Do you believe in the North American Union?

I'm just wondering how many here believe it is real? I'm sure everyone knows how much Lou Dobbs (who is, outside of Keith Olbermann...my favorite pundit) has talked about it. It's supposed to be like NAFTA on steroids or something...which would explain why Bush supports Open Borders and is pushing this new immigration bill along with DLC Dems. For those that don't know, it's supposed to be a "fusion" of sorts mimicking the European Union...but with more benefits. It's supposed to be Mexico, Canada, and America. One of the main arguments for it on websites with a larger variety of political beliefs is that our dollar will inevitably fall to nothing...and that the only way we can save it is by coming together.

And there is a truism in coming together to save things.

:)

It would hurt American labor, and it would strip all three countries of their national identities and culture, replacing it with decadent consumerism.

...and the Caribbean island countries as well to be a true North American union and yes I believe it can work as long as the same standards apply across all boundaries

country in the Western hemisphere were brought together? Don't forget, it's not just about trade. We already trade with countries like Jamaica, Mexico, and Brazil (amoung others).

...states rights, open borders, similar standards, equal protections, representation, all pay taxes. It is coming or else the United States itself will be fragmented and divided

It would be no different than the present 50 states of the U.S....states rights, open borders, similar standards, equal protections, representation, all pay taxes. It is coming or else the United States itself will be fragmented and divided


Why would the US with its rich history, common culture, Constitution, economic system, and language tend to become fragmented, but a wider union without common history, culture, language, or constitutional structures tend to become stronger?


Such a union would be different than the United States, and different in ways that would tend to pull such a union apart.

Silly me.

the supremacy of our judicial system to the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. We do perhaps have some things in common with our more right wing brethren. ;)

They have more in common with the corporatists taking over the world than with me.

And while I do fear my current government, I don't worry about sign codes on the back of highway signs being messages for UN troops to guide them in their takeover of the US. I DO fear (and have for decades) the takeover of the US and the world by nation-less (and therefore, lawless) corporations which serve to empower only the extremely rich via fascist alliance with idiot politicians.

I think borders and ports should be secured, with sensible immigration policy and serious cargo inspection. I think our government agencies should be given the management and resources to do their jobs which is to serve the people. I think we need education here about just how much ALL of us use infrastructure which is paid for communally via taxes.

The right wingers don't like me much at all.

led by people whom we believe do not share our values and over whom we have little control. We worry about corporations; they worry about the UN and ICC.

something we can find common ground with "our more right wing brethren" such as moderate republicans and independents.


However, some here agree with Bush and his global corporatist vision that the Constitution ought to be scrapped and replaced with a North Amercan Union, and ultimately a global government of the multinational corporations, for the multinational corporations, and by the multinational corporations.


If we the people of the United States must struggle to control our own government, even with our Constitutional protections in place, how do you suppose the people of the world could hope to control a global government?

though it hardly presents an actual global government, at this stage.

A pity for them that the UN can not now launch wars without end in an attempt to make all the peoples of the world agree to the One World Order that Poppy and W dream about.

US under Cheney junta.

"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."



The superpower status of the US has tended to corrupted our government. But God help us if ever there is a world government with all the military might of the world at its disposal. It would soon become absolutely corrupt.

step toward the 'north american union'. The dollar is falling toward nothing and taking on the financial burden of Mexico certainly is not going to help it. Keep Canada, USA and Mexico separate and sovereign.

the whole things smacks of the two in their drive to destroy the middle class and create the two class system of them the overlords and us the surfs.

should come together someday and govern themselves in a way that provide equal opportunities and require equal responsibilities from everyone?", then my answer is "Yes."

Is a North American Union the best step on the way to that goal? I am not so sure. The EU has fairly successfully integrated many poor Eastern European countries into a common vision and is not considering Muslim Turkey for admission, so I would say that it is not impossible for the US to consider Mexico. Obviously, Mexico would have to want that, just like the countries that join the EU have to want to join.

While the NAU might not be the best idea, I don't have a great one handy to promote the integration of the various peoples of the world, as opposed to building physical and legal walls to separate us from other people.

sought to break AWAY from other governments to form governments more agreeable to their own views of what is best.

I don't see any reason to believe that all the peoples of the world will, now or ever, agree on basic issues to the extent that we all could live under the same governmental structures.


The Neocon's have demonstrated just how flawed that sort of thinking is when they assumed that the Iraqi's would embrace us as liberators.


As much as I love and respect our constitutional system, I do not believe that it could be foisted on every nation on the globe without causing wars without end.


I don't have a great one handy to promote the integration of the various peoples of the world, as opposed to building physical and legal walls to separate us from other people.

Maybe you ought to consider other possibilities such as:

1) The peaceful integration of all the people's of the world may not be possible.

2) Those walls serve a very good purpose.

I don't want to live in a theocracy, nor do I have any desire to go in search of monsters to destroy, nor to fight a crusade, nor to make the world safe for democracy. Walls (borders) and legal structures allow peoples who differ in fundamental ways to inhabit the same planet without having to fight to the finish to determine whose laws will prevail.

"Throughout history peoples have sought to break AWAY from other governments to form governments more agreeable to their own views of what is best."

That certainly is true. There are not very many multi-ethnic or multi-lingual countries in the world, except in Africa where the national borders were drawn by colonial powers who had no idea what they were doing. However, the are increasing examples countries coming together to form governments or organization that provide their citizens with a better life. The EU is, of course, the prime example of countries that have been rivals and enemies for centuries coming together to form a common union. The UN and the Kyoto Agreement are examples of nations sacrificing some sovereignty to achieve other goals, e.g. peace, combat pollution and global warming.

"As much as I love and respect our constitutional system, I do not believe that it could be foisted on every nation on the globe without causing wars without end."

Definitely should not be foisted on any country. Like the EU, a nation should have to want to join and not forced to join. That means that it would take a long, long time before every, or even most, countries agreed to a common government. The performance of the common government would have a lot to do with how attractive it looked to others considering joining. I assume that countries considering joining the EU, like Turkey, evaluate the performance of the existing organization.

"1) The peaceful integration of all the people's of the world may not be possible."

May not be possible, but that leaves open the option that it may be possible. Eliminating poverty worldwide may not be possible, but is still an admirable goal.

"2) Those walls serve a very good purpose."

Good fences make good neighbors, right? True, sometimes, though I like my neighbors just fine and we have no fence between us. Again, Europe has reduced tensions between historical enemies, not be building walls between them to keep each other at bay, but by tearing down walls. You could say that it only applies to Europe where everyone shares a common culture, but I doubt if that argument would have carried much weight, given the history of conflict between European countries,until the post-WWII era, not coincidently when the Common Market and later the EU came into being.

Most common people in the world want to go to work, make a decent living, raise their family, and make the world (or their neighborhood, or state, or country) a little better place. Obviously, too many countries, including our own have powerful forces that do not share the desires of the common people. I think that is part of why the EU has succeeded. While national governments may be reluctant to forego some sovereignty in joining a multinational government, their people see the advantages and push the politicians into it.

Admittedly that does not apply to the same extent to the US and its people where we are so large and powerful with a history of isolationism and going our own way. We are not as accustomed to thinking about the advantages of working with people in other countries to achieve common goals, as a citizens of smaller countries. We tend to prefer unilateral solutions to problems whether it is military action to solve a "national security threat" or economic action like building walls to improve the economic well-being of our workers.

The people of France rejected the EU constitution and perhaps other nations would have rejected it as well had voting continued. The EU sure isn't a grass roots enterprise, it is a top down effort that may or may not work.


Admittedly that does not apply to the same extent to the US and its people where we are so large and powerful with a history of isolationism and going our own way. We are not as accustomed to thinking about the advantages of working with people in other countries to achieve common goals, as a citizens of smaller countries. We tend to prefer unilateral solutions to problems whether it is military action to solve a "national security threat" or economic action like building walls to improve the economic well-being of our workers.


Isolationism? -that is a term thrown around by globalists when actually referring to persons who prefer a non-interventionist policy.

The US has never been isolationist in the sense that we did not trade or have diplomatic ties with the rest of the world. But we had managed to keep our independence by staying out of permanent alliances for our first 150 or so years.

I have to ask -are you in favor fo the Iraq war? It is the Globalist policies of the Neocons that have got us in this mess -not to mention the 800,000 Iraqis that have been killed to further that insane policy. I guess W doesn't have to worry about convincing them that the neocons know what is right for Iraq and the world.


No, we are not a small country and so we have been able to go our own way for much of our history. Independence does sometimes require that we act unilaterally and go our own way at times. I bet the people of the UK wish they had not allowed themselves to get mixed up with the Neocon war -going one's own way at times would seem to be a good policy.

What is the purpose of our current Union but to inprove the lives of the people/workers living here?

What advantage would there be to forming a larger Union for the average US citizen? Sure the multinational corporations would have only one government to contend with in place of three, and they would have access to a large pool of low wage workers, but there is no advantage for the average US worker.

There is however a large gamble that we the people of the United States could maintain any form of control on what such a government might do as it would be beholden to the multinational corporations even more so than our current situation. And the people of such a Union would have less in common with each other than Mexicans currently have with other Mexicans, Canadians with other Canadians, or US citizens with other US citizens. The Colonial powers, er.. multinationals, would simply play off one group against the other as they have always done. The Colonial powers you mentioned earlier were not foolish on their choice of line drawing, they employed the time honored strategy of divide and conquer, and the Multi-nationals will do the same here. When the Canadian wilderness is opended for exploitation of its natural resources who will scream but a few million citizens of the former Canada? Their objections will be drowned out by many tens of millions of workers from the former US and Mexico who will be bribed by the promise of jobs and open land. The same will happen as the multi-nationals do as they please to areas of the former US and Mexico. No one having a strong attachment to the thing known as the NAU, no one would stand up. At the same time there will be money to made in lands that hold no attachment to those who wish to profit from them.

that the countries in the EU all have economies pretty much at the same level.

mexico's economy is FAR below the US economy, as are the income levels, etc.

The economies of Eastern Europe produced only a fraction of the per capita income of those in Western Europe. When Poland and others joined the EU, the fear was that all the plumbers and carpenters in England were going to be Polish. (Here we worry more about farm, construction and factory workers.)

I believe that the Mexican per capita income is about one-fourth that of the US. It would be interesting to see statistics on the comparison between Eastern and Western Europe, before the former joined the EU.

to drive wages down drastically and support corporate greed even more?

I think we know the real answer here.

I don't really want to side with them either.

The problem with a "North American Union" or NAFTA has little to nothing to do with how freepers and racists feel about Mexicans. Most on the left recognize that such trade agreements or blocs are NOT in the best interests of ANY of the poor in all 3 nations that signed onto it. NAFTA was designed to benefit the investors and large corporations, not working people.

The problem with this North American Union talk is that businesses have no interest in "bringing people together", that's against their best interests. What they are interested in is making money off the back of everyone in our 3 nations. This includes destroying what little protections are left in our respective nations, and rolling back worker protections, environmental laws, etc.

The people in the anti-NAFTA and anti-globalization movements understand this, and the fact of the matter is we aren't isolationists, in fact, the opposite is true. Recognizing that Joe Blow has the same interests as Jose is just the beginning. Freepers are just idiots, and don't understand nuance, they are against Unions, yet want protections for themselves, and no one else.

The fact of the matter is that Globalization is good, but only if done to PROTECT workers not to protect businesses. A North American Union could be a good idea, but ONLY if its not something that the Chambers of Commerce wrote up, because we all know it will screw everybody. If a North American Union is to form, it should be done in a way similar to what I propose here, from way back, having a "Super Charged" NAFTA would simply be a disaster.

in a reactionary manner to the position taken by the "other guys." In this case the other guys are all over the map, so it is best to pursue a policy that is consistent with our beliefs, not a reaction to what someone else believes.

I read your post regarding a Multi-lateral agreement with Canada and Mexico and liked it a lot. As you say, it is a very complicated proposal, as is the whole issue, but it is a great step in the right direction of merging the interests of workers and citizens in all three countries. It sure beats building up walls and backing them up with firepower.

I really hate globalization as defined by those who write the policies that we are ultimately subservient to. There is no input allowed from citizens, no oversight by the citizens affected by such policies, and ultimately, its a bad deal all around. The problem is that globalization is implemented from on high onto the little people, when the little people have little choice in the matter.

Interestingly enough, the reaction AGAINST globalization is what is actually bringing people of various nations together, I mean, you had Mexican sharecroppers protesting right next to American steelworkers against the FTAA in Miami! You had Bolivian activists protesting with American and Canadian college students against the WTO in Seattle. You see people of all nations affected that are protesting against the richest 2% of the world and the policies they write for us. When you get an average American Union autoworker bitching about working conditions in Mexico, you know some progress has been made.

I love my country and I want to preserve it.

A common currency, elimination of all trade barriers, etc,. would be a great step forward.

Political integration is not my cup of tea - but there might be some opportunities to improve cross-border laws, for example.

Actually I have no trouble with globalization in principle if the effort is to pull everyone else up instead of pull US down to their level.

When the Chinese compete on a level ground with environmental, labor, and other concerns being equal to our own (which obviously still need to be worked on) then this is a great thing for everyone including, and especially concerning, the workers in the other countries.

Ultimately, globalization will take place and some time, probably in the distant future, there will be a global federation that includes a majority of the countries. But it should be based on true democracy, not the emergence of some corporate mega-state (as is now happening).

here that also mentions the North American Union....
video link
The first three minutes are only audio no video. It's in three parts.
:hi:

I dont know anyone still employed whose company isnt already mostly located in Mexico. I also dont find it hard to locate recent arrivals from Mexico.
With money and manpower traveling freely I believe the conditions of a North American Union already exist. The only thing missing is an official declaration from the government.
This may never come but I think we get the picture.