The SPP is an agreement to merge our United States of America with Mexico and Canada.

I am outraged about what the Bush administration is doing with this partnership behind Congress' back. (See www.spp.gov)

With virtually no mention in the mainstream media and no oversight from Congress, Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez is pushing forward, through his department, the "working groups" that are implementing this plan.

Government bureaucrats and business leaders are "harmonizing and integrating" our laws with Mexico and Canada on a broad range of issues such as e-commerce, transportation, environment, health, agriculture, financial services and national security, just to mention a few.

Do we want our laws "harmonized" with Socialist Canada and corrupt Mexico?

If you are concerned about terrorism in our country, just remember that enlarging our borders, merging our security functions with one of the most corrupt nations on earth (Mexico) and giving up sovereignty and constitutional protections do not make us safer.

Dr. Jerome Corsi, a Harvard professor who has spent months researching this issue, was recently able, through a Freedom of Information request, to obtain about 1,000 pages on SPP/North American Union.

That information clearly reveals that the Bush administration is running a "shadow government" with Mexico and Canada in which unelected bureaucrats are crafting a broad range of policy changes.

The SPP is truly rewriting U.S. administrative law, all without Congressional oversight or public disclosure.

The government watchdog organization, Judicial Watch, obtained many of the same documents Corsi has received - including the organizational chart and a listing of trilateral Mexican, Canadian and U.S. administrative officers who report on multiple, cabinet-level "working groups."

The SPP.gov Web site has put up a "Myth vs. Fact" document posted for public relations purposes to begin the whitewash in which they think they can hoodwink the American public.

One of the ways the administration has been able to go around Congress is by not having the three countries sign a treaty or "law" on SPP.

I want to know - and the American public should demand to know - where does the Bush administration get the congressional authorization to invite two foreign nations to the table to rewrite U.S. law?

The Bush administration is trying to create the infrastructure for a new regional North American government in stealth fashion, under the radar and out of public view. Congress has unequivocally been asleep at the wheel.

It is incredible but, if this template is followed, just four years from now, the United States may cease to exist as an independent nation.

Its laws, rules and regulations - including all freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution - will be subject to review and nullification by the North American Union's unelected governing body.

There will no longer be a Canadian or Mexican border.

Transnational transportation corridors will crisscross the United States delivering the cheapest goods possible from China and Vietnam with Mexican truckers who will work for a pittance of what our U.S. truckers earn.

Thousands of middle-class jobs will be wiped out, and the United States will become nothing more than a province in an emerging North American superstate.

The American people have got to be alerted and we must contact our members of Congress to put a stop to this.

Most representatives and senators are largely unaware of the SPP/North American Union.

I am certain that an aroused and deeply concerned electorate would have little trouble gaining support to block what is planned and retain our nation's hard-won independence.

Please help stop this insane move toward a North American Union.

----------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

President Bush recently announced that he would like to see an expansion of the Visa Waiver Program to include more countries than the 27 we now have as participants as long as those nations meet new enhanced security requirements. FSM Contributing Editor Mike Cutler, a Fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, tells us what he thinks of that idea.

Expansion of the Visa Waiver Program Should be Squashed

Michael Cutler

I received an e-mail from Stephen Dinan, a staff reporter for the Washington Times who is traveling with the President in Eastern Europe. He informed me that the President had made a speech in which he promised to try to have more countries participate in the Visa Waiver Program in which, at present, the citizens of some 27 countries are able to enter the United States without first applying for and receiving a visa.

Let me start out by stating unequivocally that I am opposed to the Visa Waiver Program as it exists today. Therefore you will not be surprised that this promise by the President left me outraged. This

is not the first time his proposals have engendered feelings of outrage and I suspect that this won't be the last. If he really wanted to shock me, I guess he would have to indicate a willingness to secure our nation's borders and create an immigration system that possesses real integrity.

Stephen asked me for my input regarding the President's proposal, and I said this, "Terrorists are able to gain access to airliners and potentially to our nation without first applying for visas. This is because Great Britain, the country of citizenship for all of these terrorists, participates in the Visa Waiver Program."

At the same time, there is supposedly encouraging news that our government is finally going to get the countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program to issue so-called "E- Passports" to their

citizens.

It is important to understand why travelers who seek to cross international borders need to provide passports. Passports are designed to be secure identity documents. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, a passport is defined in Section 1011(a)(30) as follows: "The term ''passport'' means any travel document issued by competent authority showing the bearer's origin, identity, and nationality if any, which is valid for the admission of the bearer into a foreign country."

The value of a so-called "E-Passport" which is a passport that is machine readable and has computer chips and other safeguards, is that it is more difficult to counterfeit or alter. Period. There is nothing magical or mystical about an E-Passport. It is only that in this day and age of desk-top publishing and identity theft, E-Passports would be more difficult to falsify. An E-Passport does not change the benefits and concerns addressed by the visa requirement.

A passport, ideally, enables officials at ports of entry to be able to identify properly individuals seeking entry into their country. This is an area of responsibility I relate to quite well, having

started my career at the John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City in 1971 as animmigration inspector, and having worked there in that capacity until I became a special agent of the INS in 1975. No one I know would open his door to a person whose identity they could not determine. Our nation, especially in this perilous era, should do no less.

Among the current requirements is that the visa-refusal rate from a country be below 3 percent and that they have a low rate of travelers who violate the 90-day limit. Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council, said Mr. Bush will ask Congress for the power to waive the 3 percent rule for some countries as long as those nations meet new enhanced security requirements.

It is easy enough to determine the visa refusal rate for a particular country; our counselor officials should be able to produce those statistics fairly easily. If a country has a rate of visa refusal that is higher than 3%, secure passports will do nothing to make the citizens of that country any less likely to seek entry into our country and they should not be permitted to do so. This would only enable more illegal aliens, potentially, to enter America. Also worth noting is that a visa is not a guarantee of entry into our country, it constitutes only an initial screening mechanism that makes the job of the beleaguered inspectors at ports of entry a bit easier.

The truly amazing assertion is the fact that the travelers from Visa Waiver Countries have a low rate of violation where the 90 day limit is concerned. Our country is unable to track the comings and goings of aliens entering our country. US-VISIT is still not tracking the departure of aliens from the United States, so our nation does not really know how long aliens remain in the United States. The President is apparently willing to ignore high refusal rates for visa applications and is claiming that because aliens from Visa Waiver Countries generally leave the United States within their authorized period of entry, it is reasonable to have the citizens of those countries participate in a program that creates inherent national security vulnerabilities. He makes these assertions even though he knows our government lacks the ability to know when these aliens leave our country. We cannot even be certain if they ever do leave at all!

At the rate that Mr. Bush is going, he may as well declare anyone born on the planet Earth to be a United States citizen. Then he couldclaim that there are no illegal aliens in the United States. He could then claim that he fixed the illegal immigration crisis for once and for all.

It would seem that the President still does not get it. His failure to provide true leadership to our nation cost his party control of both houses of Congress and he is still cruising along, conducting what has come to pass for "business as usual" where this dysfunctional administration is concerned. When he won re-election to his second term, he won by a very small margin, yet he boasted about his "political capital." He has no political capital left. Our nation needs to have secure borders and a secure immigration system. Expanding the ill-conceived Visa Waiver Program and ignoring the rules that are supposed to govern that program would further endanger our national security and therefore it is absolutely imperative that the President's proposal be utterly rejected by the Congress.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/homeland. php?id=456567