State and national legislators are beginning to slow down the drive toward the North American Union. They are responding to alarmed American citizens who are increasingly connecting the dots between stagnant incomes, job losses, North American integration, open borders, “free trade,” and globalization.

Signs of Hope in 2007
While the Bush administration and prominent members of non-governmental organizations are straining to establish by 2010 a “North American economic and security community,” popularly known as the North American Union (NAU) the American people are beginning to rise up in sufficient numbers to force state and national legislators to block key components of the NAU merger. Below are five examples.

• Support grows in Congress for Rep. Goode’s anti-NAU resolution: On January 22, 2007 Rep. Virgil Goode (R-Va.) introduced House Concurrent Resolution 40 in the U.S. House of Representatives “expressing the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.” As of September 19 this resolution had 32 cosponsors. Due to increasing constituent awareness about the North American Union, support for Goode’s resolution is still growing. Five new cosponsors added their names in the first 19 days of September alone.

• The Senate abandons the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill: As documented in “Myth vs. Fact,” a major goal of the NAU merger process is to “lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America” by 2010. The groundwork for this freer flow of people within North America has actually been under construction since passage of the 1986 immigration law providing amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

During the last three years, the Senate has led the way toward open borders by passing comprehensive immigration (read amnesty and temporary-worker) bills, while the House has refused to go along and instead insisted on passing bills to improve border security.

In light of this context, one of the most gratifying signs of hope from Congress this year was the decisive retreat by the Senate from voting on the Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill (S. 1639) on June 28. This surprising turnaround demonstrates just how widespread and intense the public’s opposition to NAU-style open borders is. However, now that the uproar has died down, the Senate is once again pursuing amnesty, but they have labeled it as an agricultural work program (AgJobs) to try to slip it past unaware constituents.

• Congress votes to stop Mexican trucks: Another gratifying sign of hope from Congress was its votes in July and September to stop the Bush administration’s pilot program to allow Mexican trucks to deliver goods throughout the United States. This Mexican-trucks issue is a holdover from the original NAFTA agreement in 1993. Although the NAFTA agreement provided the basis in principle for Mexican trucking firms to begin making deliveries throughout the United States immediately, Annex I of the agreement delayed authorization for Mexican cross-border trucking services until the end of 1995. When the United States continued to refuse to allow Mexican trucks into the United States after 1995, Mexico appealed to a NAFTA “Arbitral Panel.” This panel ruled against the United States in 2001, citing U.S. obligations under NAFTA as its basis.

During the next few years, the Bush administration attempted to permit Mexican trucks to deliver goods throughout the United States, but was prevented from doing so by a combination of congressional votes and court actions. In 2006, the Bush administration announced it would begin a pilot program for Mexican trucks. This time the courts failed to stop the program. (The pilot program was instituted in early September.) However, the House (by a voice vote in July) and Senate (by a vote of 75 to 23 on September 11) added an amendment to the Department of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill for 2008 denying federal funding for such a program.

• House votes to prohibit funds for the SPP: Showing just how much citizen opposition to the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) aspect of the NAU merger process is being expressed to Congress, consider that on July 24 the U.S. House of Representatives cast an historic first vote to restrict funding for the SPP. The House overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the Department of Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Bill for 2008 (H.R. 3074) “prohibiting the use of funds to participate in a working group pursuant to the Security and Prosperity Partnership” by a vote of 362 to 63.

• Eighteen state legislatures consider anti-NAU resolutions: Another impressive sign of hope in 2007 has been the significant degree of success in the campaign to block the NAU through state resolutions launched by the John Birch Society in late 2006. This campaign is based on a model anti-NAU resolution, available online, for state legislatures to adopt, asking Congress to block the NAU. As can be seen in the accompanying U.S. map, anti-NAU resolutions were introduced in 18 state legislatures. In three states, both houses passed their anti-NAU resolution. In two additional states, one house passed such a resolution. With 44 states having legislative sessions in 2008, this campaign will continue next year.