Undecided - slightly leaning towards Oppose.
I've read a number of compelling arguments for and against the deal. Still can't quite make up my mind.
While that's a very compelling argument-and considering the endemic corruption of longshoreman's unions throughout the nation, it is undoubtedly a valid one-that does not mitigate Congress's dereliction of duty in fulfilling our government's primary mission, i.e. defending our borders and ensuring our protection from enemies foreign and domestic.
But even if you were to dismiss the exigent security threat-let's assume that no terrorist incidents will occur as a result of this transfer-this deal is still symptomatic of a degradation of our economy.
I'm all for free trade, but I don't believe free trade and completely eliminating our manufacturing base should be synonymous.
There are some things that are absolutely non-negotiable, and homeland security should be one of them.
Even if there are no terrorist attacks, we will still be relying upon a foreign-potentially hostile, if not now, then perhaps in the future-power to ensure that our economy runs smoothly.
Why should we be so utterly dependent upon Chinese buying T-bills, or Arabians being willing to take on enterprises that we have abandoned, or any foreign power-from any continent, regardless of their diplomatic relations with this country-in order to avert economic and political catastrophe?
Japan "dumping" steel, or the Canadians importing an excessive amount of lumber, or Pakistanis demanding concessions on textiles, or the preferential treatment we gave Cambodia for adhering to ILO standards...
None of these are life and death issues, and I'm sure that a wide range of opinion can be accommodated, but to say that we should rely upon the good will-or the overriding profit motive-of a nation that is, at best, ambivalent when it comes to international terrorism promulgated by Muslims, is the height of insanity, IMO.
It simply defies all logic.