Senate votes to ban Mexican trucks

AP via Yahoo! News ^ | Sep. 11, 2007 | Suzanne Gamboa

[businessprofessor]

I am sympathetic to your concern that American drivers do not have access to Mexican roads. From my understanding, it is not safe for Americans to drive rigs in Mexico. The lack of access may be a way to oppose this agreement without triggering unilateral tariffs from Mexico.

I am not sure if this issue affects illegal immigration. I am in favor of inspections to ensure that immigrants are not smuggled.

In a broader sense, NAFTA was supported to decrease illegal immigration. I am not sure if NAFTA has had an impact on illegal immigration. On balance, I think that illegal immigration would be worse without NAFTA. Perhaps there is evidence to the contrary.

[ScreamingFist]

The problem that you keep doing is looking at this from the perspective of truckers instead of what the overall benefit of shifting to areas of more efficiency will be to Americans as a whole.

"Just in Time" delivery has already done away with warehouses. If you thing mexican truckers are going to come to the US and "teach" us anything, other than the need for better truck inspections, you are sadly mistaken.

[editor-surveyor]

"I am under the impression that this is a treaty requirement."

NAFTA is not a treaty. Treaties require a 2/3 vote in the senate. There is no enforceable obligation in NAFTA under our constitution.

[Humble Servant]

It’s about vehicle safety and national security for me.

[GinaLolaB]

There was a FRONTLINE show on PBS quite awhile ago where it said that the “Lawyers” that wrote NAFTA actually wrote loopholes into the law and then went to Mexico and began to sue this country using the loopholes.

[papasmurf]

Not at all, just that your answer was an answer that a hilary supporter would use.

You’re making the false assumption that the trucker can only do that particular job.

Is the same as "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"

It's not about what a trucker, or anyone, can do. It's about their right to choose what they do.
Legislation that puts US workers at an unfair disadvantage removes that right.

I am 100% in favor of Free, FAIR, and Open trade. Allowing foreigners, business interests, and corrupt politicians to sell, give away, trade, or barter our rights away, is not FAIR trade. Not to mention, our security.
Transportation is the foundation of our National Defense programs. If the shiite hits the fan, who will we go to-to move goods, machinery, equipment, and military necessities? Mexico? Canada? China? India?

[scarface367]

Ah, so I take it that no patriot American can possibly disagree with protectionists?

[Hatband]

Why don’t you present us with a cost benefit analysis instead of your Pollyanna ‘its gonna’ be wonderful day’. Saving a few hours at the border is going to make up for all of the negative financial and social impacts on the US? I call BS.

[Humble Servant]

” Exactly...it’s the teamster’s...nothing more than support for the UNIONS..... “

Yup. One of those “even a busted clock is right twice a day” things.

[papasmurf]

In the borders areas, yes.

Mexico has said they will open their Country to us, when we fully comply with the Court’s order and NAFTA agreement.

[Earthdweller]

If the DUers ever decide that they will allow Christianity to coexist with the nation, will cultivate a culture of life, will realize that we need a strong economy and strong business for the US to stay competitive in a global market, consistently state that we need a strong national defense to fight the threats of this century and will denounce race as a political football then I might go over to DU.....in other words when hell freezes over.

That said...there may be room here for some agreement if our politicians will allow it.

[scarface367]

Is the same as "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good"

No, it's the same as asking should we have protected the jobs of horse and buggy drivers or milkmen when their jobs no longer became efficient.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I’m saying that continuing to deny and call this agenda a conspiracy

Boy, that's one cheap ass, low rent conspiracy that can be derailed so easily by a vote in the Senate.

[dandiegirl]

Cornyn is a good guy. He and Kay Bailey were great when Bush tried to push through the immigration reform. This surprises me.

[stimulant]

It’s impossible to ensure reasonable safety regulations: we don’t have the manpower or resources to do it.Furthermore, the U.S. can cite safety and security reasons for blocking the Mexican trucks instead of violating NAFTA.You’re a dreamer if you believe that we can prohibit illegal contraband and illegal immigration when the U.S. can’t do it now.Besides,Mexico has no fear with our legal system. U.S.Taxpayers will spend millions to defend them.

[jedward]

“in other words when hell freezes over.”

I almost replied to that post, but I’ll just bump yours instead :)

[businessprofessor]

If Mexican highways are safe, American drivers would want to drive in Mexico. In the current situation, I am not sure how many drivers want to venture into Mexico. Insurance is also an obstacle. Mexico requires special high priced insurance and American insurance companies may not insure if trucks are driven into Mexico.

I have worked in the private sector, but most of my work has been in public universities. I am in favor of more competition in higher education regardless of the effect on my position. Competition in higher education should be another thread so I will not comment here.

[jedward]

Hey Toodster. Was that your truck down in Decatur? (lol) ;)

[Hatband]

More BS from scarface. Horse and buggy drivers became obsolete, they weren’t replaced by Mexican drivers.

[jedward]

Toddster, mis-spell