Replies

So, assuming the new regulations correctly implement all existing U.S. laws, what is the problem with those regulations being crafted so as to facility free trade with our nearest neighbors?

It's like complaining about two states deciding they are going to standardized the rail line widths so that the trains don't have to have their wheels swapped out at the border.

So, is this "re-write" simply changing the track widths, or is it something serious. That's the information that is necessary to understand if this is a real problem.

For example, some were upset in a thread a couple of days ago about a railroad company wanting to eliminate safety inspections on one of their trains in the United States, claiming the inspection replicated one done in Mexico for the same train.

A regulatory change eliminating the redundant inspections would be a good thing, something that should be supported by limited-government private-enterprise conservatives. But many were simply upset that "mexicans" would be inspecting our trains, and talked about how corrupt "mexicans" were and how they couldn't be trusted.

Some got confused and thought this was about cargo inspections, and bemoaned how the terrorists would buy off the "mexicans" and ship WMDs into the country.

So in the end, we had conservatives taking the side of the AFL-CIO, who of course opposed the regulatory change because they wanted to keep their union employees working on unnecessary tasks so they'd keep getting union dues to use to elect democrats to destroy our country.

So is this regulatory changes that facility the free market and remove unncessary burdens from private enterprise, or is it something else?

I posted one of these SPP threads a long time ago about how one of the direct results of this agreement was the standardization of civil aviation beacons between Mexico, the U.S., and Canada. I was then informed that this is a bad idea because it will make it easier for the Mexican Air Force to attack the continental U.S.

It's a shame that the national security argument, which is really the strongest argument for or against anything that exists, is diminished in such a fashion. I mean, if one does not want a Spanish-led consortium operating a tollroad in Indiana, fine. Just don't explain to me that the Spanish will interdict U.S. troop movements in case of national emergency.

In the same fashion, don't simply point at a regulation and shout "international cooperation, bad!" There's a reason automobile bumpers are the same distance off the ground. Think about it.

So you want to outsource our border security to the same country whose soldiers support Mexican drug lords when running drugs over our border ?

You think that's a good idea ? If you think our unions are corrupt (and they are), you don't even begin to understand the level at which graft is a major industry in Mexico.