GOP deeds under a microscope: by failing to oppose the dangerous policies of the Bush administration, much of the GOP leadership has proven that their talk about border security is nothing but rhetoric.

Since the inception of the Bush administration's post-9/11 "War on Terrorism," both the White House and congressional Republicans have paid generous lip service to the need to improve border security, an important part of controlling terrorism. "The United States must secure its borders," President Bush stated on May 15 of this year when he addressed the nation from the Oval Office on the subject of immigration. "This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security."

However, in the same address, the president also stated that, "to secure our border, we must create a temporary worker program," that this program "would create a legal path for foreign workers to enter our country in an orderly way," and that it "would match willing foreign workers with willing American employers." This program--which would provide legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already here and open the floodgates for many millions more to come--does not make sense if the purpose is to secure our borders. But it does make sense in light of the administration's Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) with the governments of Mexico and Canada that would effectively erase the national borders within North America on the path to forming the North American Union patterned after the European Union.

In moving forward with the SPP/NAU, the president has the support of the GOP leadership. This was evident at the congressional hearing, "Immigration: Responding to a Regional Crisis," chaired by Congressman Dan Burton (R-Ind.), chairman of the House International Relations' Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere. The meeting made clear that the United States is aiming to merge functions with Canada and Mexico and is pushing to allow the citizens from Mexico, Canada, and the United States to cross borders at will. In a statement issued in preparation for the hearing, Burton stated: "We have already begun the process of working with our friends by launching the Partnership for Prosperity (P4P) and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), but more needs to be done to stem the tide of illegal aliens into the United States in the short-term, as well as to pave the way towards a long-term, coordinated and legal immigration plan for our Hem# sphere." (Emphasis added.)

Despite the implication in this statement that the administration plans to stop illegal immigration and then only allow limited legal immigration, the reality is that the administration plans to legalize all current illegal immigrants--and facilitate the legal migration of any willing persons across the three countries' borders. Consider what the Senate's "comprehensive immigration bill" (S. 2611) supported by the Bush administration says.

S. 2611 represents a classic "bait-and-switch," insofar as providing a vehicle to curb illegal immigration is concerned. The earlier sections of the legislation appear to mandate a crackdown on illegal immigration, by employing subheads such as "Border Enforcement," "National Strategy for Border Security," "Document Fraud Detection," etc. These sections are followed by what we might term the "loophole" provisions. Most of these fall under the heading of Title IV--Nonimmigrant and Immigrant Visa Reform (which establishes a "Temporary Worker Task Force") and Title VI--Work Authorization and Legalization of Undocumented Individuals.

The latter section contains language mandating that the secretary of Homeland Security "adjust" the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence. Lawfully? This is evidently Orwellian Newspeak, since some of the requirements for an alien to have his status "adjusted" include provisions that allow the legalization of most every illegal immigrant: the alien "was physically present in the United States on or before the date that is 5 years before April 5, 2006"; "was not legally present [that is, was here illegally] in the United States on April 5, 2006," and "did not depart from the United States during the 5-year period ending on April 5, 2006."

In other words, illegal aliens who have been here for five or more years without leaving are to be granted amnesty! Of course, because the people are here illegally, there is no way to verify whether or not they have been in the United States for five or more years, and so most all illegals would gain citizenship.

The congressional committee chaired by Burton also revealed that plans are well-advanced that would merge the security functions of the United Sates and Mexico. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Cresencio Arcos spoke of the establishment of the "Border enforcement and security taskforce, which is known as BEST ... which represents an integrated effort to combat border violence. This effort involves DHS components, state and local enforcement agencies, and Mexico's Center for Investigation and National Security, known as CISEN."

Add to the BEST efforts what we glean from a news release issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on March 3, 2006--"In accordance with the Security and Prosperity Partnership [SPP], the Secretary of Governance of Mexico, Carlos Abascal, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff met in Brownsville, Texas, to sign an Action Plan to combat border violence and improve public safety"--and we see beginnings of a framework of international law enforcement.

While no reasonable person would object to cooperation between law enforcement officials on both sides of the border, the "action plan" being created between Homeland Security and the Mexican Secretariat of Governance employs language that points to something much more extensive than U.S. and Mexican police officials sending e-mails and faxes to each other. For example: "The Presidents of Mexico and the United States have pledged our respective Governments to a new vision of our shared border and our larger North American community ... affirmed in the Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America." (Emphasis added.)

The combined references to the "North American Community" and the SPP in a plan for policing borders provide a strong indication that this administration is committed to building a North American Community modeled after the EU, where national borders are as insignificant as county lines, and where a central, multinational authority supersedes national sovereignty.

Another Bush administration official, Roger Noriega, a State Department assistant secretary, presented a prepared statement at the Burton hearing: "The SPP ... is based on the principle that security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." (Emphasis added.) He added: "Ongoing bilateral initiatives--such as the 'smart border' programs with both Mexico and Canada--will be incorporated into this broader framework, giving greater cohesion to our overall border security program."

President George Bush and his allies in Congress claim that the SPP will secure our borders, help stop terrorism, and make all of North America more prosperous. But how does enlarging our borders, merging our security functions with one of the most corrupt nations on Earth (Mexico), and giving up sovereignty and constitutional protections make us safer?