“There shall be open borders”
- A recurring 1984 proposal promoted by the Wall Street Journal for a five-word amendment to the Constitution.
“By nominating me, my party has made a choice to welcome the new America”.
- Presidential candidate George W. Bush in a 2000 campaign speech on Latin America in Miami.
As someone who studies our intentional lack of border security and the resulting terror threat and illegal immigration crisis in the new America of the Bush administration, the most common question I hear after people begin to suspect that the president of the United States has no intention of securing American borders - Sept. 11, 2001, be damned - is natural enough: “Why?”
Why would the president - and a large part of Congress - refuse do everything possible to stop what a 2006 House Committee on Homeland Security report estimated to be somewhere between four and ten million illegal and uninspected border crossings in 2005 alone?
Why is there no effective and enforced removal program in place to ensure that visa holders leave the country when their visas expire? Visa overstays represent more than 40 percent of the more than 20 million illegal aliens in the same nation in which the president issued the call for us to “be vigilant” in November 2001.
The partial answer to the “why?” question is that the president is kneeling before the American business lobby, which is unwavering in its demand for continued access to the taxpayer subsidized illegal labor from Mexico. Others in elected power view the uncaught undocumented border crossers as willing future constituents - and the corporate funded, increasingly militant far-left ethnic lobby howls “racism” in a calculated and successful offensive defense of the uninterrupted supply of resentful victims of geography needed to expand the entitlements and political power on which it feeds.
These well-funded interest groups benefit from our virtually open borders and would profit significantly and quickly from a repeat of the path to citizenship granted to illegal aliens in 1986. They would all suffer from a return to a nation governed by the rule of law defined by well-defended borders and a common language.
It is past time that the readers of this space begin to hear about the rest of the answer: A larger plan and goal to create an EU-like North American Union by “integrating” the economies and the infrastructures of the United States, Canada, and that paradise to our south whose most notable exports are drugs and people - Mexico. A borderless continental super-state devoted to the lowest possible wages and maximized profits through the free flow of goods, services and people. Target date? 2010.
Essential actions for implementation? Amnesty - again - and the melding of the Mexican and American Social Security systems.
It is easy to imagine the looks of skepticism on the faces of the readers hearing this for the first time. It seems that the blueprint for the “integration of North America” detailed in the 2005 Council on Foreign Relations report “Building a North American Community,” promulgated in countless think tanks and taught and promoted in many universities - including Emory - has failed to qualify as news to the huge majority of the mainstream media.
*A coming Mexican customs office in Kansas City?
* Predictions from financial analysts that the struggling dollar could be replaced with the “Amero” as a common continental currency?
* A proposed Permanent Tribunal on Trade and Investment to lay the groundwork for North American business law - and a March 2005 announcement of a trilateral Security and Prosperity Partnership? No news here?
Far too many reporters, editors and radio talk show hosts either haven’t done their homework or are willing to meekly sidestep the terrible truth in fear of being labeled “conspiracy nuts” are complicit in the “un-reporting” of what most Americans would regard as the story of the century.
You’ll read more on this fantastic scheme here in the future, but for now, I think U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-East Cobb) has reflected the opinion of most Americans on this whole enchilada in his statement to this column on the possibility of a North American Union:
“The United States for over 220 years has enjoyed the freedoms and responsibilities of an independent nation. We have served as a beacon to the world of the glories of a democratic republic. To allow our country to participate in a rumored ‘North American Union’ would take away our sovereignty and place an undue burden on the citizens of America.
“It would be a terrible mistake for the U.S. government to engage in any proposal that would diminish our independence or lessen our strength. I wholeheartedly oppose any such effort.”
Thank you, Senator Isakson. What do you think, dear reader?