Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former official sees little threat from superhighway
Lawrence Journal-World ^ | August 19, 2006 | Ken Miller

Posted on 09/23/2006 1:52:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

As the former executive director of North America’s Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO), I want to provide a much more accurate description of Interstate 35 and North America’s Super Corridor Coalition (NASCO) compared to statements made during a recent congressional campaign news conference. (“Proposed NAFTA superhighway a threat to Kansans …,” Journal-World, Aug. 12)

First, there is no NASCO plan to build a “10-lane superhighway” through Kansas or the rest of the Midwest. There is no “conspiracy” to grab Kansans’ property to provide the right of way for such a project. NASCO is a small, non-profit 501(c) (6) organization with members in Mexico, Canada and the United States.

The state of Texas is working on plans for a Trans-Texas Corridor that would parallel I-35, but anyone who has tried to drive in Austin, Dallas and Fort Worth knows why Texans are considering this mega-project: It’s called total traffic congestion. There are simply too many vehicles on outdated highway facilities.

It slows not only commercial traffic and hurts “just in time” delivery, which is critical in our economy, but it’s also unsafe for the traveling public and our environment. Just think of all those vehicles idling and spewing pollutants when a 20-minute trip becomes a two-hour odyssey. And while we are seeing this happen now in Texas, you better believe that eventually it will also happen in Kansas City and Wichita.

Second, NASCO or any other public/private organization has no power to decide what transportation improvements are funded. Those decisions are made by the respective state departments of transportation, and are funded in large part by the federal government. If you ask department of transportation leaders in Kansas or other states along the I-35 corridor, you will find that states are having a hard enough time paying for maintenance of their highway systems. Kansas is not a member of NASCO; I know this because I tried to get the state to join in 2002, and was politely told no.

Third, consider the sources on the Internet that started this rumor of a “North American Union” and the gradual disintegration of U.S. national independence. “WorldNet Daily” and “Amerikan Expose” aren’t exactly the Wall Street Journal and Newsweek. Conspiracy theorists need to have their so-called proof examined thoroughly before their assertions are accepted as truth.

Groups like NASCO are looking for innovative ways to enhance economic development through transportation improvements, technological advancements and perhaps most importantly, international understanding and cooperation.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; US: Kansas; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: amerikanexpose; canada; conspiracy; cuespookymusic; i35; ih35; interstate35; jeromecorsi; jimryun; kookmagnetthread; mexico; morethorazineplease; nafta; naftacorridor; naftahighway; nancyboyda; nasco; nascocorridor; nationalsovereignty; nau; nauconspiracy; northamericanunion; supercorridor; superstate; transtexascorridor; transtinfoilcorridor; ttc; ttc35; unitedstates; usa; worldnetdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last
Original article:

Proposed NAFTA superhighway a threat to Kansans, Boyda says

By Scott Rothschild (Contact)

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Topeka — Congressional challenger Nancy Boyda on Friday blasted U.S. Rep. Jim Ryun, R-Lawrence, for voting for legislation that she said included funds to start developing a NAFTA superhighway from Mexico to Canada that could go through Kansas.

Boyda, a Democrat from Topeka, said the proposal posed a security threat and would gobble up Kansas farmers’ land and cost American jobs.

“This corridor straight into our heartland will be a gift to terrorists,” Boyda said at a news conference. “Has Mr. Ryun forgotten 9-11? This corridor will punch a quarter-mile hole in our border with Mexico with virtually no way to control it.”

But Boyda later said she would have voted for the same federal highway legislation she criticized Ryun about because it also included funding for Kansas road projects.

The difference between her and Ryun, she said, was that she would have let constituents in the district know about the other funding in the bill for the superhighway and asked them if they wanted her to oppose the proposal.

Ryun’s office declined to comment, instead providing a link to a group called the North American SuperCorridor Coalition Inc.

On the coalition’s Web site — www.nascocorridor.com — the group said it was working to develop a multifaceted transportation system along Interstate 35.

“There are no plans to build a new NAFTA Superhighway — it exists today as I-35,” the group said.

But Boyda said the coalition’s funding for development of the superhighway was buried deep in the federal bills.

She said the first evidence of the proposal was a furious fight in Texas about a proposal by a U.S.-Spanish group to build a megahighway for vehicles and railroads, oil and gas pipelines, water and other utilities, and broadband cable. The route is proposed to be along I-35.


Boyda, Ryun spar over immigration, superhighway proposal

1 posted on 09/23/2006 1:52:06 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TxDOT; 1066AD; 185JHP; Abcdefg; Adrastus; Alamo-Girl; antivenom; AprilfromTexas; B-Chan; barkeep; ..

Trans-Texas Corridor PING!


2 posted on 09/23/2006 1:53:09 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hugo Chavez is the Devil! The podium still smells of sulfur...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Moonbat bait.


3 posted on 09/23/2006 1:56:48 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Please go read this Council on Foreign Relations document on an American Embassy Website. They have wonderful plans for a North American Union:

Building A North American Community

4 posted on 09/23/2006 1:58:27 PM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

Bush Administration Advances on Path of Creating 'North American Union'
Human Events Magazine ^ | sept 21, 2006 | Jerome Corsi

Posted on 09/22/2006 8:17:19 AM PDT by gopwinsin04

Bush Administration Advances on Path of Creating North American Union by Jerome R. Corsi Posted Sep 21, 2006

In the face of mounting public awareness and criticism, the Bush Administration is launching an offensive to claim that those arguing issues of NAFTA Super-Highways, a North American Union, or a new currency called the “Amero” are largely Internet conspiracy theorists whose claims should be dismissed as imaginary.

Several months ago, few U.S. citizens had ever heard of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP). Now, SPP.gov, the Department of Commerce website dedicated to advancing the Security and Prosperity Partnership, has been forced to add a new “Myths v. Facts” section aimed at debunking arguments made that SPP.gov is advancing an agenda to create a new regional government, along the model of the European Union.

The first myth/fact exchange addresses the legal status of SPP. To quote directly from the document on the SPP.gov website (including the grammatical error in the first sentence), we find the document’s first attempt at denial:

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents (sic) Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

The intent here appears to be to belittle the importance of what is happening within the many cabinet-level “working groups” constituted with the executive branches of the three countries. In doing so, the Bush Administration admits that the SPP activity is nothing more than “a dialogue,” mere talk. Evidently this point is conceded because the alternative would be to insist that any trilateral written agreements resulting from SPP should be submitted to the Senate as treaties demanding a two-thirds vote for approval. In an effort to down-play the importance of the extensive SPP activities being organized under Secretary Carlos Gutierrez in the Department of Commerce, we even find that the once ubiquitous SPP logo has been carefully removed from the current “debunking” version of the SPP.gov website.

Yet a close examination of the SPP.gov website makes questionable that that SPP is doing nothing more significant than talking. The “2005 Report to Leaders” contained on the SPP.gov website lists more than 30 references to “trilateral memoranda of understanding,” “mutual agreements,” and other “frameworks of common principles,” all of which strongly suggest that formal, written legal agreements have been reached by the trilateral “working groups” operating within SPP.gov.

The first five public policy areas listed in “2005 Report to Leaders” are quoted directly below, to illustrate the nature of the formal written agreements and subsequent executive branch governmental decisions and actions that are proceeding from the dialogue, making it clear that much more than talking is going on. We have underlined the terms that suggest much more than mere neighborly conversation.

Electronic Commerce. “In June 2005, our three countries signed a Framework of Common Principles for Electronic Commerce that will encourage the development of trans-border online business in North America.” Liberalization of Rules of Origin. “We have completed the implementation of modifications of rules of origin, covering goods such as household appliances, precious metals, and various machinery and equipment parts.” Consumer Products. “Canada and the United States have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to enhance and strengthen the exchange of information and cooperative activities on public health and safety protection related to the safety of consumer products, and encourage compatibility of standards-related measures to the greatest extent practicable. Likewise, Mexico and the United States are holding negotiations to reach an agreement on a similar Memorandum of Understanding.” Textiles and Apparel Labelling (sic). “We have reached an arrangement on the Use of Care symbols on Textile and Apparel Goods Labels that will facilitate market access of textile and apparel goods by the uniform acceptance of harmonized care symbols in North America. We plan to sign this agreement in July.” Temporary Work Entry. “The three countries have forwarded a trilateral document setting out each country’s domestic procedures to modify NAFTA’s temporary entry appendix on professionals to the NAFTA Free Trade Commission for approval. This will clarify procedures in each country, thereby providing a mechanism for more North American professionals to be given temporary entry.” Why aren’t the many tri-lateral agreements discussed in the “2005 Report to Leaders” published on the website, hot-linked within SPP.gov so they can easily be referenced and read? Nor can we find specific oversight congressional hearings which have examined these agreements in detail or questioned the “ministerial level working group members” about the specific legislative authorization they relied upon to constitute their working groups or to derive the many trilateral agreements that have been reached within what appears to be secrecy (or, at best, minimum disclosure) by the various U.S. executive branch administrative agencies involved in the SPP working groups.

Only a few documents and government websites are listed on SPP.gov under “SPP Documents and Useful Links.” Are these the most important or the most current trilateral agreements reached by SPP.gov as described in the “2005 Report to Leaders” on the website? Or, are these references meant merely to be representative of the wide range of working group activity and trilateral agreements achieved to date? Why are these documents on the SPP.gov website and not other documents? Why are the published documents and linked websites not identified for easy understanding and simple reference back to the more comprehensive “2005 Report to Leaders” that is on the website?

What appears to be going on within SPP.gov is not simply a dialogue, but a massive and on-going re-writing of U.S. administrative law to “integrate” or “harmonize” our administrative law with the corresponding administrative law of Mexico and Canada. A wide range of public policy areas are involved in the SPP re-write of U.S. administrative law, ranging from e-commerce, through air travel, steel policy, textile policy, energy policy, environmental issues, trusted trader programs, trusted traveler programs and biometric cards issued to citizens of the three countries. The resulting “trilateral agreements” are being achieved by SPP all without specific disclosure to the U.S. public or direct oversight examination by Congress.

Charges of this magnitude demand we consider the possibility that an executive branch coup d’etat is underway to create a new regional government below the radar of media, public, or congressional understanding or scrutiny.

Examining the hundreds of government websites devoted to SPP.gov in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, we find additional evidence that belies the assertion that SPP.gov is nothing more than a “dialogue.” The SPP website of the President of Mexico refers to SPP.gov as an “Alliance,” a word much more suggestive of a treaty, or at least a new formal status of international relations, that has been formally declared among the three nations. This Mexican website also lists much more clearly and comprehensively the full range of cabinet-level and administrative branch officials involved in the SPP.gov working groups, ranging in the U.S. to include at least the following U.S. executive branch administrative agencies: U.S. Department of State, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Treasury, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, as well as their counterparts in Mexican and Canadian executive branch agencies. We find no reference on SPP.gov to indicate that any members of Congress have been invited to participate in the working groups, even as informed observers.

President Bush’s statement following the Cancun trilateral summit in March 2006 also calls SPP a “Partnership,” echoing Mexico’s suggestion of an “Alianza,” suggesting that the legal status of SPP is more than a mere declaration or press release. Consider President Bush’s description in this document of the extensive trilateral administrative work underway in the many executive branch agencies of the three governments:

This Partnership (SPP) has increased our institutional contacts to respond to our vision of a stronger, more secure, and more prosperous region. In June 2005, our three governments released detailed work-plans identifying key initiatives that form an ambitious agenda of collaboration. Since June, we have worked to implement these initiatives. Many will take months or years to be completed, but we already note significant results. We ask our Ministers to build on this momentum.

On September 13, 2005, Deputy Secretary of Commerce David A. Sampson admitted that SPP was a “blueprint” in a speech given to the Canadian-American Border Trade Alliance:

The SPP announced last March by President Bush, Prime Minister Martin and Mexican President Vicente Fox, unveiled a blueprint for a safer and more prosperous North America for the 21st century.

Since the trilateral summit meeting in Waco, Tex., the governments of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada appear to be acting as if the three nations have achieved some formal new status, declared as a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. We are invited to consider whether SPP in reality is not just a “dialogue,” but a formal and advanced integration of the three nations such that the administrative law in each nation has been altered by the executive branches of the three governments to accomplish regional goals, not specifically national goals. Is then SPP a second stage NAFTA, a “Super-NAFTA,” designed to function as a transitional second stage on the way to the end goal of a true regional government, a North American Union expected to emerge as a fait accompli from the SPP rewriting of the three nations’ administrative law?

The question is this: What is the SPP “blueprint” intended to build? The second myth/fact exchange in the newly posted paper under that title on SPP.gov denies forcefully that the intent of the Bush administration is to create a North American Union:

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.


5 posted on 09/23/2006 1:59:50 PM PDT by gopwinsin04
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Individual Rights in NJ

He sounds like he's saying "yes" and "no" right in succession.


7 posted on 09/23/2006 2:10:21 PM PDT by RoadTest (- as he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit - so it is now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Individual Rights in NJ
Just like Ike(Eisenhower) wasn't fooling anyone when he prosposed and psuhed through this.

And back in the 50's far right wingers were calling Eisenhower a communist and an atheist.

You all, IMO, look silly in your knee jerk opposition and quest for the conpiracy theory of the day.

8 posted on 09/23/2006 2:15:39 PM PDT by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
"Please go read this Council on Foreign Relations document on an American Embassy Website. They have wonderful plans for a North American Union:"

Former Mass. Gov. William Weld is one of the leaders of the Council on Foreign Relations. Weld, a 16th generation Harvard grad, was recently CEO and an owner of Decker College, which recently went bankrupt. There are allegations of fraud and mismanagement.

If you recall in the 1990s, Weld resigned as governor when Bill Clinton appointed him Ambassador to Mexico. Weld never served in this post, however, as the Senate never confirmed the nomination.

Sounds like the kind of guy I want determining how we can spend billions.
9 posted on 09/23/2006 2:28:23 PM PDT by BW2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Those roads look pretty darn scary. Just looking at them robs me of my sovereignty.


10 posted on 09/23/2006 2:32:59 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Are any of those roads in Mexico or Canada?


11 posted on 09/23/2006 2:34:57 PM PDT by truthkeeper (It's the borders, stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dane

"You all, IMO, look silly in your knee jerk opposition and quest for the conpiracy theory of the day."

Considering how the Federal Gov. has handled the illegal invasion, it is your opinion that looks silly.


12 posted on 09/23/2006 2:39:00 PM PDT by gas0linealley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dane

The conpiracy theory of the day won't or doesn't mean much to most Texans that have to travel these congested roads day in and day out for a living or depends upon them for products to shipped in or out. There are lots of articles written by the antis but in the long run Texas needs roads and will have them whether it is the TTC or some other funded option such as state debt and taxes. It's mostly a matter of time in the approval process.


13 posted on 09/23/2006 2:44:07 PM PDT by deport (The Governor, The Foghorn, The Dingaling, The Joker, some other fellar...... The Governor Wins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone; Dane
The Interstate Highway System would not be built in this day and age. All of the NIMBY's and enviro's would tie it up in legal challenges.
But I still can not figure out how Hawaii got Interstates and Alaska did not.

Dane, this is one of the few things that we agree on. Texas must fix its Interstates. The dims want to bust it up into "local control boards" Perry, while not the sharpest tool in the shed, promotes a centralized private plan. The foreign investors risk their capital. As opposed to politicians squandering taxpayer monies. Reference the Big Dig.

14 posted on 09/23/2006 2:53:06 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocities of September 11, 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This is a US financed work program for Mexican truck drivers, plus they'll be able to truck in the illegals by thousands.


15 posted on 09/23/2006 2:56:22 PM PDT by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever
a centralized private plan. The foreign investors risk their capital. As opposed to politicians squandering taxpayer monies.

Such investment means pursuit of profit. Or control. Or both.
16 posted on 09/23/2006 3:01:13 PM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RJL

plus they'll be able to truck in the illegals by thousands.



What..... you mean they can't use the existing interstate highways but have to wait several years for the new road system to be built....


17 posted on 09/23/2006 3:01:48 PM PDT by deport (The Governor, The Foghorn, The Dingaling, The Joker, some other fellar...... The Governor Wins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Why not use trains from Mexico to various US cities?


18 posted on 09/23/2006 3:02:38 PM PDT by Tai_Chung
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Spirit Of Allegiance
Such investment means pursuit of profit. Or control. Or both.

It sure does. See, that is what is different between "capitalism" and government price controls. As far as a foreign company "controlling" their investment by sending out proper requests for quote, and demanding pre-qualification of the contractors; so what? And if you are inferring that any foreign investment in Texas or the US is a bad thing, do not be silly. Our legislature must ultimately approve this whole thing. The dims are pissed because they can not get the detailed engineering and analysis for free. So they spout "LandGrab by Ferrinners" while Granny promises business as usual for her favored contractors (read political contributors). Perry is no true conservative, but we must plan this and get it done. Nobody else has submitted a plan for review.

19 posted on 09/23/2006 3:12:22 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocities of September 11, 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Tai_Chung
Why not use trains from Mexico to various US cities?

Brilliant idea! The Texas Railway Commission can go out and declare imminent domain to build new railroads. Because if you think the Interstates are in trouble in Texas, you ought to see the rail system. The TTC systems include new railway, which is urgently needed.

20 posted on 09/23/2006 3:17:16 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocities of September 11, 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tai_Chung

"During the early 1980s the rapid changes in the United States economy and mergers among other western railroad companies made it increasingly difficult for the Southern Pacific Transportation Company and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company to compete as independent railroads. On December 23, 1983, the parent companies merged to form the Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation (now Santa Fe Pacific Corporation), and an application was filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission to merge the two railroads. However, in July 1986 the ICC refused to allow the merger and ordered the holding company to sell one of the carriers. This resulted in the sale of the SPTC to Rio Grande Industries, parent company of the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, on October 13, 1988. A new system consisting of the SPTC, Rio Grande, and Cotton Belt was thus formed. Initially each company continued to operate under its own name, but in 1992 operations of the Rio Grande and Cotton Belt were consolidated with those of the SPTC, and the system became known as the Southern Pacific Lines. On April 30, 1993, the name of Rio Grande Industries was changed to Southern Pacific Rail Corporation. From the days of the Buffalo Bayou, Brazos and Colorado and the Galveston and Red River, the Southern Pacific system in Texas has been centered in the Houston area. The new system continues to operate major terminals, shops, and a regional office in Houston, only a few miles from where the first rail was laid, not only in Texas but also on what is now the Southern Pacific."

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/SS/eqs35.html


21 posted on 09/23/2006 3:31:38 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocities of September 11, 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tai_Chung
Why not use trains from Mexico to various US cities?
Where have you been?.....

Kansas City Southern de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. Overview

On April 1, 2005, Kansas City Southern (KCS) completed the purchase of the controlling interest in TFM, S.A. de C.V. (TFM) from Grupo TMM, S.A. (TMM). As a result, KCS owns all of the common stock of Grupo Transportacion Ferroviaria Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. and controls all of the shares of TFM entitled to full voting rights. In December 2005, the name TFM, S.A. de C.V. was changed to Kansas City Southern de Mexico (KCSM).

The 2,661-mile KCSM operates the primary rail route in northern and central Mexico, linking Mexico City and Monterrey with Laredo, Texas, where more than 50 percent of the U.S.-Mexico trade crosses the border. The line also connects the major population centers of Mexico City and Monterrey with the heartland of the U.S. and serves the ports of Veracruz, Tampico and Lazaro Cardenas, a primary alternative to West Coast ports for shippers in the route between Asia and North America.


22 posted on 09/23/2006 3:32:30 PM PDT by deport (The Governor, The Foghorn, The Dingaling, The Joker, some other fellar...... The Governor Wins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dane

Notice that all the roads are in the United States of America? Read the CFR document on the US Embassy Website for a wonderful North American Community.


23 posted on 09/23/2006 3:53:35 PM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever
...declare imminent domain

The concept of "imminent domain" is evil in my view because it allows the government the right to take your property against your will. It reminds me of China in which you can own a building, but all land belongs to the government.

24 posted on 09/23/2006 3:55:34 PM PDT by Tai_Chung
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner
Notice that all the roads are in the United States of America? Read the CFR document on the US Embassy Website for a wonderful North American Community.

Oooh, what about I-5, 19, and 35 that go straight to the Mexican border.

Damn globalsit Eisenhower(cue spooky music).

25 posted on 09/23/2006 3:57:42 PM PDT by Dane ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" Ronald Reagan, 1987)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dane

From Polipundit just for you Dane. LOL!

Enforcement Works, If You Give It A Chance


How is that Hazleton, Pa Ordinance on illegals working?

Mayor Lou Barletta of Hazleton, Pa., estimates that as “many as half” of the estimated 10,000 Hispanics who were living in Hazleton when it passed an ordinance in July to punish those who hire or house illegal aliens have since left the city.

“We’ve been notified by some 30 other cities in the United States that are waiting to process such ordinances,” he said yesterday in an interview.

In Valley Park, Mo., 20 immigrant families disappeared virtually overnight from a high-crime apartment complex, and at least dozens quickly left Riverside, N.J., this summer when those two small towns passed laws cracking down on employers who hire illegal aliens and landlords who rent to them.

I wonder how things would be if they had simply adopted a “tolerance ordinance?”

-- Oak Leaf


26 posted on 09/23/2006 3:59:22 PM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: deport
in the long run Texas needs roads and will have them whether it is the TTC or some other funded option such as state debt and taxes. It's mostly a matter of time in the approval process.

I agree. But there just isn't a concensus on the TTC.

Knee-jerk conspiracy theories don't help. And Knee-jerk labeling of anyone opposed to the TTC as a NIMBY-enviro-whacko-Luddite doesn't help either.

It is a huge project, and shoving it through isn't doing the state any good at all. I know a lot of very good, conservative people who think that the TTC is not a good idea. If you guys really want to get this thing done, you'd better start listening to them, and you'd better start thinking about compromising with them, and on the scale of the project.

The "my-way-or-else-we-are-all-doomed-plus-you-are-stupidly-standing-in-the-way-of-progress" attitude is polarizing a lot of very good people against the TTC, and they are, in turn, going to ensure that rural legislators will knife this project to death in a thousand creative ways.

You need to build a political consensus. It isn't there, yet.
27 posted on 09/23/2006 4:05:35 PM PDT by horse_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: horse_doc

You need to build a political consensus. It isn't there, yet.



Don't disagree one bit. But the knife cuts both ways imo.

I think you'll find consensus being brought along. Look at the olive branch to the DFW Metroplex on the loop arrangement. As these come together along the route then it will go ahead.

But by the same token the antis keep posting crap that isn't in the plan today, next week or maybe in the next 20 yrs, someday maybe in the distant future. I doubt that there will be 4,000 miles of 1200 ft wide roadway built under the plan that has been touted on every anti web site and articles. It was a conceptual idea to get things up and running when no one was even trying to address the needed transportation problems in this state. They don't do themselves any good with the slander of that concept which to some degree has been changed and will be changed as the projects become needed.


28 posted on 09/23/2006 4:21:13 PM PDT by deport (The Governor, The Foghorn, The Dingaling, The Joker, some other fellar...... The Governor Wins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dane
Actually Eisenhower did not propose the I-System as your picture depicts. He only planned on having three I-Hiways going E to W and 4 I-Hiways going North to South. Most of the remainder you see in the Interstate System you see today was a long after thought of Eisenhowers plan.
29 posted on 09/23/2006 4:49:32 PM PDT by Freeper (I was culture in the 60's and now with Clinton "running things" I am suddenly Counter-Culture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever
But I still can not figure out how Hawaii got Interstates and Alaska did not.

I've read that certain roads in Alaska and Puerto Rico have interstate designations.

30 posted on 09/23/2006 4:52:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hugo Chavez is the Devil! The podium still smells of sulfur...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: horse_doc
Your spirit of concensus and respect is admirable and honorable. The hyperbole that has been thrown out to date is significantly on the "anti" side. I firmly agree that any transfer of private property must be subject to agreement, scrutiny, and review. Mineral rights absolutely must be taken into account. The "pro" position has not done an adequate job of researching, addressing, and validating the concerns of citizens that may be impacted. The two hearings that I attended were too "mechanical" in my opinion. Agriculture and cattle are essential for Texas, as is natural gas and oil. Great people have staked their livelyhoods and reputations on productive land for several generations here. Yet for those that are dead set against private business, even foreign business, look around at the railroads. They are all the private property of the railroad.

That said, I still support citizens being offered fair value for property. Whether for private or public works. The county commissioners court and the Texas Railroad Commissioners weild much more power than a governor. "RAILROAD COMMISSION. Although it is only a state agency, the Texas Railroad Commission has been historically one of the most important regulatory bodies in the nation. This is because for much of the twentieth century it has strongly influenced the supply and price of oil and natural gas throughout the United States. As its name implies, the commission was originally established to oversee railroads. Riding a wave of Populist-style resentment of the railroads, James S. Hoggqv won the governorship in 1890 largely on his promise to have them regulated. The state constitution had been simultaneously amended to allow such a body, and in 1891 the legislature established the commission, giving it jurisdiction over rates and operations of railroads, terminals, wharves, and express companies." http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/RR/mdr1.html Unless one believes that the Federal Interstate Commerce Commission will do what is best for Texas and Texans.

31 posted on 09/23/2006 5:02:43 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocities of September 11, 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ARealMothersSonForever
I firmly agree that any transfer of private property must be subject to agreement, scrutiny, and review. Mineral rights absolutely must be taken into account.


And I suspect that is what will happen. I can't see the good 'ol boys in the Texas legislature not providing the protection to their constituents when they agreed to imminent domain. I had some 52 acres taken for a roadway expansion project and got current market value based upon sales of like property in the area and retained the mineral rights. Granted this property was in Louisiana and thus I don't know the specifics of Texas law. It is possible that many of the Texas landowners don't have all the mineral rights anyway as Texas allowed original owners to retain the rights without ever letting them go but if they do they should be able to retain them and not let the state take that. The State only needs surface rights for a roadway.
32 posted on 09/23/2006 5:13:03 PM PDT by deport (The Governor, The Foghorn, The Dingaling, The Joker, some other fellar...... The Governor Wins)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: deport

What..... you mean they can't use the existing interstate highways but have to wait several years for the new road system to be built....
//////////////
In fact the beginning of the current flood of illegals 20 years ago coincides with the completion of the current interstate highway system.

They get over the border and two days later they're in small town pennsylvania.


33 posted on 09/23/2006 5:23:45 PM PDT by ckilmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dane
As much money that is robbed from the taxpayers these roads should be paved with gold.
34 posted on 09/23/2006 5:26:33 PM PDT by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

"In fact the beginning of the current flood of illegals 20 years ago coincides with the completion of the current interstate highway system."

"In 1986 Reagan obtained an overhaul of the income tax code, which eliminated many deductions and exempted millions of people with low incomes. At the end of his administration, the Nation was enjoying its longest recorded period of peacetime prosperity without recession or depression."

Uhh, Ronald Reagan was POTUS 20 years ago. Do you claim that Reagan is responsible for the immigrant flood?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/rr40.html


35 posted on 09/23/2006 5:36:31 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocities of September 11, 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: deport
It is possible that many of the Texas landowners don't have all the mineral rights anyway as Texas allowed original owners to retain the rights without ever letting them go but if they do they should be able to retain them and not let the state take that. The State only needs surface rights for a roadway.

The city dwellers likely have no idea about mineral rights in Texas. And those are the ones being targeted by the "landgrab" crowd. We rural property owners are very sensitive to right-of-way and mineral rights. The Texas Cattleman's Association, County Commissioners, and Railroad Commissioners are an invaluable source of information and help. They can even refer a lawyer that came from a Texas school, and is not a damn Yankee.

36 posted on 09/23/2006 5:44:19 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocities of September 11, 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: horse_doc
"shoving it thru"

Discussions on what to do about the roads began in the 80s.
The Center of Transportation Research released their final report in 96, in which they recommended the MultiModal Corridor.
In Jan 02 TxDot began an implementation plan.
In 03, the legislation was completed
There has been uncountable meetings and comment.

How is all that "shoving it thru"?

As for all these very good conservative people you know, they need to come up with an alternative. Or, more to the point, how much are you going to have to raise the gas tax?

37 posted on 09/23/2006 6:11:17 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: unixfox

Because of better gas mileage, drivers now pay only beteen a third and a half of the gas tax that they used to pay.


38 posted on 09/23/2006 6:22:14 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer
In fact the beginning of the current flood of illegals 20 years ago coincides with the completion of the current interstate highway system.

The beginning of the flood appears to coincide with the signing of that dumb 1986 amnesty. The Interstate Highway system was considered completed in 1996.

39 posted on 09/23/2006 6:44:03 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hugo Chavez is the Devil! The podium still smells of sulfur...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

"The Interstate Highway system was considered completed in 1996."
The devil is in the details.


40 posted on 09/23/2006 7:22:08 PM PDT by ARealMothersSonForever (We shall never forget the atrocities of September 11, 2001.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
How is all that "shoving it thru"?

In the real world, "shoving it through" means taking action well before a political concensus has been reached. Political decisions on infrastructure aren't made on tidy engineering timetables. They are made when enough people decide that they are ready. And if that seems too long for you, well, too bad.

I lived in Dallas in the late 70's and early 80's. Central Expressway was a problem, and it had been a problem for 20 years before I got there. The political concensus on what to do took a lot of time. I left Dallas long before it was finished, but it did get finished. And the doomsday predictions made over the preceeding 30 years never really panned out.

You can either face the reality that a lot of your fellow Texans aren't ready for this yet, on the scale that it is proposed, or you can keep acting like everyone who is opposed to the TTC is terminally stupid. Just don't be surprised to see obstacles spring up where they didn't have to be.
41 posted on 09/23/2006 7:31:02 PM PDT by horse_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: horse_doc

It is real simple. What is your alternative.


42 posted on 09/23/2006 7:34:13 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin
As for all these very good conservative people you know, they need to come up with an alternative.

BTW - this is a great example of how not to do it. Here, you are implying that the very good conservative people that I know aren't real, or are idiots. And no, they DON'T have to come up with an alternative, on your timetable. People come up with alternatives when they reach a level of discomfort that drives them to it. Maybe they don't use I-35 much. Maybe they don't mind driving an extra hour getting to Seaworld, from Garland. Maybe they gripe about the traffic driving from Manor to New Braunfels, but not enough to do anything about it, yet.

Someday they will. And when enough of them feel enough discomfort, they will propose alternatives, and new roads will be built. Maybe it won't be soon enough for you. Maybe it will be too soon for me. But you can rest assured that it WON'T happen until a political critical mass is reached - and if you think that you are there yet, you are kidding yourself.
43 posted on 09/23/2006 7:58:07 PM PDT by horse_doc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

BTTT


44 posted on 09/24/2006 3:11:22 AM PDT by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Dane

"You all, IMO, look silly in your knee jerk opposition and quest for the conpiracy theory of the day".


As opposed to looking silly everytime you post?


45 posted on 09/24/2006 6:25:45 AM PDT by wolfcreek (You can spit in our tacos and you can rape our dogs but, you can't take away our freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: horse_doc
Maybe I can narrow it down a little for you.

We had a referendum and the voters rejected pay-as-you-go. Those that wanted free roads lost. Those that have to pay for the free roads won. You can hire all the facilatators and stakeholders you want, that is not going to change.

The state can borrow the money and build the road, but they have to repay the loan. The taxpayer will not tolerate a tax increase, gas, income, or otherwise, to repay the loan. Thus, the state built/operated road will be a toll road, except that it will be a higher toll that the proposal on the table.

46 posted on 09/24/2006 2:36:48 PM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

10 lanes? Sounds good to me.

Who cares about the farmers. So they would lose what, 10 feet of field?


47 posted on 09/27/2006 9:38:26 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ckilmer

Well darn, I guess since bad people can use those roads, we better tear them up!

STOP PROGRESS! THOSE EVIL MEXICANS TRYING TO LEAVE THEIR HELLISH LIVES MAY USE OUR ROADS!


48 posted on 09/27/2006 9:45:00 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: horse_doc

Actually, if you have a problem with something, you propose an alternative. NOW.

Not 10 years from now.

If you don't, it is your fault if you lose.


49 posted on 09/27/2006 9:52:14 AM PDT by rwfromkansas (http://xanga.com/rwfromkansas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Who cares about the farmers. So they would lose what, 10 feet of field?

They could lose a lot more than that. Some farms could be split by this thing, with no immediate access from one side to the other.

50 posted on 09/27/2006 11:18:21 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Hugo Chavez is the Devil! The podium still smells of sulfur...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson