President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon met for their North American summit. Yes, it’s their get-together; not ours. They spoke a lot about “trade,” managed trade, or, in this context, the “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which seeks to more closely integrate the economies of the three countries.”

When people are herded by stealth into a supranational arrangements (the EU, or North American Union, for that matter), it is with a vision predicated on rigid central planning, homogenization of laws throughout the continent, and heavy taxation and inflation of the money supply.

Moreover, what was written on April 1, 2006, in the Ottawa Citizen—about a previous Summit in which Vincente Fox and his buddy George Bush officiated—stands.

… state-managed trade is never really free. And NAFTA is nothing but a mercantilist, centrally planned maze of regulations. Whenever I cross into Canada to visit my daughter, I’m compelled to declare and pay taxes on every paltry purchase. That’s NAFTA for you! Governments have only ever ‘freed’ trade by providing law and order, enforcing contracts—and then vamoosing.
… The free flow of goods across borders is not to be confused with that of people across borders. Over 40 percent of Mexicans live below the poverty line, compared to America and Canada’s 13 and 16 percent, respectively. This means that the U.S. is flooded by torrents of unskilled, illegal aliens. The costs to the nation’s schools, hospitals, and environment; health, safety and security are incalculable.
…So long as the U.S. and Canada remain relatively high-wage areas with tax-funded welfare systems, they will experience migratory pressure from a low-wage country such as Mexico.

Naturally, protectionist policies worsen this pressure. If people can’t sell their wares into foreign markets, they’re more inclined to relocate in search of better economic prospects. Unhampered trade, not NAFTA, might diminish this pressure.

UPDATE I: Huggs, Canadians are as socialist as Americans, maybe more. But their leaders are less treacherous than ours. Because of this, “Canada’s balance sheet is healthier than those of other developed nations,” the US included. naturally, Canadians prefer Obama to Harper, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re doing quite well as we struggle.

From the Frontier Center comes news that in Canada, private property rights are better respected than in the US.

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, along with the International Property Rights Alliance, today released the 2012 International Property Rights Index (IPRI). The 2012 Index, measures the protection of property rights in 130 countries. …On a worldwide ranking of one to ten—the higher scores reflecting a greater protection of property—IPRI scores ranged from Finland with 8.6, to Yemen with a score of just 2.8. In 2012, Canada maintained its position as the highest ranking country in the Western hemisphere and is seen as a model of stability, with increased scores in the Access to Loans sub-component of its Physical Property Rights (PPR) score. Overall, Canada was 10th. (The United States was 18th.)

In Brief:

* 130 countries were surveyed in 2012 IPRI.
* Finland scores highest in protection of property; Canada defeated by Netherlands for 9th place by only 0.1
* Canada, at 12th place, scores higher than the United States (at 18th)

UPDATE II: Canada’s center-right government plans to implement and austerity budget, raising “the retirement age and making major public service cuts. “Ottawa’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains the lowest in the Group of Seven industrialized nations. Canada is one of only two G7 nations to have recouped all the jobs lost during the global recession.” …

UPDATE III (April 3): CANADA IMPERILED BY US ‘PROTECTION.’ ‘Derek’s argument, below, about Canada not having the burdens of defending itself and the world because saintly Uncle Sam carries the load for her is a bogus argument, the premise of which is that American interventions protect Canada and the world from harm and reduce costs for beneficiaries of this ‘protection.’ To the extent that Canada has been our lap dog in war—to that extent it has harmed its standing and safety in the world. By the way, this false argument is routinely made at National Review too.