Forget about the Mexican border and Canadian borders, if Bush, Fox and Martin have their way none of them will exist anymore, not sure how the new Canadian PM feels about this and the new Mexican President is likely to do what Bush tells him to do on this. The other name for this plan is the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Securit..._North_America

http://www.spp.gov/

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=50918

I first raised this about 6 months ago and was told I was just paranoid. Ladies and gentlemen weren't people who thought we would go to war in Iraq in 2001 also called paranoid? The longer this stays under the radar the more likeley it is going to happen. Take this in conjunction with the new report that shows NAFTA has been an umitigated disaster except to politicians and some business. Bush isn't trying to protect America, he is trying to turn it into the NAU with a currency called the Amero

__________________

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

Would this become one single state, by international terms? I doubt it. Not even the European Union is on its way to becoming one state, since the French and Dutch peoples turned the proposal for a new EU Constitution with deeper cooperation down.

I would say it is more likely that the English speaking Provinces of Canada would become States in the USA, and that isn't very likely at all.

__________________
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.

This whole North American Union project sounds like a good idea to me. Does it include common currency and common citizenship too?

__________________
Jesus was a communist!

I'm not sure what the benefit of the NAU would be, outside of greater global economic bargaining power. North America hasn't been a war-torn country for centuries (see France and Germany), and so I don't see the secuirty imperative of integration. I dont really see it as a possibility though because each country would be giving up sovreignty for little gain. On the other hand, I could easily see a South American Union. And to some extent, I think this is the goal of Hugo Chavez.

__________________
Hate is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

Yeah, I don't see this panning out either.
Both the US and Canada have little to gain and much to lose by combining with Mexico, and historically very little interest in combining with each other.
Even if, per impossible, it did happen, it certainly couldn't slip "under the rader" as that kind of thing would require a complete change and/or nullification of the US Constitution and a nationwide ratification of whatever government the NAU had. The President can order troops to invade a country and then tell congress about it later, but there's no way for him to unify countries together using nothing but executive power.

On the other hand, expanded partnership between Canada, the US and Mexico could be beneficial to all them. With China on the rise, tormoil in the ME and anti-western sentiment popping up here and there around the globe a more unified North America might be handy in the political and economic realms of the near future.

A union wouldn't be a bad idea, there is nothing wrong with our cooperation. Pisses me off how much animosity between the countries there is, especially Canada and the US when we are the same people. Both countries are great, the two best in the world, we should work at overcoming thing little differences and working something out. Not becoming one country, but a stronger North America would benefit everyone.

Gort, Harper is an oddball, at times he is ready to kiss dubya's ass and at other times he seems to want to tell everyone off. He is an imbecile, and I am ashamed he is the PM(only a minority gov), but that's democracy, but don't worry, it won't happen under his watch.

I have my paperwork in on becoming a dual citizen, I hope to have it soon and I think that there a few differences between us, so a union of sorts wouldn't be that difficult. People think we are different along the border line but that's not true. It's more Maritime, East, Central, and West. A person from Nova Scotia has more in common with a person from Massachusetts than a person from Alberta. People who are scared of a union are insecure a bit. I am a Canadian, no matter what happens in the future I will be a Canadian, and I don't need borders, walls, and fences to tell me I am.

Fortress North America!
With our government finally seeing the need to fund our military, and a bright future for Canada, I think we would be larger contributors than we would have been say 20 years ago, and a Union would only help. The EU is a pretty good thing, it has its flaws, but it has helped Europe get through times that would have been rougher, and it is bring other countries in line, making them better countries. We aren't talking about a merger of two countries, but more like a club.

Like the rest of you I frankly don't realy give this idea much credence, however clearly Bush does, as did Fox and Martin. If you read the decument at NAU there is only one paragraph that talks about each nation keeping its soveriegnty and laws and the rest of it seems to be geared towards creating a seamless ersatz state with no borders. I frankly do not see a benefit for the US or Canada. Mexico would definately benifit from such a Union.

My problem with this is if we kept our own laws and at the same time opened the borders we will have millions of Mexicans heading north. Canada's problem is they would not stop at the US this time they would continue on to Alberta.

What bothers me most isn't the possibility of this happening I guess, rather it is that Bush has gone as far down this road as he has and not bothered to even try to initiate a debate in the US about its merits. As far as I can tell no such discussion has happened in Canada either. I don't think there would be much in the way of oppositiion in Mexico.

Nothing like this should go beyond the concept stage without a massive discussion in all three countries as far as I am concerned.

Have any of you read the concept for making Kansas City the main inspection point for cargo. As I understand it cargo could come ashore in Mexico bound for the US and not be inspected until it got to Kansas City. I may be wrong on this but if it is true as far as I am concerned that is a little late.

__________________

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 agree, this idea would have to be way off in the future, with every little detail discussed and like you said, massive discussions with the populations, such a thing should only happen with every citizen involved. And yes Kansas City seems late to have inspections, but in a union would there be a need? (Mexico does cause this problem though)(side-note: Kansas and Missouri are awesome states)

I guess you are right about benefiting Canada and the US. NAFTA I think is a good thing and does a fine job unifying us, I just wish the two nations got along better. There are few nations in the world whose people are so similar and who have similar problems and environments, let along both being G8 countries. Both are wasting a huge advantage and cooperation would go much further. To me there is no reason why our two countries can't work together better, with or without a union.

Actually I just heard about a report that says NAFTA has done nothing positive for the economy of the US, but has enriched certain segments within the US. I am looking for the report. I only heard about it last night on Lou Dobbs

__________________

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

Yeah

That's what we want - to take over millions of VERY poor people..

Yep even the assimilation of TUrkey into the EU would not be an appropriate analogy

__________________

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

Oh really, well I am skeptical of that, but at the least I don't think it has hurt the US at all. People in Canada say it has hurt us, but I would have to really disagree with that. If you find the report let me know. I am looking haven't turned anything up. Lou Dobbs is pretty good, he usually knows what he is talking about. But for the last couple months with the immigration issues he has taken a much stronger nationalist stance, I agree with him on the jobs being sent to Asia taken from US citizens, I just hope he isn't turning on us as a knee-jerk reaction. But since I like Lou I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

For the benefit of some of the folks on this board. I can't respond to this without first putting on my Tin-foil hat,

OK, now I'm Ready

I read it when you raised it, an I connected it to a couple of other stories TO WIT:

1. a one-world government.

2. to the suggestion that Bush would be our last president. Maybe he would become the Pres of the NAU?

Actually, I think it is possible that in the relatively near future, we will have open borders between ALL the North American countries and States. This certainly would solve the illegal imigration problem.

What's interesting is that Dr. Stephen Colbert was actually joking about "importing" a third world country into the U.S. last month, and somebody seems to be giving it serious consideration. I don't want to merge with those damn Mexican'ts.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004