Rep. Tancredo speaks out against North American Union

arbilad · Head Chef

Rep. Tancredo speaks out against North American Union

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Oh yeah, it's just Evil Bush... like this would ever be a real consideration or like the US citizenry would ever allow it... like the french canadians in Quebec would ever allow it (they want to be independent of Canada as it is)...

What has this guy been smokin'?

arbilad · Head Chef

Cat Herder wrote:

Oh yeah, it's just Evil Bush... like this would ever be a real consideration or like the US citizenry would ever allow it... like the french canadians in Quebec would ever allow it (they want to be independent of Canada as it is)...

What has this guy been smokin'?

Is that your whole rebuttal, to just dismiss it out of hand? You do realize that there is a very real possibility that Rep. Tancredo will be one of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, and that he's very popular (he has a book that's been selling very well, titled "In Mortal Danger"). You might want to address the specific points he makes, rather than use ad absurdum arguments.

And if Bush is doing what Tancredo says he's doing, is that not evil? And if he's not, do you not think it's easier to shatter the basis of that assertion (for instance, the points Tancredo makes) than to ridicule the conclusion?

Also, I would challenge your assertion that the people of the US would never let it happen. If they sink far enough into sin, they would. And look at how hard it is for the people to get together on any issue. For instance, the majority support traditional marriage, and amendments have passed overwhelmingly in almost all states they have been introduced in. But there's a snowball's chance in heck of a federal amendment ever passing. And that is, arguably, the most important moral issue of our time.

Moreover, many of the pieces are already in place for what Tancredo is talking about. The SPP is an actual organization that is setting up intergovernmental bureaucracies for integration of trade, security, and border policies between the three nations. That much is fact. Do you not see a potential for abuse here?

Please, let's have a discussion on the particulars, not just a dismissal out of hand. If you have a knock out argument, that can simply and easily disprove this, I'd like to hear it. I want to believe that we're not headed towards integration. But just dismissing the evidence is not going to help me sleep better.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Tancredo is blowing the issue out of proportion. I agree that the citizens of this country won't let it happen any time soon and efforts made Bush are not pushing us in that direction fast. It benefits North America to have greater cooperation in trade and security and doesn't move us to being a Union.

Even if the long-term goal was to unite Canada, the US and Mexico what would be wrong with that? What a difference it would make with border issues. There is no way it would ever happen anytime soon under current conditions so there is nothing to fear. There are too many differences and too much opposition.

Look at the EU and how long it has taken to get them where they are. They have run into greater opposition as they try to more closely integrate. We are not even remotely close to getting to that point. Someday it may be necessary to become closer to our neighbors in order to compete economically with other regions in the world, namely China and the EU. It might also be beneficial for security purposes.

The deal to collaborate on a wide range of trade and security issues is part of a larger plot to merge the countries in a European Union-like arrangement using a common currency, he said, with no oversight from legislators.

That statement is laughable. Plot, what plot? What evidence is there of a plot? How is a deal to collaborate on a wide range of trade and security issues a plot? And, how would it exist without oversight from legislators? And what efforts show that would be the result? This guy is pulling things out of the air. He is anti-globalization. He is an isolationist. He's using his rhetoric to create un-needed fear.

Border security has tightened, not loosened with Canada and Mexico. You now have to have a passport to go into either country or to enter ours from either country.

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 12:20, 2006-11-28

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

arbilad wrote:

Is that your whole rebuttal, to just dismiss it out of hand?

Yep. That's my story and I'm stickin' too it...

You do realize that there is a very real possibility that Rep. Tancredo will be one of the candidates for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008, and that he's very popular (he has a book that's been selling very well, titled "In Mortal Danger"). You might want to address the specific points he makes, rather than use ad absurdum arguments.

I've never heard of him before, therefore, he can't be all that popular (I mean anyone who is anyone is known by me, and if they aren't, well then they aren't anyone popular ). I do not feel he makes specific points (at least in the article, you are assuming we all know the particulars you are referring to... like the SPP), so since I feel they themselves are ad absurdum, I am justified in rebutting with ad absurdum.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

I do not feel he makes specific points...

I agree with that. He mostly makes baseless accusations. Plots and secret plans...oh, my!

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 12:25, 2006-11-28

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Tancredo's part of the problem...

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

Tancredo's part of the problem...

--Ray

Care to quantify that statement, Ray? I think he's bringing important issues to our attention.

And it's very bad to unite, even bureaucratically, the three countries, because then we've lost our sovereignty and control over our own destiny. If any lawmaker we vote in can be overruled by this "american union", what's the difference between that and a dictatorship? That's already frequently happening in the European Union; the laws of the individual countries are subservient to the laws of the European Union, and can be overruled by them. Where would our guarantees of freedom be, then, if we copied that system?

Plus, the Mexican government is extremely corrupt. They've taken one of the countries richest in natural resources, and turned it into a very poor country economically. I don't want to integrate with that, thank you very much.

And I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the american people would stop such a unification. I just don't see the political will. Heck, even after a direct attack on us with 9/11, the people united politically for only a very short while. Please demonstrate how exactly the american people would recognize the problem, how they would unite together to stop it, and what specifically they would do to stop it.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

Arbilad, I am sorry that your contributions in this thread have been met with so much derision.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I think tancredo is an extremist who takes the worst possible interpretation to cooperation with our political neighbors.

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

I think tancredo is an extremist who takes the worst possible interpretation to cooperation with our political neighbors.

Or he is giving an important message which, however, makes people uncomfortable and they thus ignore it.
Throughout history there have been two groups in civilizations which many have considered extreme, those who are very complacent and those who are trying to raise an alarm. Both groups are sometimes right, and seldom has one group been all right or all wrong. The complacent people are unhappy with the alarmists because they see them as rocking the boat when there is no need, thus creating trouble when there is none. The alarmists are unhappy with the complacent people because they see nothing wrong, and therefore do nothing about the threat that the alarmists perceive.
The horrible part is that, since both groups are occassionally right, they typically believe themselves to always be right. Even though the church is strong and on the right path, for instance, there are those who believe it to be on the wrong path and are frustrated with those of us who are happy with the direction of the church. Those of us who are happy with the direction of the church are upset at those apostates who are demanding that we change. They have no reason to do this, they have no basis, and it is annoying. On the other hand, we have the citizens of Germany who, 70 years ago, let Hitler rise to power because he was good for the economy and promised to make them powerful again. They ignored things such as the concentration camps, telling themselves that their government was generally good. They were too complacent.
Anyway, all this has been my long way of coming to my point. If Tancredo is right, then it is necessary for him to be raising the alarm. If he is wrong, he is one of a string of countless rabble rousers that have, for whatever reason, tried to upset the complacency of the people. But you cannot judge his message only by the fact that it makes you uncomfortable. It would make you uncomfortable whether he was right or wrong. You must judge his message by the merits of it, and then decide if you're dismissing an uncomfortable truth, or dismissing a whacko.
I think his message has a lot of merit. Bush hasn't defended the border. He has taken concrete steps towards the integration of the US, Canada, and Mexico. In my opinion, there is a lot to be alarmed about.

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

For the record, Hitler and the Nazis did not rise to power because they were good for the economy... they rose to power because they "promised" to be good for the economy and promise to restore Germany's pre-WWI honor and glory and to fight against communism. They received sufficient votes to be considered a fringe party that was courted by the large parties to join their coalition to form a government. As concession to entice them to join, their party chief (Hitler) was given the position of deputy chancellor. Through a series of mini-conspiracy plottings (including some initiated civil disrest and strategic assasinations) they were able to wrest control of the government, and then under spurrious reasons declare martial law, thus suspending the law of the Weimar Republic's constitution. Most Germans did not really know about the concentration camps until much later, well after the war was underway and they were close to losing. Most of the concentration camps were not even in Germany. Most of the concentration camps that were in Germany were work camps where the deaths were only a fraction numerically compared to the slaughter that occured at the extermination death camps. The death camps were located in Poland.

If any president is going to be accused of trying to create a North American Union, then it should lay squarely on Bill Clinton with his NAFTA treaty. I simply fail to see how George W. Bush has moved this integration on. There have been no facts presented yet in this thread to support the assertion. Not even anecdotal evidence has been presented.

arbilad · Head Chef

There have been no facts presented yet in this thread to support the assertion. Not even anecdotal evidence has been presented.

Now that's not true in the slightest. Facts have been presented. You may not agree that they mean what I think they mean, but they are facts nonetheless. For instance, the existence of the SPP is a fact. Check out spp.gov if you doubt that. That Bush has not defended the border is a fact. I don't even think there is any debate about that. The only debate I've heard is whether we need to protect the border or not. Those are at least two facts that I have presented (I don't have a moment to check through the thread for the rest of them at this time). They are incontrovertably facts. You lower the quality of the discussion when you claim that no facts have been presented.
Let me present another fact: Bush pushed through CAFTA, an expansion of NAFTA. He used up a great deal of political capital to do it. It wasn't just that he approved of the legislation or was vaguely supportive. He was pushing as hard as a president can push for the legislation to get passed. That is another fact. You can check news stories of the time.
So yes, Cat, facts have been presented. I can present more. But given that you ignored the ones I have presented, can I have any hope that you will pay attention to any others I can present?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

No need to get testy. I'm not trying to lower the standard of discussion, but to actually have some concise talking points -- aka "facts" -- so that we can go beyond the typical "conspiracy vs. wacko" approach to this sort of topic.

You guys are always telling me to be succinct (probably rightly so on more than one occasion ), but in this thread so far, the only thing that I can ferret out as a legitimate bulleted talking point thus far presented is this SPP entity thing, and then marginally NAFTA / CAFTA, and less than marginally on border control.

That is why my initial response was the "blah blah". Please, don't assume we all are familiar with the things you follow. In all honesty, I have never heard of Rep. Tancredo until you started this thread. Funny as it sounds, a US Representative from Colorado doesn't get much press time in the backyard of people like Carl or Sander Levin, Debbie Stabenaw, or Joe Knollenberg.

So, start us out on this SPP. What is it? Give us some data sources to refer to.

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Having read a lot on the SPP website, I find nothing to fear. Cooperation on trade and security is not leading us straight to unification. I am afraid Tancredo is crying wolf and should a serious issue arise that truly warrants our concern no one will pay attention.

I'm not for any form of unification that takes away our freedoms nor do I think most are. I'm not a fan of the UN for the reason that our values and freedoms differ from many countries and the UN would want us to compromise our freedoms and sovereignty for the sake of unity - something we should never do. The same goes for any localized unification - we should never compromise our freedoms.

However, I'm for greater cooperation in trade and security. A better regional economy will benefit the US and improve relations. Sometimes we lose a little in the beginning initially (like in some jobs) but the long term gains are what we are aiming for. A stronger economy in Mexico means fewer illegals coming to the US and the more that stay in Mexico, work and live there, more will vote and participate in the governance of that country. We will need a strong regional economy as other countries strengthen their economic might - namely China, India and perhaps the EU.

We can't be isolationists in trade and security as Tancredo, Pat Buchanan and others would like us to be. World economies are tied too closely together. If we don't work with our neighbors than another country or countries will.

-- Edited by TitusTodd at 11:27, 2006-12-04

TitusTodd · Senior Member

Here is some rebuttal on the dreaded North American Union Conspiracy. This site includes standard rebuttal information repeated at other sites and by other people. There is a whole lot more out there warning against the North American Union but they repeat the same information with little proof. The same website includes this information on Tancredo. Supposedly Tancredo has been misquoted or taken out of context.