What are the downsides to North America becoming one country?

Question

I see only very minor downsides such as American patriots getting angry because they no longer have an individual America, the same with Canadian and Mexican patriots.

It would definitely cause economic booms, make it easier to travel within North America, and make North America the leading world superpower.

Keep all the Canadian, American, and Mexican provinces and states and call them whatever you want. Just try to eliminate small governments that are only part of a municipal branch to make money off of regional zoning and taxes.

Answer 1

Perhaps USA citizens don't want to have to speak French.

I can never understand that situation, I was taught at school that the English won the battle of Quebec. Perhaps they became friends after that war and agreed to use both languages.

I really shouldn't complain, I live in London, UK, and in some areas rarely hear my own language due to the enforced demographic changes introduced by our present national government to help keep them in power. Every form I get from the local Council has it's reverse side covered in many languages, some of which are indecipherable squiggles.

Answer 2

First you need small governments corrupt as they are they do a better job addressing the problems of local communities than one big central governments.When all three countries joint the would be under the US Constitution and became states.Downside...Canada.....

Answer 3

No way Jose

Answer 4

think about it: a superpower country under the control of someone like McCain or Bush

Answer 5

Without the borders, they would all move to America.

Answer 6

rampant racism

Answer 7

There would no longer be a United States, No U.S. Constitution, no sovereignty, no American democracy what so ever and that’s just a few problems with c**p ideas like that. s***w the NAU. I would rather have my freedom then be some horrible bureaucratic  superpower who cares nothing about Americans, me, my people.

Answer 8

It is part of the One World Order

Answer 9

It would only be a step until we have the asian, african, european, and the south american union then just not too long after where locked into a one world goverment which is an absolute power

Answer 10

Canada shouldn't let that happen...it would make them look horrible to become one with america..

Answer 11

Whoa there pardner you're making some pretty big assumptions.

You sound like someone who has a financial stake in the SPP. For the moment I'll assume you're not.

First, why do you call the thinking of American, Canadian, and Mexican patriots a "minor downside"? So citizens of the nations involved are a minor consideration? That would be the typical point of view of the people who are actually trying to orchestrate these fine "Unions" — the people who stand to gain financially and politically.  In other words, people who want more power over populations and currency.

That point of view also portends what will happen to the civil and suffrage rights of the populations so subjected to the huge beaurocratic establishments which would be the inevitable by-product of large-scale government.

Secondly, why do you say "It would definitely cause economic booms"? Where is the proof? Examples? Maybe some of the "economic booms" happening in the EU? Oh wait — there are none.

Thirdly, "make it easier to travel within North America"? Again, some proof, or even some reasoning? Do you really think that there will be less paperwork involved under a huge government structure, whose intent, indeed necessity, would be to regulate the population more, not less?

Fourth, "make North America the leading world superpower"? In competition with whom? The EU, the South American Union, the Asian Union? Again, your reasoning? Evidence?

No, the point of these proposed "Unions" is to take power away from sovereign nations, not add to it.

And lastly, as to your last paragraph, as stated it is either a purposeful obfuscation of, or a very naive understanding of the functions and interaction of local, state, and national government.

Here is the bottom line regarding a citizen's voice in how they are governed — the more central and consolidated a government is, the less an individual's voice will be represented. Under a huge, remote and bureaucratically oriented government you can kiss your personal influence on policy good-bye.

Take a look at what is happening now in the European Union.  Those poor people are going to find out soon enough all the wonderful benefits of living under the thumb of politically insulated beaurocrats, power mongers, and bankers.

Someone wiould benefit from a North American Union, for sure, but it will not be citizens interested in self-governence and individual rights.

EDIT IN RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL POINTS:

"First: Provincial and state governments would still exist."

"Second: Municipal governments would still exist."

Naturally. But how much actual power would they wield under the huge, I repeat, huge "national" government? What recourse would citizens or local governments have to fight a tyrannical law? Currently in the United States the Constitution is written so that the federal government is an agent of the States, not the reverse, but the whole trend in recent years is to make the States into agents of the federal government. Do you seriously expect that a North American government is going to allow any sovereignty to individual States? If you do, you need to take a hard look at history, and not just the history of the United States.

Or again I refer you to examine the current trends in the EU, in particular fair Ireland's struggle to be heard.

Centralized government has NEVER worked ultimately for the benefit of the people. It is because of this that the United States was founded on the exact opposing principle: that the federal government is an agent of the States, that government might remain in the peoples' hands.

"Third: As the continent is initiated as one, there will be a uproar if there was no new constitution wrote that included factors from each of the original countries constitutions."

Right, like there has been an uproar over the gradual degradation of the purposes and intent of our own Constitution. Also, you fail to state exactly which factors? You do not seem to understand that the Constitution of the United States is unique among the existing constitutions on this planet, both in the way it structures government, and in the guarantees of liberty and natural rights that it makes to citizens. It in fact is a thorn in the side of the powers seeking to establish a world government, for those very reasons.

"Fourth: Just prior to becoming a super-state, there would be continental elections for different political parties running for office."

This is a gross oversimplification. Have you looked at the current presidential election process in the United States? The confusion over fundamental issues? The flip-flopping of the candidates? And what, you want to add into that mix the adjunct and — under an NAU — now relevant issues of the sub-states of Mexico and Canada?

I will re-iterate once more:

The bigger and more centralized the State, the less your individual voice will count in the political process, and the greater the possibility that you will find yourself under a bureaucrat's thumb, a banker's foot, or a tyrant's whim with no possibility of redress.

Answer 12

well, for one, the u.s. government already has control over too many people, and if mexico and canada were added, that would be disastrous.  i dont think that any one person, or even one small group of people, should have control of that many people, and i already think that the U.S. alone is too big.  i mean, each individual state has too many people for a governor to rule over.  i dont think that one person should decide certain rules and boundaries and things for any number of people.  i short, i think that the joining of north america would give the government way too much power, and they already have way too much power, so why would they deserve more?