Say Anything Blog

Setting aside issues of xenophobia, unions, etc. I honestly worry about the safety of Mexican trucks. As someone involved in that industry, I see enough exampes of unsafe trucks already running up and down the roads from the US and Canada. My own observations of trucks owned by Latinos that are brought up here each year from Texas for potato and suger beet harvest are enough argument for me against this.
Can someone tell me what provisions we have in place to provide US DOT inspections of these trucks? Given our administration’s willingness to let illegals in and stay, what assurance do we have that they are pursuing this particular angle of this issue? The reasoning behind allowing them in without DOT inspections is too much like the thinking behind various amnesty plans for illegals.
Sorry, but I say keep ‘em out until something is in place.

I don’t like the idea of Mexican truckers on our highways and here’s why.  One more Mexican trucker is one less American one, which means one more American looking for a job.  “Cheaper for the consumer” seems to be the mantra today, but cheaper at what price?  If we could outsource everything and drop all prices by 50%, would you be for that?  Swimming in cheap goods with much of our population out of work doesn’t seem like a good trade-off.  I am a conservative fan of Dr Walter E. Williams, so I understand the economic benefits of free trade, and I know I’m on the wrong side on this one.  But throwing a trucker out of work so I can save a nickel at the grocery store just doesn’t sit right with me. 
    NAFTA was supposed to propel Mexico into the first world, but the gains were stolen by rich, venal politicians and businessmen in that country.  I think Mexicans are wonderful, hard-working people, but they need to yank their country from the clutches of the corrupt kleptocrats. 
    If Mexico can bring their economy and wages up to our level then none of this will be an issue, and the immigration debate will disappear as well.  I look forward to that day, but unfortunately, today is not that day.

Congrats to Byron Dorgan!! 
At least someone is protecting our interests.

For Good Ol’ Boy:
If you work in the industry then you know what these mean: IFTA(International Fuel Tax Agreement) and IRP(International Registration Plan).  I am someone who is intimately familiar with both.  The IRP community (IFTA to a lesser extent) has been working since NAFTA came into effect to get Mexican truckers the same abilities as US/Canadian truckers.  As it stands now, “Approved Mexican carriers” must pass all the same inspections US/Canadian truckers do.  This means if a Mexican truck does not pass a DOT inspection, then the unit is taken out of service until the repairs are made.  The real question that needs to be asked here is: How many full DOT inspections of Mexican trucks are taking (or going to take) place?

For foutsc: I hate to say it but… I’m thinking Perot was right in his assessment of NAFTA.  While it was good for free trade in North America, it is bad for the US in both the short and long terms with regard to Mexico.  Unless and until Mexico is able to clean up its traditionally corrupt political and police arenas, NAFTA will continue to effect the US negatively.

Really, conservatives don’t have any business opposing this sort of free trade.  And, frankly, in terms of the immigration debate opposing something as logical as this arrangement is exactly what makes many border-security proponents fit into the “xenophobe” or “nativist” mold.

Real conservatives are America First whether they are called xenophobes or not.

Real conservatives aren’t afraid of free trade, as long as proper rules are in place.

If govt control of the economy were the way to go, the Soviet Union would be the richest, most powerful nation in the history of the world.

Thanks to Obama, America remains the only country where it is illegal to drill our own oil!

I honestly worry about the safety of Mexican trucks.

They have to meet the same DOT standards American trucks do.

Freep, there’s a reason why Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are on the political fringes.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Freep, there’s a reason why Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are on the political fringes.

Not everything is about Ron Paul.  Obsess much?

Before this expansion of the program to allow Mexican based trucking firms to transport deeper into the US, they were restricted to a 25 mile cross border exchange point where the trailers were then picked up by US union trucks who had contracted with the company producing the products on the Mexican side of the border to carry the goods into the interior. Now let’s, think about this. Those union truck companies on the US side are only 25 miles max across the border. Who exactly do you think they are hiring to drive those trucks? American citizens? That’s the fallacy in this argument. The trucking firms on the American side of the border act as a magnet for the illegals crossing to drive them into the US interior. And yes, many of those trucks are already a danger to our highways. I can’t tell you how many times accidents have been caused by bad tires alone and drivers who don’t habla englise. So the with this program the trucks on the Mexican side have to go though a series of checks for safety but the trucks on the American side don’t. Makes sense, huh?

I remember being told that NAFTA was supposed to discourage illegal immigratation by opening our markets to Mexico.

>> Those union truck companies on the US side are only 25 miles max across the border. Who exactly do you think they are hiring to drive those trucks? American citizens? That’s the fallacy in this argument. The trucking firms on the American side of the border act as a magnet for the illegals crossing to drive them into the US interior.

This is an argument not worthy of a rational being.  Following this logic we should have a 100 mile demilitarized zone where no one can live between Mexico and the US because it would make border trade and socializing less likely, and thereby likely reduce illegal immigration.  This is absurd to the point of embarrassment.

I remember being told that NAFTA was supposed to discourage illegal immigratation by opening our markets to Mexico.

And that might actually happen if the unions and their lackeys let NAFTA be fully implemented.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

Not everything is about Ron Paul.  Obsess much?

You can’t invoke “America First” without also invoking protectionist twits like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.

The purpose of government shouldn’t be to do good, but simply to refrain from doing evil.

This is an argument not worthy of a rational being.  Following this logic we should have a 100 mile demilitarized zone where no one can live between Mexico and the US because it would make border trade and socializing less likely, and thereby likely reduce illegal immigration.  This is absurd to the point of embarrassment.

yeahman, what the heck are you talking about? That’s YOUR logic, NOT mine.

I’m just pointing out from my own experience that those trucking companies on the American side (located within 25 miles of the border) that pick up those containers are using illegals to drive their trucks into the interior. Or are you of the assumption that some US trucking firm just dispatches a bunch of trucks to drive down to the border everytimes there’s a pick up? AND those American trucking firms might be required to follow the US rules and regulations but NOBODY is checking them.