The push is now on for the Central American Free Trade Agreement.

[Swamp Fox]

Some will lose, like textiles and sugar producers, but textiles are already under pressure from China, and that would be the main competitor with the Central American states, not the US. As for sugar, well, if those other countries sell sugar, they will use the money to buy more American goods.

The trade pact would be the biggest since the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 that lowered barriers between the United States, Mexico and Canada. But the economic effect on the United States would be trivial. Collectively, the six countries represent the United States' 13th-largest trading partner.

Capiche? (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/27/business/trade.php)

[Swamp Fox]

The House has just approved it, and it seems the Senate had also approved it, so I presume it will be law. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/28/business/cafta.php) So Canada will now be pressured to do the same.

Since this was a hard fought narrow victory, Bush must have spent some of the political capital that he said was going to do. I wonder what his next move would be - tort reform would be good.

[Coot]

CAFTA is a John Holmes sized johnson right up the backside of the US. Our friend, Congressman Tom Tancredo, explains why (http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2005/07/18/opinion/commentary/71705195445.txt) pretty well.

CAFTA would do more than just phase out tariffs and open new markets ---- a lot more. For example, buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of "cross-border trade in services." This definition would give people in Central American nations a de facto right to work in the United States. CAFTA is more than a trade agreement about sugar and bananas. It is a thinly disguised immigration accord.

The immigration provisions are cloaked as "service agreements" in the document that have become standard fare in most trade agreements.

One article of CAFTA reads, "Cross-border trade in services or cross-border supply of services means the supply of a service ... by a national of a party in the territory of another party." CAFTA goes on to stipulate that member nations take care to ensure that local and national "measures relating to qualification requirements and procedures, technical standards and licensing requirements do not constitute unnecessary barriers to trade in services," and to guarantee that our domestic laws are "not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service."

What those provisions mean is that a foreign company would be empowered under CAFTA to challenge the validity of our immigration laws. If an international tribunal rules against us, Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws or face international trade sanctions. These tribunals have the authority to rule that U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements, or even licensing requirements and zoning rules are "unnecessary burdens to trade" that act as "restrictions on the supply of a service."

This hidden legislation to open the U.S. border is only the beginning.

The chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, which oversees most international trade matters, believes that these kinds of immigration provisions are fair game for future trade deals as well.

If CAFTA were really just about trade, the agreement would be little more than a few pages long, declaring that tariff treatment for U.S. and Central American goods will be on a reciprocal basis. But it isn't. In reality, CAFTA is about expanding a growing body of international law that supersedes our own.

Sucks to be us, especially when our own government is selling us out for nothing more than the paltry sum of a campaign contribution. As soon as the first challenge to immigration law happens under this bullshit, I'm up for armed revolt.

[Fiona]

CAFTA is a John Holmes sized johnson right up the backside of the US. In case I haven't said it lately, I do love the way you turn a phrase... :noworthy:

I don't know enough about it, but from what you guys have posted, it doesn't sound good.

[Swamp Fox]

I'm not a trade lawyer, but I don't think the US would give up the right to rule on its immigration laws. In any case, trade in services does not mean changing immigration laws.

Last, but certainly not least, I would encourage more lawful immigration from Latin America - I do think North America can use more hard-working, dynamic people, after all.

I was an immigrant, by the way, so I'm biased.

[Coot]

I'm not a trade lawyer, but I don't think the US would give up the right to rule on its immigration laws. In any case, trade in services does not mean changing immigration laws.
.

Ya' know Stan, I think I'll just go with Tancredo's take on this, since he's the Chairman of the House Immigration caucus and actually knows this stuff.

[Swamp Fox]

He knows more than I do, which isn't saying much because I know nothing of this area, so I'll have to take a bow, but I'm wondering if he's just saying that to condemn CAFTA, the way any opposition politician would, or if it is real. I'm just putting that out as a possibility, because I just don't know.

Now, if he was to talk about divorces in the context of CAFTA ...

[Piobaireachd]

The House has just approved it, and it seems the Senate had also approved it, so I presume it will be law. (http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/28/business/cafta.php) So Canada will now be pressured to do the same.

Since this was a hard fought narrow victory, Bush must have spent some of the political capital that he said was going to do. I wonder what his next move would be - tort reform would be good. No, the next battle will be th FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas). http://www.ftaa-alca.org/alca_e.asp

[Swamp Fox]

Interesting. There are protectionist forces, but they can still be defeated.

http://www.forbes.com/home/business/2005/07/29/central-american-trade-oxford-cx_0729oxfordcafta.html

Polls showing that more than 50% of U.S. households do not support such trade initiatives buttressed the opposition of many Democrats. However, the same polls show that a majority of the U.S. populace supports deeper trade integration if they are given enhanced tools and training to compete effectively against foreign workers.

That's fair. I think Bush should really agree to be the education president and say that there will be funds for education and retraining for those who lose their jobs.

What do the rest of you think on this?

[Biker]

Who the hell is going to pay for it?

Here's a cheaper solution.. Get rid of NAFTA, SHAFTA and all the other AFTA agreements that are giving workers the shaft.

[Swamp Fox]

Who the hell is going to pay for it?

Here's a cheaper solution.. Get rid of NAFTA, SHAFTA and all the other AFTA agreements that are giving workers the shaft.


Make a song out of it:

get rid of NAFTA, CAFTA, and any AFTA that are giving us da SHAFTA. :P

[Coot]

He knows more than I do, which isn't saying much because I know nothing of this area, so I'll have to take a bow, but I'm wondering if he's just saying that to condemn CAFTA, the way any opposition politician would, or if it is real. I'm just putting that out as a possibility, because I just don't know.


Tancredo is a Republican, one very enamored of free markets. He also happens to have a very low tolerance for foreign interlopers who wish to illegally enter the country and avail themselves of our service infrastructure and steal tax dollars.

[Swamp Fox]

Ah, a man after my heart. I must, however, convince him to accept more immigrants to counter our aging populations.

[Coot]

Ah, a man after my heart. I must, however, convince him to accept more immigrants to counter our aging populations.

Pray tell Stanley, why should the individual states be forced to subsidize a cheap, uneductated and unskilled labor force that insists on breeding like cockroaches; on the backs of their tax paying citizens? People who do not contribute to the tax base, but rather systematically take more in services than they contribute? Thieves who consistently steal needed tax dollars from our public service infrastructure, our healthcare system and our schools?

[Fiona]

Ah, a man after my heart. I must, however, convince him to accept more immigrants to counter our aging populations.ACK! Thud!