Since my post entitled "Will The USA Get Swallowed Up In A North American Union?" published back on May 23rd, 2006, continued progress towards the apparent unification of the United States, Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union has generated a slowly-building firestorm of outrage that not even a flat denial by Presidential Press Secretary Tony Snow has been able to douse. Most Americans, except possibly Mexican immigrants, are far more apprehensive about the inclusion of Mexico than Canada. And the outrage has crossed the Great Political Divide from the conservative camp into the liberal camp. Many posters on the liberal Randi Rhodes Forum have expressed apprehension over such a union, albeit more out of concern over economic justice rather than American political sovereignty. Adding more fuel is the refusal of the Department of Commerce to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Congressman Tom Tancredo for more information.
Today (July 20th, 2006), World Net Daily reports that Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Management, Integration and Oversight of the House Committee on Homeland Security, wrote to Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez on July 11th requesting detailed disclosure of working groups in the Security and Prosperity Partnership office within his department.
Referring to an attached letter from a constituent, Rogers wrote to Gutierrez: "Judging by information contained in this letter, a number of legitimate concerns are raised regarding the implementation and operation of the SPP, including the membership and charge of its working groups; potential memoranda of understanding with foreign countries; and whether there has been any Congressional oversight of these working group, to name a few".
Rogers concluded by asking Gutierrez for a prompt review of the issues and for a response "as soon as possible."
The attached constituent letter was written by Eunie Smith, president of Eagle Forum of Alabama and by Bob Couch. They posed the following questions to Rogers:
1). What is the membership of the 30 SPP working groups?
2). What is the charge/working agenda of each of the 30 SPP working groups?
3). Please provide to me any trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements with Mexico and Canada.
4). Please provide findings, reports and presentations of the working groups.
5). Under what congressional action are these working groups constituted?
6). What congressional oversight is there of this process?
7). Are the working groups redefining American laws to make them tri-lateral?
8). What specific plans are there for reporting to Congress?
The constituents' letter also suggested four lines of inquiry should congressional hearings be convened to examine SPP working group activities:
1). Is the sovereignty of the United States threatened since it has been reported that a North American court and a parliamentary body are being proposed, complete with the "Amero" to replace the U.S. dollar?
2). Wouldn't an "outer security perimeter" remove the capacity of policing our borders from the hands of United States citizens?
3). Isn't "harmonizing entry screening and visa and asylum regulations" code for a quantum leap in liberalizing our country's immigration laws?
4). What about the May 2005 CFR Task Force documents calling for a "seamless North American market" and for "the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico" and for a "permanent tribunal for North American dispute regulation," as well as calling for allowing Mexican trucks "unlimited access" to the U.S.
The constituents' letter also attached a copy of a July 2005 article by Eagle Forum founder Phyllis Schlafly entitled, "The Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada." Schlafly was one of the first analysts and commentators to question the purpose of SPP. In her article, she wrote that the Council on Foreign Relations task force report entitled "Building a North American Community" let the "cat out of the bag about what's really behind our trade agreements and security partnerships with the other North American countries." Schlafly argued the CFR task force report "spells out a five-year plan for the 'establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community' with a common 'outer security perimeter.'" She commented as follows:
This CFR document, called "Building a North American Community," asserts that George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin 'committed their governments' to this goal when they met at Bush's ranch and at Waco, Texas on March 23, 2005. The three adopted the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and assigned "working groups" to fill in the details.
Rogers' letter to Gutierrez supports a demand for information made last month by Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo.
Commentary: A couple of other issues also fuel the fires of continued speculation over this possible North American Union.
1). The stubborn insistence of the President and the United States Senate on de facto amnesty for illegals, disguised as a "guest worker" program, as well as an absolute refusal to consider any reduction in legal immigration. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed in the Senate by a margin of 62-36, which both Alaskan Senators voted for, would actually provide amnesty for illegal immigrants, double the amount of "chain" migration, increase the number of "refugee" women, double legal immigration, allow the continuation of "anchor babies", and increase the percentage of foreign-born residents to an unprecedented 18%. Senator John McCain (pictured at left), considered a possible "Republican" Presidential candidate in 2008, is a particularly notorious supporter of a guest worker program, which perhaps explains in part why 4 out of 10 Republicans consider him absolutely unacceptable as a Presidential candidate as reported by Newsmax.com today. If the Administration didn't have a secret agenda for America, why are they and the U.S. Senate so resistant to genuine immigration reform?
2). Quietly but systematically, the Bush Administration is advancing the plan to build a huge NAFTA Super Highway (illustration at left), four football-fields-wide, through the heart of the U.S. along Interstate 35, from the Mexican border at Laredo, Texas, to the Canadian border north of Duluth, Minnesota. Once complete, the new road will allow containers from the Far East to enter the United States through the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas, bypassing the Longshoreman’s Union in the process. The Mexican trucks, without the involvement of the Teamsters Union, will drive on what will be the nation’s most modern highway straight into the heart of America. The Mexican trucks will cross the border in FAST lanes, checked only electronically by the new “SENTRI” system. The first customs stop will be a Mexican customs office in Kansas City, their new Smart Port complex, a facility being built for Mexico at a cost of $3 million to the U.S. taxpayers in Kansas City (that's right, folks, more taxpayer-funded corporate welfare for Mexico). This story originally posted on National Vanguard. I might add that the Mexican trucks won't be up to U.S. safety standards, and most of the Mexican drivers will be paid much less than American counterparts and many will be less-trained.
The failure of the Department of Commerce to respond to Congressman Tancredo's FOIA request should be considered contempt of Congress. If Commerce doesn't respond soon, Tancredo should subpoena the Secretary of Commerce.
Tags: politics , race , brrreeeport , immigration , Congress