Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roadblocks for Mexican trucks in U.S. (Duncan Hunter - NAFTA Trucking Safety Act)
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | March 29, 2007 | By Jerome R. Corsi

Posted on 03/29/2007 8:39:14 AM PDT by Calpernia

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last
FMCSA - "Cross Border/ NAFTA" rules and regulations."
1 posted on 03/29/2007 8:39:16 AM PDT by Calpernia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Antoninus; GulfBreeze; processing please hold; dynachrome; Spiff; flashbunny; NapkinUser; ...

ping


2 posted on 03/29/2007 8:39:39 AM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Teamsters should be screaming bloody murder. But no. See Unions riding wave of Democrats at:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1807871/posts


3 posted on 03/29/2007 8:42:08 AM PDT by 3AngelaD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia

Every American killed by a Mexican truck is a homicide committed by our leaders..


4 posted on 03/29/2007 8:42:41 AM PDT by Lexington Green (Every American killed by a Mexican truck is a homicide committed by our leaders..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
U.S.-based trucking companies have invested in infrastructure within Mexico

Uh huh. Like setting up mexican puppet CEOs to run the so called mexican trucking companies.
5 posted on 03/29/2007 8:43:47 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lexington Green

Every comment like yours is like a thread homicide.


6 posted on 03/29/2007 8:45:01 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

Another nail in the coffin of the Unions. The Unions are supposed to be supporting US workers.


7 posted on 03/29/2007 8:45:02 AM PDT by dhs12345
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

When NAFTA regulations we wrote
We didn’t plan on getting into boat
We forgot Teamstar Truckers
Are real mother *
And boy can they turn out the vote


8 posted on 03/29/2007 8:48:53 AM PDT by dblshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
In the House of Representatives,Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., has scheduled a press conference for tomorrow to announce the introduction of a NAFTA Trucking Safety Act.

Thank you, Congressman, for continuing the fight against this not-so-secret policy of a borderless America...


9 posted on 03/29/2007 8:50:22 AM PDT by WalterSkinner ( ..when there is any conflict between God and Caesar -- guess who loses?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

The teamsters are opposed. It's the first thing Google brought up when I searched "Teamsters union and Mexican trucks". Also the Teamsters aren't as powerful in the trucking industry as many seem to believe. Union drivers only make up about 15%.


10 posted on 03/29/2007 8:50:42 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345

This is one of the few times I'll line up with the leftists and unions. This looks like a (road) accident waiting to happen with little recourse for those who are killed and injured.
Supposedly the Mexican drivers/companies are going to be insured but I've seen a lot of automotive illegals in Texas and Arizona with bad equipment and no liability.


11 posted on 03/29/2007 8:50:46 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Calpernia
No problem, our government will supply (free give aways) the 100 Mexican companies with new safe trucks so that they can meet the safety standards and compete with the American companies. Problem solved!
12 posted on 03/29/2007 8:51:16 AM PDT by WesternPacific
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 3AngelaD

Too bad. In the end they will be among the losers.


13 posted on 03/29/2007 8:51:32 AM PDT by Dante3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

How many times have I pointed out to you that these Mexican trucks must have insurance by a federally-approved carrier? More than a dozen?


14 posted on 03/29/2007 8:52:03 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Man, just two days. I don't even link to the regulations anymore. Maybe I will just one more time, if only to embarass you.


15 posted on 03/29/2007 9:05:15 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Are you guaranteeing that these regulations will be enforced as well as our immigration laws? LOL


16 posted on 03/29/2007 9:08:13 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
How many times have I pointed out to you that these Mexican trucks must have insurance by a federally-approved carrier?

Sure if you can prove who owns the truck, if you can prove who was driving the truck, and if you can prove it wasn't stolen. Of course any Mexican truck that is in a bad accident will have been reported stolen the day before in Mexico, however the paper work was delayed, etc, etc.

17 posted on 03/29/2007 9:13:19 AM PDT by org.whodat (Never let the facts get in the way of a good assumption.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation; org.whodat
Ok, here we go . . . I needed the practice, anyway. 49 CFR 387.11 reads:

State authority and designation of agent.

A policy of insurance or surety bond does not satisfy the financial responsibility requirements of this subpart unless the insurer or surety furnishing the policy or bond is—

(a) Legally authorized to issue such policies or bonds in each State in which the motor carrier operates; or

(b) Legally authorized to issue such policies or bonds in the State in which the motor carrier has its principal place of business or domicile, and is willing to designate a person upon whom process, issued by or under the authority of any court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, may be served in any proceeding at law or equity brought in any State in which the motor carrier operates; or

(c) Legally authorized to issue such policies or bonds in any State of the United States and eligible as an excess or surplus lines insurer in any State in which business is written, and is willing to designate a person upon whom process, issued by or under the authority of any court having jurisdiction of the subject matter, may be served in any proceeding at law or equity brought in any State in which the motor carrier operates.


18 posted on 03/29/2007 9:16:54 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Just as easy for me to assume that they will, as for you to assume they will not.


19 posted on 03/29/2007 9:18:41 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Using conservative estimates I can think of 12 million reasons to doubt the laws will be enforced.


20 posted on 03/29/2007 9:21:16 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Peace without victory is a temporary illusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson