Texans fear US sovereignty will disappear down superhighway

Telegraph ^ | 04 March 2007 | James Langton

[untrained skeptic]

My criticisms were related to the lack of customs inspections of incoming cargo at the border, and a high speed rail system that would never pay for itself.

I'm not against expanding the highway system where it's needed.

I'm not against free trade.

I've got an idea - ban guns because by your reasoning they cause crime.

Could you explain what in my previous post you are referring to with this comment. I think at least one of us is confused.

[Domicile of Doom]

The high speed rail would pay for itself. Really I don't care if it does or not. MAGLEV NOW!!!! I want to drive my car onto a maglev car and be zipped to Dallas in 30 minutes from Houston.

Are we going to just close down all commerce and development thereof because of illegals? I don't like illegals anymore than the next guy, but we can't stop every faction of our society because they are coming here regardless of what we do to stop them.

[deport]

What a dumbass this reporter is.

---

I don't know about that title but he certainly is a lazy misinformed spreader of distorted information. I don't even think the article is worthy of refutation.....

[untrained skeptic]

The high speed rail would pay for itself.

You mean like Amtrak pays for itself? Oh wait, it constantly loses money and has to be subsidized by taxpayers.

While the desire to be able to travel long distances over a short period of time, without having to actively drive a vehicle is understandable. Passenger rail systems just haven't proven cost effective except over short runs in highly populated areas, and even then only when the routes are chosen carefully.

Really I don't care if it does or not. MAGLEV NOW!!!!

From our past experience with passenger rail systems, this is not just likely to lose money, it's likely to lose hundreds of millions of dollars a year after costing billions to construct.

Who do you think should pay for that, and what do you suggest justifies them having to pay for it?

Are we going to just close down all commerce and development thereof because of illegals?

I mentioned the need for customs at the border. I never even mentioned illegal immigration, though that is obviously PART of the problem with having customers in Kansas.

Are you suggesting we should do away with customs inspections all together? What practial benefit is there to having customs in Kansas as opposed to having it on the border.

Having customs officials at an airport that has a lot of international travel to a specific country makes sense. It allows you to deal with possible problems before you reach the destination. I've gone through US customs in Ottowa when flying back to the US, and it worked very well.

However, having US customs in Kansas rather than at the border makes no sense. It doesn't provide a benefit to legitimate trade, since such trade still needs to pass through customs at some point. It instead extends our border the length of the highway until customs has been reached. This extends the distance into our country in which someone could smuggle weapons before they are inspected, making it possible for someone to bring a WMD into highly populated areas without ever having to face inspection by customs.

I don't like illegals anymore than the next guy, but we can't stop every faction of our society because they are coming here regardless of what we do to stop them.

If illegal immigration were not an issue, the reasons I said I would oppose building a highway as described in this article are still completely valid.

You are the one that keeps brining up illegal immigration, not me.

I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how my comments correlate to your comment of "I've got an idea - ban guns because by your reasoning they cause crime".

From what I'm seeing, rational thought isn't one of your strong points.

[Domicile of Doom]

MAGLEV NOW!!!!

[Ben Ficklin]

This story about freight not being inspected until it reaches KC is bs that has been shot down over and over and over.

[untrained skeptic]

This story about freight not being inspected until it reaches KC is bs that has been shot down over and over and over.

Yea, as I stated in my first post I was highly skeptical of the article's credibility.

It reads like a lot of the typical dishonestly portrayed anti-globalization crap that is intended to fire people up but has little basis in fact.

Since such people obviously treat their readers like they are too stupid to make intelligent decisions if the are simply provided with the facts, it makes me wonder what kind of people eat this crap up.

[untrained skeptic]

Well, Maglev trains are more environmentally friendly and energy efficient that transporting people by conventional train or bus, and faster too.

They are just obscenely expensive to build.

However, construction costs may drop as the technology gets developed further, but I still think that you're going to have to optimistically wait a decade or more before they come close to being practical even in a limited role.

With the population growth Texas has been seeing, passenger rail systems might be practical by then as well.

[Ben Ficklin]

If you have an interest, you can find more info on FAST, Free and Secure Trade. This is the program by which freight recieves a secure status at its origin which enables it to cross the border more quickly via FAST Lanes.

There are numerous FAST lanes for northbound traffic, but none for southbound. Placing a Mexican customs agent in KC, or any other place, would allow southbound freight to be pre-inspected there and enable it to cross the border quicker.

[Domicile of Doom]

There see, that wasn't so hard, was it?

MAGLEV NOW!!!