PRE-SPP SUMMIT CONFERENCE REVEALS TRUE ELITIST MINDSET
PART 2 of 2

 

 

 

Patrick Wood
August 26, 2007
NewsWithViews.com

(Dr. John Fonte presentation, con�t.)

Let�s look at immigration, labor mobility. SPP document states temporary work entry � quote, �The three countries have forwarded a trilateral document setting out each country�s domestic procedures to modify NAFTA�s temporary appendix of professionals, providing a mechanism for more North American professionals to be given temporary entry.� Secretary of Commerce Gutierrez said, quote, �Work must continue to formalize a transnational labor force that could work in any North American country.�

Well, all of this immigration policy, which is not a technical issue, as we have heard. This is absolutely not a technical issue. It�s decided in our constitutional system not by the secretary of commerce in consultation with the Chamber of Commerce and foreign governments � by the Congress of the United States of America. And as we have witnessed recently, in the United States Senate, a bipartisan majority, 37 Republicans, 15 Democrats or so have very different ideas from the Bush administration and from business about what immigration and security policy should and should not consist of.

Now, Ambassador Jones is right, that Congress does listen to the American people. He is also right to suggest that interior enforcement is crucial. However, SPP moves in the opposite direction.

Let me pick a bone with Ambassador Jones, listening to his previous discussion here � labor and mobility. Labor and mobility is a euphemism. That is immigration policy. What are we talking about? The labor mobility � the suggestion in SPP and the others is to continue massive, low-skilled immigration to the United States � Mexico and South � Central America. The Heritage Foundation has suggested over the long term the folks � the low-skilled people would cost about 20,000 a year in terms of what they would require in benefits and what they would pay in taxes. So it would be a cost to the taxpayer.

So in any case, that is an immigration debate. What we have often in SPP, in North American discussion is an end run around an immigration debate. Now, there is intellectual framework, and Mr. Pastor will be talking about this I�m sure for a North American vision.

I want to look briefly at the Council on Foreign Relations� report. No, it�s not technically part of SPP, but it�s certainly part of the intellectual framework, part of the vision. And a lot of the same people are involved. There is two permanent things here that I want to talk about. One is a trade � the trade tribunal and the other is the promotion of North American identity.

Let me just � before we get to that, let me just discuss the whole question of a trading � of trading block. Is that what we really, really want? In a way, having the world divided into different trading blocks is a negative on free trade to an extent.

Then if we were looking for partners, there are other partners suggested. My colleague John O�Sullivan has talked about an Anglosphere, closer trade relations between the English-speaking peoples, the United States, Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and India. Get India out of the Asian bloc and into an Anglosphere bloc.

I mean, there are other ways of looking at trading blocs. We�re going to have a trading bloc. Is North America the strongest way of doing it with Mexico and Central America perhaps being a drag as opposed to having something with an Anglosphere where we can include India? That is just another way that � I don�t think they have clearly thought this through.

Let�s look at what has been suggested by the North American � I�m sorry, by the Council on Foreign Relations to establish � they recommended establishing a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution because the current ad-hoc panels are not capable of building institutional memories or establish precedence. As demonstrated, quote, �by the WTO appeals process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage, faster, more consistent, more predictable resolution disputes.� Well, that is exactly the problem. The structure of the World Trade Organization is different from the GATT, the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs.

It�s more transnational and less international. Cornell University professor Jeremy Rabkin, a lot of you know, writes that the appellate of the World Trade Organiza�tion should be taken seriously as a threat to sovereignty. Rabkin � why? Why is that the case? Well, Rabkin says the AB of the WTO, the appellate body, could build a body of case law from the international treaties the United States did not sign, as standards for setting trade disputes.

It�s already building a constituency of transnational actors, not just global corporation but � (inaudible) � activist NGOs that could in large measure, through courts, bypass the legislative decision-making process of the democratic nation states. Indeed, this is exactly what happened in the European nation states. Look at the writing of Alec Sweet Stone, a British expert, generally favorable to the EU, but he describes the history of what happened in Europe over a 20-year period. The European Court of Justice established a body of independent case law, became the arbiter not just of trade but of social policy, and gradually, step by step, achieved dominance over democratically elected European parliaments. That is the history of the last 40 years in Europe.

The Council of Foreign Relations report, �Building American � North American Community� also recommends building North American identity. It says, quote, �encourage � we should encourage in imaginative ways to build North American connections, have research institutes, engage in new concepts such as the North American community, developing curricula that would permit citizens of our three countries to look at each other in the past in different ways.

Now, for those of us who have spent years examining history curricula, the subtext of this is clear enough. This is historical revisionism. Let�s rewrite the history of American history not as a story of the American people but as a story of North America. The Council on Foreign Relations also recommends, quote, �developing training programs for elementary and secondary teachers who would give some students a greater sense of North American identity.�

Again, these are code words that are clear enough: translation, promoting new North American identity that will challenge the allegedly outmoded conceptions of ?American, Canadian, or Mexican identity.

Another CFR recommendation: greater effort should be made to recruit Mexican language teachers to teach Spanish in the United States and Canada. Well, on the contrary, most Americans would like to see greater efforts at assisting immigrants learn English. The CFR recommendation is in direct conflict with U.S. national interests and our traditional policy of Americanizing newcomers into the mainstream of American civic life by promoting the U.S. of the English language. This is a direct challenge to the goal of assimilation.

Well, there is a lack of popular support. The leaders of the SPP project admit such, that their vision of North America doesn�t quite have the popular support now. Notes from the Banff meeting (of the North American Forum) state the following: quote, �Most people are not compelled � they don�t find the North American integration vision compelling, so there is a need to demonstrate the concept�s success.� Another SPP document declare, while a vision of an integrated North America is appealing, working on the infrastructure might yield more benefit and bring more people on board: evolution by stealth, evolution by stealth indeed.

One could ask why government funds are used for propaganda purposes to promote North American integration, which is simply one vision of North America. They are others, and this is a particular partisan vision � it�s a particular, let�s say, elite vision. There is no wonder that many members of Congress and the general public are suspicious of the project.

In conclusion, I would say to my friends who are promoting this particular vision, you guys need to go back to square one, get congressional authorization, and come up with some more modest goals focused on cooperation and sovereignty � cooperation among three sovereign nations that are issues are mutual concern, and not the type of extended integration that is not supported by the three publics in any of these countries at the present time or probably I would imagine ever.

Thank you.

Download the entire conference transcript

As you can plainly see, all academics are not in lock-step with the globalist vision, as the elite might have you believe. There is not general consensus!

If you take the time to preview the video of the Hudson Institute conference, you can watch the expressions and the body language of the participants: most were stunned (but undaunted) after Fonte's presentation.

All of the elite protesting that the SPP, the North American Union (or Community) and the NAFTA Super Corridor are baseless urban myths is an insult to anyone's intellect.

Rep. Duncan Hunter's amendment (H.R. 3074) to the Transportation Appropriations Act "prohibiting the use of federal funds for participation in working groups under the Security and Prosperity Partnership, including the creation of the NAFTA Super Highway" passed the house on July 24, 2007 by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority of 362-63!

If 85 percent of our Congress are indeed given over to chasing baseless urban myths, then we have a problem much greater than just North American integration!

Not. For part one click below.

Click here for part -----> 1,

� 2007 Patrick Wood - All Rights Reserved