Very soon, the US, Mexico, and Canada will be one single country, the NAU

[Bill]

Big meeting coming up, to finalize the agreements for the North American Union. They're building that giant 1/4 mile wide mega-highway to unite trade for all three countries already, using the changes in eminent domain law to take the property they need.

I gather this article is about what the canucks think about the big meeting and the NAU.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6346

"The purpose of the upcoming conference is to ratify the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, which was initiated by Bush, Martin and Fox in 2005 in Waco, Texas. Essentially, this so-called ‘partnership’ will result in what the politicians refer to as ‘continental integration’-newspeak for a North American Union- and basically a harmonization of 100’s of regulations, policies and laws.

In layman’s terms, it means that once this ‘partnership’ has been ratified which is a fait accompli; we will be following in the footsteps of the European Union. It will mean that Canada will become part of the North American Union by 2010, and that our resources, agricultural, health and environment issues, to name a few, will be controlled not by Canada, but by the government of the North American Union.

A huge ‘NAFTA’ highway, one quarter of a mile wide, is already being built in Texas, where private land is being expropriated, and will eventually reach the Manitoba border.

Water will be the ‘issue’ of this century, as more than 25 states in the U.S. are currently in desperate need. Where do you think they will get the water they need?

The United States is already guaranteed 60% of our natural gas resources from NAFTA, which mean that even during emergencies when we need energy, we will have to import it, while we are forced to export gas to the U.S. This is just one example of how Canada is being shortchanged, and it’s only going to get worse.

Why has there been absolutely NO public consultation on the biggest issue (North American Union) facing Canadians since Confederation?"

[Southern Man]

I think the solution for the Mexico Problem is to put up two rows of razor wire at the border 400 years apart with a free fire zone in between. Put up signs every 100 feet on the southern side that says do not enter under penalty of death, in english and spanish.

[Bill]

Unfortunately, your masters and handlers seem to disagree.

I wonder why that is?

Oh, right, they manipulate your fear and hatred for their own profit as a matter of policy - silly me, I forgot.

Good luck with your razor wire thing - too bad about that big highway, and all them mexican trucks.

[Southern Man]

What makes you think I have "fear and hatred"? And of what?

[Bill]

Oh, right, excuse me, I forgot again, in your culture razor wire and killzones are a symbol of the open heart and innocent mind.

I hear you folks give each other razor bouqets for valentines day. And you got a good killzone at every barbeque.

[Southern Man]

Actually I believe we are a soverighn nation and should defend our borders. So far no one has been able to implement a reasonable solution, or argue against mine.

So who exactly are you referring to with "you folks"?

[Bill]

"You folks" is neocons, natch.

About the fences deal - talk to your bosses, they the ones that are signing the NAU agreements.

I don't much care either way. Killzone, no killzone, it ain't my issue.

Free trade, now, that's hurting the middle class pretty bad, so, a NAU controlled by the corporations seems like a bad deal for americans.

[Moby]

Protecting the border is always so simple. Elect government officials that have documented that they want the illegals to enter the country freely. Then encourage corporations to offer these people money. Then let's set traps up to shoot at them. That should work great.

You can't chum in most fresh water lakes. It's illegal to use salt licks for deer hunting on public lands but it's OK to bate humans and then shoot them.

[Linkster]

Unfortunately the argument that we should put up a fence (or even guard our borders) is a flawed idea since so much of our southern border is indefensible - the US gave much of the land back to the Indian tribes as part of the treatys with them - hundreds of miles - which puts it in their sovereign nation - not the US's.
This is why the talk among politicians is so funny to listen to (as well as the idiot commentators and "experts" they get on the news networks) as they obviously dont know it is an impossibility to build a fence (or they are ignoring it)
The treatys with the Indian reservations allow the land covered by the laws to be border-fee as the Indian reservations actually include land in the US and Mexico and the Indians can travel unencumbered across that "border" anytime they please by US law - and the US Government cannot place any check-points on their land

It would be a lot easier (comparitively) to simply enforce the laws that are already on the books and have been for years which forbid the crossing of the parts of the border controlled by the US and make it illegal - but the US government doesnt want to take the time or the money to do that - they just need a good story to talk about for political reasons

[Southern Man]

"You folks" is neocons, natch.

About the fences deal - talk to your bosses, they the ones that are signing the NAU agreements.

I don't much care either way. Killzone, no killzone, it ain't my issue.

Free trade, now, that's hurting the middle class pretty bad, so, a NAU controlled by the corporations seems like a bad deal for americans.

OIC so in your world I am a neocon. Sorry, but I didn't get that memo. Do you instantly label everyone that you meet?

Perhaps you could explain to me why free trade could hurt anyone, except for corporations selling goods for more that their competition.

[Southern Man]

Unfortunately the argument that we should put up a fence (or even guard our borders) is a flawed idea since so much of our southern border is indefensible - the US gave much of the land back to the Indian tribes as part of the treatys with them - hundreds of miles - which puts it in their sovereign nation - not the US's.
This is why the talk among politicians is so funny to listen to (as well as the idiot commentators and "experts" they get on the news networks) as they obviously dont know it is an impossibility to build a fence (or they are ignoring it)
The treatys with the Indian reservations allow the land covered by the laws to be border-fee as the Indian reservations actually include land in the US and Mexico and the Indians can travel unencumbered across that "border" anytime they please by US law - and the US Government cannot place any check-points on their land

It would be a lot easier (comparitively) to simply enforce the laws that are already on the books and have been for years which forbid the crossing of the parts of the border controlled by the US and make it illegal - but the US government doesnt want to take the time or the money to do that - they just need a good story to talk about for political reasons

Interesting tidbit as I was not aware of that. Why not pay the indians to enforce ther portion of the border?

[Linkster]

Mainly because you could never get congress to agree to that - we would have to rewrite a bunch of treaties and authorize money to be given to them as a "foreign government" and most Americans probably wouldnt support their congressmen doing that

[Southern Man]

I'm not really up on my Indain law, but my understanding is that The feds consider them part of the US, not soveriegn nations as many wish to think of themselves. Therefore te feds could give them the money in exchange for a service just like they do for any entity. If a specific budget item needs to be authorized then so be it. Its not a stumbling block to border security.

[Linkster]

The law is clear on some tribes - others gave over their "nation" status - but most are considered sovereign nations (foreign nations described in the constitution) and there are actually federal laws that prevent the indian police from having any jurisdiction except with their own tribal citizens - in other words if an outsider (or even a non American) commits a crime on indian lands, the US Attorney is the law enforcement

[Southern Man]

It should be a simple matter to resolve regardless. Worst case scenario would be to enforce the border outside of the indian land.