Senate votes to ban Mexican trucks from U.S. highways

HotAir ^ | September 11, 2007 | Allahpundit

[Vn_survivor_67-68]

Thanks fir citing your characterization.....I hope you’re just plain wrong.

[USNBandit]

I don't like the idea of foreign truckers driving in this country, but........

NAFTA passed both houses of Congress in 96, wasn't tested to the normal 2/3 Senate majority required for treaties, has been in the implementation process for a decade. Why is it only now that Mexican truckers start driving in the U.S. that Congress actually reads the document for which they voted "Yea."

[PeterFinn]

Me, too.

[Will88]

“Seems The War on Terror is the only thing me and The President agree.”

I find it hard to take his War on Terror seriously, fighting them overseas while leaving our borders almost wide open to anyone who wants to enter illegally, and then offering them amnesty and a path to citizenship. Didn’t notice that 9/11 was committed by several visa over stayers and folks with an impressive collection of driver’s licenses from various states?

A terrorist attack committed by terrorist who crossed our souther border would give W quite a legacy after his deliberate refusal to enforce the law all through his terms.

While our troops have been fighting overseas, how many would be terrorists have settled here in the US because of our non-enforcement of the borders and immigration laws?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

I have been sick and tired of ARBUSTO and company since his smart assed remark about a congress he can now work with after our 06 defeat.Its been time for a revolution in this country,long passed time.

[Sybeck1]

Both of the Mississippi senators voted to allow Mexicans truckers in. I gave both Cochran and Lott searing emails on this.

Remeber that Cochran is up in 08 as he is the only Senator from the deep south along with Lott to vote for this!

[Brad from Tennessee]

Amen.

[GAB-1955]

Not every relationship between the U.S. and Mexico has to revolve around illegal immigration. This revolves more around the need to zip goods to the maquiladoras and finished goods back to the U.S. for distribution without delays at the border. We have the same issue with Canada and delays at the border as well. This is just another example of Just-in-Time lean manufacturing, which we need to compete with cheaper producers: China, anyone?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>NAFTA empowered unelected and unaccountable arbitrators to “interpret” the treaty when there’s a dispute. Therefore the treaty says whatever they want it to.<<

The senate amendment mandated how the money is to be spent on a spending bill. Surely the NAFTA arbitration board cannot ignore the Constitution?

From Article 9 of the Constitution:

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;

So how can they spend money without appropriations?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

>>NAFTA empowered unelected and unaccountable arbitrators to “interpret” the treaty when there’s a dispute. Therefore the treaty says whatever they want it to.<<

It’s not a treaty. It’s an “agreement.” Big difference.

[Colorado Buckeye]

NAFTA empowered unelected and unaccountable arbitrators to “interpret” the treaty when there’s a dispute. Therefore the treaty says whatever they want it to.

Note that the House vote was 234-200 and the Senate vote was 61-38.

A treaty requires no House concurrence but does require the concurrence of 2/3s of the Senators "present." [U. S. Constitution - Article II; Section 2].

Two-thirds of the Senate present for the NAFTA vote did not concur. The Bill was passed but no treaty was authorized.

NAFTA is not a treaty.

NAFTA has the force of law. As with any law, it can be changed or abolished with the passage of another law.

---

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 103^rd Congress - 1^st Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the SenateVote Summary

Question: On Passage of the Bill (H.R.3450 )
Vote Number:	395	Vote Date:	November 20, 1993, 07:28 PM
Required For Majority:	1/2	Vote Result:	Bill Passed
Measure Number:	H.R. 3450
Measure Title:	A bill to implement the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Vote Counts:	YEAs	61
	NAYs	38
	Not Voting	1

More details on Senate vote here: U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote:

---

U. S. House FINAL VOTE RESULTS FOR ROLL CALL 575

(Democrats in roman; Republicans in italic; Independents underlined)
      H R 3450      RECORDED VOTE      17-Nov-1993      10:36 PM
      QUESTION:  On Passage
      BILL TITLE: NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT

	Ayes	Noes	PRES	NV
Democratic	102	156
Republican	132	43
Independent		1
TOTALS	234	200

More details on the House vote here: Final Vote Results for Roll Call 575

---

[Infidel1571]

“This is just another example of Just-in-Time lean manufacturing, which we need to compete with cheaper producers: China, anyone?”

We COULD revoke China’s MFN status - a courtesy that is not and never has been returned by the nation that considers us an enemy, but we won’t.

[Infidel1571]

“While our troops have been fighting overseas, how many would be terrorists have settled here in the US because of our non-enforcement of the borders and immigration laws?”

What about the active encouragement of Muslim immigration?

[af_vet_rr]

Seems The War on Terror is the only thing me and The President agree.

Except that if he was serious about the WoT, he would have secured the borders. Like Fred Thompson said, what terrorist would go through an airport now when the border is wide open.

[af_vet_rr]

This revolves more around the need to zip goods to the maquiladoras and finished goods back to the U.S. for distribution without delays at the border.

It's a lot more than that - if you look at the plans for the corridors that will be running from Mexico up through Canada, within a decade or two, ships that would have unloaded in the US (say Houston or New Orleans or wherever) are going to be offloading in Mexico and then put on rail or truck and moved north. We can partially blame the unions for pricing themselves out of this equation (in regards to the people at the US ports who will be losing jobs), but in general, Mexican labor is cheap enough, that it will more than offset the costs associated with offloading in Mexico and driving it north, than offloading in Houston or wherever.

We are about to undergo a huge transformation in how goods are moved (and produced) within the next few decades.

[Bogtrotter52]

Yet another reason for me to despise our states (AZ) Sen. Kyl. He never fails to disappoint. Hope he is lining up his job prospects ‘cause I cannot see him being re-elected in this state.

[o_zarkman44]

The rush to import outsourced products by American companies is the reason for the need to expedite the border crossings.
If “Made in America” had any meaning, imports would not be prioritized. This speeding up of border crossings is only good for the American companies that outsource their stuff, like the toys from China etc. Screw the American workers, the American truckers, lets just maximize profits with sweat shop clothing and lead based painted toys.

A nation that is non compliant with the laws should have no access to America. If they come into compliance and quit promoting illegal immigration from Mexico to America, then maybe we could negotiate. Rewarding bad behavior is not going to solve the immigration when Mexico el presidente has pretty much proclaimed that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico. Sounds like a border invasion to me and I don’t have to like it nor should I be expected to accept it without a fight.