I am Pro-Ron Paul but don't see what's wrong with the NAU/NAFTA Superhighway?

[doronster195]

What is bad about it? Why shouldn't we have it?

Please back up all statements with quality sources.

No propaganda videos on youtube please.

 

[Starks]

We lose our national sovereignty.

 

[Paulite]

no dont come here for reason to support or not support a cause/project or whatever. IT IS YOUR DUTY TO RESEARCH AND CAREFULLY STUDY THE SUBJECT MATTER ....THEN AND ONLY THEN YOU CAREFULLY FORM YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPINION.

 

[RPTXState]

The problem is not with the NAU, but how it will be implemented: It will come into force without Congressional approval, and will be treated as above the Constitution without amending it.

If it was done legally, it would be "better" (I would still be against it), but the means with which it will be implemented are nothing but treasonous.

 

[JoshLowry]

The leg in Texas is called the Trans Texas Corridor.

Here are a few concerns: http://www.corridorwatch.org/ttc_2007/CW00000105.htm

 

[doronster195]

We lose our national sovereignty.

Like I said, please back up your statements. I don't see how we lose our sovereignty from it.

 

[krott5333]

Like I said, please back up your statements. I don't see how we lose our sovereignty from it.

because we become part of a union which we become governed by.

The people in British Columbia, and the people in Mexico City, will have the same say as yourself.

 

[aravoth]

Because in order to make the highway, millions of acres of private farmland would be taken by the government through eminate domain, then handed over to a spanish construction company that will build the highway, then inact a toll to drive on it.

So the people it directly effects do not want it, and even though the fought against having it, they would have to pay to drive on what was once thier own land.

For starters, I'll get more in depth when i get back from work.

 

[JeffersonThomas]

bump...I'm curious about this too. For example, I've heard NAFTA/CAFTA aren't actually free trade agreements. Somehow they put the US at a disadvantage? I'm not very knowlegeable on these issues so enlightenment would be appreciated . And don't worry, nothing you can say about this issue will break my support for Ron Paul.

 

[pcosmar]

"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."

- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy

"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."

- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton

 

[Goldwater Conservative]

By definition, the NAU would further erode national sovereignty.

What makes the NAFTA highway bad is that it'll probably be sprung on the American people, rather than having a lengthy debate about something that would complicate the already messy immigration situation.

 

[akovacs]

bump...I'm curious about this too. For example, I've heard NAFTA/CAFTA aren't actually free trade agreements. Somehow they put the US at a disadvantage? I'm not very knowlegeable on these issues so enlightenment would be appreciated . And don't worry, nothing you can say about this issue will break my support for Ron Paul.

NAFTA is a ~1200 page long agreement. If it were free trade, it would be maybe half a page. There's a regulatory board in charge of who gets to do what across borders and they do a pretty good job of keeping out who they want. The end result being that large companies with the right influence have no trouble going across whereas a small business would. Competitive disadvantage in something that shouldn't have one.

 

[LibertyEagle]

Have you heard of Phyllis Schlafly? Do you think she is a conspiracist? Most do not. She has an entire page about it, full of links. Have fun.

http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/NAU/

Note: I also suggest you go study how the European Union came about. The steps they went through. I think that will serve to answer the rest of your questions.

 

[Adamsa]

It makes the immigration problem a nightmare. And it's one more step to a union, even if they're not planning it.

 

[PINN4CL3]

My biggest concern is that the superhighway will eventually lead to a North American Union. While there are probably two sides to the issue, my concern is that my voice will be lost among such a large constituency.

It is hard enough influencing decisions at the state government level, and then exponentially harder at the national level. Should we then submit to a North American Union, how hard would it be to make an individual concern known? How hard would it be for an average citizen to exercise his rights, or bring forward his issues when there are government agencies of such a large scale?

To me, it flies in the very face of the American freedom experiment.

 

[American]

What is bad about it? Why shouldn't we have it?

Please back up all statements with quality sources.

No propaganda videos on youtube please.

Why should we have it would be the better question.

Besides the Sovereignty issue, more immigration from the south and north, not to mention any terrorist that might use the open borders, then you have the drug issue.

I would say looks into the beginning of the European Union and how its works out so far. Europe has to answer to Brussels now to do anything.

There is nothing good if you believe in America, if you think a one world Govt is best then the NAU is the way you would go.

 

[traviskicks]

I don't think the highway is a bad idea, no reason why private individuals can improve infastructure to facilitate transportation of goods and services. If we can get goods thought mexico we can cut out the corrupt and overpaid cali longshormen unions!

Paul is very pro free trade, just against government managed trade.

 

[DRV45N05]

I'm all for free trade. However, NAFTA is not free trade; it is a managed trade agreement with provisions that provide goods with differential tariff treatment and establishes a supernational bureaucracy to govern and enforce trade among the three countries. This contradicts the power in Article I giving Congress the power to regulate our international trade.

 

[doronster195]

It makes the immigration problem a nightmare. And it's one more step to a union, even if they're not planning it.

How does it make the immigration problem a nightmare. There would still be the same border control regulations on the highway, I assume.

 

[steph3n]

Like I said, please back up your statements. I don't see how we lose our sovereignty from it.

packages move from china to mexico to kansas city non stop at the borders till kc

this is many miles inland and a big security risk

bigger issue is th wholesale turnover of my taxpayer roads to a private company that then fines my state for having speed limits over 50 for "lost profits"