Nasty Attack From The Affluent

A brief NAFTA history

The article is write protected and will not allow copy/paste.  Says briefly U.S. Canada and Mexico announced a plan on August 12, 1992 for cross border trade.  George H.W. Bush was President at the time.  Bill Clinton was elected in November, 1992 and final NAFTA agreement was signed in September 1993.

There is a summation of the Treaty and includes efforts by Congress and the Senate to kill the part of it dealing with Mexican Trucks for at least 10 years, and a lot of other MUST READ information.

http://www.light1998.com/nafta.htm

---

The Native American view (1994)

The U.S. Constitution requires that, to be adopted, any treaty must obtain a 2/3 affirmative vote in the U.S. Senate. That means that NAFTA had to get 67 votes when it came up for approval. But NAFTA got only 61! And Clinton wants to expand this still unratified treaty by the same unconstitutional method!

>

Thus NAFTA is actually an amendment to the U.S. Constitution (as well as a treaty). It will change our system of government by eventually eliminating much of what is left of "states' rights" and by blocking tribal governments in their march towards sovereignty

>

Clinton is getting ready to try to further damage our workers, farmers, and citizens by allowing goods from undemocratic countries to flow in at cheap prices, prices which result from the murder of labor union and indigenous leaders, the dominance of extremely corrupt military cliques, and the raw exploitation of women and children sweatshop workers and other workers of both sexes and all ages.

NAFTA means "Nasty Attack From The Affluent." Let's fight back!

(them Indians have a way with words)

 

http://nas.ucdavis.edu/Forbes/ILLEGAL_NAFTA-97.html

---

Is everyone aware of another nasty little clause in NAFTA that soon allows professional workers from Mexico to come here on indefinite length visas?  This would include Drs, nurses, CPA's, dental professionals etc.  More ways developed for American workers to be unemployed.  This was evidently in the NAFTA agreement and was not to kick in for ten years and guess what,  the ten years have elapsed!! 

We need to somehow spawn a campaign to overthrow NAFTA via our legislators.  If the unions would stay on the democraps about it, it might be possible.  How than they enforce a non-treaty unless by our silence and the silence of Congress?

---

msbobbie Excellent post, now I have to find time to read. Thanks Where was everyone when this was done? I guess I was asleep with everyone else.

---

nancy sivill said: Is everyone aware of another nasty little clause in NAFTA that soon allows professional workers from Mexico to come here on indefinite length visas?  This would include Drs, nurses, CPA's, dental professionals etc.  More ways developed for American workers to be unemployed.  This was evidently in the NAFTA agreement and was not to kick in for ten years and guess what,  the ten years have elapsed!! 

 

They are already importing nurses by the hundreds from places like the Phillippines, due to the nurses shortage, the problem will be, once the shortage is over, they will continue to import them to lower nursing wages and drive out more Americans from another 'family wage' job!  Mark my words on that fact!  Right now, if you are a nurse, you have a pretty good choice of job locations with good pay, but give it another 10 years, and then nursing will be listed as 'another job americans won't do'.

---

Affluent , EFFLUENT , what's the diff ?

---

---

VeeBee:  As a retired nurse, I can say that it is true, for a patient, being in a hospital is a dangerous place to be when the staff all speaks fluent English.  Mix in staff who are not proficient in English and we certainly should expect the error/death rate to increase and quality to decrease.  Quality will not be maintained because as medicare reimbursement continuously decreases, hospitals search for ways to cut costs;  enter the foreign worker who can be hired at a lower salary.

Hello Folks,

   There are many questioning the NAFTA  treaty and it's lack of congressional approval.   This is exactly why we need to continue to fight ANY FAST TRACK legislation which gives the President "carte blanche" to negotiate Trade agreements.  I was livid and faught FAST TRACK with NAFTA and GATT years ago back when it mattered.  Congressmen did not  want the constituents in an uproar so they just shirked their duty and delegated the sole authority to the president.  They still try to call for FAST TRACK in the new SPP / NAU talks.   

   The congress and Senate  needs their feet held to the fire on this crap and their votes need to be public record for se we can remove the jerks who subvert our sovereignty with this garbage.  

 

We must throw out ANY member of congress who votes to give FAST TRACK authority for anything.

TG    

---

msbobbie,

The info can be posted here.

---

I asked this very question of Tom Tancredo this eve--since NAFTA wasn't ratified ( lacked the two-thirds majority)  by congress, can it be annulled?  Answer:  It is classified as an agreement, not a treaty, and therefore does not need the two-thirds majority.   It's not a treaty, as txguy1 posted , it is the NAFTA(agreement).  What you can't do with words and numbers!!

Hoosier said: msbobbie Excellent post, now I have to find time to read. Thanks Where was everyone when this was done? I guess I was asleep with everyone else.

 

That was 15 years ago.  I don't even remember what I had for breakfast this morning.

I know Duncan Hunter opposed NAFTA in 1992-3 whenever it came up.  I don't know about Ron Paul but he probably opposed it also.  Tom Tancredo did not come to the House until 1999 and voted against an expansion bill for NAFTA.

They would all destroy this shameful atrosity if they had the opportunity.  None of the top tier would even consider it.

---

nancy sivill said: I asked this very question of Tom Tancredo this eve--since NAFTA wasn't ratified ( lacked the two-thirds majority)  by congress, can it be annulled?  Answer:  It is classified as an agreement, not a treaty, and therefore does not need the two-thirds majority.   It's not a treaty, as txguy1 posted , it is the NAFTA(agreement).  What you can't do with words and numbers!!

 

But... It seems those agreements should be temporary, and reauthorized every so often.  Maybe by the next administration.  i.e. We pretty much understand that Bush carried on with the agreements Clinton made, and we are pretty much in agreement that FT would carry on with the agreement Bush made.  No doubt the 'top tier' would.

If we can get Tom behind that big ole desk in the oval office, would he have to keep up with that agreement or could he tear it up?

I am thinking he could tear it up.  Maybe that is why the CFR media is trying to keep him silent and the CFR candidates are taking up his message and flip flopping on the issues.

 

---

msbobbie-or he can light a match to it for the FS!!

It would be like burning the mortgage.  Finished and gone...It would be great if Tom  could do it.  We have to fight it, and get rid of it.

Too many of us (me included) were in the dark on this thing back in 1992-93 (mostly because I didn't want to even acknowledge Clinton and anything he did.  I know better now.)