Jerome Corsi, one of the authors of ""Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry", is reporting that George Bush is secretly working to create a North American Union. Basically, this removes the border between the US, Mexico, and Canada.

Obviously, this is speculation. However, this story seems to be getting legs and I've heard this claim before on the internets. Bush's immigration policy and coziness with Vincente Fox would certainly fall in line with this premise. However, that is not evidence of this supposed "plan".

Questions for debate:

1. Would forming a North American Union to replace the USA be a good idea?
2. Can George Bush advance this agenda without approval by Congress?

The quick answer to both questions is no.

What may be of more importance is to ask if Corsi's fears of this happening are justified. Let's look at the report from the "left-of-center" Council on Foreign Relations which is referenced by his article.

Link (PDF file)



I've scanned through this report, and it has a lot of proposals that could be debated one by one. (In fact the report itself contains dissenting opinions.) Overall, it seems to be suggesting more co-operation among the three nations of North America, particularly in matters relating to security and economics.

This seems to be more of a disagreement between isolationist conservatism and internationalist conservatism than anything else.

You realize, of course, that that's exactly how the European Union itself got started as well. It began as the European Economic Community, based very much on the model being proposed here for North America. And none of its supporters were foolish enough to advertise it as any kind of political union like the one that exists now. In fact, they often vehemently denied that any such plan was in the works. Instead was all the sweet-sounding talk about free markets and respecting each other's sovereignty and all the other platitudes that this report is infused with.

It's inevitable that a "community" like this would grow into an actual governing body like Europe's. You can't have complete free flow of capital, labor, and services, without there being increasingly loud demands for an overarching authority to set and implement common rules for it all. The people pushing this plan understand that principle quite well.

Let me get this straight: this guy is forwarding the idea that George Bush is following the blueprint laid out by the Council on Foreign Relations to set up a North American Union? And his evidence is that Bush won't enforce border security?

Wouldn't that mean that Bush was carrying forward the ideas of Bill Clinton (who signed onto NAFTA)? Or would he be following the footsteps of his father (who negotiated much of NAFTA)?

Is the motivation economic (free trade) or is it political (New World Order)?

If that isn't the flimsiest excuse for a conspiracy theory, I'd like to hear a thinner one.

1. Would forming a North American Union to replace the USA be a good idea?

Out with the old, I say!! After all, Canada and Mexico are two of the biggest repositories of oil in the world!

Kidding aside, I don't see the advantage for the United States in pursuing this. Mexico would be the problematic portion of it (annex Canada, I say!). Mexico has a much lower standard of living than the US as well as an entrenched corrupt political machine that would be hard to blend with our own system.

2. Can George Bush advance this agenda without approval by Congress?

NAFTA was a treaty. Treaties are ratified by the Senate. Any agreement which undermines the current three branch system would require Senate approval at a minimum and a Constitutional Amendment in all likelihood.

NAFTA was not ratified as a treaty. It was simply an act of Congress, passed by a simple majority in both houses. This was done as an end-run around the requirements for a treaty, because its backers knew there was no way they were going to get the 2/3 Senate majority necessary for ratification. Ditto for CAFTA, ditto for the WTO agreement.

And it very much appears that these agreements do undermine the current three branch system, by setting up international commissions whose decisions are to be regarded as binding and final.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to answer the questions without bias after reading this?


I don’t have time to read all 70 pages of the CFR report, but I think Corsi’s doing a chicken little dance. I share his concern for border security but he’s plucking sections of the report that are most likely to raise alarm like the one above. If Human Events was a liberal rag conservatives would call Corsi out for his bias. I could counter his examples with the following:


It’s called framing.

However, after skimming the report I hazard I wouldn’t approve half of the recommendations, such as the three governments providing grants and scholarships to universities in each country because the EU provides funding for language and international studies in foreign countries, including the U.S. Nor did I warm up to the idea of a customs union.

The first CFR quote in my post is found on page 32. Read pages 31 and 32 and you realize that the segment deals with security, not commerce or politics. Just above that section you’ll find:


I don’t disagree with the concept behind the report; faster, secure processing of people with legitimate visas and cooperation in risk assessment and management and law enforcement cooperation between the three countries. I have a problem with the report’s recommendations for achieving these goals.

The report avoids mentioning who should harmonize their visa and asylum regulations. Mexico’s laws regarding both are horrid. Nor do I think harmonizing entry screening and tracking procedures is a practical idea until Mexico gets serious about border patrol on its own. Mexico either doesn’t have the infrastructure and manpower comparable to our own or it lacks the political will to prop them up and get them running. In either case, I can see the American taxpayer funding Mexico’s end of the bargain and progress towards a secure border without self-directed initiative is precarious progress. Too much carrot, not enough stick.

Would forming a North American Union to replace the USA be a good idea?
In two words, hell no.

Can George Bush advance this agenda without approval by Congress?
Which agenda, this kook’s conspiracy theory or Bush’s idea of illegal immigration “reform”? Corsi is too fringe to affect the current establishment and his usefulness to the GOP ran its course after the election. In spite of this I hope his exaggerations strike a nerve. A flimsy hope that the Hagel-Martinez Act will get bogged down in the House is better than no hope. Soft-serve racism may now be the only thing that can stop that awful piece of legislation at this point. Depressing.

You say that like it's a bad thing. That's what our "journalists" should be doing, alerting the people to dangers on the horizon. What's the point of quoting empty rhetoric about "respecting each other's sovereignty", when there's some serious stuff in there that needs to be exposed and confronted?

1. Would forming a North American Union to replace the USA be a good idea?

It all depends on what the trade union has jurisdiction over. Initially the plan was as Victoria Silverwolf had said focusing primarily on border security and economic red tape. The original intent was to build on the Free Trade Agreement and expand it throughout the hemisphere in much the same manner as the EU block. Also note the asian countries are moving ahead with this concept as well and I would say are a couple years ahead in the planning stages. If the trade union stopped here I would give it my support. My material matches that of Victoria Silverwolf (link)

Created a Canada-U.S.-Mexico task force headed by former Liberal Deputy Prime Minister John Manley which is devising a plan to establish a continent-wide customs union with a common approach to trade, energy, immigration, law enforcement and security that would virtually eliminate existing national borders.

Unfortunately Northcom came along and centralized the command structure. (link) To Americans, this was pitched as "border security". To Canadians, this wasn't pitched at all except for a few op-ed articles pertaining to "deep integration".

A lot of Canadian concern stems from the adoption of the National Security Strategies ('02 and '06 versions) and the participation of them without the peoples' knowledge or consent. Even the earliest, most benign iteration weakens the existing sovereignty by focusing on profit rather than public interest. While I cannot comment on Mexican public opinion, I can say these documents have not enjoyed much support outside the military in Canada. This blog aptly sums it up. The fear is a North American Trade Union is simply a vehicle for full spectrum dominance.

2. Can George Bush advance this agenda without approval by Congress?

For Mr. Bush to succeed he needs the participation of all three parties. Where the public comes in is anyone's guess.

On a more conspiratorial note, should an amalgamation of military policies occur under the guise of economic or security reform we'll have a really dire situation. An example issue for deep integration has been the missile defense program. (link)

From missile defense other projects like Space Command 2020 vision and the weaponization of space creep forth leaving people to wonder how much of this 'security' is needed in a post 9/11 world. I find it unusual both programs emphasize full spectrum dominance under defense. This is not an isolated slogan but rather a highly interventionist ideal that permeates both military and economic policy which is then pressured onto other countries. [1], [2]. Time will tell how far these measures are carried out and if there is anything to be worried about.

No. Each country has its own culture and are molding their governments to meet their needs. It would lead to free travel between the countries and add to the ever growing racial stances in the countries already.
There would be many benefits, but there would be too many disagreements of the handling of the Union. A large part of all of our countries agendas, policies, and laws are contradicting, and if they stay intact for each region (our modern three countries), then there will still be separate 'countries'.
I believe a strong trade and economic plan would benefit the countries more.....


No. Like they have said in elementary schools, all plans need to be balanced out and agreed upon between the three branches of the government. If Congress finds it to be a bad idea they'll show it through vote, if it is unconstitutional then the Supreme Court will act. Pres. Bush is only one man, though he has plenty of power, the real power of the Country is within the combined thoughts of a majority of the government.