It's (cross border security) all part of NAFTA, in case you were thinking NAFTA was just about cheap junk from wherever.....
Chapter 11. Section 4 of Article 1101 on Scope states;
"Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent a Party from providing a service or performing a function, such as law enforcement, correctional services, income security or insurance, social security or insurance, social welfare, public education, public training, health and child care, in a manner that is not inconsistent with this Chapter."
This utterly confusing statement is a standard paragraph found in many of the chapters of NAFTA. Double negatives such as "not inconsistent" are common language in many trade agreements. They are a trade lawyer's version of a positive assertion. That is, they allow the drafters to avoid a clear assertion that something is permitted.
But what of the substance of this clause and of similarly written clauses? Here's the real problem. Essentially, it says that the services listed in the paragraph, from corrections to childcare, from public education to social security are to be open to the various investment (and services) provisions of NAFTA. This includes giving companies the rights of national treatment, the right of establishment, and exposing these services to tri-national harmonization.
This illustrates some of the problems with both the language but also the substance of what is being proposed in this agreement.
One of the must succinct summaries of NAFTA was made by Michael Walker, chief economist with the Fraser Institute in Canada, a right-wing economic think tank. Walker said, "a trade agreement simply limits the extent to which the U.S. or other signatory governments may respond to pressure from their citizens."
Responding to pressure from citizens is what we called "democracy."
With the free trade agreement, the policies of Bush and Reagan, Salinas and Mulroney, which have been so very favorable to big business and so disastrous to working people, will be locked in, not just nationally, but internationally.
That is the general outline of NAFTA and some of the motivation behind this agreement. I would now like to look at six major points of concern: job loss, low wage pressure, sovereignty, the impact on the environment, winners and losers, and fast track.
more
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/nafta.pdf
Chapter 11. Section 4 of Article 1101 on Scope states;
"Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent a Party from providing a service or performing a function, such as law enforcement, correctional services, income security or insurance, social security or insurance, social welfare, public education, public training, health and child care, in a manner that is not inconsistent with this Chapter."
This utterly confusing statement is a standard paragraph found in many of the chapters of NAFTA. Double negatives such as "not inconsistent" are common language in many trade agreements. They are a trade lawyer's version of a positive assertion. That is, they allow the drafters to avoid a clear assertion that something is permitted.
But what of the substance of this clause and of similarly written clauses? Here's the real problem. Essentially, it says that the services listed in the paragraph, from corrections to childcare, from public education to social security are to be open to the various investment (and services) provisions of NAFTA. This includes giving companies the rights of national treatment, the right of establishment, and exposing these services to tri-national harmonization.
This illustrates some of the problems with both the language but also the substance of what is being proposed in this agreement.
One of the must succinct summaries of NAFTA was made by Michael Walker, chief economist with the Fraser Institute in Canada, a right-wing economic think tank. Walker said, "a trade agreement simply limits the extent to which the U.S. or other signatory governments may respond to pressure from their citizens."
Responding to pressure from citizens is what we called "democracy."
With the free trade agreement, the policies of Bush and Reagan, Salinas and Mulroney, which have been so very favorable to big business and so disastrous to working people, will be locked in, not just nationally, but internationally.
That is the general outline of NAFTA and some of the motivation behind this agreement. I would now like to look at six major points of concern: job loss, low wage pressure, sovereignty, the impact on the environment, winners and losers, and fast track.
more
http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/lwp/nafta.pdf