[AZTOY]

Appeals court blocks opening of U.S. highways to Mexican trucks
New York Times News Service
Jan. 16, 2003 08:30 PM

A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked President Bush's plans to open American highways to Mexican trucks, ruling that the administration could not open the roads until it conducts a study of how the trucks would affect the environment.


The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, concluded that the government had acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" by deciding to open the borders to tens of thousands of Mexican trucks without conducting an environmental review. The National Environmental Policy Act requires such reviews for all government actions that might significantly affect the environment.

Several environmental lawyers said Thursday's decision by a three-judge panel could indefinitely suspend the administration's plans to open the border.

Charles Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said, "We are reviewing the court's order, and no determination has been made of what our next step will be."

The administration's options include asking the full Ninth Circuit court to rehear the case, appealing to the Supreme Court or conducting an environmental review, which often takes six months.

A 21-year moratorium has prevented Mexican trucks from traveling freely throughout the United States, with several presidents repeatedly citing safety and pollution concerns to keep the trucks out. But last Nov. 27, President Bush announced he would give Mexican trucks free access to U.S. highways as soon as more than 130 pending applications from Mexican truck companies were reviewed for safety and other matters.

Bush moved to admit the trucks after an international panel ruled 23 months ago that the United States was violating the North American Free Trade Agreement by continuing to restrict Mexican trucks to just a 20-mile-wide border zone where Mexican trucks transfer cargo to American trucks.

In Thursday's ruling, the court emphatically stated that NAFTA's provisions do not supersede the nation's environmental laws. Judge Kim McLane Warlaw wrote, "Although we agree with the importance of the United States' compliance with its treaty obligations with its southern neighbor, Mexico, such compliance cannot come at the cost of violating United States law."

The lawsuit was brought by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Public Citizen, the Environmental Law Foundation and the California Trucking Association. These groups said they feared that admitting Mexican trucks would hurt the air and water, endanger the safety of Americans, hurt American trucking companies and take jobs from American truck drivers. Mexican drivers often earn $7 an hour, about one-third of what many Teamsters long-haul drivers earn.



James P. Hoffa, president of the Teamsters union, said, "In a rush to open the border, the administration failed to pay attention to the health concerns of U.S. citizens."

Environmental groups asserted that President Bush's decision proceed without an environmental analysis was yet another example of his short-changing the environment.

"What happened here just adds to the list of actions showing the administration is insensitive to the environment," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "This is a very significant ruling. It's the first time that any court of appeals has explicitly said that NAFTA does not excuse a federal agency from having to comply with federal regulations."

The decision comes after many lawmakers voiced concern that some international trade panels have ruled that NAFTA's provisions supersede various state laws and regulations.




Administration officials have praised Mexico for tightening its pollution standards for trucks so that they now conform with American standards. But the American regulations will grow stricter in 2004 and 2007.

Leonardo Alcivar, a spokesman for the Department of Transportation, said: "The administration remains committed to NAFTA. We believe we complied with all applicable environmental requirements in issuing our regulations and that the petitioners' allegations are without merit."

Mexican officials have repeatedly criticized Washington for not opening the border.


Mireya Magana, a spokeswoman at the Mexican Embassy in Washington, said her government was studying the ruling.

The plaintiffs estimated that opening the border would bring in at least 30,000 Mexican trucks a year, many of them from before 1994, when Mexico significantly tightened emissions standards for trucks.

The court ruled that the transportation department had violated the Clean Air Act by failing to determine whether allowing in Mexican trucks would violate California's tough air quality standards.

In addition, the ruling faulted the department for not examining whether the increased emissions would significantly affect air quality in border areas, like Southern California and Texas, which would see a greater concentration of traffic since they are closest to Mexico. The court criticized the department for looking only at how increased emissions would affect air quality nationwide. In a preliminary examination, the department had concluded that the heightened emissions would be "very small relative to national levels of emissions."http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0116trucks-ON.html

[Blackhawk]

hurt American trucking companies and take jobs from American truck drivers. Mexican drivers often earn $7 an hour, about one-third of what many Teamsters long-haul drivers earn. That's what it's all about Everything else is just feathers.

NAFTA is going to be a teenager pretty quick, and may be old enough to vote before Mexican trucks are allowed to roam the freeways.

25 years ago, US trucks delivered the goods to the border, then Mexican trucks hauled them inland, and vice versa. Life was simpler, and everybody was happy. US truckers were happy they didn't have to negotiate the Mexican laws and roads, and I'm sure the Mexican truckers were equally content.

The T in NAFTA is for "Trade" not "Trucking", so the issue seems to be somewhat contrived by the numbskulls who negotiated NAFTA.

[Airwolf]

Mexican officials have repeatedly criticized Washington for not opening the border.

:rolleyes:

[Bottom Gun]

Will the Mexican trucks have to comply with emmissions testing and will liabilty insurance be mandatory for the Mexican truckers?

[TallPine]

Will the Mexican trucks have to comply with emmissions testing and will liabilty insurance be mandatory for the Mexican truckers?

Of course not! What are you, some kind of racist? :D

[KMKeller]

Agree with Blackhawk. Can they telegraph their intent a little more clearly?

[Tamara]

James P. Hoffa, president of the Teamsters union, said, "In a rush to open the border, the administration failed to pay attention to the health concerns of U.S. citizens."

That's the Teamsters: always worried about the health concerns of their fellow Americans. Like the health of the kneecaps of the guys doing the Environmental Impact study, for instance.

[PATH]

At the end of the day American jobs are at stake. No, I would not want Mexican trucks rolling on American roads. Jobs and safety are the issues.

[foghornl]

I have been to Mexico on vacation a couple of times, and from what I have seen in terms of the "state of repairs/road readiness", NO I DO NOT want Mexican trucks freely roaming the US.

:cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

[KMKeller]

It's good to see a little common sense creep into an issue. Tamara, are you insinuating that the teamsters are using this issue to further their own goals? :scrutiny: Say it ain't so! I think Mr. Hoffa would use anything he could get his hands on to protect or bolster his interests. This must be very convenient for him.

[moa]

Ok,I give up. Just WHAT does Vincente Fox, the President of Mexico (and part of the USA?) have on George W. Bush? :D

Bush wants amnesty for millions of illegals. Bush wants to give Social Security benefits to illegals. And now Bush wants Mexican truckers free access to America.

I also seem to remember Bush wants to renew food stamps to illegal aliens, a program Congress had terminated years ago. This may have already occurred.

And, much of our southern border remains a monument to sieves despite our much vaunted Hollowland Security initatives.

Is there a pattern here, or what?

[Wildalaska]

Ok,I give up. Just WHAT does Vincente Fox, the President of Mexico (and part of the USA?) have on George W. Bush?

Its called winning the Hispanic vote!

WildmytinfoilhatsbackonAlaska

[Waitone]

Safety schmafety. As long as it was stopped. I swear Bush is pulling serial boners in his dealings with Mexico. We've got an overland invasion going on involving drug and body smugglers. Now Bush wants to make it a little more efficient to smuggle drugs and bodies by giving them a ride. At least before the US would inconvenience the smugglers by making them cross dock. Now Bush wants to do away with that ever so slight obstacle.

I don't ever want to see Mexican trucks on US roads, regardless of the reason.

Now all we gotta do is get customs and INS to inspect all those sealed railroad tank cars that enter the US sans benefit of inspection.

[Beer for my Horses]

Bush wants amnesty for millions of illegals. Bush wants to give Social Security benefits to illegals. And now Bush wants Mexican truckers free access to America.
False. False. True; and for good reason. If Mexican truckers can ship Mexican made goods to the U.S. for less than turning them over to the Teamsters, that means I will ultimately be charged less for buying what is shipped here. It (free trade) helps the consumer. It also creates net jobs in the U.S. by opening markets in Mexico that were previously closed to American made goods. I shed no tears for the Teamsters or the Eco-Whackos.

[wingman]

that means I will ultimately be charged less for buying what is shipped here."


Yes, and perhaps the tooth fairy will
visit next time you have a tooth pulled./:fire:

[Art Eatman]

NAFTA is an international trade treaty. Dubya wasn't president when it was signed. By the terms of the treaty, any Mexican truck and driver which meets U.S. criteria should be allowed to haul goods here. License, safety inspection sticker, pollution control equipment: All must be in order...

Note that in safety checks of U.S. semi- rigs, 25% fail for one reason or another. Feel better, now? Some failures are fairly minor, such as running lights or one brake light out, as example. Many are not, involving tires and brakes. I have read that for Mexican semi- rigs, the failure rate is quite comparable. The far greater rate of failure is for the dual-axle, non-semi- trucks.

If you think about it for a moment, doesn't it seem likely that a driver who survives Mexican roads and traffic might find U.S. highways much easier to negotiate? Are you really all that impressed with U.S. drivers? Ever spent much time around truck stops? :)

When you figure that the U.S. long-haul semi- population is in the millions, doesn't it seem likely that "10,000 more trucks" will not have all that much of an impact?

It strikes me as a bit odd that trucks haul cargo from England to Istanbul, and it's all considered "common trade practice". Yet, here, we go stark, raving bonkers over 1/2 of 1% increase in trucks travelling the highways.

Makes no sense.

Art

[KMKeller]

Art, I think the concern lies mostly with this issue as a part of a much larger issue. This is sort of symptomatic of a broader more pervasive easing of restrictions against Mexican colonization of the SouthWest United States. The trucks aren't really the issue, but at least someone is taking exception to the whole atmoshpere of complacency and disinterest that infects our southern border.

How many drops does it take to fill the pail, so to speak.

[Beer for my Horses]

It strikes me as a bit odd that trucks haul cargo from England to Istanbul, and it's all considered "common trade practice". Yet, here, we go stark, raving bonkers over 1/2 of 1% increase in trucks travelling the highways.
Thank you for the sanity. . .

[Beer for my Horses]

Mexican colonization of the SouthWest United States.
And back to our regularly scheduled broadcast of insanity. . .

People, the Mexican truck drivers deliver their cargo and go back to Mexico. If you want to discuss the problems of illegal immigration start a new thread; the "infection" of the southwest that you speak of has nothing to do with trucking regulations under NAFTA. And before you start that new thread I'll just mention that I don't feel "infected" living among the thousands of LEGAL Hispanic immigrants here in Arizona. They are some of the most honest and hard working people I have ever met. Now, as for the illegals, we should deport them all and beef up Border Patrol. But legal Hispanic immigration, at a reasonable rate, is a win-win for America, imho of course.

[80fl]

Our decision whether or not to allow Mexican truckers in the US should be part of a complete and larger package that deals with Mexico as a whole.

Canadian truckers are as common place in the US as they are in the great white north; however, Canadian policy is not structured to harm or take advantage of the US.

Mexico, on the other hand, has policy, both written and unwritten, that is intended to undermine the US.

If Mexico was an "ally", as could be said for Canada, then I wouldn't have a problem with Mexican trucks in the US.

Considering the plethora of problems with Mexico, I do not agree with rewarding them as a nation for their insidious behavior with their northern neighbors. Let's get the house in order before we treat them with respect.

[Sergeant Bob]

The Mexican truck delivers his freight in say...New York. Then he picks up freight going toward Mexico, not necessarily "to" Mexico. Delivers that in maybe Texas, then gets something to take back home. All for $7 an hour or whatever cheap milage rate they get paid. With the cheap rates the Mexican companies will be able to charge since their wages are much lower than ours, there will be quite a few American drivers put out of work. Taking into account that the Teamsters have 1.4 million members, only about 400,000 of which are truck drivers, 200,000 of those work for UPS. The rest mostly work for Roadway, Consolidated Freightways (in bankruptcy) and other package delivery services. So, most of the jobs being lost will not be Teamsters. Seems as though alot of people are OK with a few jobs lost to the Mexicans as long as it's not their job.
Are you really all that impressed with U.S. drivers? Ever spent much time around truck stops?
Could you elaborate on that statement please? I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with determining a persons driving ability. I've been down in Mexico many times, albeit Baja, and those truck drivers scare the crap out of me!

[1goodshot]

If an American trucker tried to drive his rig into Mexico more than a few miles past the boarder he stands a good chance of being robbed. Most Mexican trucks are old and would not pass inspection, its better for everyone in my opinion to not let them onto our highway. Bush's policies on Mexico is the only thing I don't like about him.

[Waitone]

Beer for my Horses,

Do the search thingy and punch in "immigration". I think you'll find the vast majority of posts here and on the TFL express concern over ILLEGAL immigration. You will also find admiration for the diligence of the Mexican worker as well as how hard he // she works.

For the record I support and encourage LEGAL immigration. I also encourage vigilence on the part of the US because of the existence groups and ideologies in Mexico and the southern US which claim the American southwest. These groups are populated by the likes to Mr. Fox who is using immigration (legal and illegal) as a wedge. The US political situation is such that leading parties feel it necessary to cater to immigrants (legal and illegal). There are those who are concerned with the apparent charlie-foxtrot going on regarding our policy.

[wingman]

And back to our regularly scheduled broadcast of insanity. .

Yep, and you just did.!

[Art Eatman]

80fl, the treaty has been signed. It's too late to include it as part of a "larger package". We have to deal with "what is". (And saying that does not mean I think it's a good treaty. Or that I think it's a bad one, for that matter.) What can be addressed is the safety of those trucks coming into the U.S., and inspection facilities are being completed "as we speak".

Sergeant Bob, I drive close to 40,000 miles a year; much of it on I-10 between Tallahassee and San Antonio. I commonly stop at truck stops, particularly for coffee during the night. A high percentage of all drivers are Good Guys. Unfortunately, I see too many that shouldn't be licensed for a push-scooter. For some, the age and IQ run together, and if it hits 50, they should sell.

As far as my knowing something about trucks, while I don't drive semis, I've spread gravel along all the roads you'll see in the attached picture--Jimmy 9000 dumptruck. 20% grades are great fun! (Everybody needs Tonka Toys!)

:), Art

[GinSlinger]

Sgt Bob wrote:The Mexican truck delivers his freight in say...New York. Then he picks up freight going toward Mexico, not necessarily "to" Mexico. Delivers that in maybe Texas, then gets something to take back home.

That MAY happen. What is really at issue herre is the ability for Mexican truckers to take their goods directly to wholesalers and warehousers 200 or so miles from the border. Here in Texas most shipments will be headed for San Antone, and Houston with some trips going to Dallas. Hencec all the work on I-35 and I-10 to those destination cities. And of course they will bring back goods from those cities across the border. American truckers will, on the other hand, take their goods directly to distrubution points and bring goods directly back. Notice I say DIRECTLY. Have you ever tried to ship goods to Mexico? I have. It is a royal pain in the rear. Goods have to be unloaded into an "approved" storage facility state-side. Then, a U.S. company, unpackages portions of the load and repackages (to insure the bill of lading and international paperwork are up to snuff) and takes it the 5 miles across town and across the border to a simular facility in Mexico where the same process is repeated. Each step there adds more $$ to the shipping costs. I know that some big carriers expidite things a bit, but that is how the little guy has to do it. What is really at issue here is dumping the middle men who do nothing but shuffle paper and load-unload-load-unload-load. Truckers are going to see a bigger loss to rail if we prevent trucks than they will see if we allow trucks.

We've got an overland invasion going on involving drug and body smugglers. Now Bush wants to make it a little more efficient to smuggle drugs and bodies by giving them a ride.

Strawman, but I'll bite. Sex crimes never been commited by American truckers? No drugs in American trucks? Maybe American truckers and Mexican truckers are more alike than we think.

1goodshot: I have driven box-trucks into Mexico--never been stabbed nor come close. Mexican trucks are pretty spiffy. In the Chiuahua desert they pull "land trains" simular to the ones used in the Outback of Australia. Mexican Dumptrucks are something else, but for the most part all Mexican rigs need is a good washing.


GinSlinger

[80fl]

80fl, the treaty has been signed. It's too late to include it as part of a "larger package". We have to deal with "what is". (And saying that does not mean I think it's a good treaty. Or that I think it's a bad one, for that matter.) What can be addressed is the safety of those trucks coming into the U.S., and inspection facilities are being completed "as we speak".

Nothing is for ever, my friend.

[LAWDOGKMS]

Art,

For starters, no flame intended Art...

I for one can't believe that YOU would be "for" NAFTA.

Maybe it's because the trucks won't pass be travelling 118 past your house...so it doesn't bother you.

They will be travelling past mine on 67/90!

I don't want to see them barreling down 67/90, unregulated, with bare tires and faulty brakes throught the mountains.

I also don't want these Mexican Trucks having free run of the U.S. and sharing the road with my wife and family..

I also don't want our nice little Big Bend towns turned into "truckstop" towns with all the sleaze that comes with them!!
(truckstop prostitutes, vagrants, drifters etc)

No thanks, the truck traffic is heavy enough now, as it stands!




QUOTE

NAFTA is an international trade treaty. Dubya wasn't president when it was signed. By the terms of the treaty, any Mexican truck and driver which meets U.S. criteria should be allowed to haul goods here. License, safety inspection sticker, pollution control equipment: All must be in order...

Note that in safety checks of U.S. semi- rigs, 25% fail for one reason or another. Feel better, now? Some failures are fairly minor, such as running lights or one brake light out, as example. Many are not, involving tires and brakes. I have read that for Mexican semi- rigs, the failure rate is quite comparable. The far greater rate of failure is for the dual-axle, non-semi- trucks.

If you think about it for a moment, doesn't it seem likely that a driver who survives Mexican roads and traffic might find U.S. highways much easier to negotiate? Are you really all that impressed with U.S. drivers? Ever spent much time around truck stops?

When you figure that the U.S. long-haul semi- population is in the millions, doesn't it seem likely that "10,000 more trucks" will not have all that much of an impact?

It strikes me as a bit odd that trucks haul cargo from England to Istanbul, and it's all considered "common trade practice". Yet, here, we go stark, raving bonkers over 1/2 of 1% increase in trucks travelling the highways.

Makes no sense.

Art

[Art Eatman]

Well, I don't really see any flaming...

Look: Until the Senate votes to rescind the NAFTA Treaty, we're stuck with it. Doesn't matter whether I'm for it or against it. My likes or dislikes don't mean squat.

The issue of safety of the trucks is the only place where I could do any good with calls and squalls to my Rep in Congress or as an amicus curiae or whatever, with such arguments I might make.

Trucks as trucks, travelling the highways? Nothing I can do there. What I know as fact is that as more and more goods are transported, more jobs are created and more money goes into circulation. That's a fact, whether the goods go past my front door or your front door.

The job market is ever-changing. We no longer make buggy whips; we no longer need linotype operators. We now have Information Technology jobs. I (indirectly) left government employment as an engineer and took up backhoe/dumptruck. Some U.S. Citizen truck drivers might have to find new work. I don't know. And since I've watched the changes in "what jobs are" over some 45 years of adulthood, I refuse to get excited about it.

There is a lot about "modern progress" that I don't like, but I've never seen any ability on my part to stop it. I watched Manchaca Road in Austin transform from a few cars a day to many cars per minute. I've watched farm and ranch country transform to seas of rooftops. "Progress", they tell me.

I moved.

I just figure that in talking about NAFTA, I'll try to stick to facts, and I'll try to focus on that which can be affected. Arm-waving upsets my arthritis.

:), Art

[Beer for my Horses]

dumping the middle men who do nothing but shuffle paper and load-unload-load-unload-load.
I love it when the facts come out.

The myth that LAWDOGKMS feeds that there will be a Mexican truckers speedway created along the freeways where they will sow the seeds of prostitution, crime, and sleaze would be hillarious if it didn't smack of racism.

[Dennis Olson]

Kewl! Let's hope that we seal the borders before this injunction is lifted...

[Art Eatman]

Dennis, you don't "seal" country like that of the attached picture.

This sort of terrain is fairly common from down near Del Rio on up the Rio Grande toward El Paso...

(This particular area is what I call my "playground country"; the Solitario Formation at the east edge of the Big Bend Ranch State Park. At one time or another I've hunted most of what's shown in that picture. From the low area on the left to the low area on the right is about three or so miles...)

:), Art

[LAWDOGKMS]

QUOTE FROM "BEER FOR MY HORSES"


the myth that LAWDOGKMS feeds that there will be a Mexican truckers speedway created along the freeways where they will sow the seeds of prostitution, crime, and sleaze would be hillarious if it didn't smack of racism.

END QUOTE




Hey "BEER FOR MY HORSES"...

I don't follow you..

There is no racist connotation here, unless you consider Truckers a race..

I did not imply that "Mexicans" was the problem, but that international truck traffic, and the logistics to support it would not be good..

I live in a very small, nice, clean, and safe community, well off the beaten interstate path (60 miles).

Our crime is virtually nonexistent.

I know for a fact that the if NAFTA goes through, the main route for this new "SUPERHIGHWAY" will be right through our quaint little town.

When this happens I envision truck-stops springing up, increased traffic, traffic lights, (where we only have a flashing red now) and all the extra highway traffic this town doesn't need.

If you've ever spent any time around a truckstop, you'd see the prostitutes hopping from cab to cab...I have

Drifters hanging out at the truckstop and wandering into town and getting dropped off or waiting to catch a lift.....I have

Plenty of increased noise and sooty pollution..I have

I could go on for hours......

And I don't even have to reiterate about the minimum-wage Mexican drivers putting hard working Americans out of work..

Who is going to enforce the regulations on these Mexican trucks?

The Highway Patrol?

They are overworked already..

Not to mention, the mass amounts of drugs that will enter courtesy of hundreds or thousands of trucks a day, (they can't all be inspected thoroughly).

We already only catch approx 25% of what is smuggled in, in pickups and passenger cars, and semi's are much easier to hide drugs in, due to the huge volume and irregular cargo..

The U.S. port of entry in our area is already over trafficked and sometimes has up to a 1-hour wait to get back into the U.S...

WHO THE HELL IS THIS NAFTA GOING TO BENEFIT?

NOT THE USA!!!

[wingman]

There is a lot about "modern progress" that I don't like, but I've never seen any ability on my part to stop it."


Art is right about this as I have been
witness to many changes over the past 60 years, however if we do not try to "slow" some changes that are coming our way we will not have any freedom or quality of life at all. I will post the following again because I believe it is an important issue that we will be forced into dealing with in the very near future.

Growth advocates say that people are needed to keep the economy moving, but what is the main cause of...

* Traffic congestion
* Overcrowded schools
* Energy shortages
* Air pollution
* Loss of open space
* Overburdened infrastructure
* Wage depression
* Deteriorating quality of life?


... the main cause is RAPID POPULATION GROWTH!



• What are the components of U.S. population growth?
Natural increases (birth minus deaths) and immigration are the two contributing factors to U.S. population growth.


• Why should we reduce immigration?
According to the Census Bureau figures, more than two-thirds of current and future population growth is the result of immigration. Dr. Steven Camarota, Director of Reseach for the Center for Immigration Studies, wrote in a January 2001 paper: “Immigration has become the determinate factor in population growth. The 11.2 million immigrants who indicated they arrived between 1990 and 2000 plus the 6.4 million children born to immigrants in the United States during the 1990s are equal to almost 70 percent of U.S. population growth over the last 10 years.”

Reducing immigration therefore is necessary to curb population growth.


• How fast has the immigrant population grown?
The immigrant population in the United States has nearly tripled since 1970, due to legislation passed since 1965 to increase immigration.


• What is the impact of population growth on our environment?
The California Department of Water Resources has forecast serious water shortages 10 years from now, due to population growth, most of which comes from immigration. Continued population growth directly threatens biodiversity and causes species extinction, loss of farmland and open space, and general degradation of environmental quality.


• Will building more roads or schools, or improved mass transportation solve many of our problems?
No. There are no long-term growth management plans that can cope with unlimited population growth.


• What is the impact of rapid population growth on our public schools?
In 1996, the U.S. Department of Education estimated that 2.6 million new students will be added to America's public schools (K-12) for this coming decade. A study by the California Department of Education of the state's public schools revealed that one student in four could not speak English well enough to understand what was going on in the classroom. The school districts of Minneapolis/ St. Paul, Nashville and North Carolina have student bodies in which respectively 80, 85 and 150 languages are spoken.


• Does immigration only affect the border states?
Large numbers of immigrants from many countries have settled in many Midwestern states. The Detroit Metropolitan area has one of the largest concentrations of Arabs outside the Middle East.


• Why is it necessary to reduce immigration in order to achieve welfare and health care reform?
Based on the March 1998 Current Population Survey conducted by the Census Bureau, the poverty rate for immigrants is 50 percent higher than that for the native-born. In 1996, welfare and Medicaid provided to elderly non-citizen legal immigrants alone cost American taxpayers more than $10 billion dollars. The high poverty rate of immigrants will increase the number of residents without health care and needing welfare, making health care and welfare reform much more difficult and expensive to address.


• How does high immigration contribute to our Social Security problems?
Because of the poverty rate and the large numbers of unskilled and semi-skilled immigrants entering the U.S. every year, a tremendous burden is placed on government budgets, greatly depleting the Social Security Trust Fund in the long run.


• What is immigration's impact on American workers?
The National Academy of Science reported in 1997 that from 1980 to 1995, 44 percent of the decline in the real wages of high school dropouts resulted from immigration. The study conducted by UC Davis Professor Norman Matloff also concludes that large numbers of older immigrant and U.S-born computer scientists are displaced by newly arrived foreign-born computer programmers.


• What groups are most hurt economically by high levels of immigration?
Pro-immigrant Professor Paul Ong of UCLA has said, “In terms of the adverse impact on wage and employment, the adverse impact will be most pronounced on minorities and established immigrants...”

[Art Eatman]

LAWDOGKMS is certainly correct as to the problems. I'd imagine that the problems of things like truckstops will be more likely in Presidio, Fort Stockton and Van Horn than at Marfa or Alpine. Regardless, it will mean a tremendous increase in traffic. It is estimated that some 4,000 trucks per day will come up from Ciudad Chihuahua and cross at Presidio. Petro will probably make a ton of money...

(Which reminds me: Get on your CB radiddio near the big Petro truck stop near El Paso, and you can arrange for any sort of entertainment your billfold can afford, along with an unlimited choice of chemicals.)

A major problem is that the ineffectual "We don't want more NAFTA trucks!" effort on the part of city and county government and others in Marfa and Alpine is slowing any effort by TxDOT to build bypass routes. The problems are coming, but nothing is being done to deal with them.

Where I would disagree is with "benefits". I don't have the numbers handy, but the amount of increase in exports to Mexico astounded me when I read it, a couple of years back. It's in the billions of dollars. One interesting detail was that the export of Dodge trucks went from a few hundred to over 24,000 in the first full year of NAFTA's existence.

Try a Google search for "world trade" or "U.S. exports" or some such. And remember that Canada and Mexico are two of our leading trade-volume partners.

Art

[LAWDOGKMS]

On the topic of IMMIGRATION:

IMHO

I am convinced that in my grand-children's lifetime, or even in my children's, that the average american will no longer be able to have a dream of one day having a little piece of land to their own to homestead...... like Art's little piece of West Texas.

Nor will they be able to go to school in a safe environment..

All courtesy of the mass-influx of immigrants...

I don't call this RACISM, but instead REALISM

To those of you that believe otherwise, Wake up and smell the coffee..

LAWDOGKMS

P.S. Art, if you ever need a hunting partner down there, shoot me a P.M. I don't know if you remember, but I met you once at Carly's........

[Beer for my Horses]

To those of you that believe otherwise, Wake up and smell the coffee..
I've been awake and smelling the coffee for some time now. The fact is that NAFTA has been, and will continue to be, good for Americans. It just so happens it is good for Mexicans and Canadians as well. It has created a net increase in jobs in America and a dramatic increase in American exports. It's not an opinion, it's a fact.

[Blackhawk]

Art nailed it a while ago, and he just keeps pounding more nails into it. Read his posts (again?), and ponder them.

Is the U.S. adhering by the treaties the U.S. made and ratified such a bad thing? Maybe some provisions are not to out liking when it comes down to the time to deliver (e.g., the Panama Canal or Mexican trucks), but should we be "trucebreakers" in the eyes of the other nations?

Instead of griping about what we agreed to under NAFTA, redirect your ire against those who ratified it in the government.

[coonan357]

as a driver (non-union ) I am already starting to see the effects of this as the amount of drivers working here from other countries on visas , one is the CDL bribe incidents of illinois, florida , newyork , 2 is the fact I am now making 1/2 of the wages as compared to 5 years ago and working at my 70 hour a 8 day period limit allows me compared to the 60 hour work weeks I used to work . and the imigrant drivers work for not $7 an hour its more like $5 an hour and have a don't care attitude about it (safety and hours of service rules ) . if they get into an accident they just up and leave the country , has happened to a friend of mine , cost him his business , I work with some drivers from mexico and some of their attitudes stink , some of them are great .but they even say its goning to hurt us in the long run , as for trying to find another job HA !!! been trying to do this for the last 6 years , everyone tells me well why don't you stay in trucking since there is such a demand for drivers .. If I wanted to stay I wouldn't be appling for a different job now would I?? I work so long and weird hours trying to go back to school is impossible . I say No to NAFTA and No to mexican trucks , BTW the Canadian trucks are far better and their rules and regs are more strict than american rules ..

[Dennis Olson]

It has created a net increase in jobs in America...

Bull. According to a gov't report (quashed by the Klinton administration), there has been a net 7 MILLION job loss to Mexico because of Nafta.

I strongly suggest that you actually do some REAL research on this issue before spouting empty sheeple rhetoric...

JMHO - YMMV

[Beer for my Horses]

I strongly suggest that you actually do some REAL research on this issue before spouting empty sheeple rhetoric
And I "strongly suggest" that you do your own "REAL" research. I've read numerous reports and studies on NAFTA that all conclude that there has been a net gain in American jobs in employment. Now of course, if you had an anti-NAFTA agenda you could manipulate employment figures to make it look like jobs were lost to NAFTA. And the reports I've read are no doubt influenced by a pro-NAFTA bias. But in any event, keep the "sheeple rhetoric" to yourself; I'll keep to the facts.

[Cal4D4]

I see a real safety problem. US drivers , paid by the mile, push the logbook to make a living. When fuel goes up, sleep goes down. Are the Mexican drivers limited on the number of hours they can try to drive?

[GinSlinger]

Cal4D4
Yes, all federal and state highway and transportation laws will apply to truckers from Canada and Mexico.

GinSlinger

[Sergeant Bob]

U.S.-Mexico Trade 2000 2001 Percent Change
1st number 2001/2nd number 2002 ($millions) 3rd % change
Total U.S. trade with Mexico by all surface modes 210,595 200,797 -4.7
U.S. imports from Mexico by all surface modes 113,437 111,870 -1.4
U.S. exports to Mexico by all surface modes 97,159 88,926 -8.5
Total U.S. trade with Mexico by truck 171,058 160,600 -6.1
U.S. imports from Mexico by truck 88,669 86,377 -2.6
U.S. exports to Mexico by truck 82,389 74,223 -9.9
Total U.S. trade with Mexico by rail 31,552 32,446 2.8
U.S. imports from Mexico by rail 21,056 22,057 4.8
U.S. exports to Mexico by rail 10,496 10,389 -1.0
Total U.S. trade with Mexico by pipeline 313 298 -5.0
U.S. imports from Mexico by pipeline 12 2 -86.0
U.S. exports to Mexico by pipeline 302 296 -1.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Transborder Surface Freight Data
U.S.-Mexico Trade (http://www.bts.gov/PressReleases/2002/bts12_02/table1.html)
How would a decrease in exports equate to an increase in American jobs?

[wingman]

Yes, all federal and state highway and transportation laws will apply to truckers from Canada and Mexico."


Yes, and Mexico has always been very good about following our laws.


:cuss:

[Art Eatman]

Sergeant Bob, when did NAFTA take effect? Remember, world trade is down, everywhere, since mid-2000. Corporate profitability is in the toilet, and few in the Fortune 500 are US-only corporations.

Any numbers that don't start from the years before NAFTA, and give the overall picture, don't reflect the true picture.

I read about the economic problems around the world, and it's scary to me. (For instance, the German stock market is down some 40%--yet folks here only consider the Dow to be important. And Japan is in horrible shape.) So, it seems to me that the worldwide malaise, affecting everybody including folks like coonan357, isn't seen for what it is. Relatively small potatoes like NAFTA get the blame.

As world trade has grown, the inter-dependence of countries has also grown. And people don't remember that our Great Depression of the 1930s was not just hard times here; it was felt in Europe as well--which helped Hitler's rise to power. The inter-dependencies are greater, now, and far more widespread.

Art

[Sergeant Bob]

Year Exports Imports Balance($ in millions)

2002 90,139.10 124,587.90 -34,448.80
2001 101,296.50 131,337.90 -30,041.40
2000 111,349.00 135,926.40 -24,577.40
1999 86,908.90 109,720.60 -22,811.70
1998 78,772.50 94,629.00 -15,856.50
1997 71,388.40 85,937.50 -14,549.10
1996 56,791.50 74,297.30 -17,505.80
1995 46,292.10 62,100.60 -15,808.50
1994 50,843.50 49,493.80 1,349.70
1993 41,581.10 39,917.40 1,663.70
1992 40,592.20 35,211.20 5,381.00
1991 33,277.30 31,129.60 2,147.70
1990 28,279.00 30,156.70 -1,877.70
1989 24,982.10 27,162.10 -2,180.00
1988 20,628.40 23,259.70 -2,631.30
1987 14,582.20 20,270.80 -5,688.60
1986 12,391.60 17,301.70 -4,910.10
1985 13,634.70 19,131.80 -5,497.10

These figures from the
U.S. Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c2010.html)
As you can see, from 1994 (NAFTA enacted) there is a dramatic increase in U.S. imports from Mexico. But you can also see the pronounced increase in exports to Mexico. I haven't run the numbers, but it appears the %'s of import to export have remained relatively constant.
I think I may have had what could be called an epiphany? Thanks Art. Still don'tknow how I feel about the trucks though.

[Beer for my Horses]

Thanks for posting the import/export data Sergeant Bob. I didn't have it readily available for posting.

[Art Eatman]

My own opinions and moral views come into play as to what is imported, what items our population buys. Moreso about quantity than quality, although I'm often underwhelmed by the quality. My born-in-the-Depression view of "stuff", I guess. I just see Wal-Marts, etc., full of frou-frou.

A lot of this world trade stuff just seems to relate to TV advertising for toys instead of really-needed stuff. But like I say, that's just opinion...

But we for sure import half-a-trillion $/yr more than we export.

What's real is that these trucks will enter the US to a great extent in crossings which right now are little-utilized. One of the reasons is the tremendous volume already trying to enter at places like Laredo or El Paso. It can take four days for a semi- to get across at El Paso.

The Mexicans are near completion of a reconstruction of the highway from Ciudad Chihuahua to the crossing at Ojinaga/Presidio. The possible increase could be from 20 or so per day to as many as 4,000. A look at the map shows the possible routes. Driving these highways shows two-lane "speedways" to the Interstate...

There are real problems, but saying, "I don't want those trucks" isn't any solution...

Art