Mexico mega-port plan key to 'NAFTA superhighways'

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | October 7, 2006

[Man50D]

WASHINGTON – There are mixed signals coming from Mexico about the fate of a proposed mega-port in Baja California for mainly Chinese goods that would be shipped on rail lines and "NAFTA superhighways" running through the U.S. to Canada.

The port at Punta Colonet, planned as a major container facility to transfer Asian goods into America's heartland, got at least a temporary setback when a Mexican businessman announced a competing project in which he was seeking to secure mineral rights in the area.

Gabriel Chavez, originally one of the principal movers behind the port plan, now says there are significant amounts of titanium and iron to be mined offshore – a project he considers more important than the port.

Mexican ports czar Cesar Patricio Reyes placed a moratorium on further work toward port planning for three or four months while the government explores ways to make everyone happy.

It is no secret the Mexican government is still committed to the port plan. A map from the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies shows the proposed goods route into a North American community.

According to transportation officials in Arizona, one of the sites considered for a rail line from Punta Colonet, the Mexican government has released an official directive stating its intention to create a new marine facility there -- about 150 miles south of the U.S. border.

The port at Punta Colonet, when completed, is expected to rival the biggest West Coast ports in Los Angeles and Long Beach, both heavily congested now.

Bringing goods into a Mexican port would mean lower costs for foreign shippers because of cheaper labor and less restrictive environmental regulations.

Hutchison Ports Mexico, a subsidiary of the Chinese company Hutchison Whampoa Ltd., is keeping reports about progress on the venture close to the vest.

Only recently has the port become a source of controversy in the U.S. as Americans begin questioning highway and rail projects criss-crossing the country – many of which are designed to carry product from Mexico to the U.S. and Canada on the so-called "NAFTA superhighways."

Resentment is building inside the U.S. because of what appear to be secretive plans made outside normal government policymaking channels about immigration, border policies, transportation and integration of the three North American nations.

Transportation Secretary Maria Cino has promised to release plans within months for a one-year, NAFTA pilot program permitting Mexican truckers beyond the limited commercial zone to which they are currently restricted.

The program will likely involve about 100 Mexican trucking companies, the Department of Transportation says.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement – NAFTA – the borders were to open partially to truckers from both countries in 1995. Full access was promised by 2000. Because of the restrictions on Mexican trucks, the Mexican government has imposed limits on U.S. truckers.

The U.S. restrictions were placed by the Clinton administration in response to demands from the Teamsters union, which said Mexican trucks posed safety and environmental risks. Currently, the U.S. permits Mexican truckers only in commercial zones close to the border that extend no further than 20 miles from Mexico.

While the American Trucking Association supports opening the border, other unions have joined in opposition with the Teamsters. The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association came out this month in opposition to any Mexican truck pilot program.

Todd Spencer, the association's executive vice president, said the program would jeopardize safety on U.S. roads and would lead to an influx of cheap Mexican labor.

"A move by the U.S. Department of Transportation to open U.S. roadways to Mexican trucks puts the interest of foreign trade and cheap labor ahead of everything else, including highway safety, homeland security and the well being of hardworking Americans," Spencer said.

In a letter to the Interstate Trade Commission, Spencer wrote: "The net effect of admission of Mexican trucks into the U.S. marketplace would undoubtedly be negative. The supposed benefits to consumers from speculative reductions in shipping rates would be offset by the societal costs that are difficult to measure, but are easy to identify."

Raising more suspicions that such plans are leading to a future integration of the U.S., Canada and Mexico, a high-level, top-secret meeting of the North American Forum took place this month in Banff – with topics ranging from "A Vision for North America," "Opportunities for Security Cooperation" and "Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration."

Despite "confirmed" participants including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, former Secretary of State George Shultz, former Central Intelligence Agency Director R. James Woolsey, former Immigration and Naturalization Services Director Doris Meissner, North American Union guru Robert Pastor, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former Energy Secretary and Defense Secretary James Schlesinger and top officials of both Mexico and Canada, there has been no press coverage of the event. The only media member scheduled to appear at the event, according to documents obtained by WND, was the Wall Street Journal's Mary Anastasia O'Grady.

The event was organized by the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Canada West Foundation, an Alberta think-tank that promotes closer economic integration with the United States.

The Canadian event is just the latest of a series of meetings, policy papers and directives that have citizens, officials and members of the media wondering whether these efforts represent some sort of coordinated effort to implement a "merger" some have characterized as "NAFTA on steroids."

Last week, government documents released by a Freedom of Information Act request revealed the Bush administration is running what some observers see as a "shadow government" with Mexico and Canada in which the U.S. is crafting a broad range of policy in conjunction with its neighbors to the north and south.

[Ben Ficklin]

"I didn't see this because it was PUT INTO F****** CHAT!!"

OTOH, TSR's threads on the same subject stay in "News". Do you wonder why?

[Ben Ficklin]

Since you are the one who brought it up, who were you planning on shooting?

[Ben Ficklin]

Jeff Sessions, Dixie Rising.

[Kimberly GG]

"Sometimes I wonder if that is why the Administration is in the almost desperate hurry it is... the Blue Light Special is almost over."


See, and I keep wondering the opposite....the new 'get out and vote republican no matter what' campaigners are having to work overtime at damage control, listing all the horrible things that WILL happen if we loose the majority, while Bush, who still hasn't signed the fence bill, is out running around stamping his feet about addressing his comprehensive amnesty the minute congress returns, and damage control can't dance fast enough.

I keep asking why every one else is worried about loosing majority, when Bush isn't even breaking a sweat about it and, call me crazy, but it occurs to me....he isn't. Afterall, why should he care... his agenda, albeit for different reasons, is the same as the Dems, at least when it comes to NAU/SPP/Amnesty and Border Security. Shoot, he's on the same dang side as Kennedy on this.

Besides, what President, after 9/11, would fail to effectively secure our own borders? Even in the WOT, he talks about keeping the fight 'over there' and not here, which made perfect sense to me, but now I'm wondering if saying it is suppose to be an excuse for NOT having to secure our borders?

Aggggggh.

[Smartass]

All being done like stealth aircraft flying under the radar.   If our benevolent Washington Pubs blow this one, (and I hope they don't) it may be over for the GOP as a viable political party for many years to come.   Let's hope that HCON 487 IH be the start of putting the skids, to the insanity of tossing sovereignty for socialistic globalization.

 

[Ben Ficklin]

"I'd like to know if 'pushing out the border' is really happening."

Let me give you some advice. Based on some of your posts regarding #35 it would appear that the subjects covered there are a mystery to you.

But you can find key words and phrases with which to search out more info. As an example, I mentioned Investor-State Law.

Same way with pushing out the border.

[Smartass]

Bennie, it appears your suffering again from delusional misreadings.

Therefore:
You know Ben, I can't tell if you're mentally challenged, or if in your youth, you miserably failed comprehension 101, or suffer from both?

The questions you asked were clearly answered. I suggest you enlighten yourself. But first, gently screw your head down a little tighter. Get a grip (on something), and then, go way back over the thread and read the posts.

 

[Ben Ficklin]

Its another day later. Have you done anything about that Arizona NAFTA highway yet?

Of course not.

[Ben Ficklin]

Tell me more about this "shooting war". Will the ChiComs be landing in Guaymos?

[Smartass]

Its another day later. Have you done anything about that Arizona NAFTA highway yet?

Of course not.

Bennie, did you forget to take your Prozac today???

 

[Ben Ficklin]

I understand. It is important for you to be able to blow off a little steam and FR allows you to do that. As we say in Texas, all hat, no horse.

[Smartass]

Excerpted, for full article:  New Poll: Americans Prefer House Approach on Immigration

 

 

New Poll: Americans Prefer House
Approach on Immigration

Poll is First to Offer the Public a Choice
Between House and Senate Plan

Download a pdf of this announcement

---

WASHINGTON (May 3, 2006) – A new Zogby poll of likely voters, using neutral language (see wording on following pages), finds that Americans prefer the House of Representatives’ enforcement-only bill by 2-1 over Senate proposals to legalize illegal immigrants and greatly increase legal immigration. The poll was conducted for the Center for Immigration Studies.

• On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only 26 percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.

• While the Senate is considering various bills that would increase legal immigration from 1 million to 2 million a year, 2 percent of Americans believe current immigration is too low. This was true for virtually every grouping in the survey by ethnicity, income, age, religion, region, party, or ideology.

• When offered by itself, there is strong support for the House bill: 69 percent said it was a good or very good idea when told it tries to make illegals go home by fortifying the border, forcing employer verification, and encouraging greater cooperation with local law enforcement while not increasing legal immigration; 27 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.

• Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.

• When offered by itself, there is also some support for the Senate approach, thought not as much as for the House bill: 42 percent said the Senate approach was a good or very good idea when told it would allow illegal immigrants to apply for legal status provided they met certain criteria, and it would significantly increase legal immigration and increase enforcement of immigration laws; 50 percent said it was a bad or very bad idea.

• There were few groups in which a majority supported the Senate plan, even when presented by itself, exceptions included Hispanics 62 percent of whom said it was a good or very good idea and the most liberal voters (progressives) 54 percent of whom approved of it.

• When given three choices (House approach, Senate approach, or mass deportation), the public tends to reject both the Senate plan and a policy of mass deportations in favor of the House bill; 28 percent want the Senate plan, 12 percent want mass deportations; while 56 percent want the House approach.

• But when given a choice between just the House and Senate approaches, without the choice of mass deportations, the public prefers the House approach 64 percent version to 30 percent.

• One reason the public does not like legalizations is that they are skeptical of need for illegal-immigrant labor. An overwhelming majority of 74 percent said there are plenty of Americans to fill low-wage jobs if employers pay more and treat workers better; just 15 percent said there are not enough Americans for such jobs.

• Another reason the public does not like Senate proposals to legalize illegals and double legal immigration is that 73 percent said they had little or no confidence in the ability of the government to screen these additional applicants to weed out terrorists and criminals.

• Public also does not buy the argument we have tried and failed to enforce the law: 70 percent felt that past enforcement efforts have been "grossly inadequate," while only 19 percent felt we had made a "real effort" to enforce our laws.

 

[Smartass]

"As we say in Texas, all hat, no horse."

Jeez Bennie, as A Texan, you really shouldn't insult yourself like that. Sorry to hear your one of the few Texans that are horseless! But wait...you can always buy a car built in Mexico.

 

[Ben Ficklin]

What has that got to do with the NAFTA highway?

[Ben Ficklin]

Have a Frontier, the motor came from Mexico, the transmission from Japan, and it was assembled in TN. No telling from where around the world all lesser componants came from.

I also have a watch, the movement came from Japan, the stainless steel case from Brazil, and it was assembled in China.

Both of these products demonstrate the extent of the world market.

[Smartass]

SEND A BRICK TO WASHINGTON PROJECT

Source

















">

[Smartass]

You answered your own question//////>>>>

[Ben Ficklin]

I understand your predicament. When you are getting mopped, the best course of action is to spam the thread and hope everyone leaves. Hahhahhahhah.

[Smartass]

NO Bennie, you've got it backwards again. Shove the NAFTA highways, because you're confused and slobbering all over your keyboard again, and please wipe off the screen too, ughhh.   Like the good Americans that you aren't, we understand your ilks PREDICAMENT of attempting to sell off American sovereignty, that's why we're here to STAY. Like it or not, the info and discussions will keep coming!

 

[Ben Ficklin]

"... that's why we're here to STAY"

Meanwhile, 12,000 NAFTA trucks cross the TexMex border every day.