United States of North America (US, Canada, and Mexico to integrate into one country?)

Um, wouldn't they have to get rid of that pesky little U.S. Constitution first?

I might have a wee issue with that. So would others.

Originally posted by beezzer
Um, wouldn't they have to get rid of that pesky little U.S. Constitution first?

I might have a wee issue with that. So would others.

ha ha! silly!
you think the progs and tptb would let a little thing like that stop the process!?
oh, you!

Originally posted by snowspirit
Bad for Canada. We would lose our privacy laws. They are very protective of the people here.
We're doing good economically right now, and we have had medical coverage for decades - what would happen to it?
Our banking systems are totally different, ours is well regulated.
Our judicial system is totally different, we abolished capital punishment in the 90s.
We have kilometers, the US has miles. Why would we have to go backwards?

We have good relations with China and Russia, the US does not. We have traded hockey players often, many Russian hockey players are here, many Cdn players in Russia.

We have allowed gay people in the military for years, without problems. They can also get married up here legally.

Then there's Cuba. Canadians travel there often. US people cannot. Which is really stupid, IMO.

Our elections take 5 weeks to do, from start to finish. Done by trackable accountable paper ballots. The US elections take 2 years, and are not even real elections, done in hackable machines, with no accountability. We don't register as a party affiliation, our votes are considered private. We are all independents until we make our final vote.

Even our food labeling is different. We have French included in everything. Does the US really want to deal with Quebec, a distinct society? Or do they become their own country?

We are a very liberal society up here, the US doesn't seem to like that. The only reason we have a conservative government, is because Harper was an economist before he was a politician. That's why our economy is good.
The US has an ex lawyer running things.

We also are NOT as a rule, very religious up here. We don't wear our politics and religion on our sleeves like in the US.

We're also a commonwealth country, we're closer to the UK in that way.

So many problems with this idea. :shk:

edit on 29-9-2011 by snowspirit because: added

You have some good points, but to just to add to that, the US military allows gays now, the "don't ask don't tell" policy ended just recently. Gay marriage is being allowed more and more throughout many of the states as well.

Canadas good relations with Russia and China would be a possible benefit to the US. Though trading hockey players doesn't really sound like a reason to consider it a good relationship. The main reason is Canada doesn't do anything, they don't cause problems, so there's no reason for the world to hate them. We outsource work to China, we import things, I can fly freely to either China or Russia, Chinas given us a crap ton of money. So it's not like the relations with them are terrible. Though there's definitely tension between the US and them at times.

our food labeling always contains spanish on it, no big deal. It all depends on where you live for how the labels would be. The US has a diversity of people, so really that wouldn't even be an issue.

A lot of things actually wouldnt have to change, people are seeing it the wrong way. It wouldn't be erasing the borders and becoming one, it'd be a union, like the European union. Regardless I've been hearing this for years, the currency would supposedly be called the "Amero" or something like that. It's actually not a bad idea IF it was being done with good intentions, but that's a big if.

reply to post by beezzer


The constitution did not seem to be a problem when the original 13 states pushed west and became 50 states.

Besides they do it in baby steps so that there isn't any real opposition.

Originally posted by snowspirit
Taken in that context, Venezuelans are also American. Try telling the US government that Hugo Chavez is an American.

He is a South American, just like Cdns are North Americans. But NOT citizens of America (the US.)

I went to school in the US and found it odd that every other country in the American continent (not sure about Canada) teaches that America is a single continent. I mean people in the US think Mexico is South America when it is in fact a North American country.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by beezzer

 

The constitution did not seem to be a problem when the original 13 states pushed west and became 50 states.

Besides they do it in baby steps so that there isn't any real opposition.

Touche'.
Good point.
Now if Canada and Mexico became PART of the United States, then you'd be right.

(but I think they'd have issues)

reply to post by daskakik

I went to school in the US and found it odd that every other country in the American continent (not sure about Canada) teaches that America is a single continent. I mean people in the US think Mexico is South America when it is in fact a North American country.

In Cdn schools, it's taught as North America is a single continent, with 3 separate countries, us refered to as Cdns always, and there's Mexicans, and then Central America, and South America. We never refer to anyone, north, central, or south as Americans, to us, that means people from the states.
South Americans would be Peruvians, Columbians, Brazilians, etc.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by snowspirit
Taken in that context, Venezuelans are also American. Try telling the US government that Hugo Chavez is an American.

He is a South American, just like Cdns are North Americans. But NOT citizens of America (the US.)

I went to school in the US and found it odd that every other country in the American continent (not sure about Canada) teaches that America is a single continent. I mean people in the US think Mexico is South America when it is in fact a North American country.

edit on 29-9-2011 by daskakik because: (no reason given)

The vast majority of people here are well aware Mexico is in North America, but every country has it's idiots. Mexico relates more to a south american country then a north, which is probably why the idiots assume it's south. It's nothing more then a product of not paying attention in class, it isn't taught wrongly.

you should go DD the news going on in EUROPE right now

Germany voted for more money printing...levereving up there EURO bailout

what this means is the strongest nations are tying up to the weakest like greece, italy.etc

so they all go down together basically

folks i'd be buying all the gold and silver you can as it crashes..buy physical

end game is countries all go BK...and consolidate into bigger intertwined cartels..where they would have to back the new currency in gold and silver to PUSH thru

reply to post by beezzer

(but I think they'd have issues)

And therapy isn't covered under medical........

There's been times in the past when some Cdn provinces seemed to want to defect and become part of the states (just lots of talk), but then the US population starting losing their freedoms faster than us, and the US economy went in the toilet, and the US government went insane......

I thought everyone knew about the North American Union plans?
Guess not?
anyway for about a year now Mexico has become the southern US security zone.
USNORTHCOM has taken command of the Mexican Military. we fly daily Predator missions into Mexican air space and I remember reading something about an American Spy hive there in Mexico city. NAFTA Merida Initiative NORTHCOM all those things old Perez baby Bush signed into law years ago have now come back to bite us

Seems to me like we all better start learning to speak Spanish

As 96% of Canada's land mass is CROWN LAND, i think Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II would have a few words to say about this if true.

reply to post by snowspirit


So then it's just The US and Canada because everyone else considers themselves Americans and while US citizens are called Americans (because that is what they have called themselves for a long time) the correct term in Spanish and also used in French, Portuguese, German, and Italian is Unitedstatesians (loosely translated).

American

Originally posted by beezzer
Now if Canada and Mexico became PART of the United States, then you'd be right.

(but I think they'd have issues)

Actually if they do it the euro way (originally the US method) they will offer a shell of a government that will have limited duties. You know offer security and regulate commerce between the member states. No country will lose it's identity and they will have complete control within their borders.

Sound familiar?

Originally posted by alldaylong
As 96% of Canada's land mass is CROWN LAND, i think Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II would have a few words to say about this if true.

We also have "Royal" in certain things.
The Royal Canadian Navy, Royal Canadian Air Force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police...

The military thing is old, and then new again.
news.nationalpost.com...

After 43 years, the Canadian Forces are regaining their “royal” moniker. Canada’s navy and air force are to be restored to their pre-1968 titles of Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Canadian Air Force.

Land Force Command will now be known simply as the Canadian Army.

reply to post by snowspirit


I agree with you in principle if not in all the details. Apart from lower prices on goods I don't see much of anything to gain for Canadians. Services are mostly higher in the States. What we have that the States would love to get their hands on are our energy resources. If British Columbia were to seperate the U.S. would snap it up to have a direct line to Alaska.
Hydro electric power is also something they would want. We export so much to the U.S. as it stands now. Add to that the ressources up north under ice that is starting to become more accessible due to less ice in the summer months. Along with the points that snowspirit made an many others not brought forward yet, I fail to see the interest for us to merge. When the benefits outweigh the downfalls, then maybe. I personally would vote no if given the choice. Maybe someone from the U.S. could come up with what would be beneficial to us. We too may sometimes be blinded by patriotism in its purest form, aka: the love of our country.

Originally posted by snowspirit
Bad for Canada. We would lose our privacy laws. They are very protective of the people here.
We're doing good economically right now, and we have had medical coverage for decades - what would happen to it?
Our banking systems are totally different, ours is well regulated.
Our judicial system is totally different, we abolished capital punishment in the 90s.
We have kilometers, the US has miles. Why would we have to go backwards?

We have good relations with China and Russia, the US does not. We have traded hockey players often, many Russian hockey players are here, many Cdn players in Russia.

We have allowed gay people in the military for years, without problems. They can also get married up here legally.

Then there's Cuba. Canadians travel there often. US people cannot. Which is really stupid, IMO.

Our elections take 5 weeks to do, from start to finish. Done by trackable accountable paper ballots. The US elections take 2 years, and are not even real elections, done in hackable machines, with no accountability. We don't register as a party affiliation, our votes are considered private. We are all independents until we make our final vote.

Even our food labeling is different. We have French included in everything. Does the US really want to deal with Quebec, a distinct society? Or do they become their own country?

We are a very liberal society up here, the US doesn't seem to like that. The only reason we have a conservative government, is because Harper was an economist before he was a politician. That's why our economy is good.
The US has an ex lawyer running things.

We also are NOT as a rule, very religious up here. We don't wear our politics and religion on our sleeves like in the US.

We're also a commonwealth country, we're closer to the UK in that way.

So many problems with this idea. :shk:

edit on 29-9-2011 by snowspirit because: added

Canada also have terrible GUN LAWS and no right to self protection!!

BIG PROBLEM for OUR RIGHT TO BEAR ALL ARMS

A lot of this stuff is about the SPP, or Security and Prosperity Partnership, which includes mexico. That's the scary part of the NAU, the integration of the militaries/borders, happening right now. They just haven't officially named it that yet, and we still have the whole economy-side of the equation to get beaten into.

They've been "openly" announcing the roll out of a contiguous military force to deal with things like civil unrest...

"In Canada, the agreement paving the way for the militaries of the U.S. and Canada to cross each other's borders to fight domestic emergencies was not announced either by the Harper government or the Canadian military, prompting sharp protest.

Read more: N. American Army created without OK by Congress www.wnd.com... "

Canada, U.S. agree to use each other’s troops in civil emergencies

February 22, 2008

Canada and the U.S. have signed an agreement that paves the way for the militaries from either nation to send troops across each other’s borders during an emergency...

...Neither the Canadian government nor the Canadian Forces announced the new agreement, which was signed Feb. 14 in Texas.

The U.S. military’s Northern Command, however, publicized the agreement with a statement outlining how its top officer, Gen. Gene Renuart, and Canadian Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, head of Canada Command, signed the plan, which allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency...

www.northcom.mil...

U.S. Northern Command, Canada Command establish new bilateral Civil Assistance Plan

February 14, 2008

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — U.S. Air Force Gen. Gene Renuart, commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Northern Command, and Canadian Air Force Lt.-Gen. Marc Dumais, commander of Canada Command, have signed a Civil Assistance Plan that allows the military from one nation to support the armed forces of the other nation during a civil emergency.

Obviously they're still at it... Deepening Canada-U.S. Security and Military Ties, January 29, 2011

All these stories we've heard lately about mexican troops and helicopters crossing into america with impunity are starting to make more sense... they're allowed to do it...

We've already got drones on the borders. They say they're looking for drug traffickers and people with backpacks and brag about being able to see people's faces from miles away, and how lit cigarettes make a much easier target.



We've got drones over mexico, too, now.
U.S. Drones Fight Mexican Drug Trade

March 15 2011

WASHINGTON — Stepping up its involvement in Mexico’s drug war, the Obama administration has begun sending drones deep into Mexican territory to gather intelligence that helps locate major traffickers and follow their networks, according to American and Mexican officials.

The Pentagon began flying high-altitude, unarmed drones over Mexican skies last month, American military officials said, in hopes of collecting information to turn over to Mexican law enforcement agencies. Other administration officials said a Homeland Security drone helped Mexican authorities find several suspects linked to the Feb. 15 killing of Jaime Zapata, a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration agent.

President Obama and his Mexican counterpart, Felipe Calderón, formally agreed to continue the surveillance flights during a White House meeting on March 3. The American assistance has been kept secret because of legal restrictions in Mexico and the heated political sensitivities there about sovereignty, the officials said.

nhppa.org...

On June 9, 2010, Bill C-36 was introduced for first reading in the House of Commons. A copy of the Bill can be found here.

Bill C-36 is almost identical to Bill C-52 which had been introduced into the 39th Parliament on April 8, 2008, and to Bill C-6 which had been introduced into the 40th Parliament on January 29, 2009.

Summary of Points Discussed In This Paper

* The rule of law is the fundamental underpinning of a free society. Sacrificing the rule of law always leads to tyranny and loss of freedom.
* The Bill represents an unprecedented change in the powers of the state vis-à-vis the citizen. The rule of law and private property rights are all but extinguished in the area of consumer products.
* Although not applicable to natural health products, the Bill still poses a threat. The Bill gives Health Canada inspectors the very powers that concerned citizens in Bill C-51.
* Bill C-36 is being promoted as necessary to protect our families. However, under the existing law the State can already:
o ban or restrict any consumer product under threat of million dollar fines and two year jail sentences under the Hazardous Products Act;
o make immediate orders banning or restricting any consumer product if there is a significant risk to health or safety. In addition to fines and imprisonment for non-compliance, the State can apply to the Court for an injunction which brings police enforcement of the order;
o obtain a search warrant and seize non-compliant products, and
o prosecute for criminal negligence or homicide under the Criminal Code. In some cases this can result in penalties of life imprisonment.
* The real change brought about by Bill C-36 is not that it protects consumers, as the cur-rent law already grants the State significant powers to protect safety. Rather the real change is the abolition of procedural safeguards citizens currently enjoy.
* Bill C-36 abolishes the law of trespass thus allowing the State access onto private property without any legal recourse.
* Bill C-36 for the first time in Canadian history allows warrants to be issued to search private homes without evidence of criminal wrong doing.
* Bill C-36 allows the State to seize property without a Court order, without reporting the seizure to a Court, and for an indefinite period.
* Bill C-36 allows the State to assume control over the movement of private property without a Court order and without a safety concern.
* The search and seizure powers in Bill C-36 are probably unconstitutional for violating the right found in section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.
* Persons can be fined and have property forfeited to the State for administrative violations. Persons so charged have no right to have a Court determine their guilt or innocence. Guilt is determined by the Minister. There is no defence of due diligence or of honest but mistaken belief. There does not have to be a safety risk to be charged with an administrative offence. The Minister who determines your guilt or innocence can keep seized property if he/she finds you guilty.
* Directors, officers and managers are personally liable for violations by their company. Despite the possibility of multi-million dollar fines and long prison sentences, there is no right to cross-examine key witnesses.
* Directors, officers and managers can be saddled with debt years after they have left the company.
* Orders for recall or which take control of private property are exempted from the procedural safeguards of (1) review and (2) publication found in the Statutory Instruments Act.
* All businesses manufacturing, selling or distributing consumer products are saddled with additional red tape and expense regardless of whether or not there is a safety concern.
* Retailers and distributors of consumer products become liable for product labelling and instructions.
* There may be a significant conflict of interest. Health Canada may benefit financially from fines and the seizure of private property.
* Some consumer products such as sporting goods may have to be removed from the market for violating the safety provisions of the Bill.
* The Provinces are allowing the Federal Government to regulate in the Provincial area of property and civil rights. This represents a significant transfer of power from the Provinces to the Federal Government.
* The federal cabinet can incorporate documents from foreign governments or organizations as law by referring to them in regulations. This will remove Parliamentary scrutiny on issues that could fundamentally change the ground rules for the consumer product industry.
* Trade agreements and foreign laws can be adopted without Parliamentary scrutiny.

www.... whitehouse.gov/the-press-offic e/2011/ 02/04/

February 04, 2011

Today, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper have directed the creation of a United States-Canada Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC), composed of senior regulatory, trade, and foreign affairs officials from both governments. In recognition of our $1 trillion annual trade and investment relationship, the RCC has a two-year mandate to work together to promote economic growth, job creation, and benefits to our consumers and businesses through increased regulatory transparency and coordination.

http:/ /www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/934675--the-federal-government-deliberately-kept-negotiations-on-a-border-deal-with-washington-secret-canada-kept -u-s-border- talks-under-wraps-document?bn=1

Canada kept U.S. border talks under wraps- document
Published On Tue Feb 08 2011

OTTAWA—The federal government deliberately kept negotiations on a border deal with Washington secret while it planned ways to massage public opinion in favour of the pact, according to a confidential communications strategy.

The 14-page public relations document recommended that talks keep a “low public profile” in the months leading up to the announcement by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama. At the same time, the government would secretly engage “stakeholders” — interested parties such as big business groups and others — in a way that respected “the confidentiality of the announcement.”

In advance, the government departments involved — including industry, foreign affairs, international trade and citizenship and immigration — were to “align supportive stakeholders to speak positively about the announcement,” according to the strategy prepared by Public Safety Minister Vic Toews’ officials.

On Friday, Harper and Obama signed off on a plan that for the first time envisions throwing up a single security ring around the perimeter of Canada and the U.S. The wide-ranging blueprint calls for increased cooperation between the two countries’ police, border and intelligence agencies; an integrated Canada-U.S. exit-entry system using high-tech identification techniques and more sharing of information about Canadians with U.S. authorities.

US to put military radar on Canada border: Senators

Mar 9, 2011

WASHINGTON (AFP) – The US government will place military-grade radar along the border with Canada to thwart low-flying aircraft used to smuggle illegal drugs onto US soil, senators who sought the deployment said Wednesday.

Canada-U.S. Deep Integration Agenda Continues Unabated

3/29/11

Since the Beyond the Border declaration was announced, the Canadian government has taken some heat for the bilateral talks being held in secret. In an attempt to try and curb some of the criticism, they launched a new website where the public can share their ideas on the planned security perimeter. The submission guidelines explain, “From now through to April 21, 2011, you can participate in our online consultation and provide your thoughts...

...Much like the infamous Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, this latest undertaking with the U.S. lacks transparency and thus far, Parliament and Congress have also been excluded from the whole process.

...The new security perimeter deal has yet to be defined, at least publicly. In a recent Action Alert, the Council of Canadians acknowledged, “no one can know for sure what ‘perimeter security’ means until the details, which are being developed behind closed doors, are announced in June. And we are being asked to suggest only improvements (not criticisms) of a plan we haven't seen. Furthermore, the government is clearly prioritizing the input of business groups, though all Canadian residents will be impacted by deeper security ties with the United States.”

Tories kill access to information database

The federal Conservatives have quietly killed an access to information registry used by journalists, experts and the public that users say helped hold the government accountable...

..."Now that it appears as though this is no longer going to be available it is very disappointing indeed and people are really wondering what the real motivation is."...

..."It's another example of the Harper government's talk about accountability and transparency — they talk the talk but they don't walk the walk"...

Note those dates, and this from a week ago...

Monday, September 19, 2011

The U.S. and Canada are very close to unveiling a North American perimeter security deal that would promote greater integration between both countries. This includes expanding collaboration in areas of law enforcement and intelligence sharing which could dramatically affect sovereignty and privacy rights. While there is a need for more public scrutiny, incrementalism has been used to advance North American integration. In many ways this has kept the agenda under the radar. Much like NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership, a U.S.-Canada perimeter security agreement would represent another step in the consolidation of North America.

During his speech at a recent meeting of northern border states, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder told participants that the U.S. and Canada are set to launch a pilot project next year which will allow law enforcement officers to operate on both sides of the border.

Holder explained that, “the creation of ‘NextGen’ teams of cross-designated officers would allow us to more effectively identify, assess, and interdict persons and organizations involved in transnational crime.” He went on to say, “In conjunction with the other provisions included in the Beyond the Border Initiative, such a move would enhance our cross-border efforts and advance our information-sharing abilities.” The declaration, Beyond the Border: Shared Vision for Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness issued by President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper last February, identified joint law enforcement operations and information sharing as a high priority. There are already examples of what we could expect from a security perimeter as some Canadians have been denied entry into the U.S. after their records of mental illness were shared with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

While further details of the new joint law enforcement project are not yet available, Stuart Trew of the Council of Canadians pointed out that the plans are well advanced...

Harper moving ahead with cross-border policing despite privacy concerns with perimeter deal
September 14th, 2011

The Harper government is moving ahead with a perimeter security project he has not yet cleared with the public or parliament but which has clear legal and privacy issues, according to news reports today.

According to Associated Press, US Attorney General Eric Holder told a meeting of federal prosecutors from US northern border states today that Canada and the US “will each designate officers who can work investigations on both sides of the border in a new pilot project next year.” The initiative stems from Harper’s perimeter security talks with the Obama administration, Holder says, and will duplicate on land what the cross-border Shiprider project is already doing in shared waterways....

On top of announcing plans to create teams of cross-designated officers, Attorney General Eric Holder took time to praise bilateral relations between the two countries, but acknowledged, “there are areas in which the U.S. and Canada can enhance cooperation in criminal investigations and prosecutions. And I believe we must consider how extradition, and mutual legal assistance, processes could be streamlined.” He also stated, “As Canada’s national government considers various anti-crime policies and approaches, we will continue working to implement a comprehensive anti-crime framework.” Does this mean that as part of a security perimeter, Canada would have to change its legal system to better reflect U.S. laws? As the fall session of Parliament gets underway, the Harper government is set to table tough new criminal reform legislation...


read more: U.S.-Canada Perimeter Security and the Consolidation of North America

We are allowed to own guns. We are allowed to protect ourselves. We are not allowed to all carry guns with us in the street, but neither are you as far as I know. As for delays and background checks, both countries have some sort of system. The old days as far as carrying guns, is long gone in both countries. Not being a gun owner I am not aware of the specifics of laws in either country. As of yet I have not needed any form of protection where a gun would have been of any use. I however, do not fault anyone for owning one.

reply to post by 1825114


I had noticed the changes in policy that came into effect since Harper obtained his majority. One thing about Canadian politics is the willingness to reverse certain changes when another party comes to power.(Of course raised taxes are often the exception) Hopefully we as a people will be smart enough to hold the government accountable in the next election. As was stated earlier Harper was elected mainly for economic reasons, along with very weak opposition. Honestly there wern't any better choices available. If we just lie down and let our freedoms get trampled, as we often reproach of others that I won't name, it will be a sad day indeed.