The North American Union

Are the United States, Canada, and Mexico planning to merge into a single huge police state?

by Brian Dunning

Filed under Conspiracies, Urban Legends

Skeptoid #210
June 15, 2010
Podcast transcript | Listen | Subscribe

Today we're going to put on our cheap suits, stick earpieces in, and join the legions of multinational Secret Service agents flowing out among the populace of Canada, the United States, and Mexico; as the borders disappear and we round up a unified population into forced socialism under martial law in our gigantic new pancontinental police state. Some believers say this takeover is actually already underway; others reckon the plans are still being laid, but few believers doubt that it's in the works. The ultimate goal, according to the rumors, is for the few elite in the new government to enjoy unprecedented power, control, and profit over a new supermassive megastate, at the expense of half a billion workers forced into socialized labor. This new police megastate will be called the North American Union, or NAU.

One common theme in the conspiracy rumor is that anytime something bad happens for real, it's generally viewed by the believers as a deliberate attack by the American government upon its own people, as part of this active, ongoing process. 9/11 is the most obvious example; the conspiracy community believes nearly absolutely that 9/11 was perpetrated by the government, in part as an excuse to increase domestic control in preparation for the NAU takeover. When Hurricane Katrina killed over 1,800 people in 2005, some in the conspiracy community took it as an actual practice exercise by FEMA to round up thousands of young men and execute them in the swamp. Even the 2010 explosion of the oil rig Deepwater Horizon and subsequent oil spill was described by some as a deliberate attack, with the dual goals of damaging the local economies and reaping huge profits for the government insiders through stock manipulation.

One piece of evidence the believers claim proves that the NAU takeover is underway is a new monetary unit to replace the dollar, called the amero (obviously patterned after the euro used in the European Union). It should be stressed at this point that all known examples of actual amero bills or coins have been proven to be hoaxes; there is no such thing (so far as we know) as actual amero currency. But conspiracy theorists can be well excused for suspecting that an amero is in the works. After all, the euro certainly became a reality in Europe; therefore the amero might well happen here, so they reason.

However, comparisons between the amero and the euro, or the North American Union and the European Union, do not hold much water. The euro was first planned as a solution to a number of problems unique to Europe, where there were many small countries who necessarily had to do large amounts of business among one another; but with all their own separately fluctuating currencies, there were all sorts of problems. Foreign investment was unnecessarily complicated and troublesome, exchange was inefficient and costly, interest rates were unpredictable, and various inflation rates made every transaction a shot in the dark. When the euro was introduced, participating countries had to meet certain requirements of stability. Since its introduction, studies have found that it was tremendously successful in addressing the problems. As of 2006, the European Central Bank estimated that the euro increased trade among member nations by 5-10%, and later estimates show that this trend has only continued to improve.

North American countries, by contrast, do not have anywhere near the currency-related problems that Europe faced before the euro. We simply don't have an unmanageable number of international transactions suffering from fluctuating exchange rates and expensive conversions. Mexico suffered these problems historically, but when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1994, it had a rocky start, but followed by a hugely stabilizing effect on Mexico's economy and ever since, their problems have been largely mitigated. Arguably, NAFTA has addressed many of the issues for North Americans that Europeans solved with the euro. We just had those problems on a far smaller scale, and so our fix was correspondingly less drastic.

But that doesn't mean nobody's ever proposed an amero. There's been talk of it for a long time, mainly from a small number of Canadian economists. Quebec is one faction in North America that would actually benefit from an amero, and Mexico is probably the other. But since the United States and the majority of Canada would not, the amero is unlikely to ever proceed beyond the ruminations of these few authors.

In the real world, the introduction of an amero would probably have real benefits for a few, but none for the majority. Historically, the amero's proponents have been Quebec and Mexico. Quebec's perspective is an interesting one. They have a certain degree of French-Canadian nationalism, and being part of Canada and tied to its currency rubs this nationalism the wrong way. If they shared an amero with everyone else in North America, it would make them less dependent on Canada economically and freer to trade directly with the United States. Former Mexican President Vicente Fox expressed his desire for an amero openly, on multiple occasions, as a natural followup to NAFTA. Such economic unions often confer more benefit upon those at the bottom of the food chain that those at the top. Mexico would benefit from increased stability, while Canada and the United States would lose control of their own inflation and interest rates.

Canadian professor of economics Herb Grubel wrote a 1999 paper for the Canadian think tank The Fraser Institute called The Case for the Amero, but in it he admitted that his arguments were probably less important to the governments of Canada and the United States than the need to maintain control over their own monetary independence. The other most significant proponent has been Dr. Robert Pastor, professor of political science and former national security advisor under President Jimmy Carter. In his 2001 book Toward a North American Community, he pointed out the benefits of an amero for Latin America, but failed to convince very many people that it had any benefits for the United States. He did admit in the book that an amero was unlikely to happen, and has said that he absolutely does not support a North American Union.

So with academic and economic expertise in agreement that neither a North American Union nor even an amero make much sense, what support remains? Well, unfortunately, it's really just of the conspiracy theory variety, drawing its evidence from misinterpretations and exaggerations of actual events.

One such actual event feeding the conspiracy theory is a group formed by businessmen and academics from Canada, the United States, and Mexico called the Independent Task Force on North America. It's sponsored by nonprofit think tanks from all three nations. Created in 2004 in a post-9/11, post-NAFTA world, it advocates closer economic and security cooperation among the three nations, generally all good ideas. They do not advocate either an amero or a North American Union, all of their reports are freely available, and there's no secrecy attached to anything they do. Nevertheless, some conspiracy theorists consider their existence to be proof that the North American Union is already happening.

A similar, but more official, group was called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, formed in 2005 by Vicente Fox, George W. Bush, and Paul Martin, who met for dialog for essentially these same purposes, and was active through 2009. It included no treaties or agreements. The US web site for the SPP says in its "Myth vs. Fact" section:

...The SPP [seeks] to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency.

But nevertheless, you can say this up and down and standing on your head; the diehard conspiracy theorists dismiss such a statement as just another part of the coverup. Notably, in June of 2006, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs described the SPP, on the air, as an agreement (which it wasn't) to actually form the North American Union without the consent of Congress (which it didn't).

...The Bush administration is pushing ahead with a plan to create a North American Union with Canada and Mexico. You haven't heard about that? Well, that's because Congress hasn't been consulted, nor the American people.

Dobbs is not the only one. Believers all across the Internet say "Hey, it happened in Europe; it can happen here in North America." The European Union is indeed a reality, so by that example, it's plausible that a North American Union could happen as well, right? The European Union is actually not a real-world precedent for what the North American Union is believed to be. The EU is primarily an economic union. All the member nations in the EU are still sovereign nations, holding their own independent elections and issuing their own passports, and no European citizens are being forced into labor camps or executed by the millions. Conversely, the claims about the North American Union have the United States, Canada, and Mexico merged into a single police state characterized by brutality and forced socialism.

Tip Skeptoid $2/mo $5/mo $10/mo One time

The former Soviet Union would be a closer precedent, but still not a very good one. It was a police state characterized by brutality and forced socialism, but there are two very important points to heed. First, the Soviet Union was the result of a popular uprising by the people, the Russian Revolution; it was not a secret takeover by hidden Illuminati intent on deceiving the masses. The Bolsheviks were a majority party, and there was nothing secret about them. Second, the Soviet Union didn't last, and remains a dramatic example of why such a union is a bad idea for everyone; not just for the people, but for everyone hoping to benefit from it.

Like all conspiracy theories that claim to predict future events, the North American Union requires reliance on supposition and irrational dismissal of evidence. Anyone who thinks the United States is likely to give up its sovereignty has, shall I say politely, "lost a few tiles on re-entry." Ask healthy questions and maintain a healthy skepticism; but if you catch yourself departing a little too far afield, take it as a red flag and point your skeptical eye at yourself as well.

Brian Dunning

© 2010 Skeptoid Media Copyright information

References & Further Reading

Baldwin, R. "The Euro's Trade Effects." European Central Bank Working Paper Series. 1 Mar. 2006, Number 594: 48.

Chintrakarn, P. "Estimating the Euro Effects on Trade with Propensity Score Matching." Review of International Economics. 1 Feb. 2008, Volume 16, Issue 1: 186-198.

Dobbs, L. "Lou Dobbs Tonight (Transcript)." Cable News Network. Time Warner, 21 Jun. 2006. Web. 8 Jun. 2010. <>

Grubel, H. "The Case for the Amero." Fraser Institute Critical Issues Bulletin. 1 Jan. 1999, 1999 Edition.

Pastor, R. Toward a North American Community: Lessons from the Old World for the New. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics, 2001.

SPP. "SPP Myths vs Facts." Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America. US Department of Commerce, 21 Aug. 2006. Web. 9 Jun. 2010. <>

Reference this article:
Dunning, B. "The North American Union." Skeptoid Podcast. Skeptoid Media, 15 Jun 2010. Web. 4 Oct 2015. <>


10 most recent comments | Show all 92 comments

I dont agree with any of Macky's post.

As far as I can see the worlds economic advantage lies in its ability to invest in a currency/economy for profit.

At present, if you looked at the pound or euro you would wonder about US and antipodean economies. Are we doing that well or more likely are they doing that badly.

Still, currency investment shift had bizarre consequences. Ive seen the lebanese pound and the japanese yen crucified 40 years ago (both commodity currencies) and now, the pressure on "good economies" that "export" or have a relativity rating (ie, AA+, AAA are targets for currency investmet.

Its not a bane, its how the ball rolls.

Sure, the euro is under pressure but its no conspiracy. Its just other countries investing in a wild manner in a wild global economy.

I wouldnt be bitching about countries splashing about with equity when the very same countries had disatrous employment and participation rates 40 years ago.

What I hate is hearing comments about greece or Italy having high unemployment or monstrous retirement subsidies 40 years ago as if they were new today.

Sure, there have been monstrous economic avoidance schemes growing in the euro zone. They were there at the start, they are there now, its only political duck speak to sway economic reform to say "classes dont pay tax and people to retire older" after an entire decadal laxity to pacify voters has been to do exactly that.

Brian may say the same about the US economy

Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ,
December 17, 2012 10:22pm

I don't see what there is to disagree on in my first three paragraphs of my last post.

They are well-known facts.

My fourth paragraph could be construed as mere speculation.

As to the euro, the spectacle of more well-off countries like Germany (who if they had any sense, should get out of the union) virtually bailing out Greece etc is just manipulation of funds by a commission comprising many unelected members.
Unelected power-brokers, in fact, who are telling euro-member countries when to have elections and when not to.

The money-laundering and subsequent repressive laws that have sprung from the implementation of a common currency where countries' borders are no longer relevant, have had serious consequences, according to my Dutch-speaking friend in Antwerpen.

He should know. He is currently celebrating the successful defence of money-laundering charges brought against him by an overly bureaucratic Belgian system, as we speak.

Macky, Auckland
December 27, 2012 4:48pm

These arent well known facts, these are just unresearched speculations on why currencies are pinned to currencies, floated or a common currency.

There are numerous processes a government or economy can adopt.

As it turns out, germany is not only a stakeholder and a driver for the euro, its stuck with it. Its the same as their energy policy they are again reviewing. They are stuck with the surrounding nuclear energy policies and draw on that nuclear energy.

Can we have a bit better research when it comes to mackinations?

Mud, At virtually missing point, NSW, OZ,
January 7, 2013 8:02pm

I didn't have to research the American debt figure too far. It's on so many sites that one could hardly miss it.

Unless of course you expect authenticity of the US debt figure to be confirmed by years of research and posted in some sort of financial/science journal.

I think it's fairly well-known that the US dollar is the world reserve currency, by and large. That has some bearing on the overall picture of world finance I'm sure, except of course some South Pacific island where sea-shells may still be the local tender.

"There are numerous processes a government or economy can adopt."

For sure. They can keep on printing more and more US dollars, as I'm assured that is happening as we speak, by several more websites.
Of course, I'm not there on the spot so I have to take their word for it.
Maybe they are lying, and it's all a US govt comspiracy to instil a feeling of doom among the population.

But I shouldn't really speculate, I guess. We're getting too much into muddy waters.

Macky, Auckland
January 9, 2013 12:19pm

An North American Union is not going to happen. Too many people would have to agree on at least one subject for it to happen. And, as Macky has noted (as have others) China might have something to say about it. -- Or not, depends on if they can stop laughing soon enough.

The truth is that it's not quite the same situation as the EU. And the EU has caused problems as well, in dealing with fellow countries that have gotten themselves into financial trouble. I don't see this as being a concern.

We can't even agree on a tax code.

HistoryTalking, The Real World
January 22, 2013 4:58pm

Illegal immigration must be controlled and amnesty denied

The ignoring of millions of illegal immigrants by both political party leaders is because these leaders WANT the North American Union — with no borders — in the future. Therefore, they have no intent on handling the border problem as it exists today. The influx only helps to establish the NAU.... In addition, these “legalized” (through amnesty) citizens will vote for more government benefits.

In order to prevent this transformation, both sides of the internationalists’ agenda must be countered simultaneously: Illegal immigration must be controlled and amnesty denied, and new “free trade” pacts between the United States and other nations must be stopped and existing ones, such as NAFTA, repealed.

Robert Hale, Mesa, AZ, USA
June 15, 2013 7:46pm

Macky, you've outdone yourself now.

"I don't see what there is to disagree on in my first three paragraphs of my last post."

It's laughable to believe that either Canada or Mexico would not want to have a common currency with the US.

" The US is a shade short of bankruptcy"

"there is a call from some countries to end the greenback's status as the world reserve currency.

Not IF, but WHEN that happens, countries all over the world will flood the US with an UNKNOWN quantity of US dollars as they divest themselves of US dollars from their reserves."

Complete rubbish. Big deal if other countries want to flood the market with dollars. ( Which they wouldn't do, because it would hurt them more than the US). So they would intentionally lose money just to teach the US a lesson( maybe Russia, because of old grudges, but that's pretty much it)

You seem to be predicting a mighty fall for the US, which is just unrealistic. Who cares what other countries do to hurt the US? It would all be temporary( Like Germany intentionally destroying their economy after WW1, we see how long that lasted).

No matter what picture you paint, the US is still the greatest economic power in the world, therefore other countries will keep investing in it.

Stan, Boston
November 4, 2013 7:38am

The US is currently having trouble servicing the interest on its debt, never mind the principle.

If it defaults on its debt, the greenback will lose its status as the world's reserve currency, which has been a nice little earner on the side anyway since WW2.

When the greenback loses its reserve currency status, it will be near-worthless paper, and countries which hold it in their banks will send it back to where it came from, further reducing its value in the US homeland.

In the meantime, India, China etc are steadily building up their gold reserves for the day when that US turkey comes home to roost.

The greatest economic power in the world is built on a paper empire that has farmed its industrial might out to the very countries it owes the most to.
The corporates have betrayed their own people and shopped their jobs to India, China, and Mexico for their cheap labour.
In the meantime, the illegal and legal immigrants from those countries continue to pour into the US, undermining the local economies.

The greenback was good for any transaction in the world once.
Over the last few years, American tourists have been refused paying in US dollars in the Far East, and Europe. While that might not be much, it's an indication of a larger problem, that people around the world no longer have any confidence in the American dollar.

If you want to carry on with your "America forever" mindset, that's fine. Be happy, while it lasts.

Macky, Auckland
December 23, 2013 1:15pm

A check today reveals that the US National debt is now over 17 trillion dollars.

This debt represents $54k for every person in the US, or $150k for every taxpayer.
Of course, the ordinary person in the street does not carry the responsibility for this enormous debt.
It's not their fault, because the ordinary citizen has had no say whatsoever in this situation even at national election time.
It has been down to mainly the monetary manipulations outside US govt control, that have been implemented by a handful of private individuals who do not answer to the ordinary citizen, and very little to the govt.

The production and commodities that once underpinned the currency have largely been farmed out to other countries for their cheap labour by corporates, who when one looks at it, have actually committed a form of treason.
Of course the US govt has allowed this to happen, and since many politicians are corporate-funded, or are themselves part of said corporates, they too have had a hand in proving Lincoln's speech of long ago, that the only way America would fall is from within.

The greatest economic power in the world has very little left of what made it such an industrial giant 50-60 years ago, and its economic power depends on fiat currency with nothing to back it up.

When the world no longer regards the US dollar as having any value, like any fiat currency it will be near-worthless, and with its unpayable debt, the US economy will be finished as No.1 in the world

Macky, Auckland
January 14, 2014 10:27pm

As at today outstanding US Public debt stands at 18 + Trillion dollars, a gain of over one trillion in only 15 months.

The Total US debt as posted on here is 61 + Trillion dollars, and grows by one million every 17 seconds.

Who would want to join in a union with an economy like that ?

Of course, it won't be up to any democratic vote, because the money system of America has been out of any public democratic voting system for over a hundred years.

The financial situation that the US finds itself in is not the fault of the ordinary citizens of America. It is the fault of power-hungry corporates and their minions that work in the Federal Reserve, along with a spending spree by a country that uses a quarter of the world's resources with less than 1/20 of the world's population.

The country, as always, has been held to ransom by a mere few at the top, who are outside any accountability to government, and certainly outside any democratic controls.

Macky, Auckland
April 11, 2015 2:28am

Make a comment about this episode of Skeptoid (please try to keep it brief & to the point).

Post a reply


What's the most important thing about Skeptoid?

Support Skeptoid

The Flying Saucer Menace
Skeptoid #486, Sep 29 2015
Read | Listen (12:29)
Holocaust Denial
Skeptoid #485, Sep 22 2015
Read | Listen (12:54)
More Unsung Women of Science
Skeptoid #484, Sep 15 2015
Read | Listen (12:56)
Unsung Women of Science
Skeptoid #483, Sep 8 2015
Read | Listen (13:13)
Sir Franklin's Cannibals
Skeptoid #482, Sep 1 2015
Read | Listen (12:13)
#1 -
The St. Clair Triangle UFO
Read | Listen
#2 -
Tube Amplifiers
Read | Listen
#3 -
Read | Listen
#4 -
That Elusive Fibromyalgia
Read | Listen
#5 -
SS Iron Mountain
Read | Listen
#6 -
A Skeptical Look at the News
Read | Listen
#7 -
The War of the Worlds Panic Broadcast
Read | Listen
#8 -
Ancient Astronauts
Read | Listen

Recent Comments...

[Valid RSS]

  Skeptoid PodcastSkeptoid on Facebook   Skeptoid on Twitter   Brian Dunning on Google+   Skeptoid on Stitcher   Skeptoid RSS

Members Portal


Follow @skeptoid

Tweets about skeptoid

Support Skeptoid

Email: [Why do we need this?]To reduce spam, we email new faces a confirmation link you must click before your comment will appear.
characters left. Abusive posts and spam will be deleted.