The opposite of amnesty

Here is Rep. Tom Tancredo at his website:

I am absolutely opposed to amnesty. In addition to rewarding those who broke our laws, amnesties simply do not solve the problem of illegal immigration. The only realistic solution to the problem of illegal immigration is a strategy of attrition, which seeks to reduce the flow of the illegal alien population over time by cutting off the incentives for coming to and staying in America—most importantly by eliminating the jobs magnet.

Tancredo, America’s best-known critic of illegal immigration, makes it clear he is for attrition. Yet every time the proponents of amnesty open their mouths, they act as if the only alternative to amnesty were some horrible (not to mention totally impracticable) measure to deport 12 million illegals overnight. They are shameless liars, from President Bush and Sen. McCain on down.

And talking about lies and liars, see the the hidden open-borders provisions in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) that Tancredo has uncovered. He writes:

Buried among its nearly 1,000 pages, the agreement contains an expansive definition of “cross-border trade in services.” This definition would effectively give people from Central American nations a de facto right to work in the United States. In fact, CAFTA is more than a just trade agreement about sugar and bananas; it is a thinly disguised immigration accord.

Little effort is even made by the U.S. trade officials to hide their efforts. One article of the agreement 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 also stipulates 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 the U.S. is required to guarantee that our domestic laws are, “not in themselves a restriction on the supply of the service.”

U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements – or even licensing requirements and zoning rules – could be considered ‘unnecessary barriers to trade’ that act as ‘restrictions on the supply of a service.’ Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws, or face international trade sanctions.

If CAFTA and its successors were really just about trade, the agreements would be little more than a few pages long, setting a schedule for opening markets and phasing out unfair taxes on goods. But they aren’t. In reality, these agreements have become vehicles to expand a growing body of international law that threatens to supersede our own national sovereignty.

According to Wikipedia, the U.S. Congress approved CAFTA in summer 2005 and it was signed by President Bush. The only thing preventing it from coming into effect is that Costa Rica has not yet approved it. Well, then it looks like a done deal. What can be done at this point to stop it? Tancredo doesn’t say.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 28, 2007 11:14 PM | Send