‘Flow freely’ will erase face of U. S.
Those who study our national illegal immigration crisis watch with knowing sadness as millions of Americans outraged over our porous borders eventually get to the obvious question: Why has the president of the United States refused to secure American borders?
Perhaps it is part of a larger plan.
Without a vote in Congress, or consent of the American people, our intentionally unsecured borders and our government’s deliberate lack of enforcement of our immigration and employment laws could be an essential step to a much larger goal: a “North American Union.”
While virtually ignored in the mainstream media, the leaders of the nations of North America last year announced a plan to combine the infrastructure, security and ultimately the economies of the three nations. The linchpin of the “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America” is the “free flow” of goods, services … and people.
The un-stated NAFTA-World Trade Organization-based theory is simple: Borders are geopolitical abstractions — barriers to increased profit — and have become obsolete in the global economy. At present, labor is overpriced in the United States. The middle-class American Dream, while charming, is outdated.
If you like the idea of illegal, taxpayer-subsidized labor from Mexico, you will love the concept involved here: an unending flow of unskilled low-wage workers looking for a better life with no cumbersome immigration laws about which to be concerned.
Including the already signed 2004 “Totalization” agreement, yet to be considered by Congress — combining the Social Security systems of Mexico and the United States — the Bush administration seems to be following the recommendations of a little noted 2005 publication titled “Building a North American Community,” released by the Council on Foreign Relations, a multinational independent foreign-policy organization.
The CFR report further recommends creation of “permanent tribunals” that could overrule American courts on matters of “unfair trade practices” and “tri-national competition” disputes.
Few could doubt that once put into place, the laws and regulations creating the corporate friendly borderless continent would be enthusiastically enforced.
Supporters of the dissolution of the Founding Fathers sovereign republic have already played the “jingoist” card in an attempt to pre-marginalize those who would dare to object to a multilingual, continental Super State dedicated to low wages and increased markets in which “trade, capital and people flow freely.”
Americans with the temerity to speak up in objection to Mexican customs inspection offices in Kansas City, the “Amero” replacing the dollar and a North American Union by 2010 should prepare for a battery of invectives containing “phobes,” “ists” and “isims.”
The more politically correct may want to practice repeating, ” I pledge allegiance to the Continent and to the Commerce for which it stands.”
Suggestions for a possible new flag, anyone?