Urban legend of `North American Union' feeds on xenophobic fears

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

WASHINGTON — Forget the conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, the black helicopters, Sept. 11 or any others. This is the big one — as big, in fact, as the entire continent.

We're talking about the secret plan to build a superhighway, a giant 10- to 12-lane production, from the Yucatan to the Yukon, with an immigration and trade center in Missouri. This "SuperCorridor" is to allow the really big part of the plan to take place: the merging of the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico. Say goodbye to the dollar, and maybe even the English language.

The rumor is sweeping the Internet, radio and magazines, spread by bloggers, broadcasters and writers who cite the "proof" in the writings of a respected American University professor, in a task force put together by the ultra-establishment Council on Foreign Relations and in the workings of the U.S. Commerce Department.

As do many modern rumors, the fears of a North American Union begin with a few grains of truth and leap to an unsubstantiated conclusion.

"Nobody is proposing a North American Union," says Robert A. Pastor, a professor at American University in Washington to whom conspiracy theorists point as "the father of the NAU." They cite his 2001 book, Towards a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New, as the basic text for the plan. They also point to his co-chairmanship of a Council on Foreign Relations task force that produced a report in 2005 on cooperation among the three countries.

This is no backwoods rumor, no small-time concern. Google "North American Union" on the Internet and you'll find 85,600,000 references (as of Tuesday evening). When a Commerce Department official appeared on a C-SPAN show recently, most callers asked about the North American Union.

Pastor says fears of Mexicans and Canadians taking over the country are a product of "the xenophobic or frightened right wing of America that is afraid of immigration and globalization."

Not that he doesn't think cooperation — short of a merger — is a good idea. He's testified before Congress on improving coordination within North America.

Writing in the current edition of Range magazine, Tom Findley explains: "Under the plan, more than 500 million people are meant to be literally incorporated into the North American Union as early as 2010. They are expected to share natural resources, military defense and a universal system of education that will alter long-held values, customs and traditions and even change their languages. Law enforcement, health care and cultural activities as well as virtually all trade will be financed with the new currency of the North Americans: the 'Amero.' "

The evidence? The article doesn't say.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headli...on/4811226.html

[Otto 83]

Edited May 18, 2007 by Karin und Otto

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We already have trade union with Canada and Mexico. Why not have a North American Union, much like the EU?

[Alex+R 0]

We already have trade union with Canada and Mexico. Why not have a North American Union, much like the EU?

Steven, didn't you see the above cartoon? The Canadians will take away our democratic ideals.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We already have trade union with Canada and Mexico. Why not have a North American Union, much like the EU?

Steven, didn't you see the above cartoon? The Canadians will take away our democratic ideals.

I think it's inevitable (a union of some sorts beyond just trade). Those who fear it will realize they were merely being fraidy cats.

[peejay 327]

We already have trade union with Canada and Mexico. Why not have a North American Union, much like the EU?

Steven, didn't you see the above cartoon? The Canadians will take away our democratic ideals.

I wouldn't agree to it unless we (the USA) dissolved their governments and we were running the show.

We already have trade union with Canada and Mexico. Why not have a North American Union, much like the EU?

Steven, didn't you see the above cartoon? The Canadians will take away our democratic ideals.

I think it's inevitable (a union of some sorts beyond just trade). Those who fear it will realize they were merely being fraidy cats.

What? It's Corporate America / Big Business' wet dream! They'd cream in their drawers at the prospect of converting to the lowest common denominator. Guess who that be???

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Steven, didn't you see the above cartoon? The Canadians will take away our democratic ideals.

I wouldn't agree to it unless we (the USA) dissolved their governments and we were running the show.

Yeah, like THAT is ever going to happen! Manifest Destiny isn't new - its been a part of the American dream since the Revolution - and that is all it is ever going to be - a dream as long as it is the US who wants to run things. Now, if you guys decided to be sensible and agree to let Canada run things, we can talk.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I think it's inevitable

What I fear is that the issue is going to become an emotional one. On one hand, we have the people who "feel" that we should be united because the Europeans are and because, well, it'll be all warm n fuzzy. On the other hand, we have the people who "fear" unification because, well, Mexicans are ok to work our gardens and our highways but not to be anything more ... and Canadians? HA! What a joke (contempt).

What's missing, or at least I have not seen it, is an objective analysis of what we actually have to gain or lose from unification. And by objective I mean in quantifiable terms.

[MissStacey 1]

We already have trade union with Canada and Mexico. Why not have a North American Union, much like the EU?

Steven, didn't you see the above cartoon? The Canadians will take away our democratic ideals.

No poutine for you!

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We already have trade union with Canada and Mexico. Why not have a North American Union, much like the EU?

Steven, didn't you see the above cartoon? The Canadians will take away our democratic ideals.

I wouldn't agree to it unless we (the USA) dissolved their governments and we were running the show.

Seeing that Mexico and Canada combined don't have half the US population, they clearly must submit to our will.

[dalegg 143]

We already have trade union with Canada and Mexico. Why not have a North American Union, much like the EU?

Steven, didn't you see the above cartoon? The Canadians will take away our democratic ideals.

I wouldn't agree to it unless we (the USA) dissolved their governments and we were running the show.

Seeing that Mexico and Canada combined don't have half the US population, they clearly must submit to our will.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think it's inevitable

What I fear is that the issue is going to become an emotional one. On one hand, we have the people who "feel" that we should be united because the Europeans are and because, well, it'll be all warm n fuzzy. On the other hand, we have the people who "fear" unification because, well, Mexicans are ok to work our gardens and our highways but not to be anything more ... and Canadians? HA! What a joke (contempt).

What's missing, or at least I have not seen it, is an objective analysis of what we actually have to gain or lose from unification. And by objective I mean in quantifiable terms.

Well said, but I honestly am not coming from an emotionally charged point-of-view. To me, it makes pragmatic sense - provided, that is well thought out and structered.

Peejay says it's a corporate wet dream....well, sh!t - we already have US companies opening up shop just south of the border to avoid our environmental and labor laws. If we're going to have open trade with US and Mexico, we should even the playing field - in terms of making sure all players are playing by the same rules.

[Portlander 0]

I think it's inevitable

What I fear is that the issue is going to become an emotional one. On one hand, we have the people who "feel" that we should be united because the Europeans are and because, well, it'll be all warm n fuzzy. On the other hand, we have the people who "fear" unification because, well, Mexicans are ok to work our gardens and our highways but not to be anything more ... and Canadians? HA! What a joke (contempt).

What's missing, or at least I have not seen it, is an objective analysis of what we actually have to gain or lose from unification. And by objective I mean in quantifiable terms.

Well said, but I honestly am not coming from an emotionally charged point-of-view. To me, it makes pragmatic sense - provided, that is well thought out and structered.

Peejay says it's a corporate wet dream....well, sh!t - we already have US companies opening up shop just south of the border to avoid our environmental and labor laws. If we're going to have open trade with US and Mexico, we should even the playing field - in terms of making sure all players are playing by the same rules.

That cartoon is shocking! More shocking because you know that there are lots of people for whom it resonates!

I'm of 2 minds re: EU/NAU/ETC

First, the larger the sphere of government, the greater the power it has, and the greater the tendency for the abuse of that power. It just becomes a bigger and juicier plum for some corrupt SOB to pluck - sooner or later. The US started off like that, and slowly the Fed has been absorbing powers it constitutionally should not have. The very same concern shared by the Founding Fathers.

However, I am all for FAIR trade laws - not fee trade. The fundamental idea of the EU is great in that if countries share common, self adopted standards then they can open their borders. But when you open up your borders with Columbia, who has a problem with private millitias violently depressing workers wages (such as the kind Chiquita Banana uses to get those cheap prices... don't buy the "devil made me do it defense" - Chiquita used to be United Fruit!) then you have a very very unfair system. Its not good for anyone's economies because on the one hand you have a mass job loss, and on the other you have increased abuse.

But, if you have a system by which the central government is merely a accreditation board - certifying that the standards and laws are on the books and actually being enforce, then - and only then! - free trade is a fabulous idea.

A unified currency is just a matter of time. Seperate currencies cause more economic problems than anything else - and currency spectulation in particular lends instability to an economy. The only way to prevent it without having bad side effects is just to have a single currency.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think it's inevitable

What I fear is that the issue is going to become an emotional one. On one hand, we have the people who "feel" that we should be united because the Europeans are and because, well, it'll be all warm n fuzzy. On the other hand, we have the people who "fear" unification because, well, Mexicans are ok to work our gardens and our highways but not to be anything more ... and Canadians? HA! What a joke (contempt).

What's missing, or at least I have not seen it, is an objective analysis of what we actually have to gain or lose from unification. And by objective I mean in quantifiable terms.

Well said, but I honestly am not coming from an emotionally charged point-of-view. To me, it makes pragmatic sense - provided, that is well thought out and structered.

Peejay says it's a corporate wet dream....well, sh!t - we already have US companies opening up shop just south of the border to avoid our environmental and labor laws. If we're going to have open trade with US and Mexico, we should even the playing field - in terms of making sure all players are playing by the same rules.

That cartoon is shocking! More shocking because you know that there are lots of people for whom it resonates!

I'm of 2 minds re: EU/NAU/ETC

First, the larger the sphere of government, the greater the power it has, and the greater the tendency for the abuse of that power. It just becomes a bigger and juicier plum for some corrupt SOB to pluck - sooner or later. The US started off like that, and slowly the Fed has been absorbing powers it constitutionally should not have. The very same concern shared by the Founding Fathers.

However, I am all for FAIR trade laws - not fee trade. The fundamental idea of the EU is great in that if countries share common, self adopted standards then they can open their borders. But when you open up your borders with Columbia, who has a problem with private millitias violently depressing workers wages (such as the kind Chiquita Banana uses to get those cheap prices... don't buy the "devil made me do it defense" - Chiquita used to be United Fruit!) then you have a very very unfair system. Its not good for anyone's economies because on the one hand you have a mass job loss, and on the other you have increased abuse.

But, if you have a system by which the central government is merely a accreditation board - certifying that the standards and laws are on the books and actually being enforce, then - and only then! - free trade is a fabulous idea.

A unified currency is just a matter of time. Seperate currencies cause more economic problems than anything else - and currency spectulation in particular lends instability to an economy. The only way to prevent it without having bad side effects is just to have a single currency.

Right now we have the WTO - not exactly a beacon of democracy. NAFTA was drafted without all the player's voices heard. A North American Union would not vaporize each nation's overall sovereignty, but would establish a governing body for which all interactions between the US, Canada and Mexico are under its jurisdiction. Where it would not go is into the governing of a nation in matters that are exclusive to that nation (national defense, education, healthcare, etc.).

[homesick_american 1]

This one is even dumber than the progesterex rumor.

http://www.snopes.com/medical/drugs/progesterex.asp