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

Skip to comments.

Senator Moves to Block Mexican Trucks(Democrat Sen. Byron Dorgan ND)
worldnetdaily.com ^ | September 10, 2007 | Jerome R. Corsi

Posted on 09/10/2007 11:48:46 AM PDT by kellynla

Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan plans to offer an amendment today that would block the controversial federal program allowing Mexican trucks to operate freely on roads across the U.S.

Barry Piatt, spokesman for the North Dakota senator, told WND the amendment to the Fiscal 2008 Department of Transportation appropriations bill essentially will say, "None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to establish or implement a cross-border motor carrier demonstration or pilot project or program to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial zones on the United States-Mexico border."

Piatt said the amendment could come up for a vote in the Senate tomorrow or Wednesday.

Dorgan has scheduled a 2:30 pm Eastern Time press conference in the Senate today to announce his decision to offer the amendment .

WND reported last week, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., charged the Bush administration with being "hell-bent on opening our borders, but has failed to require that Mexican drivers and trucks meet the same safety and security standards as U.S. drivers and trucks."

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Mexico
KEYWORDS: 110th; aliens; conspiracy; corsi; dorgan; immigrantlist; immigration; mexico; tinfoil; trucking; worldnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last

1 posted on 09/10/2007 11:48:48 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: gubamyster; HiJinx

ping


2 posted on 09/10/2007 11:49:54 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

I don’t see any benefit whatsoever to surrendering our trucking industry to Mexico.


3 posted on 09/10/2007 11:50:38 AM PDT by DoughtyOne ((Victory will never be achieved while defining Conservatism downward, and forsaking its heritage.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

And the Teamsters thank him.


4 posted on 09/10/2007 11:50:47 AM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

bump


5 posted on 09/10/2007 11:51:15 AM PDT by lesser_satan (FRED THOMPSON '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Even Clinton had the common sense not to allow this.


6 posted on 09/10/2007 11:53:59 AM PDT by NapkinUser (Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan plans to offer an amendment today that would block the controversial federal program allowing Mexican trucks to operate freely on roads across the U.S.

Good. Somebody needed to do it.
7 posted on 09/10/2007 11:55:32 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1Tim 1:4; Gal 1:6-10; 1Cor 2:2; Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-35; 2Thess 2:11; Jude 1:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

He’s a year late.


8 posted on 09/10/2007 11:55:33 AM PDT by cinives (On some planets what I do is considered normal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

z

Wow! Did I read that last paragraph right? DeFazio condemns Bush’s open border policy, but refuses to back Duncan Hunter’s bill to impose upon Mexican transport vehicles the same rules and regulations which domestic transport vehicles must follow?

Double speak? Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum? What kind of brainwashing is this, pray tell?


9 posted on 09/10/2007 11:57:55 AM PDT by Paperdoll ( Duncan Hunter '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Stop the trucking madness; better yet stop the whole assimilation of the US into sovereignty robbing treaties and organizations: NAFTA, WTO and others...
10 posted on 09/10/2007 11:58:49 AM PDT by veracious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
So you want to punish independent owner operators?

BS

11 posted on 09/10/2007 11:59:06 AM PDT by HuntsvilleTxVeteran (Remember the Alamo, Goliad and WACO, It is Time for a new San Jacinto)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
And the Teamsters thank him.

Considering anything from terrorists to biological or nuclear weapons could be in those trucks all Americans should thank him.

12 posted on 09/10/2007 11:59:15 AM PDT by ConservativeofColor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Get ‘er done, Dorgan!


13 posted on 09/10/2007 11:59:30 AM PDT by Let's Roll (As usual, following a shooting spree, libs want to take guns away from those who DIDN'T do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Some of ‘em get it.


14 posted on 09/10/2007 11:59:44 AM PDT by wastedyears (George Orwell was a clairvoyant.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
So you want to punish independent owner operators?

Who said that?

15 posted on 09/10/2007 12:00:22 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
Even Clinton had the common sense not to allow this.

Clinton signed NAFTA which authorized it.

16 posted on 09/10/2007 12:00:33 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (No buy China!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeofColor
Considering anything from terrorists to biological or nuclear weapons could be in those trucks all Americans should thank him.

Nothing in the bill exempts them from inspection.

17 posted on 09/10/2007 12:00:59 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser

Clinton had the “common sense” to address this issue the same way he addressed most issues — he just deferred any action on them until after he left office.


18 posted on 09/10/2007 12:01:01 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
I wonder if that truck that blew up in Mexico with all the dynamite on it has anything to do with this....hmmmm....

Bush has abandoned the people that put him in office. Immensely disappointed in his 2nd term.

19 posted on 09/10/2007 12:02:41 PM PDT by mad puppy (I'd rather live a day on my feet than a year on my knees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Nothing in the bill exempts them from inspection.

And beleiving they will be is, I suppose, part and parcel of what it takes to think this is a good idea.

20 posted on 09/10/2007 12:03:48 PM PDT by ConservativeofColor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeofColor
And beleiving they will be is, I suppose, part and parcel of what it takes to think this is a good idea.

The I assume you are against the importation of any goods into the United States from outside our borders, because it is naive to believe that any of these goods are inspected.

21 posted on 09/10/2007 12:05:32 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
Byron Dorgan has been in the U.S. Senate since 1992. It's pretty silly for him to be introducing legislation in late 2007 to block a provision of the North American Free Trade Agreement that has been in place FOR 15 YEARS, and was originally supposed to be implemented BY 2000.

At least 98% of what happens in Washington these days is nothing more than juvenile, transparent political posturing -- and this is no different.

22 posted on 09/10/2007 12:06:22 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: cinives

Closer to a more than a decade.


23 posted on 09/10/2007 12:08:49 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

It’s still better than opening the border to these trucks.


24 posted on 09/10/2007 12:09:16 PM PDT by F15Eagle (1Tim 1:4; Gal 1:6-10; 1Cor 2:2; Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-35; 2Thess 2:11; Jude 1:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

GOOD FOR HIM!

Many proponents of this scam have mentioned reciprocal transit into Mexico by US truckers as freely as into Canada. Well, Canada is not rife with highwaymen wearing badges.

Here are two links about vehicle hijacking in Baja.

http://www.baja.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23845

and

http://www.baja.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=23856


25 posted on 09/10/2007 12:10:12 PM PDT by off-roader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
At least 98% of what happens in Washington these days is nothing more than juvenile, transparent political posturing -- and this is no different.

And people fall for it.

26 posted on 09/10/2007 12:10:22 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
Even Clinton had the common sense not to allow this....but Clinton DID allow it. This trucking debacle is due to the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico. Who do you think signed the treaty in the first place?

President Bush's hands are tied. There is not really anything he can allow/disallow.

I suspect that may be why our borders are porous. We just don't know what's in the treaty.

27 posted on 09/10/2007 12:11:19 PM PDT by madison10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
because it is naive to believe that any of these goods are inspected.

With that statement you've made my point. Why make a bad situation worse?

I'm opposed to this program for many reason including the fact that it adopts the inherent dangers you've now agreed exist. It also goes further by allowing unsafe trucks on the same highways I drive say nothing of costing countless American jobs.

28 posted on 09/10/2007 12:13:33 PM PDT by ConservativeofColor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
amendment to the Fiscal 2008 Department of Transportation appropriations bill
When does the Fiscal 2008 appropriations go into effect?... I take this to mean the pilot program could continue until the end of the Fiscal 2007 appropriations? Anyone know the technicalities?
29 posted on 09/10/2007 12:14:39 PM PDT by deport (>>>--Keep your powder dry--<<< [ Meanwhile:-- Cue Spooky Music--])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle
Oh, sure.

Since there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that this amendment will be passed, Mr. Dorkman may as well have proposed an amendment that outlawed lung cancer.

30 posted on 09/10/2007 12:15:26 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Perhaps so. But I’m tired of “see ya at the bill signing” attitude of selling out the country.


31 posted on 09/10/2007 12:16:53 PM PDT by F15Eagle (1Tim 1:4; Gal 1:6-10; 1Cor 2:2; Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-35; 2Thess 2:11; Jude 1:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeofColor
With that statement you've made my point. Why make a bad situation worse?

My point is that we allow importation of goods by sea and by air from every area of the world.

Am I really supposed to believe that a Mexican truck is more dangerous than a cargo flight from EgyptAir or a freighter from Brazil?

Importing goods by road from Mexico is no more dangerous than these other imports we take every day.

We do not require Brazil to transfer all their goods from a Brazilian ship to a US ship a few miles offshore before it can be brought into port.

That's a ridiculous waste of time and money.

But now we want to have Mexican-owned trucks offload their goods into an American-owned truck a few miles over the border.

That's just welfare for Teamsters. It makes no logical sense.

32 posted on 09/10/2007 12:18:50 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: wideawake

“And the Teamsters thank him.”

We all should. There is no benefit to our nation to allow this.
I live 3 miles from a truckstop on the main artery where these trucks will be going. I do not want to have these guys in my neighborhood.


34 posted on 09/10/2007 12:20:27 PM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Never bring a knife to a gun fight, or a Democrat to do serious work...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VeniVidiVici
Clinton signed NAFTA which authorized it.

That'd be a much better excuse if Bush himself didn't support and love NAFTA.

I am not buying this "Bush's hands are tied" thing. Some foreign panel ordered it, huh? Is Bush not the president? Is America not a sovereign nation? Who gives a damn what this panel rules?

35 posted on 09/10/2007 12:20:37 PM PDT by NapkinUser (Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul in 2008!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., charged the Bush administration with being "hell-bent on opening our borders, but has failed to require that Mexican drivers and trucks meet the same safety and security standards as U.S. drivers and trucks.

Just another time(unprotected borders)that Bush is knowingly absent from his oath of office to protect this nation from it's enemies and I don't believe he gives a damn!

This guy is a joke and is playing dumb which shows he(Bush)is immature politically and useless as a leader at least for the remainder of his presidency.

36 posted on 09/10/2007 12:21:09 PM PDT by VOYAGER (,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

I agree. I saw no benefit to this country, only harm in allowing Mexican trucks.


37 posted on 09/10/2007 12:21:31 PM PDT by apocalypto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Too many on both side of the aisle tried to roll over for shamnesty, too. We stopped them twice. This is just part of the incremental plan, though.

And for that matter, we’ve seen very few additional high-level busts since Shamnesty II was killed. Talk about doing things for show.

Time to vote out any sellout.


38 posted on 09/10/2007 12:22:30 PM PDT by F15Eagle (1Tim 1:4; Gal 1:6-10; 1Cor 2:2; Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-35; 2Thess 2:11; Jude 1:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: apocalypto

And here we sit on the eve of the 6th anniversary of 9/11 and our borders are still barely protected and mucho foot-dragging on the fence.

Even if it’s not 100% (by far) something is better than doing nothing.


39 posted on 09/10/2007 12:25:10 PM PDT by F15Eagle (1Tim 1:4; Gal 1:6-10; 1Cor 2:2; Matthew 22:30; Mark 12:25; Luke 20:34-35; 2Thess 2:11; Jude 1:3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
I don’t see any benefit whatsoever to surrendering our trucking industry to Mexico.

It's benefiting someone, DoughtyOne,but it sure isn't the United states taxpayer.

40 posted on 09/10/2007 12:25:38 PM PDT by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HereInTheHeartland
We all should. There is no benefit to our nation to allow this.

Sure there is.

The Teamsters aren't opposed to this because of any concern over jobs in the trucking industry (the industry already faces a major shortage of truck drivers for years in the future).

Their primary concern is that this measure effectively forces the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach -- with their high labor costs, severe capacity constraints, environmental regulations, and recent labor problems (29 ports on the west coast of the U.S. were shut down for more than a week in late 2002 due to a lockout) -- to compete with the Mexican ports like Ensenada and Manzanillo.

41 posted on 09/10/2007 12:27:29 PM PDT by Alberta's Child (I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“And the Teamsters thank him.”

So do I. And, I am usually anti-union.

But, a friend had his Toyota Land Cruiser totally destroyed when an ‘illegal Mexican’ hit him.

Care to guess where my friend would be today if that Mexican had been in a large truck instead of a car that didn’t belong to him and which had a tag which bore no detectable relationship to the car?


42 posted on 09/10/2007 12:29:51 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Dorgaqn is a Union Lackey. And it was HIS Democrat prez, Clinton ,who signed NAFTA in the first place to start this mess


43 posted on 09/10/2007 12:32:38 PM PDT by ulm1 (“There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser
That'd be a much better excuse if Bush himself didn't support and love NAFTA.

I'm not giving anybody an excuse. YOU gave Clinton a pass. I corrected your error.

44 posted on 09/10/2007 12:33:50 PM PDT by VeniVidiVici (No buy China!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser

>>>Even Clinton had the common sense not to allow this.<<<<

DUDE!! It was Clinton who signed NAFTA into law, of which this trucking agreement is a part !!!


45 posted on 09/10/2007 12:34:01 PM PDT by ulm1 (“There are scandals that need to be addressed. Republicans address them, Democrats re-elect them.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: madison10

“We just don’t know what’s in the treaty.”

There lies the problem. The elites get together over scotch and cigars and decide the future of our nation, without any concerns of the citizens.


46 posted on 09/10/2007 12:34:35 PM PDT by Sybeck1 (I like Rodney Carrington's recipe for World Peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: VOYAGER
absent from his oath of office to protect this nation from it's enemies

Mexican retailers are America's enemies?

I had no idea we had declared war against Mexico, let alone against a specific Mexican industry.

47 posted on 09/10/2007 12:35:11 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
But, a friend had his Toyota Land Cruiser totally destroyed when an ‘illegal Mexican’ hit him.

I'm not sure what an illegal Mexican driver has to do with a licensed Mexican trucker doing business legally in the US.

Well, I guess they are both Mexicans - and Mexicanness itself is not yet illegal in the US.

I'm sure your friend would have been much happier if a native-born American drunk had totalled his car.

48 posted on 09/10/2007 12:38:10 PM PDT by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
Truck driver has brought many people into the middle class. This isn’t like sending jobs oversees to make us stuff at Walmart. This is inviting competition into our own nation.
49 posted on 09/10/2007 12:38:48 PM PDT by Sybeck1 (I like Rodney Carrington's recipe for World Peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeofColor

b u m p


50 posted on 09/10/2007 12:53:34 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker ( Hunter/Thompson/Thompson/Hunter in 08! "Read my lips....No new RINO's" !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 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