posted
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?
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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...
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Uh, FG, do you think most people in the US would like this, even with it being under Bush's direction?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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 Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But the question is -- is this something that could be implemented slowly WITHOUT any voting/input from the people?
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 .
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Sorry THT. ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
