did you all forget about this-
Bush Amnesty Plan Raises Immigration Concerns
The massive new immigration initiative unveiled by the White House has Democrats and ethnic identity organizations accusing Republicans of election-year pandering, and has the Republican base wondering whether George W. Bush and the Republican Party has sold them out.
The initiative, which draws heavily on legislation already introduced in Congress by three Arizona Republicans, Sen. John McCain and Rep. Jeff Flake and Rep. Jim Kolbe, has two central components. It would provide a mechanism by which some U.S. businesses would be able to import an unlimited number of low-wage foreign workers, and it would allow most of the roughly 10 million illegal aliens already in the United States a means by which they (and their extended families) would be able to remain legally -- and permanently -- in the United States.
Advocates of strong enforcement of U.S. immigration laws charge that the new Bush plan is really a massive new amnesty for illegal aliens, in spite of repeated Bush administration assurances to the contrary. The administration, and the Republican sponsors of the parallel McCain-Kolbe-Flake plan (search) on Capitol Hill, claim that their plans are not really amnesties because they require illegal aliens to pay a small fee and wait a short time before they can receive their legal permanent status.
However, critics argue that any plan that allows, as the new Bush plan does, illegal aliens to remain legally and permanently in the United States without having to return to their home countries and apply to enter the United States legally like everyone else, is, in fact, an amnesty.
It remains to be seen whether Americans, who oppose amnesties by a 2-to-1 margin, will swallow the administration’s claims that the new “earned regularization” program isn’t really an amnesty.
Even more to the point, it will be interesting to see how the Bush not-really-an-amnesty plan plays in Mexico and among the billions of desperately poor around the world. Amnesty (search ) schemes are front-page news in the developing world, signaling millions of would-be illegal aliens to hurry and attempt an illegal border crossing of their own -- a process that results in the brutal deaths of hundreds of people every year on our dangerous borders. If the Bush plan triggers another upsurge in illegal crossings, it will be clear that, in the rest of rest of the world, at least, people are not buying Republican denials.
The second component of the new Bush initiative, the so-called “guest worker” proposal (search ), has also caused alarm among bedrock Republicans and supporters of a more moderate immigration policy. Here, again, immigration reductionists are charging the White House with using less-than-straightforward language to describe the plan. A “guest worker plan,” these critics note, would seem to indicate that a foreign national who comes to the United States to be a guest worker would, at some point, return to his or her home country, since “guests” go home at some point. The McCain-Kolbe-Flake plan, however, on which the White House is said to be modeling its proposal, contains no such requirement. “Guests” under their plan would be permanent.
Worse for immigration reductionists, the McCain-Kolbe-Flake plan sets no limit on the numbers of low-wage “guests” that business interests could import. The only limit set in the Arizonans’ plan is the hazy requirement that the foreign national would have to have a job “already waiting” for him or her; President Bush has often stated that he doesn’t see any reason that any “willing employee” shouldn’t be matched with any “willing employer.”
The knock against Republicans has always been that the party is in the back pocket of corporations and business interests, and this new amnesty/cheap labor proposal by the White House will do nothing to dispel that image. Indeed, some special business interests, economic libertarian extremists and long-time campaigners for open borders, like the corporate-funded CATO Institute, have already enthusiastically endorsed the Republican plan.
However, in a world in which there are nearly five billion people who live in countries poorer than Mexico, many Americans question the wisdom of turning U.S. immigration policy over to those who profit by cheap labor.
Immigration moderates reject the common assertion by the cheap labor profiteers that immigrants take jobs Americans don’t want. They point out that during the last time-out from mass immigration, which lasted the 40 years between 1925 and 1965, Americans not only invented computers, had a healthy labor movement, initiated the space program that put men on the moon, made great strides in civil rights and environmental legislation, built the largest economy the world has ever seen and successfully prosecuted WWII against two great powers on two fronts simultaneously, we also managed to get our dishes washed, our meat packed and our children cared for.
Americans are fully capable of running a country without importing an endless supply of cheap foreign labor (search), and the politicians of both parties who advocate amnesties and guest worker programs should put aside their short-term interests and encourage immigration policies that take into consideration the long-term consequences of mass immigration.
Craig Nelsen is the director of ProjectUSA, a non-profit immigration watchdog organization based in Washington, D.C.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107692,00.html
see bush jr wanted amnesty what's the difference
still think someone like reagan should be the president. remember the amnesty bill signed by reagan
Twenty-Five Years After Reagan's 'Amnesty' Bill, Conservatives Should Support Increased Immigration
Twenty-five years ago, the Immigration Reform and Control Act became law. Most people know the act as the 1986 “amnesty” bill.
Since then, conservative rhetoric about an “invasion” and the “taking” of American jobs by immigrants has escalated. This rhetoric is not only wrong, but contrary to conservative principles and deadly to long-run Republican political prospects.
If conservatives want to emulate the conservatism of Ronald Reagan’s Republican Party and avoid getting electorally pummeled in immigrant heavy states, they should support expanding legal immigration.
Democrats got 69 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2008 but that growing demographic’s enthusiasm is wavering. Today, the Democrats are in serious electoral trouble as they struggle with a still-sputtering economy, unemployment around 9 percent, and unpopular legislation from the stimulus to ObamaCare.
Republicans could enhance their prospects with Hispanics by changing their tone on immigration. For instance, the Texas Republican Party routinely gets 40 percent of the Hispanic vote because it refrains from demonizing Hispanics.
Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey made this point better than anybody. “Who in the Republican Party was the genius that said that now that we have identified the fastest-growing voting demographic in America, let’s go out and alienate them?”
Many states in the Southwest are either solidly Republican or competitive. If Republicans make the same mistakes that the California Republican Party made in the mid-1990s of demonizing immigrants, then the GOP’s days in these states will be numbered. As California Republican businessman Ron Unz notes, Republicans do not gain many votes by being rabidly anti-immigrant and the few that they gain don’t last for more than a few election cycles. But immigrants spurned by the GOP rarely return to the party.
Best of all for Republicans, a pro-immigration platform would open up political opportunities in major cities where Democrats have long had an edge. Some immigrants in Los Angeles, for example, might actually listen to what Republicans have to say on other issues instead of discounting them outright.
In a recent poll, 41 percent of American Hispanics feared a deportation action against a friend or family member. Family values-oriented conservatives should understand that no matter a person’s politics, he will do anything to defend his family. That means that most people would forsake every other political opinion they have and oppose the political party that promises to deport their grandmother, father, sibling, or best friend.
Conservatives traditionally oppose excessive government economic regulation. They should take a principled stand against anti-immigration measures like E-Verify and a national biometric ID card that would put enormous burdens on businesses—especially small businesses. Enforcement first immigration laws should be relabeled government first – because they hand more power and control to all levels of Leviathan.
Conservatives know that entrepreneurship improves standards of living. Immigrants are more than twice as entrepreneurial as native-born Americans, according to the Kauffmann Foundation’s Index of Entrepreneurial Activity. That advantage lasts several generations, as demonstrated by the fact that Americans with a Latino ancestry retain an entrepreneurial enthusiasm greater than that of natives.
Conservatives value the rule of law and national security. Security provides an environment where the law can be applied equally while the law provides a framework through which security can be legitimized. But our current immigration laws would require a police state to be enforced consistently.
Conservatives pride themselves on advocating policies based on reality, not wishful thinking. As John Adams famously said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” Yet our immigration policy is beset by a disconnect between the legality and reality, and reality—as always—is winning.
Conservatives have concerns about security in the post-9/11 world.
Instead of wasting scarce security resources keeping out the millions of Indian and Chinese computer programmers and Mexican laborers, we should devote those border resources to blocking actual security threats. An immigration policy that only weeds out suspected terrorists or criminals will focus law enforcement, not continually dissipate it in a vain attempt to manipulate labor markets.
Many conservatives argue that we cannot discuss reforming legal immigration until we solve the undocumented immigrant problem. That doesn’t make any sense.
The nation’s broken legal immigration system is what drives unauthorized immigration in the first place. Conservatives would laugh at leftists who said, “we need to eliminate tax cheating before we can consider cutting taxes.” To argue that poor enforcement of a bad policy is a good reason not to change that policy is just plain absurd.
Finally, conservatives should support increased legal migration to uphold an old American tradition. Conservatism is, after all, about conserving the values, traditions, and political economic system that make the United States unique amongst nations. This nation was founded by immigrants. English, Irish, Scottish, German, and Swedish immigrants dominated the 13 colonies before Independence.
The Tea Parties have harkened back to the Founding Fathers. Conservatives should especially remember that one of the Founders’ complaints against King George III written in the Declaration of Independence was that, “He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.”
The twenty-five year anniversary of the so called “amnesty” bill should make conservatives reflect on the role immigration has played in building our Republic and how far we’ve strayed from those original ideals with restrictions, quotas, and big government interventions.
Basing our immigration policy on American traditions, free markets, and the rule of law will help guarantee Republicans victory and grant our nation prosperity. Like most policies that are good for America, increasing legal immigration is the conservative thing to do.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/11/07/twenty-five-years-after-reagans-amnesty-bill-conservatives-should-support/
did someone say they wanted someone like reagan the amnesty president!!!!
wow, every president since reagan have signed free trade agreements that benefited the corporations while sending our jobs to countries with cheap labor. I understand why bush sr and bush jr carried on reagan's free trade deals but why would clinton and obama jump on the free trade wagon with the republicans- A. because the free trade deals were good for the country(ah ha yeah hmmm no it was not!), B. because the democrats are copy cats(maybe but I doubt it!), C.-because the democrats sign every thing that crosses their desk(well with clinton I think he just wanted to get back to monica) or D. they are all corporate representative ( in public office to help out the corporations, their buddies and themselves)
The Truth About NAFTA And Its Disastrous Effects
Few are aware that NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) has rendered us uncompetitive in the world, has destroyed our industrial base, caused us to outsource most of our production, and killed most of our manufacturing jobs.
For political reasons, Clinton, Obama, and McCain have not discussed this true picture.
Imagine if Congress enacted a special law only for the state of Michigan that:
* Dropped the minimum wage to $.50/Hour
* Exempted employers from child labor laws
* Expanded the work week
* Reduced health and work place safety laws
* Banned unions
* Allowed Michigan exporters full, duty-free access to Ohio and the rest of the states
Sounds crazy, huh?
This is what NAFTA did for Mexico, to the detriment of Ohio and all of America.
Why would any company manufacture in the U.S. now when it can produce next-door in Mexico with all these unfair advantages?
Mexico now ships more cars to us than we ship to the rest of the world–and where did Mexico get an auto industry?
We are now increasingly forced to live on imports and debt at every level while thousands of our best companies are being sold to foreign interests and our industrial infrastructure is collapsing. If you are concerned for a future for your kids, you should demand that we do something about these conditions. Look at www.EconomyInCrisis.Org for all the statistics to confirm the damages that are now being inflicted on our economy.
just go check out "on the issues" and see how close these people are on free trade and nafta!!!!
here is the time line where your republican presidents and democrat presidents did the same thing passed the F#%K the American worker deals, where they helped their corporate buddies!!!!!
NAFTA Timeline
Washington proposes a “North American Agreement”
 |
November 13, 1979
While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”
January 1981
President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market.
|
back
Canada and the US drawing closer together
September 4, 1984
Brian Mulroney (Conservative Party) is elected Prime Minister of Canada with the highest majority in his country’s history.
September 25, 1984
Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney meets President Reagan in Washington and promises closer relations with the US.
October 9, 1984
The US Congress adopts the Trade and Tariff Act, an omnibus trade act that notably extends the powers of the president to concede trade benefits and enter into bilateral free trade agreements. The Act would be passed on October 30, 1984.
|
 |
September 26, 1985
Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney announces that Canada will try to reach a free trade agreement with the US.
December 10, 1985
President Reagan officially informs Congress about his intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada under the authority of trade promotion. Referred to as fast track, trade promotion authority is an accelerated legislative procedure which obliges the House of Representatives and the Senate to decide within 90 days whether or not to establish a trade trade unit. No amendments are permitted.
|
back
Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
 |
May 1986
Simon Reisman, Chief negotiator for Canada, and Peter Murphy, the American negotiator, start negotiations.
October 3, 1987
Conclusion of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Washington.
January 2, 1988
Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan sign the FTA.
January 1, 1989
The FTA takes effect.
|
back
Mexico and the US drawing closer together
 |
November 6, 1987
Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.
June 10, 1990
Presidents Bush and Salinas announce that they will begin discussions aimed at liberalizing trade between their countries.
August 21, 1990
President Salinas officially proposes to the US president the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.
|
back
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
February 5, 1991
Negotiations between the US and Mexico aimed at liberalizing trade between the two countries officially become trilateral at the request of the Canadian government.
April 7 to 10, 1991
Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports.
|
 |
May 24, 1991
The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.
June 12, 1991
Start of trade negotiations between Canada, the US and Mexico.
April 4, 1992
Signing in Mexico by Canada and Mexico of a protocol agreement on cooperation projects regarding labour.
|
 |
August 12, 1992
Signing of an agreement in principle on NAFTA.
September 17, 1992
Creation of a trilateral commission responsible for examining cooperation in the area of the environment.
October 7, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Michaël Wilson of Canada (minister), American ambassador Carla Hills and Mexican secretary Jaime Serra Puche, in San Antonio (Texas).
|
December 17, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.
|
back
Parallel Agreements
 |
March 17 and 18, 1993
Start of tripartite discussions in Washington aimed at reaching subsidiary agreements covering labor and the environment.
September 14, 1993
Official signing of parallel agreements covering labor and the environment in the capitals of the three countries.
January 1, 1994
NAFTA and the two agreements on labor and the environment take effect.
November 16, 1994
Canada and Mexico sign a cooperation agreement regarding the peaceful use of nuclear energy.
|
back
Mexican Peso Crisis
 |
December 22, 1994
Mexican monetary authorities decide to let the Peso float. The US and Canada open a US$6 billion line of credit for Mexico.
January 3, 1995
Mexican president Ernesto Zedillo presents an emergency plan.
January 1995
President Clinton announces an aid plan for Mexico.
|
21 February, 1995
Signing in Washington of an agreement regarding the financial assistance given to Mexico. Mexico in turn promises to pay Mexican oil export revenue as a guarantee into an account at the Federal Reserve in New York.Signature à Washington d’une entente concernant l’aide financière apportée au Mexique. Au terme de celle-ci, le Mexique s’engage notamment à verser en garantie les revenus d’exportations mexicaines de pétrole dans un compte de la Réserve fédérale de New York.
February 28, 1995
Mexico announces the increase of its customs duties on a number of imports from countries with which it does not have a free trade agreement.
|
March 9, 1995
President Zedillo presents austerity measures. The plan envisages a 50% increase in value added taxes, a 10% reduction of government expenditure, a 35% increase in gas prices, a 20% increase in electricity prices and a 100% increase in transportation prices. The minimum wage is increased by 10%. The private sector can benefit from government assistance. The inter-bank rate that is reduced to 74% will be increased to 109% on March 15.
|
 |
March 29, 1995
Statistical data on US foreign trade confirms the sharp increase in Mexican exports to the US.
April 10, 1995
The US dollar reaches its lowest level in history on the international market. It depreciated by 50% relative to the Japanese yen in only four years.
|
back
Chile and NAFTA
 |
December 9 to 14, 1994
At the Miami Summit, the three signatories of NAFTA officially invite Chile to become a contractual party of the agreement.
February 9, 1995
Mickey Kantor, the US Foreign Trade representative, announces Washington’s intention to include the provisions of NAFTA regarding labor and the environment in negotiations with Chile.
|
June 7, 1995
First meeting of the ministers of Foreign Trade of Canada (Roy MacLaren), the US (Mickey Kantor), Mexico (Herminio Blanco) and Chile (Eduardo Aninat) to start negotiations.
1995
Disagreements remain between the US Congress and the White House on the content of the free trade agreement with Chile. President Clinton does not succeed in renewing the fast track that permits him to conclude international trade agreements. He would be deprived of this tool during the two terms of his presidency. Chile tries to negotiate separate free trade agreements with Canada and Mexico.
December 29, 1995
Chile and Canada commit to negotiate a bilateral free trade agreement.
June 3, 1996
Chile and Canada start negotiating the reciprocal opening of markets in Santiago.
November 18, 1996
Signing in Ottawa of the Canada-Chile free trade agreement by Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada and Eduardo Frei, President of Chile. The agreement frees 80% of trade between the two countries. It is the first free trade agreement signed between Chile and a member of the G 7.
July 4, 1997
The Canada-Chile free trade agreement comes into effect.
1997
The US presidency proposes applying NAFTA parity to Caribbean countries.
April 17, 1998
Signing in Santiago, Chile of the free trade agreement between Chile and Mexico by President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León of Mexico, and President Eduardo Frei of Chile.
August 1, 1999
The Chile-Mexico free trade agreement comes into effect.
November 27, 2000
Trade negotiations resume between the US and Chile for Chile’s possible entry into NAFTA.
|
back
A new North American agenda
July 2, 2000
Vicente Fox Quesada of the National Action Party (PAN), is elected president of Mexico, thus ending the reign of the Revolutionary Institutional Party (RIP) that had held power for 71 years. Mr. Fox is sworn in on 1 December 2000.
|
|
4 July, 2000
Mexican president Vicente Fox proposes a 20 to 30 year timeline for the creation of a common North American market. President Fox’s “20/20 vision” as it is commonly called, includes the following:
- a customs union
- a common external tariff
- greater coordination of policies
- common monetary policies
- free flow of labor
- fiscal transfers for the development of poor Mexican regions
With the model of the European Fund in mind, President Fox suggests that US$10 to 30 billion be invested in NAFTA to support underdeveloped regions. The fund could be administered by an international financial institution such as the Inter-American Development Bank.
April 2001
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, President George W. Bush and President Vicente Fox meet during the third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City. They agree to establish the North American Energy Working Group (NAEWG) in order to give regional attention to energy issues and enhance trilateral cooperation. The Group is managed by the three federal Energy secretaries and ministry.
|
back
Post 9/11 agenda
September 11, 2001
As a result of the terrorist attacks, U.S. borders with Canada and Mexico shut down temporarily. Business leaders in all three countries worried that trade would come to a halt. Some called for the creation of a North America Security perimeter in order to establish a common economic and security zone.
|
December 12, 2001
U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Canadian Deputy Prime Minister John Manley sign the Smart Border Declaration and Associated 30-Point Action Plan to enhance the security of the shared border while facilitating the legitimate flow of people and goods. The Action Plan has four pillars: the secure flow of people, the secure flow of goods, secure infrastructure, and information. It notably includes shared customs data, a safe third-country agreement and harmonized commercial processing.
|
 |
June 28, 2002
John Manley and Tom Ridge announce progress on the Smart Border Declaration, including “stepped up intelligence cooperation with Canada”, “common standards for using biometric identifiers, such as fingerprints, facial recognition, and eyes recognition, to confirm the identity of travelers”.
September 9, 2002
President Bush and Prime Minister Chrétien meet to discuss progress on the Smart Border Action Plan and ask that they be regularly updated on the work being done regarding border management.
December 5, 2002
The Safe Third Country Agreement is signed by Canadian and U.S. officials as part of the Smart Border Action Plan. It is meant to manage the flow of refugee claimants at the shared land border.
Under the Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement, persons seeking refugee protection must make a claim in the first country they arrive in (United States or Canada). Therefore, refugee claimants arriving, for example, from the United States at the Canada-US land border are not allowed to pursue their refugee claims in Canada unless they qualify for an exception clause under the Safe Third Country Agreement.
December, 2002
The United States and Canada establish a bi-national planning group at the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). The group releases a report containing recommendations on how the U.S. and Canadian military can "work together more effectively to counter land-based and maritime threats.
January, 2003
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives headed by Tom D'Aquino launches the North American Security and Prosperity Initiative (NASPI) in response to an alleged "need for a comprehensive North American strategy integrating economic and security issues". NASPI has five main elements, which include: Reinventing borders, Maximizing regulatory efficiencies, Negotiation of a comprehensive resource security pact, Reinvigorating the North American defence alliance, and Creating a new institutional framework.
April 2003
The CCCE sets up an “Action Group on North American Security and Prosperity,” which is comprised of 30 CEOs including former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney.
January 2004
NAFTA celebrates its tenth anniversary.
|
 |
October 2004
The Canada-Mexico Partnership (CMP) is launched during the President Vicente Fox’s visit to Ottawa.
November 1, 2004
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in association with the CCCE and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales create the independent Task Force on the Future of Noth America. The task force is a trilateral group charged with developing a roadmap to promote North American security and advance the well being of citizens of all three countries.
December 29, 2004
The Safe Third Country Agreement comes into force.
|
back
The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Era
March, 2005
The leaders of Canada, the United States and Mexico sign the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America at the trilateral summit in Waco, Texas. Canada is signed on by Prime Minister Paul Martin.
The SPP is a commitment by Canada, the United States and Mexico to work together to build a safer and more economically dynamic North America. While respecting the sovereignty and unique heritage, culture and laws of each country, it outlines an agenda for greater cooperation in areas as diverse as security, transportation, environment and public health.
|
 |
|
The Foreign Affairs Ministers have the mandate to manage North American relations between the three countries. The Public Safety Ministers lead the Security Agenda, while the Ministers of Industry lead the Prosperity Agenda. Working Groups (health, transportation, food and agriculture, business facilitation, financial services, E-commerce and information communication technologies, environment, energy, movement of goods, manufactured good and sectoral and regional competitiveness) guide the efforts of the many federal departments and agencies that contribute to the delivery of each priority.
March 23, 2005
The 40 Point Smart Regulation Plan is launched as part of the SPP agreement. Its mandate is to introduce some changes to the regulatory system in order to harmonize them.
|
 |
May, 2005
The Council on Foreign Relations Press publishes the report of the Independent Task Force on the future of North America, entitled:”Building a North American Community”
The Task Force salutes the announced “Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America,” while proposing a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 as well as specific recommendations on how to achieve it.
|
July 2005
The Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) passes in the U.S. House of Representatives by a 217-215 vote.
October 2005
The first meeting of the North American Forum (different from NAFI), which brings together U.S., Canadian and Mexican government and business representatives to discuss issues related to continental economic and social integration, is held in Sonoma, California. The media is not invited and information pertaining to the meeting is not released to the public.
|
March 31, 2006
At the North American Summit in Cancun, the new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper along with President Bush and President Fox release the Leaders' Joint Statement. The statement presents six action points:
1) Establishment of a Trilateral Regulatory Cooperative Framework
2) Establishment of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC)
3) Provision for North American Emergency Management
4) Provision for Avian and Human Pandemic Influenza Management
5) Development of North American Energy Security
6) Assure Smart, Secure North American Borders.
|
 |
August 15, 2006
The NACC meets in Washington, D.C. to hash out priority issues for the SPP. The business leaders decide that the U.S. commiittee of the NACC will deal with “regulatory convergence,” the Canadian one, housed by the CCCE, will deal with “border facilitation,” and the Mexican branch will handle “energy integration”.
|
 |
February 23, 2007
The SPP Ministerial meeting is held in Ottawa, Canada, and attended by the Canadian Minister of Industry, the Mexican Secretary of the Economy and the U.S. Secretary of State. Members of the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) are also invited.
|
August 20/21, 2007
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, President George W. Bush and President Felipe Calderon meet for the third North American summit in Montebello, Quebec. A significant outcome of the summit was the creation of a "regulatory cooperation framework". Arctic sovereignty is also discussed. In addition, a news release announced progress concerning a continental plan to deal with flu pandemics, and an agreement on energy security and environmental protection.
|
 |
|
Sources:
Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP)
Canadian Government: Canada border services agency
North American Forum on Integration
Wikipedia
Natural Resources Canada
The Canadian Council of Chief Executives CCCE (Official site)
Vive le Canada.ca
Center for Media and Democracy
|
clinton, bush's and obama doing the same distructive thing to America THE SAME F&%#ING THING!!!!!!! TWO PARTY DICTATORSHIP!!!!!
