I have a sincere question and welcome all thoughtful replies...

[TeeYiYi]

... because I am the first to admit that I don't know all the answers.

(This question was originally posted to another thread, but I decided to give it its own thread for a better response probability.)

So,... Would a North American Union solve anything? Personally, I've always been against the concept of a New World Order.

My question comes from reading some of the answers in today's immigration threads. And, for the purposes of this question, I am choosing to go with the idea that drugs would have been legalized to remove black market incentive.

I'm also going with the idea that if the borders are open, they would be open in both directions. Americans can buy land, start businesses, etc. in Mexico and/or Canada.

So, how would open borders work? Would Canada, United States and Mexico maintain their own governments? I confess, I don't know how the European Union works exactly. Would it be similar?... Is this a slippery slope?

In light of all of the "illegal immigration" threads today, I wonder what the solution is. For me, I don't see how unfettered immigration can work if it doesn't work in both directions. I am currently in favor of legal citizenship, but I have sympathy for and personally know many people who are not here 'legally.' Likewise, I know people who spent the money and at least ten years of their lives acquiring their United States citizenship. So I'm torn on this subject...

Are open borders in both directions a solution?

All thoughtful replies are welcome.

TYY

[NaturalHigh]

1. I think open borders would be bad for the U.S...

and I'm skeptical of any sort of NA union. Personally, I think it would be another scam (think NAFTA) to benefit big business and depress wages.

Recommended by the way, because it's a subject well worth discussing.

[TeeYiYi]

4. Exactly. Unfortunately...

... I suspect that a North American Union might be in the early planning stages. I would prefer to be wrong about this. Or, if it's a viable option, I'd be open to hearing why it could work...

In the event that a NAU is on the docket, it might be time to give some serious consideration to (and take a stand on) this issue. The EU seems to be suffering from some financial issues of late.

Thanks for your response.

TYY

[ZeitgeistObserver]

2. I can't imagine any of the 3 countries agreeing to it.

In fact they'd probably all be horrified at the idea.

On edit: Forgot to add that I'm a Canadian.

[TeeYiYi]

3. Yes. I agree...

... It kind of boils down to a "What's good for the goose, is not good for the gander" scenario. Which, btw, is what I've been gathering from some of today's threads. People seem to want unfettered access to the United States but don't consider that we don't have that luxury in reverse.

Thanks for you response.

TYY

[ZeitgeistObserver]

8. I should also add that one province, Alberta

might be all for it, maybe even two others. But Ontario and Quebec are looking to the EU not the US for trade and union.

[surrealAmerican]

11. This was my first thought as well.

The Canadians would hate this idea. They are not going to want to be responsible for our financial mismanagement!

[TeeYiYi]

15. I totally get it...

... why Canada would want no part of this clusterfuck. They're doing just fine on their own. They're the envy of the North American continent.

So, let's exclude Canada for the current conversation. What about a US/Mexico union. It seems to me, from the threads I've read today, that people want an open border between the two. How could that possibly work?

Would it be one large country, one single government? Would it be two governments with one body of law?

The thing that I noticed from today's immigration threads was that people wanted an open border for any and all to immigrate North. But, what about South? Shouldn't this idea work both ways?

And, how could a two-way border work unless the laws are unanimous?...

TYY

[surrealAmerican]

17. I think many of us in the US would oppose it precisely because ...

... it would work "both ways". In the short term, companies would have a strong economic incentive to move manufacturing operations to where the labour cost is less. In the long term, such a move might be a benefit to both counties, but that would take decades. We (in the US) are simply not that patient, and don't feel affluent enough to make such a move for somebody else's benefit.

[TeeYiYi]

21. For it to work "both ways"...

... the labor costs would have to be the same.

TYY

[daleanime]

5. Legalizing some drugs....

would do more to solve our problems then open or closed borders. People bring a truck load of personal issues to the 'legal/illegal' debate, many of them are borderline if not outright racist. Don't ask some one where they stand on an issue-ask them why they took that stance, instead of the other side. It will provide you with much more information.




Please note that I said many, not all or most. If the fact that a large percentage of those who feel quite strongly about this issue are at least influenced by race upsets you-feel free to flame away.:hide:

[TeeYiYi]

6. There is no right or wrong answer in this thread...

... I'm just trying to understand how I personally feel about this subject. I don't see how there can be a cut and dried answer to the issue of immigration without thoughtful consideration from multiple angles. (Some angles of which are being conveniently omitted from discussion in favor of a quick and snappy retort.)

I want a solution. I just don't know what it is.

TYY

[NaturalHigh]

9. I agree with the legalization of some drugs.

Legalizing marijuana would be a stiff kick in the ass to the drug cartels.

[county worker]

7. Depends on the aims of the union.

If it is only to foster more corporate wealth at the expense of the rest of us I would say it is a bad thing.

[TeeYiYi]

10. If the concept of open borders...

... were truly about civil rights and fairness for all, it might be a good thing.

However, the cynic in me suggests otherwise. The view from where I sit suggests that corporate greed and NAFTA shenanigans is responsible for the economic situation that we (the United States) currently find ourselves in.

I long for a kumbaya moment, but I'm not holding my breath.

TYY

[county worker]

12. Corporations want open borders because they say that both labor and capital

should be able to move to where the demand is. The problem is that all laborers are not living the same lifestyles.

[TeeYiYi]

20. Which is why...

... an open border policy, both North and South, should require same and equal laws and protections across the board. (IMO)

TYY

[ZeitgeistObserver]

16. If you don't like NAFTA why would you want a union?

[TeeYiYi]

19. I didn't say I wanted a union. ...nt

TYY

[ZeitgeistObserver]

22. That's good, because no one else does either.

;)

[TeeYiYi]

23. I see gaping holes...

... and glaring conflicts when I read the 'immigration threads' on DU.

I want to believe that I've given every consideration and looked at this issue from various and multiple informed angles before I make a decision that I can feel good about regarding my personal stance on this subject.

That's why I'm asking for help. I want an open and thoughtful discussion from any and all who are willing to contribute their ideas on this heated and confusing topic.

TYY

[Naturalist111]

13. We need the UNION of the American people to work first.

[TeeYiYi]

18. Perhaps...

... but in that light, tough love would have to come into play. A tough love stance would suggest a closed door policy while we clean our own house. Not a likely scenario in today's heated and passionate political environment.

TYY

[TeeYiYi]

14. Thinking out loud...

... if open borders (in both directions) were to have a chance of working, it would require that all three countries (bodies of government) ascribe to the same employment policies and laws. (Minimum wage, etc.)

So, is it even reasonable to expect that three separate governments might somehow agree to the same rule of law?... And, if so, then who (or whom) are those three governing bodies answering to? The king of the world?... The United Nations?... Yikes.

I'm just not seeing it. The potential for corruption is exponential.... (Millions. No, billions!) A maniacal psychopath's wet dream.

So, who would be king of the world?...

Not a good idea.

TYY