Welcome to the December Growth / No Growth issue of NorthBay biz. In this issue, we tackle growth, the most controversial topic impacting almost everything of economic consequence occurring within the North Bay. While the debate swirls around us, economic reality dictates resolution of these conflicts if we want to ensure continued economic vitality and viable, vibrant communities. Whether the subject is transportation, housing, jobs or land use, we need to pursue compromises that encourage growth while maintaining environmental integrity. Where does it say everything has to be an either/or decision?
Inside this issue, we examine several “hot topics,” including Indian gaming, more care being provided by local hospitals and proposed solutions for 101’s traffic nightmare. In addition, we ask how much open space is enough and also look at how Angwin’s growth plan is dividing that community. We hope you enjoy reading this issue as much as we did putting it together. In addition to all the stories, don’t miss all the special features and columns—exclusively yours in NorthBay biz—the North Bay’s only locally owned business publication.
I’ve been thinking for a while now, it shouldn’t be this hard to fix the illegal immigration problem. Why do we continue to allow illegals to stream across the border by the millions, especially in the wake of 9/11? We don’t really need any new laws. There’re enough laws on the books right now. They’re just waiting to be enforced. The American people spoke loudly and clearly recently, resulting in Congress’ attempt to pass what most called, “another illegal alien amnesty bill” to be resoundingly defeated. So what’s really going on? How come the government won’t act on an issue that has been languishing for years and the majority of Americans want resolved? Simplistically, I guess, I used to think, the Democrats don’t want to stem the tide of illegal immigration because they believe every illegal will ultimately be another vote for them, while the Republicans sit back unwilling to act because they don’t want to interrupt the flow of cheap labor. I’ve come to the conclusion that, perhaps, there’s more to this than appears on the surface. What, I asked myself, is the real agenda here?
Finally, the light bulb began to glow when I read that CNN’s Lou Dobbs opined, “The Bush administration’s open borders policy and its decision to ignore the enforcement of this country’s immigration laws is part of a broader agenda. President Bush signed a formal agreement that will (ultimately) end the United States as we know it, and he took the step without the approval from either the U.S. Congress or the people of the United States.” A strong and sweeping statement to buy into, I admit. But bear with me for a moment.
What Mr. Dobbs was referring to was the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) agreement signed by President Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin in 2005. The SPP is the spawn of the NAFTA agreement that President Clinton signed in 1993. You remember NAFTA: “NAFTA means jobs, American jobs and good paying American jobs,” Clinton assured us all. “If I didn’t believe that, I wouldn’t support this agreement.” Despite what President Clinton believed at the time, those jobs never materialized. In fact, just the opposite happened. According to the Economic Policy Institute, “In the United States workforce, NAFTA has contributed to the reduction of employment in high-wage, trade-goods industries, the growing inequalities in wages, and the steadily declining demand for workers without a college education.” EPI economist Robert E. Scott continues, saying “growing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have pushed more than one million workers out of higher paying jobs and into lower paying positions in non-trade related industries,” which cost these American workers $7.6 billion in reduced wages in 2004 alone.
The SPP’s intent is to unite the three countries inside a common “security perimeter,” blurring if not eliminating our national borders, promoting open immigration and working toward merging customs, immigration and border enforcement with Mexico and Canada to enhance the flow of people and goods. Among a slew of other proposals is the creation of a North American passport. The logic behind this movement is a progressive political and economic integration of the three countries to “enhance our security and prosperity.” Lou Dobbs went on to say he hopes that, as more Americans wake up to these facts, that they “stand up and stop this nonsense, this direction from a group of elites, an absolute contravention of our law, of our Constitution, every national value.”
America is paying a heavy price for the government’s open border policy. In 2005, the House committee on Homeland Security’s Subcommittee on Investigations reported that the Border Patrol apprehended 1.2 million aliens attempting to enter the United States illegally, however that was but a fraction of those who were successful. The estimated costs associated with illegal immigration are staggering. According to Harvard economics professor George Borjas, the base cost of illegal immigrants to the nations economy is approximately $70 billion a year. That’s in addition to the estimated $133 billion in job-loss costs to American workers.
Is it possible that our current immigration policy (or the lack of one) is really part of a strategy being employed to ultimately engender a North American Union? To envision what President Bush and other political, academic and business globalists might have in mind for us, you need only to look at Europe, where the merger of former independent nations is far advanced. The creation of the EU began with a common market where Europeans were told it would create jobs and prosperity through “free trade.” Now “free trade” has been transformed into a series of regional institutions that impose their will on member countries, including a central bank, a European parliament, court systems, a single currency, the euro and, ironically, tightly regulated trade. The EU bureaucracies have gained enormous economic and political control and are the central power controlling all the member countries today—their former sovereignty is a fading image of yesterday.
Is it possible that this is the vision a cadre of the powerful has in mind for us? For business, it would certainly ensure a never-ending pool of cheap labor and, for government, more power to rule over the citizens of three countries through the control of a burgeoning bureaucracy. However, it would be the end of America as you and I know it. If that’s the case, start to think of yourself as a North American, and hope that the new coin of the realm, “the Amero” will be worth more than the peso is now.
That’s it for now. Enjoy this month’s magazine.
