Senator Moves to Block Mexican Trucks(Democrat Sen. Byron Dorgan ND)

worldnetdaily.com ^ | September 10, 2007 | Jerome R. Corsi

[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."

[Alberta's Child]

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.

[GladesGuru]

“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?

[ulm1]

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

[VeniVidiVici]

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.

[ulm1]

>>>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 !!!

[Sybeck1]

“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.

[wideawake]

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.

[wideawake]

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.

[Sybeck1]

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.

[stephenjohnbanker]

b u m p

[ConservativeofColor]

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

And I agree that is a problem as imports, be they in shipping containers or on plances are not thoroughly inspected. So why make a known problem worse?

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

Worse? No. Equally as unsafe? Absolutely. So why compound a known safety hazard?

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

You're perpetuating the same argument; why make a known problem worse?

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.

Same argument, same response.

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

Sounds like a great way to facilitate inspections to me. Do you oppose inspections of imported goods?

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

Allowing Mexican trucks on American highways costs American jobs; that is a fact. And I don't give a rat's ass about the teamsters, I'm more concerned with the affect it will have on Independents. So are they, which is why the (OOIDA) Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association opposes this as well.

[oldtimer2]

For the Teamsters, OOIDA, PATT, CRASH, The Sierra Club to come together to oppose this action is unprecedented.

[kellynla]

Save your time and effort...there are posters ‘round here who spend their days...and nights doing nothing but flame-baiting.

Anyone who doesn’t realize the dangers of allowing Mexican trucks to travel throughout America on our freeways, highways, roads and streets is either the most naive or the dumbest person on the planet.

All anyone has to do is read this article I posted earlier today

Report: Dynamite blast on truck kills 30 in Mexico
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1893907/posts

[ConservativeofColor]

Anyone who doesn’t realize the dangers of allowing Mexican trucks to travel throughout America on our freeways, highways, roads and streets is either the most naive or the dumbest person on the planet.

I'm willing to entertain all opinons. I just don't understand, considering how fatally flawed it is, why anyone would support this. Perhaps they are Mexican or have some person interest. That's all that I can think of that would make any sense.

[BeckB]

I am surprised we haven’t heard from Senators Huntchinson and Cornyn from Texas.

[kellynla]

there is no “sense” to be made...
just realize that we have flame-baiters on this forum who have nothing better to do with their time. And it is embarrassing and has gotten very old over these past several years.

BTW, welcome to FR.

Semper Fi,
Kelly

[azhenfud]

Bush Administration = “hell-bent”

[1rudeboy]

Damn those supply-side, free-market conservatives! On FR!

[Amazon7]

Call, call your U.S. Senators and ask them to support Senator Dorgan’s amendment!!!

[Paul Ross]

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

False. He has been directed to make sure they comply with our laws. They refuse to do anything but give it lipservice, hence he can just stop the whole train right there. But he doesn't...because he wants to trash our laws.

I suspect that may be why our borders are porous.

Not because HIS hands are tied. But he wants you to believe that...

We just don't know what's in the treaty.

Actually NAFTA is NOT A TREATY.

Look it up. It is merely an agreement, which either party could revoke at its whim and by just a simple congressional majority...enacting a bill which revokes NAFTA. It is a mere Congressional law. It could never have passed as a Treaty.

And no Congressional Act can peremptorily disallow State Laws of the Police Power.