.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
The Expansionist
Monday, May 23, 2005
 
CAFTA or Statehood? All the arguments for a proposed free-trade agreement with Central America are better used as arguments to bring Central America into the Union as one or more new states. Had this been done in the 1840s (when some Central American countries made inquiries) and 1860s (when President Grant tried to bring in the Dominican Republic), the entire region would be prosperous Sunbelt states today, contributing to our wealth and security instead of endangering both.
+
But free trade without statehood is a bad deal all around. It would be bad for U.S. workers, who would be undercut by cheap labor in our near neighborhood. It would be bad for Central Americans, who would not be protected from economic exploitation and environmental devastation. CAFTA no! Statehood si!
+
(Responsive to "CAFTA: New Front in Freedom Fight", column by Peter Brookes in the New York Post, May 23, 2005)
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 1,636.)

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 5:16 PM




<< Home

Powered by Blogger