To: IAHF List
Subject: Canada, U.S. eye scrapping border: IAHF Says To HELL With THIS!
From: "International Advocates for Health Freedom" email@example.com
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2001 22:02:24 -0400
IAHF List: See the article below from the Toronto Star about the effort underway to scrap the US/Canadian Border. If they scrap the border between the US and Canada, I'll give you one guess as to the direction the ruling elite will attempt to harmonize our American dietary supplement laws....
Given that you can't buy amino acids, a host of different herbs, DHEA, chromium picolinate, and a lot of other dietary supplements in Nazi Canada, is it REALLY a good idea to dissolve the border when the Pharma Cartel undoubtedly likes Canada's far stricter vitamin laws in which all dietary supplements are considered "DRUGS"??
I say KEEP the damn border, even though I dislike waiting in line and putting up with fascist customs inspectors and immigration scum as much as any OTHER hater of bureaucracy.
Do NOT be deceived by this pseudo libertarian gesture!
This is just part of the effort to form a version of the EU in our hemisphere via the so called "Free Trade Area of the Americas".
As an American, I side with the nationalistic Council on Canadians AGAINST the FTAA, and against ALL efforts to expand NAFTA. WAKE UP people, or you will find yourselves being dictated to by faceless bureaucrats in Brussels and Geneva who are already showing us via CODEX and the EU Vitamin Directive that they don't give a DAMN about the public health, all they care about is $$ and POWER.
Sure, in SOME ways it seems like a GREAT idea to "dissolve the border" but you'd better read the FINE PRINT before you get all ECSTATIC about the idea, because all it is is part of the effort to turn this into a Prison Planet. Sure, if they can get a microchip into our butts and track us by satellite like dogs via microchips and biometric identifiers, then they won't NEED a border any more, now will they? Think THATS far fetched? Go to http://www.iahf.com and read the Anti Chip section... Appreciate the heads up? Donations needed to get the word out further: IAHF POB 625 Floyd VA 24091 USA, or donate via paypal at http://www.iahf.com please spread the word...
The 49th Parallel would become a "Main Street North America" rather than a restrictive checkpoint for the 200 million people who cross it annually and $2 billion (Cdn) in goods that cross daily, Canadian government sources in the U.S. and Canada say.
The 4,800-kilometre border, which some government officials now consider "obsolete," would remain in symbolic terms. But practically, it would function more as a border between provinces than between two sovereign nations.
Under a new concept of continental border enforcement, each nation would defend its share of the North American perimeter. Officials at entry points would question new arrivals to weed out illegals and potential terrorists. Once inside, people would be able to travel freely.
It's a notion Canadian Immigration Minister Elinor Caplan has already suggested publicly.
"Modernizing the border is something the department has been looking at as a longer-term project and the perimeter strategy is something that's being looked at," said spokesperson Alain Laurencelle.
He said Canada will wait until it sees the upcoming U.S.-Mexico agreement before deciding its course. "Obviously we're going to look at what other countries have done with their agreements. That doesn't necessarily mean that's what will be done here, but we'll look at it."
Under the plan, Canada and the United States may harmonize their visa processes, sharing intelligence to decide together which countries would require such documentation to enter their perimeter, official sources said.
Michael Kergin, Canada's ambassador to Washington, remarked in a recent speech that "many cross-border stereotypes have outgrown themselves, just as in many ways the 20th century perception of the border is now obsolete."
`In the 21st century, in the case of Canada and the United States, the traditional concept of an international border has lost its relevance.'
- Michael Kergin,
Canada's ambassador to U.S.
"In the 21st century, in the case of Canada and the United States, the traditional concept of an international border has lost its relevance," Kergin said.
Similarly, Paul Cellucci, U.S. ambassador to Canada, said in a speech Thursday in Whistler, B.C., that an "aging and outdated infrastructure and regulatory system is still in existence at our borders."
"I believe we should think of the border not as a frontier but as a meeting place," said Cellucci, the former Massachusetts governor.
Open border could reduce retail prices
"A "Main Street' where people meet, traffic moves and business gets done.
"The more user-friendly it becomes, the more it can facilitate the commerce that enriches our societies. That's where Washington and Ottawa need help from each of your provinces, from interested businesses and stakeholders and from concerned citizens."
The free flow of goods worth more than $700 billion a year across the Canada-U.S. border - producing the world's largest trading relationship - would reduce retail prices by up to 6 per cent, officials and business leaders believe.
For example, General Motors has estimated that for each minute its trucks sit waiting at a border point, the company loses $1 million (Cdn).
In addition to goods and services, Canada and the United States are also considering easing restrictions for citizens to work in both countries as "guest workers" who could earn citizenship status based on length of employment.
The new reforms, to be put in motion this fall, are all part of the increasing integration of Canada, the United States and Mexico under the 7-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's foreign policy adviser, David Zussman, has proposed such changes under a "NAFTA-plus" plan for North American integration.
Chrétien and U.S. president Bill Clinton signed a 1995 accord to pursue a new border "vision" for the 49th Parallel, but it never jelled into a comprehensive program.
The sources expect the proposed changes to gain impetus from the Sept. 5 visit to Washington of Mexican President Vicente Fox, who will be hosted by President George W. Bush at his first official state dinner.
Bush and Fox are scheduled to sign an agreement offering immigration status to up to3 million Mexicans living in America illegally, and to free up travel between the two countries.
Bush is widely considered to be courting the huge U.S. Hispanic vote.
The agreement will be based on a task force report delivered to Bush last week by Secretary of State Colin Powell and Attorney-General John Ashcroft, who recommended changes.
Canadian government officials in Ottawa are awaiting details of the Bush-Fox agreement before they start putting together their own plan, sources told The Star.
Bush said this week he's considering applying his immigration plan to other countries.
"We'll consider all folks here," the president said. "I'm open-minded. I'll listen to all proposals."
Experts on North America agree that such integration now appears inevitable and that in many respects, the Canada-U.S. border is redundant given the integration of the two countries' economies.
"I think we might see, in 10 years, an unrestricted border between Canada and the United States," said Robert Litan, vice-president of the Washington-based Brookings Institution, which will hold a conference on North American integration this fall.
"The question is to what extent you really want to have a new North American community, if you like, which involves the U.S., Canada and Mexico . . . there are some real advantages," said Peter Hakim, president of Washington think tank Inter-American Dialogue.
In 1986, president Ronald Reagan's blanket amnesty law allowed more than 3 million undocumented residents of the U.S. to gain permanent residency.
It appears the Bush initiative, which reflects the former Texas governor's understanding of Mexico's border problems, will have far-reaching implications for Canada.
"The question we've asked," a Canadian official said, "is can you differentiate between a northern (Canada-U.S.) border and a southern border and have two sets of rules? The answer we're coming to is no, you cannot."
The situation mirrors what happened in the early 1990s, when Washington announced a bilateral trade deal with Mexico. To protect Canadian interests, Ottawa soon joined in what became NAFTA.
"I told you so" attitude expected in Canada
The irony for Chrétien's government is his Liberal party ran aggressive television ads in the 1987 federal election showing a map with someone erasing the Canada-U.S. border, warning voters this would happen under the then-proposed Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, NAFTA's predecessor.
Prime minister Brian Mulroney's Progressive Conservatives responded with an ad drawing the border back in, calling the warning unfounded.
Canadian government sources say they're prepared, during this new debate, to see an "I told you so" opposition from nationalistic groups such as the Council of Canadians, who fought against NAFTA.
"The trick for us is . . . this is all part of globalization and North American integration. It creates jobs and produces wealth, but it also puts pressure on other social policy issues," a source said.