There's no reason for people to be paranoid about this; I would not be surprised at all to see a North American Union in my lifetime (I'm about 20), assuming I don't get run over by a bus or something.

Much of this is speculation, but I would say that the international ruling class has been the main proponent of continential regionalism for quite a while. I don't know if this class wants world government or what, but they do, apparently, want to consolidate current nation-states. Norman Dodd's testimony about his experiences with several foundations found in America, during a Congressional investigation. (Ford, Carnegie, Rhodes Scholarship, etc.) Here's an excerpt, perhaps the most surprising:

Continental consolidation seems to begin with economic pacts, such as the European Economic Community eventually becoming the European Union; now we see many, many regional pacts like that (such as the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas or African Economic Community).

I personally can't say if this is a good or a bad thing. What worries me though is the complete lack of discussion about these events. Mass media should be bringing this into the public lense, and that this is not happening brings me to suspect that those running the media conglomerates are also pushing for this regionalism. Reuters is, undoubtedly, in cahoots with the leading financiers of the world, based in London:

First, to introduce you to the International Financial Services London and its LOTIS Committee:
[http://www.ifsl.org/]
[http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=382]

Now, check out the members:
[http://www.ifsl.org/about/directory.cfm]

Note all of the big cheese names:
The Bank of England (historically a Rothschild enterprise)
UBS (Warburgs)
JP Morgan
Reuters
Goldman Sachs
...among others.

That Reuters has connections with these financiers does not necessarily mean that America's media is avoiding discussion of regionalism; actually, in fact, none of the names of the foundations, mentioned with Dodd's testimony, can be found in IFSL's membership.

Some of the only sources on this matter of continental regionalism can be found in conservative websites that do not appear very reliable. Still, that Norman Dodd testimony is very rare (there's always the possibility that it is fabricated, of course), and it is hosted by conservatives that are fearful of a loss of United States' sovereignty. Several articles I have read contend that our sovereignty has been hijacked by foriegn interests. (Via the Federal Reserve - here is Eustace Mullin's book, The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, [http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm], for those of you curious about one man's alleged findings in the Library of Congress.) Or that our federal government has usurped the true power that is supposed to lay with the State governments, according to the Constitution (follow the link of Norman Dodd's testimony, then go to the bottom of the page and click Part 2, Horton's testimony).

Some other books that seem to shed some light (or spread disinformation) on the matter are these (I have yet to read any of them, though once I find them I'll sure they'll be worth it):

A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, by William Engdahl. It's essentially about the coming together of a powerful oil establishment along with some of the world's prominent financiers (such as those based in London, found in the above link). Most of the reviews found on Amazon are praiseworthy, though one does comment on a lot of conspiracy theories (though they don't illustrate why Engdahl's words are conspiracy).

Another book is from Bill Clinton's professed mentor, Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time, by Carroll Quigley. It sounds to be a really good read (though huge), but it describes the formulation of a group of elites that have since shaped the policies of America.

These books may seem a bit off-topic, but to tie these events into the current trends of continental political consolidation seems to put together a coherent picture. Certainly, one can point out the apparent conspiracy theories, and laugh about tin-foil hats; but that alone does not discount the points these men have to make. Personally, I don't see what is so hard to believe about a relatively small group of men exerting a large amount of influence (through wealth, primarily) in world events, especially with the last century's trend toward internationalism and now globalization. As one review of Tragedy and Hope wrote:

Another curious article is called Towards a Global Ruling Class. It sounds very scholarly, and is quite a long read, but the first time I went through it was definitely worth the insight. I've yet to give a second shot, though. Here's the link (PDF): [http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Pap...ing%20class%22].

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

Stephen Colbert is the greatest American alive. You want truth just tune in to him. Stewart is fine and all but it is Colbert who puts that kind of show on the map. His news is the best new you can find. I wish O'Reilly would mess off and go on the show, but he's too afraid of being bitch-slapped like would be.

Does this project include common currency and common citizenship for all three countries?

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Then the government web site that has this item as a topic must also have a tin foil hat? I didn't make this up Doniston.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

The seems to be some discussion of a common currency. The two references I saw were to somthing called the Amero, I didn't make that up either, or simply keeping the name the Dollar since both Canada and the US already use it. I am not sure about comon citizenship, I think it is intended to be more like the EU in that respect with open borders but each nation retains its citizens. However like the EU, Slarti's comments notwithstanding, eventually this too will turn into a superstate with one government.

I really do not think it is going to happen, because once it is opened up for discussion the politicians will run for cover when they hear the response from the electorate. I am just incensed that it has gotten as far as it has without a public debate.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

I strongly assume that Mexico has to live up to certain economical standards before they can become a member of this, just like the new EU countries should.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

Don't know. Don't get me wrong Wallaroo, this is not going to happen. I do not think the majority of Americans or Canadians wants it to, and if that is the case it really doesn't matter if most Mexicans would want it to. What I am so angry about is the fact that this has been discussed between the leaders, Bush, Fox, and Martin without a public debate.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

You never know if it will happen or not. According to my link with the testimony of Norman Dodd, Allen Dulles said this (one of the Dulles brothers that were that architects of the CIA and have been prominent members of Wall Street for decades):

"There is no indication that American public opinion, for example, would approve the establishment of a super state, or permit American membership in it. In other words, time - a long time - will be needed before world government is politically feasible... This time element might seemingly be shortened so far as American opinion is concerned by an active propaganda campaign in this country..."

Allen Dulles supposedly said this in a UN booklet in 1946 (I can't find a link to the text of the booklet itself, unfortunately). I'm not sure if one form of "propaganda campaign" or another has been forced upon this country for the past century (or longer), but the administration's and media's current "war on terror" likely would classify as yet another campaign. And that this political and economic pact is titled "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" makes me wonder if it can be sold to the public as a "tool" in the War on Terror.

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

I am pretty sure the mood of the public is that if Mexico is included it isn't going to happen, at least not in my lifetime. It is far more likely that a union with Canada could happen, but I don't think even that is in the cards. There sre simply too many differences between us and Canadians, let alone us and Mexicans.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

But that's the point of Dulles; as he said, it would take a long time, and a propaganda campaign would be required. If a propaganda campaign really penetrates the population, then a North American Union (a "superstate") will be much more feasible. In the name of security, I see such a union possible, even if it includes Mexicans (as if they are all dirty parasites). Already, there are people (on this board) willing to give up civil liberties and willing to abolish the human rights of others to preserve "safety," it seems. (Though they won't say such things explicitly.) How much further is it, especially if we are hit hard again? How much further until we are willing to give up United States sovereignty?

I think fuedalism is returning, in a sense. What I mean is that people are willing to subject themselves to the rule of aristocrats to avoid "bandits" (or in modern times, to avoid "terrorists").

__________________
No man is an island...
Each man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in Mankind.
And therefore, never send to know
For whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee.
—John Donne

i Know that, and I wasn't referring to you, but there are those on this forum that would classify this as a conspiracy theory.

Sorry if you misunderstood.

By nature, I am a globalist and capitalist at heart. Having a third world nation, full of disenchanted and angry people at our southern border is not to our advantage. Free and open trade benefits all. A rising standard of living in Mexico benefits the US. If the entire pie gets bigger, our slice does not shrink when Mexico's portion grows.

Despite the increase in global trade, the US economy continues to grow at impressive rates. Things change, if we adjust we will be fine. 100 years ago, the majority of US citizens were farmers. Things change, and so far we have done well. I'd rather be doing what I do now (engineering), rather than staring at the backside of an ox for 12 hours as the fields are plowed.

Changes will continue, we must adjust accordingly to suceed. I do fear for the state of education, if we don't produce the best and brightest things could go bad. Do not fear change, it is inevitable. Adjust and plan accordingly.

I would not give up our soviernty (sp). I really doubt this would even be considered in the near term (0-20 years). But a comprehensive trade agreement makes sense.

The last portion of this rant deals with fairness as opposed to free when dealing with trade. We pay our workers a decent wage, they do not. Our companies must comply with strict regulations, thiers can pollute at will. Such inequalities must be addressed.

I am sorry you think Mexicans are all dirty parasites. While I seriously doubt that is the case there are simply too many differences and the illegal problem has already soured too many people. It would have to be one hell of a propoganda campaign lasting generations.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

As far as I understand the proposal, the US seeks to move their borders & customs officials outwards - to Mexico and Canada. This benefits the USA.

As for PM Stephen Harper, he's a full-fledged Washington worshipper of the worst kind (like Australia's Howard), so whatever Washington wants, Harper will be on board, regardless of it being good or ill for Canada. Harper supports the US Iraq War, US War on Terror, US War on Drugs and the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. All are contrary to traditional Canadian foreign policy.

Immigration is not a problem in Canada. We welcome them.

Voters just get in the way. Politicians do the bidding of their corporate masters. The name of the game here is keep it under the radar. It is the Canadians and the Mexicans that would explode on the issue, not the US since it is doing what it always does - seeking more power over other countries. Indeed - a Canadian friend of mine was stopped at the US border recently - US Customs had his 'sealed juvenile' record (from Canada) and used that to deny him entry. I guess US Government wants access now to Canadian tax records (if they don't have it already).

US never loses sovereignty in these 'agreements' - only Mexico and Canada stand to loose from our spineless politicians.

Not bloody likely. I should think the entire plan is to avoid this. Just a minior boring bureaucratic issue involving 'customs' operations. Wink, wink.

Containers can be inspected anywhere as long as it is prior to final delivery. Location shouldn't matter beyond logistical efficiency.

A very good point. Unfortunately, feudalism is now fascist.