[harpseal]

We will disagree on this as there is no right to free access into America from abroad. The specific danger from smuggled weapons madates a complete inspection fo all cargoes coming into the USA. Due to the nature of current weapons of mass destruction including most especially biological and chemical weapons along with componeents that could be assembled into nuclear devices the inspection is merely an expansion of programs currently in place to cover every port. Cargo Ships inbound to the Port of NY already are routinely boarded by the USCG for inspection. The importers should pay a fee for such inspection.

Already customs inspectors nspect and seal some containers in some foreign ports.

I find I must question your motives in not wanting such inspections. You seem to be objecting to their impact on teh cost of imports. I have merely stated that importers should bear that cost. The estimates on the costs of this were clearly not mine and I have stated repeatedly that the importers fees should reflect the actual cost of such inspections. Not performing complete detailewd inspections places too many Americans at risk.

Not having those whose actions cause the Coast Guard to expend time and money inspecting or the Customs service spending time and money inspecting is merely subsidizing these peopel at the expense of many who are harmed by imports.

[Muleteam1]

Sorry for my late response, but as a retired person, I have had many other pressing obligations.

>>We will disagree on this as there is no right to free access into America from abroad.<<

I have no disagreement here because they don't have free access. As I have previously mentioned importers pay salaries, overtime, and travel fees for Custom inspectors. They also pay the same for agricultural and immigration inspectors whenever they are required on foreign-arriving passengers, ships and aircraft. I suspect that importers also pay large port, docking, and/or anchorage fees whenever they arrive in the U.S.

>>Already customs inspectors nspect and seal some containers in some foreign ports.<<

As well I know, as I have done pre-clearance inspections in South America and in Morocco. You should also know that my expenses during those assignments were paid by the importers.

>>Not having those whose actions cause the Coast Guard to expend time and money inspecting or the Customs service spending time and money inspecting is merely subsidizing these peopel at the expense of many who are harmed by imports.<<

I am not familiar with the inspection activities of the USCG, but I am sure their responsibilities have expanded after 9-11 as well they should.

Most imports are not harmful to Americans and those that are indentified as such are now being dealt with by Federal agencies with import regulatory and/or law enforcement responsibilities. Your contention of course is that the effectiveness of the current process is not satifactory. I contend that there is no evidence to suggest that such a radical political solution as you suggest is needed. Present agency structures allow for inspection activities to be ramped up whenever the need arises and I am quite sure they been have since 9-11. Federal agencies work closely with exporting nations to decide what can and cannot be imported into the U.S. Also, U.S import regulations pertaining of the U.S. Treasury, U.S. Justice and U.S. Agriculture are constantly under review at the various port offices as well as within these Departments' Beltway headquarter offices.

We can steel-shutter our doors and pull up the draw-bridge to protect ourselves from imports. However, the world is too small for the U.S. to become an island. Not only would that be detrimental to the jobs you wish to protect, it would be impossible at any expense.

Muleteam1