Okay -- I didn't follow all the details of previous immigration debate threads, because it isn't something near and dear to my heart. But I was hearing yesterday about the North American Task Force and their recommendations and wondered if anyone else has posted anything about this before.
Apparently this task force (which brings together United States, Mexico and Canada) has made recommendations on Capitol Hill that by the year 2010, we basically have "open borders" with Canada and Mexico -- and have a mutual security boundary around the perimeter of all three nations. Kind of like the European Union in theory. Make it so you can move from Mexico to U.S. to Canada as easily as you can cross from Kansas to Nebraska, but the outside perimeters of those countries then become our defensive borders.
I have never in my life heard of this proposal before. I already knew from data that we (U.S.) have drastically cut back on enforcement of illegal immigration (work place raids, etc.). But I didn't know there might be powers-to-be at work that actually want to make us somehow a "North American Community" yet try to remain soverign.
A link to info about the Task Force proposal is - HERE and at the bottom of that page, they have a link to the pdf which is the entire report.
I have real mixed feeling about this -- while I understood why Europe wanted to consolidate under EU because they were each small and have more power as a union -- I don't see how this proposal would benefit the U.S. at all. How could we reconcile the philosophy of democracy in the U.S. with the socialism in Canada and the drug cartel powers in Mexico?
Anyone have any opinions?
Farmgirl
[ June 23, 2005, 10:16 AM: Message edited by: Farmgirl ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is socialism not democratic, Farmgirl? I'm reasonably sure the Canadians voted democratically to be socialist.
That said, NAFTA has already raised this particular question. It's a bit late to put the genie back in the bottle, or move all the factories back north.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Historical inevitability.
Then again, I wouldn't join any club that would have me as a member
-Bok
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, Tom, I can actually see Canada (especially western Canada, which feels more divided from Quebec) merging with U.S. fairly easily. I don't really have a problem with that.
I'm just wondering how long all three would maintain sovereignty.
I'm not really OPPOSED to this -- but not really FOR it either. I guess, if nothing else, OSC's Shadow series made me realize how globally things are always changing and merging and morphing into something different.
FG
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
This isn't really about the political situation - it's about the labor market. You'd still be a citizen of whichever country you belonged to - you could simply live and work in a different country. From the economic standpoint, there's nothing to lose and a lot to gain (in the long term). It's similar to capital flows: you want to have open borders to capital flows throughout the world, so that if a country has little capital but high potential in its different industries (like China) money can flow to it from countries that have less potential but plenty of capital (US and West Europe). Likewise, you want to have the labor "flow" to where it is most needed. If there is a factory job in Idaho that a Mexican worker is willing to take for half the wage that an American worker wants, why shouldn't the Mexican have the job? Yes, it may "steal" a job away from an American, but that American almost certainly has a higher education level than the Mexican worker - there are other jobs out there that are better suited to his skills, jobs that require a higher education (or he can retrain). Plus, now all of the widgets that that factory produces are cheaper for EVERYONE to buy.
Theoretically, we'd all be a lot better off if there were not barriers of any kind restricting trade, labor, or capital. That's true in the long-term. In the short-term, there needs to be institutions set up to allow that American factory worker to retrain for a new job, and we can't have open borders with everyone - it'd be too much all at once. But it's still a good idea, if implemented correctly. For every guy who loses his job there will be a lot of people who get a product cheaper and can therefore raise their standard of living.
As far as the security portion of the proposel is concerned - well, it'd free up a lot of people and resources that are now trying to keep our borders secure. I think it would be useful - we're fighting a losing battle in a lot of places on the southern border.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Two words, folks: Manifest Destiny. Won't be long, won't be long now...
"Eurasia has always been at war with North America. Always."
--j_k
Posted by Jay (Member # 5786) on :
Goodie….. socialism. They thought they were doing something good with communism too.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Yes, it may "steal" a job away from an American, but that American almost certainly has a higher education level than the Mexican worker - there are other jobs out there that are better suited to his skills, jobs that require a higher education (or he can retrain).
Sadly, this has become accepted gospel but is in fact remarkably untrue. A country peopled entirely by service workers, middle managers, inventors, and entertainers is ultimately not self-supporting.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I'm reading the full pdf of the NATF report and I'm amazed at how complex and complete it is -- from recommending all students get full immersion in learning ALL THREE languages (English, Spanish, French) to expanding NORAD defense. (the full text of the report, if you wish to read all 59 pages, is HERE.
I have no doubt that this is economically driven. However, I think they will "sell" it to the American people by using a 'national security' emphasis -- saying this is needed to keep America safe.
FG
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I really wonder what else we can sell that way.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, it worked for Peter in Shadow of the Giant Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If this came to a referendum, I would probably vote "no". I don't see any need to have 'defensive borders' around Canada at this present moment. I don't feel like being open-bordered with a very much larger and more powerful country that doesn't share many of the Canadian beliefs and ideals is a good thing at all.
quote: Well, Tom, I can actually see Canada merging with U.S. fairly easily. I don't really have a problem with that.
I'm sure that very little in America would change. It would be Mexico and Canada that would have to make any changes. Mexico and Canada, being on the outside, would be the buffer zones. It looks okay from the American viewpoint but I find a lot of America a very frightening place (no offense to its people, that's just my honest opinion) that I wouldn't want to spill across into what I consider, yes, a better place for me to live. I like having a border between me and America. Frankly, I feel safer with that line there than I would wrapped up in a bubble with America.
quote: and have a mutual security boundary round the perimeter of all three nations.
Do the American people really feel so threatened? And if they do, do they really want to involve Canada and Mexico in their feelings? If we do this our immigration/entry policies will be forced to be the same. Do we really want to amalgamate soley because we are afraid? Is the future boxing yourself away or is it trying to make peace. Because just because we strengthen our borders doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to disappear.
I also feel like this will not solve what I consider to be the American problems right now. Free movement would allow people to segregate themselves even more than they already do. Labour would become centralized around particular areas. Americans need to become more intune with the world, their neighbours and themselves.
In a hundred years, when America has sorted itself out into a place where I would feel comfortable living, I might say "okay". Until then I do not feel like this policy would benefit anyone.
EDIT: If indeed it is economically driven then America should say it is economically driven. Having the American government lying to its people consistantly worries me and I'm sure worries America. How do I know, as a Canadian, that even the economic explanation is truth? Wouldn't America love to have a little extra bit of oil-drilling land? Wouldn't they love to have access to our abundant water? our extensive forests?
Why does anyone think this is a good idea?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
I wonder about the long-term stability of out-sourced jobs to Mexico under this one North America plan. If each citizen can move to where the jobs are, what would keep a large influx of Americans or Canadians from moving to Mexico and monopolizing their cheap labor options?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:rom recommending all students get full immersion in learning ALL THREE languages (English, Spanish, French)
I would be all in favor of that acually. I wish I knew both those languages. If the average american knew spanish, french, and english, I bet they would all merge someday into one language. Then it would surely become the defacto common language of the world, or at least of everything but asia.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
*disbelief*
from the report...
quote:Canada is committed to efficient energy markets, open investment, and free trade in this sector. Canada’s vast oilsands, once a high-cost experimental means of extracting oil, now provide a viable new source of energy that is attracting a steady stream of multibillion dollar investments, and interest from countries such as China, and they have catapulted Canada into second place in the world in terms of proved oil reserves. Production from oilsands fields is projected to reach 2 million barrels per day by 2010. The most serious constraints on additional growth are the limited supply of skilled people and the shortage of infrastructure, including housing, transportation links, and pipeline capacity. Another constraint is regulatory approval processes that can slow down both resource and infrastructure development significantly.
Mexico is also a major energy supplier and customer within North America. In 2004, it was the second-largest exporter of oil to the United States; in previous years, it was consistently among the top four suppliers. Mexico relies for a significant share of its revenues on the state oil producer (Pemex). It has major oil and gas reserves, but these are relatively untapped. Development has been hampered by constitutional restrictions on ownership, which are driven by an understandable desire to see this strategic asset used for the benefit of Mexicans. This restriction on investment, coupled with the inefficient management of the state monopoly, Pemex, has contributed to low productivity. As a result, Mexico has expensive and unreliable supplies of energy for its consumers and industries. Mexico has begun to bring in some foreign capital through multiple service contracts, but the most serious constraints on its future growth as an energy supplier are the restrictions that impede development of its own energy resources and the low productivity of Pemex. Reforms in this area are needed urgently.
(emphasis mine)
*sigh*
FG
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
What would Mexico have to lose by becoming (essentially) another state in the Union? I ask this with no knowledge at all of their GDP, GNP, internal conflicts, governmental system, etc...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
So... basically it's about oil. That's so sad. That's so very sad.
EDIT: Basically, it's saying "Neither Mexico nor Canada has the brains or skills to properly exploit their oil fields so we need to open the borders so we can get as much as we can out of their reserves."
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:What would Mexico have to lose by becoming (essentially) another state in the Union? I ask this with no knowledge at all of their GDP, GNP, internal conflicts, governmental system, etc...
Don't ask an American, ask a Mexican.
What would America lose by becoming another Canadian province or a part of Mexico?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
Teshi, I was hoping that a Mexican would answer, as opposed to an angry Canadian...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Sorry THT.
I'm not so much angry as... well, I suppose I am a bit angry. I just feel like the outside countries are getting a little shunted. Supposing a Mexican doesn't answer, I wanted to turn it around for you. Obviously I cannot answer but I can imagine what a Mexican might feel.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well, before you guys say the Canadians or the Mexicans won't like this, like you think U.S. is pushing this -- realize that this all came about under the direction of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and U.S. President Bush at their trilateral summit in Texas during March.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Uh, FG, do you think most people in the US would like this, even with it being under Bush's direction?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I don't think most of the people of the U.S. will like this -- no matter WHO is President and under whose direction it is. Wouldn't even matter if it was a Republican or Democratic leadership. Most will oppose (as most oppose all change). I'm trying to keep an open mind myself, but I can see this being an extremely hard sell to the American people, who have a strong sense of national identity.
FG
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Just because my Prime Minister (or anyone) comes up with any idea, it doesn't mean it makes it something I agree with, or even consider right. If I come up with an idea, it doesn't make it good or right. I've had lots of hair-brained ideas in my short time.
I understand it's not just the American Government but I feel that the American Government would get the most out of it and the people of Canada, Mexico, and even America would be put in a position they wouldn't particularly be happy in.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Actually, I think the Mexican people would get the most out of the deal.
I don't see any immediate benefit to Canada whatsoever.
FG
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Exactly, FG. In the same way that Martin or Fox being for it wouldn't necessarily matter much to Canadians or Mexicans on the whole.
Especially as the US has made it quite clear its not giving up any sovereignty to any international body -- so any such union would have either no sovereign power or be under US hegemony.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I don't see any immediate benefit to Canada whatsoever.
Well, their currency might become more valuable... Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
...there's always the healthcare issue...
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Especially as the US has made it quite clear its not giving up any sovereignty to any international body -- so any such union would have either no sovereign power or be under US hegemony.
This is the track that I would see it taking.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The whole speaking french part is a poison pill to me.
Spanish is fine. Everything is beautiful in spanish and I think everyone should speak it. (maybe then I'd speak it better ::sigh:
I also wouldn't want the large number of new socialist voters. More taxes is always a bad thing.
And I'm not sure our economy could handle annexing Mexico in one big chunk, even with all the oil.
Back in the 80s we were all worried about Germany kicking our economic butts.... Then the Berlin wall fell and Germany united and they had to absorb a population that had been living under communism for a coupla generations and who worries about Germany's economic power now?
Further, this would be yet another step toward making the world one big country. And when the world is one big country and the government gets corrupt, wacky and evil (as governments always do) THERE WILL BE NO WHERE TO RUN.
A United North America *sounds* wonderful, but the devil is in the details.
Pix
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote: Yes, it may "steal" a job away from an American, but that American almost certainly has a higher education level than the Mexican worker - there are other jobs out there that are better suited to his skills, jobs that require a higher education (or he can retrain).
Sadly, this has become accepted gospel but is in fact remarkably untrue. A country peopled entirely by service workers, middle managers, inventors, and entertainers is ultimately not self-supporting.
Actually Tom, it IS true. All the economic literature - both theoretical and emperical - supports the idea that giving up factory jobs in exchange for software development and other jobs requiring high education is benificial for all involved. It starts at the very basic idea of comparative advantage and builds from there. If you're referring in some way to the current account deficit that the US is facing - well, that's a seperate problem, although related. Silicon Valley has remarkably few traditional factories of any kind, and yet, even after the bubble's burst, it's still a very rich area.
I'd be willing to give links supporting my post, but not until this evening - I'm very behind in my research on FDI Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Jhai -- unless you have at least some people performing menial tasks, nothing menial will be done. Unless you have at least some people farming, no farming will be done. Note the "entirely".
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
This would be nearly impossible to pass in the US, where the latent xenophobia would rear its ugly head.
-Bok
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
But the question is -- is this something that could be implemented slowly WITHOUT any voting/input from the people?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, without voting, yes.
People give input on nearly everything, though. Doesn't mean its listened to.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
Pixie, there will be somewhere to run. To Mars!
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Jhai, a couple of questions ... first, where are all these magical, empty education-intensive jobs going to come from? I mean, if there WAS a higher-paid job available for that American factory worker, don't you think he'd already be doing it?
Second, do you really want to live in a country where "the Mexicans" do all the menial labor while "the Americans" live high on the hog?
Oh, wait, crap, we might already be there ...
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
You know, I just think in so many ways a United North America just wouldn't work. The more I think of it the more I'm imagining chaos, even more than my initial reaction!
quote: The whole speaking french part is a poison pill to me.
I'm just good-naturedly curious... why is French so different from Spanish?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
That said, though, while uber-laissez-faire opinions annoy me, the other side annoys me just about as much. Short-term job losses and some shifting around of the social order is tough to go through, but if it works for the long-term prosperity of all the countries involved, then go for it Of course, not being an economist, I'm not in a position to tell if this plan WOULD lead to long-term prosperity ...
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:why is French so different from Spanish?
1. More letters, fewer of them pronounced. 2. Growling instead of rolling R's.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
There is nothering like the gutteral french growl? Maybe you just talk to a lot of angry french people?
That said, much as Martin may have pushed for this, he'll never get domestic support for it. In large part because people are so mad at the liberals they're going to look at anything they present in an unfavorable light, and also because so many Canadians are starting to think that maybe NAFTA wasn't such a good idea after all. Well, not for Canada, anyway. Lastly, there are Canadians who want to see more distance between our two countries.
Add those three camps up and I'm pretty sure you have an easy majority against this idea.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Oh wow, Pixiest, you don't like the French, eh? Well, roll out the suprise wagon! I never had any clue that you little Miss "I follow the party line" would ever hate the French without real reason.
As a person with French family, I think your objection to the French language of all things is incredibly stupid. I can understand if you don't like French politics, but don't bag on the language. It just makes you look like this guy.
Enjoy your Freedom Toast in the morning.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"All the economic literature - both theoretical and emperical - supports the idea that giving up factory jobs in exchange for software development and other jobs requiring high education is benificial for all involved."
Except that education is a sunk cost. And the labor market is not infinitely flexible.
And -- and this is a well-kept secret -- innovation is not particularly hard. If we keep outsourcing the production and development of our "innovations," what we wind up doing is teaching other countries how to make those innovations, and eventually how to innovate, themselves.
Check out Japan and China as object lessons of this principle.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
French is a gorgeous language and Canadian French such has a lovely accent.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
If that is indeed the case, and I was not attacking you Pixie, I just couldn't think why French should be so different... but if that is the case, please recall that Quebec really has as much connection to France as does the United States to England!
quote:Canadian French such has a lovely accent.
You think so? I'm not so fond of it .
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The main impediment to open borders is the significantly lower average standard of living in Mexico. It would lead to massive immigration to the U.S., and to the serious depopulation of Mexico. At the very least, we should not have open borders with Mexico, until all the Mexicans learn to speak English.
There would be political or social problems with Canada concerning health care and their willingness to approve same sex marriages while the U.S. is strongly opposed to them, but the standards of living of the two countries are similar. Most importantly, Canada and the U.S. speak the same language (approximately).
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: At the very least, we should not have open borders with Mexico, until all the Mexicans learn to speak English.
Well, that's definately NOT in the plan, and I also don't think that would be fair to them, if they are trying to maintain some type of cultural soverignty.
quote:Create a major scholarship fund for undergraduate and graduate students to study in the other North American countries and to learn the region’s three languages. For many students, study abroad is possible only with financial assistance, but many scholarships, including the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE), which has supported scholarships to and from all three North American countries, have been reduced or halted. Cross-border educational study within North America by Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans should expand to reflect the degree of our commercial exchanges. To illustrate the scale of this proposal, it would lead to some 60,000 Mexican students studying in the United States and Canada, and comparable numbers of Canadian and American students studying in another North American country. We urge that state, provincial, and federal governments begin funding such scholarships now. One possible approach would be to expand existing Fulbright programs. The scholarships should include “language immersion” courses in each of the three countries, in Spanish, French, and English, and should encourage students to study in all three countries.
This is from the proposal
FG
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
It would actually be nice to have French spread around a bit more widely in North America. Then Quebec couldn't afford to be so obnoxious.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
And it really is a beautiful language. I've actually grown much more fond of it now that I'm no longer surrounded by it 24/7. All this English is getting on my nerves.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Absence makes the heart grow fonder .
I don't mind the 'moving students around more' bit.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Good, then six years of French between high school and college would finally come in handy for something other than family reunions.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
I'm with David on the French and Quebec thing...but then, I'm a sucker for languages
In regards to the whole concept of a united North America, NAFTA is abused enough, last thing we need is to create more opportunities for this sort of abuse (such as trying to use our powergrid and run powerlines that are illegally large in the States through my city, plus filling our valley with far more smog for the sake of another powerplant and money for just south of the line...)
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
I do wish Quebecois was more wide-spread. I wish I could speak it, myself.
quote:At the very least, we should not have open borders with Mexico, until all the Mexicans learn to speak English.
That attitude is exactly why this will never go. We tried that, up here, and we got Quebec. And now we are paying for it. If we'd just been accepting right from the Plains of Abraham, we probably wouldn't be worried about sovereignty referendums, and Lucien Bouchard would have had to find work as, say, a circus clown.
These territories are diverse. The melting-pot approach just won't work. It's arrogant. And it's just such a matter-of-fact, unthinking arrogance, it's worse. Nobody deserves to be treated like that. Howsabout before the US can merge with mexico, all of her inhabitants learn to speak Spanish. And before they merge with Canada, everyone learn Quebecois French.
The assumption of Anglo superiority on the North American continent is just so wrong, and so offensive.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Teshi and Primal: I've never liked the sound of French long before I had a reason to dislike the country. I'm not toeing the party line as I don't think the libertarian party has an opinion on France.
French is uglier than German and has spelling that's even more broken than English. It works well in "The Nightmare Before Christmas" soundtrack but that's about it. It was fun learning how to make their strange R sound but it's not a pretty sound. And that's what's fun about languages to me. Making the sounds.
I don't eat "freedom fries" I call them "French fries" or just "fries" like anyone else. I don't take a political position with my artery clogging side dishes.
In short, loathing the sound of an irregular romance language does not imply a political agenda.
I DO dislike France, obviously, but I don't dislike their language because I don't like the country. If anything, my distaste for their language strengthens my distaste for France.
Pix
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: These territories are diverse. The melting-pot approach just won't work.
However, the European Union brings together several countries that have different languages and cultures. So how would this be different than that scenario? (I'm not try to defend it - only discuss the feasibility and probability of it)
FG
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Europe is full of countries that, although they vary in size and strength considerably have numerous balancing factors.
First, that there are many of them- many weak, many strong, many in the middle. There is no one, dominant group that is the most powerful in population, economy and culture.
Second, the European countries are tiny. They do not have the massive amounts of resources or economic strength that the three countries in this proposal have. If they band together, they can create a strong economic bond that the U.S. and Canada, for example, can maintain alone simply from sheer size.
Thirdly, these countries have been living (or not living) with each other for hundreds, thousands of years. Yes, the French and the Italians make snide remarks. Yes, Spain is more conservative than Scandinavia, but there's so many variables and so much history that, when it all comes down to it they're remarkably similar. They're all in it together and have been for eons.
Fourthly, the melting pot does not exist or work anywhere. The European Union is not melting anyone down to be the same, it is fitting them together like a jigsaw puzzle. America has long been a subscriber to the melting pot theory, but in reality the cultures retained, or fighting to be retained are just as strong as in Canada, which hasn't done the melting-pot thing for years. You cannot squish people's cultures together however much you say its possible. They are distinct; as they live together, they share things, they become closer.
Um, I think that's all.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Sorry THT. ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)