Heidi Cruz, The Council on Foreign Relations, and ‘Building a North American (Union) Community’

Some of Ted Cruz’s primary opponents for Senate brought up ‘Building a North American Community’ (BNAC) in 2012, and Cruz responded that the criticisms were a distraction because “this race isn’t about the CFR.”  Yet, as Donald Trump has brought issues involving open borders, immigration and trade to the forefront of national debate, national sovereignty has become a key issue in the 2016 race. Trump’s advisor Stephen Miller said that the race ultimately boiled down to “nation-state versus globalism.”  By lending her name to one of the most pernicious attempts to undermine our American sovereignty, Heidi Cruz stood firmly on the side of globalism.  The BNAC blueprint remains. It raises the question, “Would a President Cruz embrace the Council on Foreign Relations’ North American Community?”

news_red1
By RJ Galliano | February 27, 2016

cruz_022716

When Ted Cruz first ran for Senate in 2011, he described the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as “a pernicious nest of snakes” that is working to “undermine our sovereignty.”

Cruz was right about the CFR, but he failed to mention that his wife Heidi Cruz was a member of the CFR, until a few months before he announced his candidacy for U.S. Senate.

The CFR has long dismissed criticisms of its agenda as conspiracy theories.  Yet, Mrs. Cruz’s role in undermining American sovereignty and independence was conducted out in the open as a member of the CFR task force for “Building a North American Community” (BNAC), better known at the grassroots as the North American Union (NAU). Other task force members included former La Raza president Raul H. Yzaguirre.

Moreover, serious books have been written about the subject, including “Merger of the Century, Why Canada and America Should Become One Country,” by Diane Francis.

In 2005, President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper created the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, (SPP), which aimed to expand previous economic and political integration of the three countries beyond the already disastrous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

book022716The BNAC went even further, proposing a “more ambitious vision of a new community” than the SPP.  The BNAC released its recommendations in a 59-page report primarily authored by left wing globalist professor Robert Pastor, considered “a visionary champion of the North American idea.” Now deceased, Pastor was “arguably the chief architect and proponent of a North American Union, or a North American Community, as he preferred to call it,” according to a review of his last book, The North American Idea.

BNAC’s recommendations were radical.   It called for the creation of a “North American Community” whose “boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe.”

On immigration, BNAC sought virtual open borders with Mexico and Canada.  It proposed a “North American preference,” which would streamline “immigration and labor mobility rules that enable citizens of all three countries to work elsewhere in North America with far fewer restrictions than immigrants from other countries.”  It even suggested that the United States and Canada “should consider eliminating all remaining barriers to the ability of their citizens to live and work in the other country” and proposed that the two countries should “work to extend this policy to Mexico as well.”

BNAC called for a giant bureaucratic “North American Investment Fund” to give foreign AID, primarily to Mexico.  It called for massively expanding economic integration beyond NAFTA by creating an EU-like “common economic zone through the elimination of remaining tariff and nontariff barriers to trade within North America.”   It would have created “a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution” to hear cases, rather than the U.S. Courts, and granted Mexican trucks unlimited access to United States roads and highways.

Ted Cruz’s campaign recently tried to downplay Mrs. Cruz’s role in the report, and even suggest she dissented from it.  Cruz spokesman at the time, Rick Tyler, stated, “Her contribution to the report was narrowly focused on economic issues.  She said as much in her dissenting view included in the report.”  This mischaracterizes her role.  BNAC included a section for “Additional and dissenting views,” where Mrs. Cruz qualified, “While governments play an invaluable role in both regards, we must emphasize the imperative that economic investment be led and perpetuated by the private sector.”  Nowhere in her statement, however, did she dissent from the paper’s globalist recommendations.  In fact, she explicitly stated, “I support the Task Force report and its recommendations aimed at building a safer and more prosperous North America.”

The taskforce hoped to achieve this integration by 2010.  Fortunately, grassroots conservative activists sounded the alarm.  Phyllis Schlafly said the report had “let the cat out of the bag” behind the agenda of “free trade” deals.  She demanded the Congress announce which side they stood on: “the CFR’s integrated North American Community or U.S. sovereignty guarded by our own borders.”

On January 22, 2007, then-Congressman Virgil Goode of Virginia sponsored H.Con.Res. 40 (110th), which responded to President George W. Bush’s SPP and the more radical ideas in CFR’s BNAC to express the sense that “the United States should not allow the [SPP] to implement further regulations that would create a North American Union with Mexico and Canada.”

Fortunately, most of the proposals in BNAC were never realized.  Yet, with Cruz a serious contender for the GOP nomination for President, his wife’s views and associations warrant more attention.   While a candidate’s spouse should not be at the forefront of debate, Mrs. Cruz, who also served in the Bush administration, is serving as a surrogate for Ted Cruz and has often answered questions relating to trade and economic policy on behalf of the campaign, including explaining why he reversed his position on supporting Trade Promotion Authority.

Some of Ted Cruz’s primary opponents for Senate brought up BNAC in 2012, and Cruz responded that the criticisms were a distraction because “this race isn’t about the CFR.”   Yet, as Donald Trump has brought issues involving open borders, immigration and trade to the forefront of national debate, national sovereignty has become a key issue in the 2016 race. Trump’s advisor Stephen Miller said that the race ultimately boiled down to “nation-state versus globalism.”

By lending her name to one of the most pernicious attempts to undermine our American sovereignty, Heidi Cruz stood firmly on the side of globalism.  The BNAC blueprint remains. It raises the question, “Would a President Cruz embrace the Council on Foreign Relations’ North American Community?”


RJ Galliano founded the Institute for U.S. Cuba Relations and served as editor of the U.S. Cuba Policy Report, archived at the Library of Congress. He is an SFPPR director and editor of SFPPR News & Analysis.