes of traffic?

Picture yourself in the far left lane, then glancing up and realizing that YOUR exit is coming up... on the RIGHT.

You're about to get the finger from 55 different drivers.

 

[Architect]

And now imagine the chances that at least one of them is a woo-woo, with a gun....

 

[Horatius]

So a 400 yard wide highway would be what, at least 56 lanes of traffic? That's just ridiculous!

Why do CT's exaggerate everything to the point of being just silly?

But you're forgetting, these are the first-class Mexican lanes, so they'll have double the leg room.

Thus, there will only be 28 lanes to worry about.

 

[Architect]

Surely you mean width, not legroom?

 

[Spindrift]

Considering that Bush has 2 years left and a Democratic congress to deal with it really would be amazing if Bush could pull it off.

He's done some constitutionally questionable things, but I doubt even he could pull off refusing to leave office so he can finish this plan.

 

[Horatius]

Surely you mean width, not legroom?

Well, uhm, the Mexican Trucks will be transporting so many illegal immigrants, their legs will stick out the sides! Yeah, okay, I got nothin'.......

 

[jhunter1163]

Considering that Bush has 2 years left and a Democratic congress to deal with it really would be amazing if Bush could pull it off.

He's done some constitutionally questionable things, but I doubt even he could pull off refusing to leave office so he can finish this plan.

Nah, he's going on Jan. 20, 2009, whether he likes it or not.

 

[maccy]

There's already a union of states in North America which is far more integrated politically than the EU, it's called The United States of America.

Funnily enough, some of the more Federalist plans for the EU are criticised by anti-Federalists as leading towards a "United States of Europe".

People are absolutely correct in saying that the EU has taken a long time to develop - it's been almost 50 years since the Treaty of Rome. All the major changes to the EU have required ratification by national parliaments and sometimes referendums. I'm sure that any agreement with Canada and Mexico would have to be ratified by Congress.

Also, a union of three countries is never going to be like the EU. Back in 1957 (when it was the EEC) there were six members, now there are 27. There is a real issue of sovereignty with so many nations, but the main focus is still on the idea of common standards, a single market and freedom of movement.

Even if the supposed American Union were styled after the EU (which is very unlikely) I doubt that most US citizens would see much difference.

A single currency - it wouldn't matter what you called it, the Federal Reserve would now be the central bank for the whole continent. Mexico and Canada would get some input but would have no power (both being too small in population and GDP to have a majority share). The Reserve's monetary policy would be based on the economy of the whole continent, but since most of that is the US it probably wouldn't be very different.

An American Parliament - if modelled on the European Parliament, this would be dominated by representatives from the US.

Mexico a net beneficary of funds - I can't imagine the US ever agreeing to this, but if they did then it may well sort out the immigration issue (such as it is). If the EU is anything to go by, the redistribution of funds from the rich countries to the poor ones has greatly benefitted countries such as Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece. As the GDP of countries gets closer the economic pressure to migrate diminishes. To me, it makes more sense than spending billions of dollars on a fence, anyway.

Freedom of movement - again, I can't this happening but even if it did it wouldn't necessarily be a disaster. Yes, you'd have a lot of Mexicans coming to the US, but they'd all be tax payers and subject to the minimum wage (so no longer illegally undercutting wages). They would probably spread out more across the country and some would even go to Canada. Honestly, there is a lot of space in the US for people and increased populations are generally more beneficial than not. As the economies of Mexico and the US equalised, migration would slow, anyway. If this ever did happen, it would surely be phased in over a number of years.

Common standards and practices - would bring Mexico more in line with Canada and the US than vice-versa.

Apart from the fact the the European Social Democratic model seems to be an anathema to US politics, I think biggest stumbling block is that Mexico and Canada would inevitably be dominated by the US in any union. I can't see them agreeing to this.

 

[Doc Daneeka]

Assuming anything about this idiocy actually leads to a democractic union (and we all LOVE democracy), goodbye the GOP's control of the government.

I've often seen a Republican, upon discovering that I am a Canadian, tell me laughingly about how someday we will be part of the USA. I always find it entertaining to ask if they really relish having 10 new states admitted to the union, containing something like 75 electoral votes, very few of which would go to the GOP in an election. It would be like adding another California, but with 20 senators.

I generally find that the person stops making such comments.

 

[uruk]

I live in the Rio Grande Valley where the Mexico end of I-69 corridor is supposed to be.

I -69 is supposed to be a straight stretch from Mexico to Canada.
http://www.i69info.com/
If you read the website, I-69 is running into some opposition.

IRC, NAFTA predates Bush. From what I understand NAFTA is supposed to make trade easier between Canada, US, and Mexico With the US holding all the strings, of course.
NAFTA is one of the major reasons that all those factories moved to Mexico and we have $20.00 DVD players.

 

[TjW]

A Federal highway numbered I-69? Ridiculous. They wouldn't be able to keep the signs up.