It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Lets Debate the North American Union!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:32 AM
Pro: Mexico would provide a massive cheap labor force. Canada would provide massive untapped natural resources. The USA would provide the Corporate base that could bring these too together and add massive economic might to the world economy.

Con: We would have to write a new NAU constitution, that might not have the individual freedoms we now have. This constitution IMO would be biased toward the Corporation more than the person.

North American Union Good? or Bad?

What say You?

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:45 AM
I think you bring up so good points here.

The "pro's" that you mention are right on. Hell, half of Mexico is already in this country.

I'm sure you've heard the buzz about the Amreo currency thing, right. It sounds to me like it's ready to go, all printed and minted. Rumors to be sure, but maybe..just maybe it true.

The "con's". Well there are con's in everything are there not. The new constitution is something that we'll have to get used to. When you really get down to it, aren't living under a "new" constitution now already?

At this point and time, I'd say the I'm for it

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 11:54 AM
More Pro: If you added the GDP of both Canada and Mexico to the USA we would have the largest GDP on Earth, currently The European Union has the highest. We also could compete economically with the EU.

More Con: There is not enough public information about this possibility, it seems most of the details are being worked out in secret, this is not good for us citizens, to many unanswered questions. Nationalism could spark civil war or at least civil unrest.

List of countries by GDP (nominal)

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:02 PM
reply to post by LDragonFire

As long as we get to keep our own politics, like the EU, it might be tolerable. I do worry that the US will not bring as much to the table as Canada and Mexico. What do they really have that we really want? They do have a huge consumer base, but as a Canadian, that is a downside to me since we would get more out of it selling goods to them at market value.

I have a hard time really justifying to myself why Canada needs this. There are plenty of countries around the world that would gladly take what we have and pay more for it than the US currently is. I think the US needs this alot more than we do.

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:22 PM
con: the super duper highway they are building has already begun here in and around my area (started quite a few years ago) and seems to be an ENDLESS problem w/ our traffic and the ever changing landscape. i have lived here all of my life and easily get lost now due the the constant changes. (so anyone telling you this isn't happening is lying)

con: the NAFTA superhighway will also be wiping out small towns that have significance to some of us here in tx. ppl that own land in certain places (my sis in law and her husband who bought their 54 acres are already being pressured to sell this place that they had bought to retire on, for the further construction of this highway) are being pressured to sell out now while the $$ is DECENT (not great, mind you) or the pressure gets pushed up and the $$ goes down. (THAT'S not the american way.. must be the NAU's way and i don't like it)

con: there are enormous differences among what we here in america, those who live in canada, and of course the ppl in mexico think constitutes a decent society that belittles what they have or may have to deal w/ in the EU. (we are suffering major effects of this difference here where the mexicans are running when they illegally cross that border. my family, for one, has been dealing w/ the effects of an illegal taken advantage of the system and using it against a particular member and there was nothing we could do, although we tried and are still trying).

con: their will be four different languages. i don't see this one coming to a peaceful resolution. (i mean, come on here... if they were really intent on keeping us "seperate" still, why the amero for all of us?) i am already being required to speak spanish for many of the jobs around here that just 7 yrs ago i qualified for based on my skills.

con: Mexico doesn’t have either the means or the will right now to take the steps that would bring its economy more into line with its northern neighbors’. so, i guess this is where the country i reside in and the one north of me will have to pick up its slack?

MAJOR CON: we, the citizens, never even had a say so. that doesn't bode well for sure as far as our constitutional rights........... we can kiss those goodbye WHILE finding yet another use for duct tape ~ taping our mouths closed.

PRO: we are one more step to it all just finally coming to a 'head' so to speak.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by justamomma]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by justamomma]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by justamomma]

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:36 PM
Pro: the NAU would make for a powerful military and economic force to be reconned with

Con: the US constitution goes bye bye

Con: the sovereign rights of American citizens will disappear

Con: we will all be forced to prop up the Mexican economy which is light years behind America and Canada

Con: there will be an influx of millions of starving thrid worlders into our back yards that will make the current illegal invasion seem like a joke

Con: this will reign in the new world order, which will effectively end America as we know it

Con: the right to bear arms will be a thing of distant memory

Con: the whole concept goes against what any loyal American / Canadian / Mexican would want for their individual countries

Con: it will give our new "leadership" the ability to re-write the laws to fit their own greedy agenda

Con: no one has the authority to do any of these things, per the American constitution, therefore making it an illegal act of war against the American people

Con: I like being an American and aim to keep it that way

Thank's for coming out

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 12:58 PM
The only benefit I can see is an economic one...

And if we work together in a way similar to NAFTA, but with real free trade rather than government-regulated trade, we'll have the positive effects while eliminating nearly all of the fear around any sort of political union.

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:04 PM
I actually had this very topic in the recent debate tourney here on ATS. Take a look, there is some pretty good info in there.

NAU Debate

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by Johnmike
The only benefit I can see is an economic one...

And if we work together in a way similar to NAFTA, but with real free trade rather than government-regulated trade, we'll have the positive effects while eliminating nearly all of the fear around any sort of political union.

in your personal opinion, do you think the latter is really possible? if so, how? what are the solutions to the problems ppl forsee as listed above?

or does it work only when we keep our mouths shut? we'll see, bc since they are doing this behind closed doors w/out much concern to what our views on the situation are, in a sense, our mouths are closed.

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:15 PM
reply to post by BlackOps719

I have yet to hear anything that would suggest that this would take the 3 countries and make them into 1. You would still be an American, I would still be a Canadian, you would still have all your rights that are in the constitution. It is more for economics and trade than anything else. It is to leverage the total GDP from all 3 countries.

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 01:41 PM
The debate regarding the North American Union, can't include me unless it covers some very specific points.

1 - What is 'wrong' with the Constitutional Republic as it now stands? The form and function of the government is already a "union" of states. Why would we want to ditch this and adopt a different set of masters? The national entity that is the United States is a sovereign state - with self-determinism at it's core. We are responsible for the laws, and the law specifically mandates that the government cannot dole out these rights. They are self evident and not free to barter in the name of governance, or political expediency.

2 - Will we subject the nation to a completely foreign set of commercial and corporate interests without any recourse or right to redress? Currently that is the state of the EU, and soon the SAU will find that their laws and privileges will be 'regulated' by an unelected body of representatives. Are we to walk into this relationship with Canada and Mexico and simply forgo any notion of state's rights?

3 - Who is the leadership of this union? Who is the executive body that will determine policy? Will they accept responsibility for their actions and the outcome of their enterprises? Will the citizens retain the right to sue for redress?

As of this moment, I am of the opinion that the NAU (and all the other Unions) are a pseudonym for corporate governance. Its about a commercially driven enterprise to control wealth and power by those who have already achieved wealth and power. The plan serves the corporate citizenry. There is no real protection from abuse by the leadership - who will relax public safety controls for the benefit of profiteering interests. It will restrict liability for those wantonly exploiting people and or the environment.

But worst of all it will forever define a narrow class of 'elite' leadership which will be sourced through an already established cadre of loosely affiliated cabals of intelligencia elite. We will then clearly be a nation of employee/consumers - having to rely on the government for access to every thing we need to survive and achieve the 'pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.'

When corporations run the world, everything is for sale and the only way you can get what you want is to go through them. Your money comes from them, your purchases come from them, as long as you offer profit to them, you have value.

How they have attempted to make this come to pass is as telling as the reality of what they want. Secrecy, disinformation, back-room deals, and no input from us. Sorry, no sale.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Maxmars]

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 02:35 PM
This is another step closer to total UN control. I disagreed with nafta too. We really need to stop bringing in all our products from China. This whole idea of global competiveness is alot of of bunk. We need to start producing and buying product on our own soil. It's been said many times but it's true. Unfortunatly people's personal economies drive this demand for cheap foreign products as they want ever increasing wages to compensate for their worthless dollars and so on.
So is the answer to set up a new central bank and a new currency and then continue till we say hey we should form this union with this country.
No lets keep our sovereign countries just the way they are, and implement changes in the way we do buisness that insure our countries economic health.

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 06:24 PM
I've heard a lot about the NAU idea, but it doesn't exactly seem to have a lot of (or any) public support. There's a lot of talk on here about it, and I am sure there is some fire causing all the smoke here, but I have yet to see any real action towards such a goal.

Personally, I think centralization of political power is a bad idea in general.

We do plenty of trade with Canada and Mexico already and have mostly good relations with both. The NAU is idea with no really compelling benefits and lots of potential pitfalls.

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 06:39 PM
reply to post by xmotex

Here is an interesting throne speech that came from Manitoba Canada.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Swingarm]

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 06:47 PM

Originally posted by xmotex
but I have yet to see any real action towards such a goal.

depends on where you live i guess. here in atx the nafta superhighway construction began years ago. already i know of ppl that are being pressured to sell their land (again for a decent amt of $$, however, nothing worth selling it for) and the traffic problems in this area have increased heavily.

i am seeing the action toward the goal and am already seeing the negative aspects, yet nothing positive has surfaced. again, all in where you live, but rest assured that the effects will be felt in a town near you should something not be done to impede the so called "progress" they are after.

posted on Jun, 30 2008 @ 07:29 PM
Con: It would drive wages for both the USA and Canada down to Mexico's standard, the thought of attempting to live off of minimum wage is depressing.

Con: A system set up to cater to the huge corporations [more than now] means less protection for us citizens, no more clean air, water, food.

Con: I see huge slum cities with hopeless poverty.

Con: I see the education system sink to Mexico's level across the board.

Con: I see a much worse health care system.

Pro: We would be #1 economically, but at what price?

Con: This could backfire meaning that civil war would most likely erase any gains that could come from this, if this occurs all of the sacrifice our citizens have made in our history will mean nothing.

I have wondered if our current economic crisis is designed to destroy or severely weaken the USA in order for our politicians to offer up this NAU as a way out.

top topics


log in