Posted on 03/29/2007 8:39:14 AM PDT by Calpernia
Only? I can think of 200 billion reasons they will. [a nickel to the first person to guess where I got my figure]
Yes.
How soon do I need to pay up?
>>>Thursday things will also heat up on the House side of Congress, when Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA, will introduce a bill titled the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Trucking Safety Act.<<<
http://www.landlinemag.com/Special_Reports/2007/Mar07/SR_032807_MX_wants_out.htm
SPECIAL REPORT: Mexican carriers want out of pilot program
Wednesday, March 28, 2007 – A trade association representing Mexican motor carriers has asked the Mexican Senate to cancel the cross-border pilot program with the United States.
“CANACAR has formally requested not to open the borders for trans-border services and to have the pilot program suspended until conditions for a fair competitive environment are existing and that the Mexican trucking industry has the guarantee of not being subject to unfair inequitable and discretional treatment by U.S. authorities,” CANACAR National President Tirso Martinez Angheben wrote in a press release.
Angheben appeared before the Communication and Transportation Committee of the Mexican Senate this past week to explain why the transportation industry opposes the opening of trans-border services and the pilot program between the U.S. and Mexico, according to a press release issued by CANACAR.
CANACAR is an organization which represents the general interests of the Mexican Trucking industry.
The group claims the U.S. government has not complied with agreements established in the 1995 North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexican trucking companies were not allowed to invest in U.S.-based trucking businesses or allowed to provide services within the U.S.
However, according to the Angheben, U.S.-based trucking companies have invested in infrastructure within Mexico and already have a “commercial presence in our country … which represents a commercial disadvantage of a great importance.”
In the released message, Angheben said he also told the Mexican Senate committee that the regulations facing Mexican trucking companies coming into the U.S. “include uneven regulation for Mexican carriers that will not guarantee a fair competitive market in U.S. territory.”
Angheben said the pilot program moved forward without Mexican Senate approval and without input from the Mexican motor carrier industry.
The CANACAR president told the committee that opening the border will not have any benefits to Mexico because:
* Transportation prices in Mexico are lower than in the USA;
* It will cause transportation prices in Mexico to increase;
* It will not accelerate the border crossing process;
* It will generate strong pressure on salaries paid to Mexican drivers, which in turn will increase the cost of domestic freight in Mexico; and
* The Mexican government lacks the capacity and infrastructure to supervise U.S. carriers entering Mexico and to prevent foreign companies from providing domestic transportation only reserved for Mexican nationals.
This isn’t the first time CANACAR has tried to shut down a NAFTA provision.
In 2001, the group petitioned the Mexican Senate to cancel the trucking section of NAFTA.
“The majority of people in the United States don’t want Mexican trucks to go there, and we told our president that we don't want to go, either,” said CANACAR president Manuel Gomez in 2001. “Nor are we interested in having U.S. trucks come to Mexico.”
Meanwhile, back in the states
Movement to delay the pilot program continues in the U.S. Senate with the debate of the supplemental appropriations bill. The bill includes an amendment that would restrict spending any money on allowing Mexican motor carriers to operate beyond the border zone until three conditions are met. Those conditions are:
* Granting such authority must first be tested as part of a pilot program;
* The pilot program must comply with the requirements of Section 350 of the 2002 appropriations legislation and the requirements of Section 31315(c) of Title 49, United States Code, related to the pilot programs; and
* Simultaneous and comparable authority to operate within Mexico is made available to motor carriers domiciled in the United States.
Murray submitted the amendment to the Senate Committee on Appropriations and it was accepted on a voice vote – with no opposition.
The only discussion related to the amendment was brought up by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, one of the co-sponsors of the amendment. The amendment was also co-sponsored by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-ND.
Feinstein discussed the fairness – or lack thereof – of allowing Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate within the U.S., while the Mexican government isn’t ready to allow U.S. motor carriers access to Mexico.
The amendment was introduced because of concerns raised during a Senate subcommittee hearing on March 8.
Thursday things will also heat up on the House side of Congress, when Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA, will introduce a bill titled the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Trucking Safety Act.
The NAFTA Trucking Safety Act looks to clarify and strengthen current regulations imposed on Mexican motor carriers entering the United States beyond commercial zones along the international border.
– By Jami Jones, senior editor
It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to think that Mexican trucks could be sabotaged while here in the US. Nothing violent or dangerous. Doesn't have to be.
But making it expensive for Mexican businesses will discourage them from driving their trucks up here.
Then again, maybe the Mexican trucks will be safe. Not counting on it, though. Have you ever been to Mexico? What a mess. Then there are the pollution regs that we all have comply with. I remember that Mexico are very liberal when it comes to pollution.
How many illegal aliens have come in from Mexico ?
10 million?
20 million?
How many are in prisons?
How many have committed DWIs?
Have you ever had your Arizona vacation rental car demolished in a collision with an illegal who had no insurance or license? I have.
So of course I'm darned skeptical that the laws about Mexican truck safety, emissions, and liability insurance for US operation will be rigorously enforced.
I don't have a problem with you being sceptical. I have a problem of you being ignorant, or pretending as much.
Also can anyone tell me how I can receive a Mexican issued CDL.I'm sure they must be cheaper than my current one but I am unable find any regs in Mexico for issuing one.Maybe I'll just take $25 US down to Nuevo Laredo and buy me one.
Not seeing any news on it though...Although we just had a Mexican truck, with a Mexican driver...clear up here in Minnesota who was busted with a trailer full of Marijuana. It was secreted in the middle of the load of "jaw-breakers" candy on the pallets.
Fortunately a K-9 drug-sniffing dog was present when they opened her up after being stopped for a number of other violations.
Never heard how he got clear up here if they were supposed to be limited to California...the news reports apparently never checked into that...must not be deemed "newsworthy".
Done deal? The bill hasn’t been signed yet.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1756
H.R. 1756: To prohibit Mexico-domiciled motor carriers from operating beyond United States...
Sponsor:
Rep. Duncan Hunter [R-CA]show cosponsors (44)
Cosponsors
Rep. Robert Aderholt [R-AL]
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Rodney Alexander [R-LA]
Rep. Robert Berry [D-AR]
Rep. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN]
Rep. John Boozman [R-AR]
Rep. Allen Boyd [D-FL]
Rep. Shelley Capito [R-WV]
Rep. Christopher Carney [D-PA]
Rep. Robert Cramer [D-AL]
Rep. Jo Ann Davis [R-VA]
Rep. Joe Donnelly [D-IN]
Rep. John Doolittle [R-CA]
Rep. John Duncan [R-TN]
Rep. Brad Ellsworth [D-IN]
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson [R-MO]
Rep. Virginia Foxx [R-NC]
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
Rep. Elton Gallegly [R-CA]
Rep. Scott Garrett [R-NJ]
Rep. Paul Gillmor [R-OH]
Rep. Robin Hayes [R-NC]
Rep. Baron Hill [D-IN]
Rep. Walter Jones [R-NC]
Rep. Marcy Kaptur [D-OH]
Rep. Steven LaTourette [R-OH]
Rep. Daniel Lipinski [D-IL]
Rep. Mike McIntyre [D-NC]
Rep. Gary Miller [R-CA]
Rep. Jeff Miller [R-FL]
Rep. Harry Mitchell [D-AZ]
Rep. Alan Mollohan [D-WV]
Rep. Marilyn Musgrave [R-CO]
Rep. Sue Myrick [R-NC]
Rep. Todd Platts [R-PA]
Rep. Ted Poe [R-TX]
Rep. Dennis Rehberg [R-MT]
Rep. Mike Ross [D-AR]
Rep. Timothy Ryan [D-OH]
Rep. James Saxton [R-NJ]
Rep. Heath Shuler [D-NC]
Rep. Mark Souder [R-IN]
Rep. David Weldon [R-FL]
Rep. Frank Wolf [R-VA]
Last Action: Apr 20, 2007: House Judiciary: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law.
As you well know, this Administration isn’t letting Congress get a say...he’s trying to make it a fait accomplice’...
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?”
Vehicle insurance is required here in Nevada, also.
When you apply for registration and your driver’s license, you present what you have from the insurance carrier. The state is supposed to CONFIRM this information, within 30 days of giving you your license and car plates.
If the insurance company doesn’t have their act together, the state will fine you $250 for not having insurance, and you get your license pulled, unless you can prove you are insured.
I don’t for a minute believe that the insurance companies can establish decent records for people who use their names in a scramble over and over again: Juan Lopez Garcia can also be known as Juan Garcia Lopez. They are always mixing up the father’s last name and the mother’s last name. Social Security numbers are made up or stolen, and I don’t think for even a second that American companies or the USA government can establish any criminal record from records that are based in Mexico.
This is all a sham on the USA citizens. We are being over run with the good, the bad and the ugly and criminal. We are expected to be “generous” toward this happening. NOT me. I had enough of them 15 years ago in So California.
It’s the trucking company that must prove it has insurance from a FMCSA-approved carrier in order to get permission to travel in the U.S., not each individual driver. Otherwise, your point would be valid.
>>>fait accomplice
I don’t understand what that means.
Not surprising, since I mistyped! I should have stopped at "Fait Accompli"
As defined, it goes:
Fait AccompliMeans an accomplished fact, presumably irreversible.
Hi Calpernia.
bumping thread!
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.