That is a complete switch from what we have been reading about this proposed FTZ for the past couple of years. It’s great to hear a state official admit that the proposed FTZ would be illegal.
My interest in the Idaho FTZ involved a new deep water port in WA State that has been connected to the Idaho FTZ. It is being proposed as a coal export terminal, but China has said that they won’t be buying US sub-bituminous coal by the time the terminal is built and there has been talk of it really being used as an import terminal. The reason that the imports are not the main focus is because the present infrastructure and roads would not support an import terminal, not even the RR. Some are conjecturing that they want to build new rail lines through the rural areas of our county, and connect with existing rails that would go to this Idaho FTZ. If they completed this FTZ and made the terminal in WA and FTZ, China would be able to ship anything that they wanted right to Idaho.
So, it sounds as though people are the biggest export that China wants to ship to Idaho at this point. Maybe I wasn’t so far off about them shipping those Nigerian detainees to the US, after all. I was just being facetious.
Some are conjecturing that they want to build new rail lines through the rural areas of our county, and connect with existing rails that would go to this Idaho FTZ.
As to the Free trade zone. Please read more carefully. A FTZ is not owned by a foreign country: The area south of Boise will still belong to the United States and Idaho. The FTZ exists to help Idaho export to China. Here's a theory, a large amount of tech companies are located in the Boise area. The FTZ could allow them to more easily ship tech products to China.
Here's an example of a proposed FTZ in Canada for exporting Lumber.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/11/canada-us-lumber-dispute_n_1418932.html
Read the article and tell me who owns the FTZ: Australia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Singapore or Chile? They are all part of it.
Here's another take on how horrible FTZ’s are:
“FTZs, usually located on major trade routes, grant multinational corporations access to cheap labor markets and offer exemptions from taxes, tariffs, and government regulations. Historically, governments dominated by corporate interests demand FTZs while governments that need to create jobs provide them.”
http://combatingglobalization.com/articles/north_american_free_trade_zones.html
I post the above article for the reason of pointing out why liberals don't like FTZ. According to the leftists free trade zones allow the evils of capitalism to do what is does best, create jobs (or as the libs call it companies exploiting the local labor force). Now can the companies focusing on exporting to China pay less than Idaho's minimum wage? What the FTZ can do is help companies in Boise (be they owned by Chinese companies or American companies) to export more easily to China by being able to avoid tariffs and other taxes.