 A pair of globalist-minded academics is arguing for an idea that, just a few short years ago, was derided as conspiratorial -- and by the same cable news outlet where the two are making their case: CNN. In an online column for the Cable News Network, Andres Martinez -- editorial director of Zocalo Public Square and professor of practice at the Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University -- and Daniel Kurtz-Phelan -- an Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fellow at New America and a former adviser on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's policy planning staff -- argue for a European-style merger between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, though CNN attempted to ridicule former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, for his previous mention of a North American Union. As reported by The New American magazine in its online edition, the recent op-ed by Martinez and Kurtz-Phelan, on behalf of New America, a globalist-centric think tank, the future of the U.S. 'lies in North America,' not in the Constitution or the American people. 'This is not a geographic truism, but a strategic imperative,' they argued. 'The United States, Canada and Mexico are bound by a shared economic, environmental, demographic and cultural destiny.' Borders are quaint anachronisms As further reported by TNA: In recognition of what they refer to as North America's 'shared destiny,' Martinez and Kurtz-Phelan propose the establishment of what they call a 'North American passport.' The radical passport scheme would eventually facilitate the erasing of U.S. borders in exchange for 'North American' borders -- a plot that has been underway for years with the 'Beyond the Border' initiative and other schemes. 'Much like the EU passport,' they said, the new North American passport would ultimately allow all North American residents to 'travel, work, invest, learn and innovate anywhere in North America .' On its website, New America states the organization 'is dedicated to the renewal of American politics, prosperity, and purpose in the digital age through big ideas, technological innovation, next generation politics, and creative engagement with broad audiences.' The scholars argue that prior continent-wide economic ties through mechanisms like the North American Free Trade Agreement have enriched all three countries and have inextricably tied them together for the long haul. What's more, the duo derides traditional boundaries between countries as quaint anachronisms that have no place in the modern era; sovereignty, to them, is an relic of the Old World. This is especially true as it pertains to North American energy resources, they argue. Such resources 'must be leveraged regionally, with cross-border infrastructure investments and environmental planning. 'Even if Washington still thinks in terms of tidy lines separating nation states,' they continued, 'mineral resources are about as influenced by such lines on a map as the water gushing down the Colorado River.' Where is the outcry for such a plan? As for America's 'illegal immigration problem,' the academics argue that a North American passport would alleviate the issue as a political football. 'We have more than 10 million undocumented immigrants in this country because we didn't create a realistic, legal avenue for the number of Mexicans who would -- and should, given our level of integration -- come to the United States over time,' they wrote. 'Moreover, by erecting a wall along the border and making crossings so difficult, costly and dangerous, we have interrupted the old 'circularity' of migratory flows, trapping millions of workers on this side of the border.' There is no mention in the op-ed about the drain on U.S. taxpayers such migration would inevitably create, given the political realities of Mexico's narco-state. And while there is much promise south of the border, at present there is little effort on the part of Mexico City to eradicate drug cartels which control much of the countryside, and who spread violence and terror to many of Mexico's 100 million people. For now, there appears to be little domestic appetite for such an integrative plan, which also assumes that the Mexican and Canadian people would even favor it. One thing is certain, however: As long as U.S. politicians continue to define the issue as one in which the wealthiest of the three countries involved will have to sacrifice the most in order for such a plan to succeed, they will play havoc selling it to the American people. For the record, during the 2008 GOP presidential nomination process, CNN allowed a viewer to ask then-candidate Ron Paul if he really subscribed to the 'conspiracy theory' about efforts to construct a North American Union -- a question which was designed to make him look absurd, but one in which he ultimately answered well. That exchange is here . Sources: http://www.thenewamerican.com http://www.cnn.com http://www.newamerica.org https://www.youtube.com 