Senate votes to ban Mexican trucks from U.S. highways; Update: Would Mexican truckers have slowed illegal immigration?
posted at 10:00 pm on September 11, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
With a veto-proof majority, no less! The AP says the House passed a similar bill in July but I can’t find the roll for that one. The Senate has long been the squishier of the two when it comes to Mexico, though, so I’ll assume the House margin was veto-proof too. (Update: It was. See below.)
Here’s the Senate roll. You may be surprised, although you shouldn’t be.
Figured it out yet? Last hint:
Update: Noam Askew emails to say that the House vote to ban the trucks was 362-63. Bush is staring down the barrel of an embarrassing veto override.
Update: A fair point by Rob Port about the benefits of free trade. NAFTA’s had a decade to “invigorate” Mexico’s economy, though, and yet the oceans of illegals continue to pour over the border. Why would you believe trucking would make any appreciable difference?
Update (9/13): Whoops, looks like that House roll wasn’t the right one. It passed by a voice vote, not 362-63.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Senate votes to block Mexican trucks test
Passed both the House and Senate, but now the question is, will Bush sign it and I bet he won’t.
Maxx on September 11, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Carlo, Fredo, Jimmy……the good ol days
Limerick on September 11, 2007 at 10:05 PM
I can’t believe it! The Senate actually did something right. Maybe, just maybe, there’s hope after all. Altho AP’s absolutely right about Hoffa being an influence, a big influence.
countywolf on September 11, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Of course my two (Cornyn and Hutchinson) are nays……Perry and his toll road strike again.
Limerick on September 11, 2007 at 10:08 PM
Those nays are so embarrassing.
frreal on September 11, 2007 at 10:14 PM
I wonder why DeMint was a nay?
MB4 on September 11, 2007 at 10:16 PM
Lieberman, nay?
Ptooey!
Guess he needs cheap gardeners.
Let Bush try to veto this.
profitsbeard on September 11, 2007 at 10:19 PM
Are we even allowed to override NAFTA???
I’m sorry, but I don’t know if we actually have the authority to keep those trucks off of our roads. I guess we’ll find out!
Ordinary1 on September 11, 2007 at 10:20 PM
While I’m a believer that unions have far outlived their usefullness, this pro-union vote is one I’ll gladly take, as a positive step in protecting our sovereignty.
fogw on September 11, 2007 at 10:23 PM
MB4, I assume that while he opposes open borders/amnesty he recognizes that the crappy Mexican economy is part of the problem, and more open trade with Mexico is a good move to ease the problem. A draconian ban from doing driving in the US is protectionist and unproductive in the longterm for both nations.
I happen to think that makes sense in theory, but only after we secure our southern border, and establish a reliable security function to ensure that a trucking operation wouldn’t pose undue risk…which admittedly, given how mindnumbingly incompetent the government is on border issues and aspects of security, could be a pipedream.
Bad Candy on September 11, 2007 at 10:24 PM
I’ll be calling my NC senators bright and early.
They were dragged kicking and screamimg to do the right thing on shamnesty.
Valiant on September 11, 2007 at 10:30 PM
You are obviously part of the NAU conspiracy
/channeling
lorien1973 on September 11, 2007 at 10:31 PM
I was wondering the same thing. My “frustration level” was rising by the second…
Bad Candy, thanks for your good analysis above. You have made some excellent points (as usual).
My blood pressure has returned to normal levels.
ColtsFan on September 11, 2007 at 10:33 PM
So you heard the black chopper I had dispatched to observe you then?
Bad Candy on September 11, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Damn, most impressive
Defector01 on September 11, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Bad Candy on September 11, 2007 at 10:24 PM
That sounds very plausible.
MB4 on September 11, 2007 at 10:42 PM
Wow my approval rating for the senate just went up a point.
(which is really not saying much)
F15Mech on September 11, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Does it make any difference? Mexico will bring it before the World Court. Under the NAFTA agreement the US has to “facilitate trade and commerce” ala the truck argeement and the Tran Texas corridor. Mexico will now take the US to “binding arbitration” which we will come out on the short end of the stick. It is a no-win situation. Didn’t Bush roll over and play dead to the World Court over Mexican prisoners being given the death penalty. Even if he could get out of this, he won’t. This is his baby.
Neocon Peg on September 11, 2007 at 10:48 PM
All I can say about this is would be to channel Jimmy Walker by saying; “Dynomite!”
The Teamsters Union may have had a chat with the folks in Foggy Bottom. Topics of discussion could have ranged from the future Accident Rates from the interloper drivers to Missing or stolen cargo. Who knows dis tings?
Egfrow on September 11, 2007 at 10:56 PM
Damn, I guess I’ll have to wait on that load of hand grenades I ordered from Calderon.
infidel4life on September 11, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Likely true, actually, Antigua recently received a judgement in their favor from the WTO over the Online Gambling Nanny Ban that slimeball Frist slipped into a bill. That could have some severe consequences. I have a post on it somewhere on my blog.
Bad Candy on September 11, 2007 at 11:06 PM
I dont quite understand this. They stopped funding for the year long test. I don’t see that it follows from this that the trucks actually stop. It was announced it is already under way.
Does it actually specify in NAFTA that this is a requirement?
Resolute on September 11, 2007 at 11:06 PM
Did anyone notice that Tim Johnson is back? Glad to see that he has recovered.
Too bad we will take his seat…
Canerican on September 11, 2007 at 11:07 PM
If you look at the votes, they are mostly democrats who want to retain union support, so they voted for. The dims have no concerns whatsoever over safety concerns of our highways. The Repubs who voted yes are anti-illegal immigation conservatives, while the ones who voted against are pro-Mexican free trade. Simple.
Neocon Peg on September 11, 2007 at 11:08 PM
Perhaps this had something to do with it.
F15Mech on September 11, 2007 at 11:11 PM
Senator Dole took a lead role in defeating the amnesty bill. Burr was likely trying to make friends in the senate as a freshman.
I am no friend of ANY union because they do more harm than good, and are mostly communist by nature. My problem with this bill is that it is BECAUSE OF the union lobby.
I am pleased that the Senate was able to do something in a bipartisan matter. See, when you produce GOOD legislation, partisanship falls apart. The problem is that the Democratic leadership confuses ‘good legislation’ for ‘that which promotes the Democratic agenda’.
In the end, D or R we are all supposed to be Americans.
ThackerAgency on September 11, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Cornyn and Hutchison.
Yup. Forked tongues and all that …
I always thought they’d be for amnesty if they thought they’d get away with it. On amnesty though they got a few too many phone calls from the torch and pitchfork crowd.
They’ll show their colors when the time is right – for them.
BowHuntingTexas on September 11, 2007 at 11:15 PM
Just found this. In addition to the world court, Mexico has a another recourse. It cannot demand that the US fund this program.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/11/AR2007091101953.html
Neocon Peg on September 11, 2007 at 11:15 PM
GRRRRR
McCain didn’t vote (why should I be surprised?) and
Kyl voted NAY.
That’s it. Kyl has been trying to get back into our
good graces ever since the immigration debacle. But
as far as I am concerned, Kyl is a Senator from MEXICO,
not from Arizona.
I have no Senators now :(
Timothy S. Carlson on September 11, 2007 at 11:17 PM
That was the union’s foothold to the congress. That was what got this whole thing rolling.
Neocon Peg on September 11, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Yes. It’s called being a sovereign nation.
KSgop on September 11, 2007 at 11:19 PM
Thanks, I’ll check your it out!
Neocon Peg on September 11, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Should be, “your blog” not “your it”! sheesh!
Neocon Peg on September 11, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Here’s Duncan Hunter’s report of what your looking for, AP.
Mcguyver on September 11, 2007 at 11:25 PM
(Snicker Snort)
When you both the conservatives and the mod (it’s not that orginized) against you, you know you’re in trouble.
- The Cat
MirCat on September 11, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Peg, if you put Antigua in my search box, it’ll come up.
Bad Candy on September 11, 2007 at 11:34 PM
Look at Cornyn and hutcheson, they know where their bread is buttered huh? f**king traitors!
TheSitRep on September 11, 2007 at 11:40 PM
Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat North Dakota dismembers the amnesty “grand compromise” is an awesome video!
AP, Michelle, and Bryan we need a transcript and a HA vent of this “backbone”.
Mcguyver on September 11, 2007 at 11:40 PM
or I should have said there know where their tortillas es montiqua.
TheSitRep on September 11, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Before we give these boneheads too much credit, lets try to remember they are the ones that funded it in the first place.
Maxx on September 11, 2007 at 11:41 PM
Hoffa. Heh.
Wow a real blowout. Feinstein AND Boxer voted yea? Aztlan has far less influence than the unions. Democrats cannot afford to lose them, or the Black vote. But they are trying as hard as they can to lose the Blcak vote. Sooner or later the damn will break. The Dream Act may finally do it.
Only do anything for businesses Republicans voted nay, probably need to reassure some business donors thatthey will still playball.
How does voting nay help Cornyn or Kyl? They must have thought this would likely go unnoticed. Whats the deal with Mel Martinez? Does he think he is invinceable? If he gets a single non-hispanic vote when running for reelection I’ll be suprised.
Theworldisnotenough on September 11, 2007 at 11:42 PM
I know (previous was wishful thinking on my part) for once I will thank the unions.
They were slow on the ball but in the end they got things done.
F15Mech on September 11, 2007 at 11:42 PM
**Aaawwwww cry me a Rio Grande, traitor!
Republican bastards, look at them!!
Mcguyver on September 11, 2007 at 11:44 PM
Looking at that picture of Mr. Evermissing up there, it makes me wonder if any of the “no” votes might have been anti-kowtow-to-the-Teamsters votes.
eeyore on September 11, 2007 at 11:47 PM
Thanks. Good article and topic.
Neocon Peg on September 11, 2007 at 11:49 PM
I agree and what’s worse is that they are my senators. They straddle the fence until it gets too hot for them, then they jump from one side the the other, depending on how the wind is blowing. Hutchison is the worst. Neither deserves to be elected senators from the great state of Texas.
Neocon Peg on September 11, 2007 at 11:55 PM
The Motor Carrier Safety’s “top” bastard with his head so far up his rear end he cannot even see the oncoming headlights!
A truck in Mexico blows up with TNT and he the head of FMCS makes the most asinine, fear mongering, 1001 TIMES CUD CHEWED, post digested and composted male cow feed comment!
GO FERTILIZE THE CACTUS ALREADY, YOU BASTARD!
Mcguyver on September 12, 2007 at 12:02 AM
Um, it was ammonium nitrate. Just saying..
Neocon Peg on September 12, 2007 at 12:12 AM
That’s what I would have done.
That would point to the anti-teamster vote. However, if this were said about Prescription drugs how would everyone here feel? Is it appropriate that a capitalistic society pays MORE for the SAME DRUG than our neighbors do? Why does Mexico and Canada pay less for the same drug? Why is it illegal for Americans to cross the border to pay less for the drugs?
I’m not weighing in on either side of this particular debate. AMERICAN truck drivers are hazards lots of times anyway. . . My grandfather was a truck driver and I have nothing against them, but they ain’t no angels. I’m just not wholeheartedly in favor of this bill though I wouldn’t be upset if the veto was overridden.
ThackerAgency on September 12, 2007 at 12:17 AM
We pay more for the drugs because we bear the expense of the research and development and the other countries do not. Our truckers are vastly superior to any other country. Their trucks are inspected far more than your automobiles are. I’ve seen mexican drivers in pickups and I don’t want mexican drivers in semis on our roads. Period.
Neocon Peg on September 12, 2007 at 12:24 AM
I’m curious if this is the reason the Republicans didn’t support this ban… and what Cornyn’s Amendment called for…
Since the worry (from his quote) seems to be more about the safety of the trucks, that may have been the focus there; rather than a blanket ban.
Oh, and Mcguyver, the TNT thing isn’t exactly plausible even without the ban…
gekkobear on September 12, 2007 at 12:29 AM
that we know of. Mexico is corrupt, right. so they are going to tell us, hey, Gringo, we have hazardous materials, so I guess I can’t enter? Just like they are going to tell us they have no drugs or they are not carrying illegals. Yeah, that’s going to happen, in your dreams. First they are going to come across the border carefully and then within a few months, they will be barreling across with absolutely no oversight, bringing in no telling what.
Neocon Peg on September 12, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Fixed that one for you. The Prescription drug companies are PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES. That means that anyone in any country can own stock in the companies (ie pay for the R & D of the drugs). However, our government (tax dollars) generally pay for the R&D so the people who pay for that R & D (US citizens) should be able to pay LESS for the drugs.
We don’t pay less because of the Pharmaceutical lobby, no other reason. Sorry for my rant on prescription drugs. I have a lot to say about it but this is the wrong thread for that.
ThackerAgency on September 12, 2007 at 12:45 AM
I think people are treating this as a proxy issue for illegal immigration.
Our government is apparently incapable of enforcing existing immigration laws or even equipping the INS with working databases, and we applaud them for making up for it symbolically by hassling legal and legitimate commerce?
The fact that y’all are siding with the Teamsters ought to raise alarm bells.
sandberg on September 12, 2007 at 12:49 AM
It is simple why my senators voted nay….the Trans Texas Moneyway…..Texas stands to get the most traffic, tolls, taxes, fines, and cheap goods for the cheap labor force.
Limerick on September 12, 2007 at 12:50 AM
ThackerAgency on September 12, 2007 at 12:17 AM
and there you have the dishonesty of the pro amensty crowd. It the free flow of LABOR is ok into this country than the free flow of all GOODS should be ok. that includeds prescription drugs.
Think on this. It is the high cost of drugs in the USA that enables the drug companies to do R&D on new drugs. Not only the cost but also our patent laws and respect for IP rights. It is also our laws and protections on LABOR that gives our citizens a higher standard of living than say Mexico. Therefore if we want to mantain the drug industry in this country we should not allow importation of cheaper drugs and if we want to maintain the middle class in this country we should not allow the importation of cheap labor.
You can not be for one and not the other. It simply is not logical. you must either be for both or against both. Somehow our great leaders don’t see this.
unseen on September 12, 2007 at 1:01 AM
The Dems just “happen” to be on the right side of the issue because of their support for the Union.
The Republicans are on the wrong side of the issue because of the vote of “convenience” for commerce. Make no mistake this vote to allow Mexican trucks does not “better” commerce make.
The ease of which explosives, just like were on that truck could come through the border without inspection is frightening.
Don’t believe they will inspect for safety as needed. The coast guard does not/cannot even inspect all shipments.
Mcguyver on September 12, 2007 at 1:01 AM
A great day for science!
Actual scientific confirmation of the
“Stopped Clock is Right Twice A Day”
and “Give Enough Monkeys Enough Typewriters…” theories.
Now if we can get a Democrat to proudly wave a US flag, we’ll also have proof of “quantum tunnelling”….
landlines on September 12, 2007 at 1:02 AM
Hey, I’m with ya, but this whole NAFTA thing we agreed to may complicate matters.
Ordinary1 on September 12, 2007 at 1:03 AM
You’re crazy to think it will enforceable!
Since 9-11 one has to have a special applicator’s permit to purchase ammonium nitrate. But with 100 Mexican company’s allowed Cart Blanche approval to haul without 100% unload/reload inspection? Voila!
Mcguyver on September 12, 2007 at 1:08 AM
**Everything that’s done, can be undone.
Mcguyver on September 12, 2007 at 1:09 AM
But seriously, opening our highways to foreign trucks with little or no inspection, especially while we are under attack, would be like the ancient Greeks voting to allow large wooden animals free access to Troy after that nasty horse incident…
This is an all-too-rare moment of sanity for the Washington crowd.
landlines on September 12, 2007 at 1:10 AM
Soooo… who is looking out for the AMERICAN economy?
they get to come over here, drive on OUR roads, without paying for them… making money off the taxpayer dime?
Add in that these trucks are “supposed” to be checked by the trucking companies, and will not have to wait at the border to be searched…
And just out of curiosity, can American trucks drive in Mexico?
Romeo13 on September 12, 2007 at 1:14 AM
I’m off to bed, pontificators.
I’ll check back later for you’re valued debates.
Mcguyver on September 12, 2007 at 1:17 AM
The fact that y’all are siding with the Teamsters ought to raise alarm bells.
sandberg on September 12, 2007 at 12:49 AM
A wise man gets more use from his enemies than a fool from his friends.
— Baltasar Gracian
MB4 on September 12, 2007 at 1:18 AM
sandberg on September 12, 2007 at 12:49 AM
The teamsters are not evil just because they are a union. the teamsters are made up of average American workers. The truck drivers in the USA have to follow strict rules and regulations on the amount of time they can drive, the condition of their trucks, drugs they can take etc. The majority also can READ ENGLISH this helps when traveling to understand road information signs.
The Mexican truck drivers not so much of the above. Commerce should not be the end all be all of every argument. We do not have a totally free market in this country because the citizens have decided that somethings like saftey, knowledge etc are more important than a totally free market. Thus we have speed limit laws, time limits, DUI laws, inspections, weight limits etc. All these laws and regulation interupt a free market but they do so for good reasons. Reasons that the citizens’ reps have voted for.
Thus over the last 50 years our highways have become safer and are able to be traveled with confidence by all Americans. Introducing a non-english speaking subset who do not follow our laws and regulations, can not read our signs, and can not converse with law enforcement into our highway system is not a good mix for increase safety. Would you like your mother/wife/daughter/son to be traveling the same roadways of someone that can/ will skip across the border and avoid any responsibility for any harm they cause through their lack of attention?
The Truck drivers in the US today face revoksion of their DL/jobs for speeding, accidents, DUI’s. they also face civil ramifications for any negligence that causes an accident.
Who you going to sue for missed work/loss of life/loss of motor skills if Juan hits you and he flees back to Mexico where he changes his name on the black market and comes back into the USA to cause more harm?
unseen on September 12, 2007 at 1:20 AM
Retaliation? Good grief. Mexico has been slapping the US upside the head so much that we’ve barely taken the opportunity to retaliate so they can retaliate against our retaliation.
Nosferightu on September 12, 2007 at 1:21 AM
The NY Times vs. Common Sense
By Ed Koch
“The Times editorial first tries to muddy the record, pontificating, “The supporters of comprehensive reform did not have the votes for their exotic blend of tough compassion of punishing then rewarding illegal immigrants with a non-amnesty that everybody called amnesty.”
Everybody called it amnesty because that’s what it was. Why is The Times afraid to call it by its rightful name?
So what do we have? An effort by those who lost the battle on McCain-Kennedy seeking to prevent the only sensible way to get illegals to go back to their own countries — close all opportunities for employment by punishing employers who knowingly violate the law. During the debate on McCain-Kennedy, its supporters denounced opponents, saying it is not possible to put the illegal aliens on buses and trains to send them home, raising the specter of a Nazi-like U.S. sending immigrants to the Umschlag Platz to board boxcars. No one ever suggested anything like that. What has been urged is to end employment opportunities by enforcing the law, which would cause the illegals to go home on their own.
I have suggested we offer to pay their transportation costs and pay each member of the family returning to their native country a bonus of
$500$5,000, it would be well worth it, payable at the nearest U.S. consulate in their home countries.”MB4 on September 12, 2007 at 1:46 AM
How, exactly, do the Democrats who hold debates in Spanish explain a unanimous vote against letting “filthy, broken down, illegal alien driven, drug smuggling Mexican trucks” drive on American highways?
Heh.
Jaibones on September 12, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Hmmm…. just did a bit of searching…
Seems almost all of American trucks are too long for Mexican laws… our standard big rigs don’t meet their standards… which they are NOT going to change… so.. they will get to use our roads to make money, but our trucks still won’t be able to ship there…
Nice….
And by the way… this also covers BUS LINES!!! Yep… we used to have the busline Greyhound…. theres will be GreyCoyote…
Romeo13 on September 12, 2007 at 1:50 AM
How, exactly, do the Democrats who hold debates in Spanish explain a unanimous vote against … … … … ?
Jaibones on September 12, 2007 at 1:48 AM
Muy cuidadosamente y con muchos de delicadeza.
MB4 on September 12, 2007 at 1:52 AM
Wrong. The R&D is paid for by your and my tax dollars. Look at the stem cell research debate. It is about FEDERAL DOLLARS going to R&D. That has nothing to do with the cost of the drugs that it creates. We pay taxes for R&D, and Pharma companies are publicly traded companies to get the money for R&D.
THEY AREN’T CHEAPER DRUGS, THEY ARE THE SAME DRUG BUT COST LESS BECAUSE OF THE COST CONTROLS IN AMERICA BY THE FDA AND THE PHARMA COMMUNITY.
You are arguing that a farmer who plants seed, tills soil, buys tractors, works the field, harvests the corn should then have to pay more for that corn than someone who had nothing to do with the development. Why should that farmer pay 2 dollars and sell it to other people for 1 dollar?
Sorry this is off topic, and I am sorry but the pharma companies really tick me off. Their mantra of ‘we need more for R&D’ is absurd. Half the drugs they waste money on with that R&D create more problems than solutions in AMERICA.
ThackerAgency on September 12, 2007 at 1:57 AM
WOO HOO!
My likelihood of dying in a traffic crash was just cut by at least 33% and it probably saved my vehicle insurance rates from going up by 33%.
What really disgusts me though, is that my old friend (well, really, he was my father’s friend, a mere acquaintance to me.) ; Our erstwhile conservative Senator from NM: Pete Domenici voted FOR the Mexican trucks, while our Dem. Senator, Jeff Bingaman voted against them.
Since there isn’t a lot of pressure from labor unions in NM, It might be possible that Jeff voted against it for common sense reasons rather than to keep the Teamsters happy.
This has got to be the first time in history that I agreed with something that the Teamsters Union wanted though.
Nonetheless, the last time I was this pleased from something from the Senate is when Shamnesty was voted down (with similar ‘upside-down’ votes from ‘my’ two Senators).
LegendHasIt on September 12, 2007 at 2:03 AM
Since the one-world government people are against borders, let’s vote to eliminate Mexican trucks from Mexican roads too.
And, two more quickies:
Bush needs a dose of whoop-a$$ veto override.
Where’s the fence?
saved on September 12, 2007 at 5:32 AM
The beginning of the end..well its a start..
Legions on September 12, 2007 at 6:12 AM
We more towards the middle of the end but whose counting. And yeah, it’s true our sovereignty has already been signed away with international courts holding more power over our federal highway system than our own congress.
Buzzy on September 12, 2007 at 7:55 AM
Wrong. The R&D is paid for by your and my tax dollars. Look at the stem cell research debate. It is about FEDERAL DOLLARS going to R&D. That has nothing to do with the cost of the drugs that it creates. We pay taxes for R&D, and Pharma companies are publicly traded companies to get the money for R&D.
— — — —
No, you are wrong. It is a mixture of both but the majority of funding is either private funding or from the drug comapnies. Also, factor into the drug costs the astronomical litigation (liability protection) exposure. The cost and ease of suing companies (especially drug and medical companies) in this company is absolutely killing our health care system.
stenwin77 on September 12, 2007 at 7:55 AM
I don’t see what the big deal is about Mexican trucks. As long as they drive them back over the border when their run is done, is this anything other than a Teamster payout?
Clark1 on September 12, 2007 at 8:34 AM
Ahhh, the irony is delicious. At least the unions still have some things right.
SouthernDem on September 12, 2007 at 8:46 AM
You said it for me. The unions just like Boosh have times when right and times when wrong. This time the unions are right. Ant bets on Boosh?
Wade on September 12, 2007 at 9:16 AM
All I can say is I’ve seen some pretty rickety Mexican Veeee-Hicles on the SoCal Freeways that would make Uncle Jed flinch.
PatrickS on September 12, 2007 at 9:39 AM
LegendHasit,
I wouldn’t be relaxing my vigilance on the road any if I were you. I wish I could remember where I read the article, but I did read recently about the utter corruption within our own trucking industry. You might be surprised to find out just how many Mexicans (in the form of illegal aliens–as well as people from other countries) are behind the wheel of the trucks on the road now. Probably not so surprised to learn how few of them can speak English.
Shel
serpentineshel on September 12, 2007 at 9:43 AM
Both my Senators are in the nays. :(
Ortzinator on September 12, 2007 at 9:47 AM
Although I agree with your comment re: draconian measures & protectionism, I have a slightly different take on free trade with Mexico (which I consider a special case).
NAFTA did have a decade to work, and it didn’t. Why was that, people wonder? Because the Mexican government has a vested interest, both financially & politically, to send its people to the US!
Although numerous companies have invested in manufacturing, drilling, etc. in Mexico, we still have this huge influx of illegals. That’s because Mexico’s 2nd largest contributor to their GDP, or “industry,” is EFT’s from the US.
EFT = Electronic Funds Transfer!
Combine that income with the Aztlan initiative and you have your answer to the “failure” of NAFTA. Why would allowing truckers in from Mexico do any better?
I have a friend in the oil business who had to cross into Matamoros to view the fields there. He’s a tough guy, and he was always nervous about this part of his job.
He knew of kidnappings & murders committed by 14-year-olds at the behest of the local drug dealers. It was crazy…there is no need to open our roads up any more.
I think we should shut them down entirely…let’s stick with Canada!
Miss_Anthrope on September 12, 2007 at 11:07 AM
Dunno why you’re b*tching at me here, I was merely suggesting why DeMint would oppose the measure for those reasons.
That’s an oversimplification. You forget that at this point, many simple manufactures were folding/shutting down/downsizing in the US because of high labor/material cost, NAFTA itself didn’t fail in Mexico, it had its legs cut out from under it when China and India opened their markets and provided an even cheaper source of labor, resources and domestic markets.
A huge chunk of manufacturing operations were moved to China and India that would have otherwise been put together in Mexico and Latin America. Early industrial economies rely on simple manufacturing as their base, all that stuff is in Asia now. Of course this is complicated by all the stuff you mention, and the rampant corruption in Latin American gov’ts.
Bad Candy on September 12, 2007 at 11:41 AM
Another vote based on emotion and not on intellect. Tearing down trade barriers WILL make things better but it takes longer than a US election cycle or two. It can take a generation or two and people want a “fix” that works in a decade or less.
On the other hand, US retirees are moving to Mexico in droves resulting in a building boom on Mexico’s Pacific coast. It is getting easier for Mexicans to find jobs at home as more and more Americans move there to escape the high cost of living on this side of the border.
crosspatch on September 12, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Cornyn and Hutchinson are not on our side. The only reason they caved on the Shamnesty bill is because of the loud roar they heard from their constituents. I guess this means they really didn’t learn anything from that. That we Texans must be ever vigilant against their voting, on every bill concerning our national security and the safety and well being of US and Texas citizens.
b4itsover on September 12, 2007 at 12:33 PM
“A fair point by Rob Port about the benefits of free trade. NAFTA’s had a decade to “invigorate” Mexico’s economy, though, and yet the oceans of illegals continue to pour over the border. Why would you believe trucking would make any appreciable difference?”
I wish there was a “fair point” about this deal. There’s the lu-lu that ‘gee, we get to go to Mejiko in our trucks so that the MS13 can decapitate us, take our rigs, sell them to the drug cartels, or the policia can throw us into some rat hole prison or, at best, have desperate Mexican nationalsrip us off to feed their families.
Well, Dubya is in full global bloom with this deal. I don’t want to get too optimistic about the Senate stopping this–they too want a seat at the table of power, you know the one that AP says doesn’t exist…the NAU. It’s not going away, it’s here to stay and no act of Congress can stop the Captains of Industry. Besides, Calderon (our other Presidente) says that ‘Mexico doesn’t stop at the border’ and ‘wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico’. As much as this infuriates and sickens me, I have to agree. From my vantage point in San Diego County I have witnessed the invasion happen slowly and insiduously, and it will take a miracle to bring order to the border states, if not to the entire republic.
Christine on September 12, 2007 at 12:43 PM
I know it’s oversimplification…I didn’t think all the issues/factors could fit into my post, so I left alot out intentionally.
My primary point was just that I don’t trust the Mexican gov’t to “work” with us, no matter how many offers we make.
It’s not in their best interest to do so.
Miss_Anthrope on September 12, 2007 at 12:44 PM
McCain, “Mr Straight Talker,” did not want to touch this one.
Zetterson on September 12, 2007 at 1:11 PM
I don’t get it. On its face this ban sounds great, but then why are so many Republicans voting against it? Nay votes from Lott, Graham, Kyl and the rest of the open-borders crowd I get, but even Hunter and Tancredo voted against it in the House.
What am I missing here?
2Brave2Bscared on September 12, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Hunter and Tancredo voted for the amendment in the House. In fact Hunter sponsored it.
Gianni on September 12, 2007 at 1:43 PM
They are RHINOS
ScottyDog on September 12, 2007 at 1:51 PM
Hunter and Tancredo did not vote against it. They voted for it. Hunter was the bills sponsor in the House.
flenser on September 12, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Durbin…Obama..??? votes to ban mexican trucks, yet are more than willing to turn the state of ILL(like in sick)into a sanctuary state..forget sanctuary cities these two are looking at turning the whole state into little mexico..The only reason they voted this way was, they had nothing to lose and being indebted to a bounce of teamsters kind of forces some issues whether you like it or not.
Legions on September 12, 2007 at 6:16 PM
correction- bunch.. a bunch of bouncers. Otherwise nice guys.
Legions on September 12, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Comment pages: