A North American Union? (part 3, Trying To Sift Through The Junk)

Yes, I'm still on this, unfortunate as that may be. This is really meant to be more of a preliminary "what I've found so far" while I try to keep digging, than anything else.

Are there really people out there who think such a thing is either a good idea, inevitable, or both? Sure. And are they agitating for it in any way? Yep. Google up one Robert A. Pastor and his book "Toward a North American Community" if you don't believe this.

Is there an active plan in the federal government to enact a North American Union? Not that I can tell. What I have found is a House Concurrent Resolution (number 487, of the 109th Congress, specifically), which was introduced on 9/28 of 2006, stating the following:

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That--

(1) the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;

(2) the United States should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and

(3) the President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.

What about the NAFTA Superhighway, then? This is one I want to look into s'more, but from what little reading I've done, it looks like a pipe dream version of the North American SuperCorridor Coalition's improvement programs for existing interstates. From their open letter to congress:

The “NASCO Corridor” is the existing infrastructure of Interstates 35, 29 and 94. No plans are in place for a mid-continent NAFTA Superhighway. Yes, it is true that since 1999, the federal government has directed more than $234 million in project funding towards the NASCO Corridor for current infrastructure improvements.

And the Amero, or whatever name might be chosen for the consolidated North American currency? Frankly, I've slacked on this, primarily because it's the least worrisome to me if it were to come about. Since the dollar is just a government guarantee at this point anyway, changing the name of it, and using the same thing as Canada and Mexico... Maybe there are some deep, economic reasons not to do something like this, but I'm certainly not aware of them at the moment.

Here are my thoughts, as I have them collected at the moment:

Some people out there think this is a good idea. As far as various writers and bloggers have gone to expose that line of thought, good. It's certainly something that the public should be made aware of. Of course, most of them will probably just laugh and go back to their everyday lives, but that's life. Short version: Educating the citizenry about the possibility is a good thing.

On the other hand, attempting to tie this to the federal government or the Bush Administration in particular as some kind of underhanded way of setting up an NAU appears, at this point, to be speculation. As an abstract, it's possible, but I don't have any firm plank to lay on it as far as facts go. More to the point, if it's out there, I haven't found it yet. (Emphasis on the "yet" here. I'm not ruling out the possibility.)