Not exactly trye MM. To my understanding both Mexico and Canada would retain their exisitng sets of laws, which means in Canada's case the immigration policies up there will not change. Add that to an open border with no checks and you have less security not more.

This is an internal Canadian issue and not really any of my business really so i will refrain from comment. I have my opinions, but it is an internal Canadian issue. I would be slightly hypocritical were I to tell you what I think you should do while badmouthing bailey for constantly telling us what to do.

You say that now, mainly because it is not a problem. Wait until you have 11 million illegals crossing the border, placing the increased financial burden on your healthcare system but not paying for it, then lets talk.

No you are wrong. It would be the US more than the Mexicans. Hell this would be to the Mexicans benefit. It would end up costing us jobs like NAFTA has and would take money to help prop up the Mexican economy so the population stays where it is instead of traveling north with the new lessened border crossing issue. Make no mistake MM Americans have grown tired of agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. The only one that has really worked out was the original one between the US and Canada, and then only because the economies were so closely meshed anyway.

What was in your friends juevenille record that cause the issue?

MM please you know better than this, and if you don't then I think I need to re-evaluate my opinion of you.


Frankly a container off loading at a Mexican port and not being inspected until it reaches KC to me is a real big problem. I would have less of an issue with the same container being off loaded in Halifax and not being inspected until it reaches KC, but even then I do not think it is a good idea.

__________________

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 have known about this for awhile and as far as I am concerned if the government ever seriously tries to force this on us that is when it will be time for the American people to take up arms and overthrow the American goverment. Civil War Part Deux.

__________________
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

President George W. Bush, 8-5-2004

Carolina Politics Online

THIS IS REAL HOPE AND CHANGE!

I didn’t mean to sound like I was accusing Mexicans on being dirty parasites; note the “as if” in my parentheses. I was simply observing the apparent attitude toward the Mexican people joining a North American Union.

I haven’t been to Mexico, but where I’m from (New England), there isn’t much animosity or dislike of Mexicans. I’m not saying that a true Union is possible in a few years, but I think the general trend is toward a North American unification. Given time (generations, as you said), and a lot of propaganda, I think the United States population will be more accepting of a union. Especially if it is sold to us as “security.”

I would disagree: the United States, as a sovereign nation-state, does in fact have much to lose in such an agreement. If the proposal follows through, I would expect to see, eventually, a federal government of North America with all of the respective branches – executive, legislative, judicial. I don’t see it so much as a matter of US versus Mexico and Canada; I see it more as a merger of the social upper crust of all three countries versus the citizens of those countries. That crust just has to convince the rest of us to follow along.

__________________
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

It's almost time for that now. Your government driving your country into the ground and ruining your entire social system is not reason enough. Wake up pal, with attitudes like that it's not hard to see why Bush is in power and has the US in the direction it is going.

This can never be allowed to happen.

You'll do whatever your leaders tell you. Please, don't act like a rebel, you're far from it. Tony Blair couldn't do better.

Maybe all you guys should learn the difference between merger and union. You all think it is talking about 1 country of all 3 here. Why don't you pay attention.

Yeah, I am sure you know what I will do since you know me so well. Maybe you ought to spend a little less being a jerk and a little more time posting things that are susbstantive.

Wouldn't you say that one logical outcome of a union is a merger? The plans of these governments (and their business partners/leaders) do not appear temporary, and given the trend of political centralization, I would place my bets on the formation of a federal government with jurisdiction in all of North America. It would most likely take a very long time, but I think it'll happen in the future.

__________________
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

Nope i would not, you are incredibly naive if you think that. A union is possible, no way a nation like Canada or the US or even Mexico gives up it sovereignty... again, think about it.

Right. That means the US system applied to us. Surprise, surprise.

I don't like the US political system with a separate executive. I think that just breeds corruption. I much prefer a Parliamentary system where the executive and the legislature are one.

Gort, the impetus for the policy (at this time) is US security.

Whatever.

As far as I'm concerned, you are welcome to comment on the actions of the Canadian Government, for good or ill. Canada is a democracy and we welcome discussion of policy.

The US system is designed to facilitate illegal aliens. The USA has 11 million of them because the USA wants 11 million illegals (for various reasons). We allow them in legally and give them papers and make them pay taxes. They are almost always very grateful for the opportunity and cause few problems. Indeed, Canadian immigration records consistently show that immigrants in Canada are better educated and use less social services than native-born Canadians.

The same would be true of the USA if you had some sanity in your immigration policy (i.e. if it was designed for creating legal immigrants instead of creating illegal ones).

Admittedly Canada has benefited very well under NAFTA (apparently Canada is very competitive vis-a-vis the USA), but as far as I understand the matter, USA has seen a net gain under NAFTA and CAFTA.

Free trade benefits both parties.

Possession of under one gram of pot - well over twenty years ago. Sealed juvinile record. US customs has access.

Please review US 'anti-missile-missile shield' issue. US government comments were very enlightening. USA would violate Canadian sovereignty to construct the system regardless of Canadian permission.

Please review US nuclear weapons policy. US can and will locate nuclear weapons on Canadian soil and can and will refuse to identify this or ask for sovereign permission.

A sealed container inspected at the port of entry or after a train ride doesn't make much difference does it?

The executive and the legislature are not one in a parliamentary system. It is just that the members of the cabinet are (often) Members of Parliament (in the UK, and I guess also in Canada, they have to be) and the executive can only stay in power as long as the Parliament wants it to. The executive and the legislature are different branches of the government, though much more interconnected than in the US form of government.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Luap I knew you weren't calling them dirty parasites, but I figured one good implied slam deserved another. It never ceases to amaze me that anytime there is a disagreement over policy on an issue of ethnicity or race at some point someone will call the other side bigots essentially, whcih is clearly what you did. I am not denying that there are some bigots in both sides of the equation, but it seems to me to trot out that phrase willy nilly serves no real purpose, and takes away from the point you are trying to make. It does so because it provides a magnet for your oponent to hone in on and ignore the rest of the point you are trying to make. So lets keep that out of the discussion unless an actual bigot contributes shall we? Believe me should one show up, and there are clearly some on this board, I will join you in calling him or her what she or she is.

As long as the Mexican government is using the US as a means of venting the frustrations of the Mexican people over a lack of good jobs and a poor living standard, Americans are not likely to want any part of a union. While illegal immigration may not be a problem in your part of the country, in Michigan it is, in Chicago it is, and these places are geographically far away from where it is the biggest problem. In order for there to be a union Mexico will first have to raise its living standard to something much closer to that of the US and Canada.

I believe I have agreed that in fact the US and Canada in my view have the most to loose in any union. I blieve Mexico is the clear winner, if this were to occur with current conditions in all three countries still in place.

__________________

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

“Incredibly naïve”? I’m not a historian, but societies change over time; and I may not be alive when it fully happens, but I believe that the contemporary nation-state will disappear one day. Could you demonstrate why it is incredibly naïve of me to think that a North American Union could eventually lead to a centralized federal government of North America?

I’ve seen it argued by a conservative source that this is generally what happened to the United States of America – what began as a political union of fifty sovereign States has become a collection of subordinated States to a too-powerful federal government. Here’s David Horton’s take (from a link I provided earlier): [http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/r...ism/horton.htm].

You’re right, I apologize. I was just annoyed with the viewpoint being expressed, while not giving it a fair chance.

Economic considerations won’t be the only marketing ploy of a NAU, but it is probably true that Mexico will need to raise its standard of living. Still, I’m sure there will be a lot of angry Mexicans (and Americans and Canadians) when it comes to a union. Even right now, it seems that some state repression may occur in Oaxaca.

The part you quoted of me was directed to MM.

__________________
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