PDA

View Full Version : Mexican Truck Invasion Sept. 1


MACH1
08-26-2007, 05:50 PM
Copied this from a different site.

Think I may have to upgrade my car to a M1A1 ahbrams. :dang:



Get ready! Beginning September 1, hundreds, perhaps thousands of Mexican 18-wheelers will invade
the highways of America in what is innocuously called "The Mexican Truck Demonstration Project".

"FMCSA and DOT actions in pushing the Mexican truck demonstration project has
been "reprehensible". The administration is determined to push the Mexican truck
project down the throats of the American people and Congress". - Todd Spencer,
executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association
This so-called "demonstration project" puts at risk every American who drives or rides on the highways,
roads and streets of this country. Here are just a few of the potential problems I anticipate with having
sub-standard Mexican trucks and foreign operators freely operating in the U.S. on America's highways:

1. unqualified, inexperienced foreign drivers, unfamiliar with U.S. highway laws & DOT regulations
2. poorly maintained, substandard (unsafe) Mexican trucks
3. increased danger resulting from foreign truckers unable to understand highway signs in English
4. low-paid, unskilled foreign truckers, unfairly competing against professional U.S. operators
5. easy to evade paying U.S. taxes, fees and fines
6. greater potential for illegal trafficking of drugs and illegal aliens
7. increased opportunity (bribes) for criminals, even terrorists to infiltrate into the U.S

Just like NAFTA was a bad idea, having Mexican trucks and foreign truck drivers entering the U.S. and
driving on America's highways is a bad idea for America, and not in the best interest of Americans.

Hammer67
08-26-2007, 05:54 PM
All I know is that the undocumented Mexicans that did our landscaping (our builder is cheap) did a horrible job.

MasterOfPuppets
08-26-2007, 05:55 PM
Copied this from a different site.

Think I may have to upgrade my car to a M1A1 ahbrams. :dang:there's one important one that was left off.....taking jobs away from american truck drivers

fansince'76
08-26-2007, 06:12 PM
All I know is that the undocumented Mexicans that did our landscaping (our builder is cheap) did a horrible job.

Sounds like it's time to report a certain contractor to the INS. :pissed:

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
08-26-2007, 11:22 PM
President Ass Wipe at work again. Just another step to the SPP (Security Prosperity Partnership) a different way of Boosh sticking it in the arses of America.

Jeremy
08-26-2007, 11:32 PM
As a Tucson driver, I will say that this is far and away the single dumbest idea I have ever seen.

I-Want-Troy's-Hair
08-26-2007, 11:44 PM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57296

Mexican rigs ready to roll
Truckers in 'demonstration' expected on roads Sept. 1
Posted: August 24, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jerome R. Corsi
? 2007 WorldNetDaily.com


The requirements for the U.S. Department of Transportation's Mexican Truck Demonstration Project have been met, and some 37 Mexican trucking companies have been approved to run their long-haul rigs through the U.S. starting as early as Sept. 1, according to a Mexican government report.

In the United States, the inspector general of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration on Aug. 6 issued to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee an audit about implementing NAFTA's cross-border trucking provisions, the last hurdle DOT faced before allowing the Mexican truck demonstration project to begin.

As required by Congress, the report was withheld from public release until August 21 ? 15 days after being delivered to Congress.

At that point, industry commentators instantly noted that the FMCSA inspector general requested that additional improvements be made in two areas: to improve the quality of the data used to monitor Mexican commercial driver traffic convictions in the United States and to ensure adequate capacity to inspect Mexican buses.

The first industry reaction was that the report had blocked DOT from allowing the Mexican truck demonstration project to start until the FMCSA had adequately satisfied the deficiencies noted in these two recommendations.

However, the Mexican government report, posted in Spanish Aug. 14 on the Mexican government's Secretar?a de Comunicaciones y Transportes website, came to a different conclusion.

It said, "The conditions for the beginning of the Cross-Border Truck Demonstration Project have been met."

The Secretar?a de Comunicaciones y Transportes also announced in the document that 37 Mexican trucking companies had satisfactorily met the U.S. Department of Transportation's requirements for participating in the demonstration project.

Also little noted in the U.S. was a press release issued by Mexican Transportation Secretary Luis Tellez reporting the Mexican government anticipates starting the demonstration project in the last week of August.

A careful reading of the Aug. 6 FMCSA inspector general's audit shows that no sentence in the report states that DOT may not proceed with the Mexican truck demonstration project until the requirements of the audit's recommendations are met.

Focusing on the yet unmet recommendations, American industry leaders had just assumed that the additional demands would block DOT from giving approval to the Mexican trucks to proceed.

But the fine print of the Aug. 6 report signals the unmet recommendations were just that, recommendations, not requirements.

"These improvements are needed more urgently than ever because Mexican motor carriers may be granted long haul authority in the near future," the report said.

This month, the FMCSA and DOT have been unusually silent on the status of the Mexican truck demonstration project, dodging questions about their response to the Aug 6 audit.

Todd Spencer, executive vice president of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, told WND the behavior of the FMCSA and DOT in pushing the Mexican truck demonstration project has been "reprehensible."

"The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Department of Transportation under Secretary Mary Peters continue to thumb their noses at legitimate issues and important questions that have been raised by the American people and their elected representatives," Spencer told WND.

Spencer said he considered it "possible" that DOT would give the green light to the Mexican truck demonstration project as early as next week, since the Aug. 6 audit did not specifically prohibit them from doing so.

Spencer noted that a start date as early as Sept. 1 would be an additional affront, since Congress is still out of town for their annual August recess.

"The Bush administration is determined to push this Mexican truck project down the throats of the American people and Congress," Spencer stressed.

"Reading the inspector general's report, there are many serious safety concerns that are still far from resolved," he said. "Now we're just supposed to ignore those recommendations and let the Mexican long-haul rigs roll anywhere they want in the United States, regardless whether it's safe or not?"

WND previously has reported that on May 15, the House of Representatives passed the Safe American Roads Act of 2007 (H. R. 1773), by an overwhelming bipartisan 411-3 margin.

WND also reported a White House strategy to pressure the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation not to hold hearings or take any action on the House-passed Safe American Roads Act of 2007.

WND further reported the White House was trying to persuade senators on the transportation committee that the requirements of the Safe American Roads Act were wrapped into the provisions of H.R. 2206, the Iraq supplemental funding bill, which was signed into law by President Bush on May 25.

The Bush administration argued that a May filing by the FMCSA in the Federal Register was sufficient to satisfy the H.R. 2206 requirements to post safety regulations before the Mexican demonstration project was permitted to start.

Now that the FMCSA inspector general has issued the Aug 6 audit, the published government reports in Mexico suggest DOT is ready to take the position that the last congressional requirement has been met with the publication of this report.

WND left multiple requests with Brian Turmail, FMCSA spokesman, and Madeline Chulumovich, spokeswoman in the FMCSA's inspector general's office, asking for an interpretation of the audit requirements and the date for the program to begin, without getting a response.

tony hipchest
08-26-2007, 11:53 PM
All I know is that the undocumented Mexicans that did our landscaping (our builder is cheap) did a horrible job.
more proof that "you get what you pay for".

if you didnt put a slug in their heads and pay even cheaper labor to bury them in your back yard, you did the rest of us americans a great disservice.

:chuckle:

Jeremy
08-26-2007, 11:54 PM
I'm just waiting until the first American family is killed on I-10 by a Mexican truck driver.

tony hipchest
08-27-2007, 12:09 AM
I'm just waiting until the first American family is killed on I-10 by a Mexican truck driver.
lol. as a new mexican im much more concerned about the lax DWI laws and american drivers who kill families on a weekly basis.

enjoy the wait.

Jeremy
08-27-2007, 12:16 AM
lol. as a new mexican im much more concerned about the lax DWI laws and american drivers who kill families on a weekly basis.

enjoy the wait.

It's not going to be long. I predict that the first American driver is killed within a week of Mexican truck drivers being allowed on American highways.

Hines0wnz
11-11-2007, 11:53 PM
It's not going to be long. I predict that the first American driver is killed within a week of Mexican truck drivers being allowed on American highways.


And.......how is the death toll? :yawn:

TheWarDen86
11-12-2007, 05:57 PM
Copied this from a different site.

Think I may have to upgrade my car to a M1A1 ahbrams. :dang:

As a commuter, this scares the crap out of me.

Godfather
11-12-2007, 09:33 PM
There are plenty of American truck drivers who scare me too...I-10 in New Orleans East is notorious for reckless driving and 18-wheelers.

But this is a bad idea even by federal government standards. It's not even signs that are a big deal--a lot of road signs are standardized internationally and numbers (like the speed limit) and place names are the same in Spanish. But there are some major problems with this. First, the Mexican truck drivers aren't properly vetted, as anyone driving a big rig should be.

Second--and I think this is W's motivation--you're cutting the throats of American truck drivers. Truck driving isn't a job that can be outsourced, so W's bringing the Mexicans here. And one reason they can do it cheaper is they don't have to jump through all the expensive hoops that American truck drivers do. Everyone should have to play by the same rules. Failure to do so is the government picking winners and losers.

Stlrs4Life
11-13-2007, 09:36 PM
Another fine job by our boy "W". Out sourcing America. Send our boys/girls over seas, and in the mean time let the foreigners in the country?!

TroysBadDawg
11-13-2007, 10:39 PM
But American driver are still not alowed to drive in Mexico. Funny how that works ...huh?

stlrtruck
11-14-2007, 12:01 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the premise of this idea set up under NAFTA, which was done before W?

I don't agree with the things that are going on with our neighbors to the south, but it seems to me that our entire government system has forgotten about the American people. They are more worried about looking like Dr. Do Good to the world that they are allowing our own to be jobless, homeless, and dis-respected in general.

Forget who is responsible, let's just fix the damn problem and build a wall - a big wall and then take care of our own!

TroysBadDawg
11-14-2007, 06:12 AM
Uh excuse me Stlrs4Life "Another fine job by our boy "W". " Boy your off base here. Off base and tagged out. Get the facts right. It actually got started in 1989 with talks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#The_North_Amer ican_Free_Trade_Agreement

NAFTA was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, especially among intellectuals who stated that it was an ill-conceived initiative. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).[5] and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38[6]


http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/


http://www.fas.usda.gov/info/factsheets/NAFTA.asp

See above links for opposing views


Please tell me someone, why is someone always trying to blame everything on George W. From price of gas, Katrina now to NAFTA?

I truly believe everybody has a right to their opinion, but nobody has a right to be wrong with their facts.

Godfather
11-14-2007, 08:08 AM
[People are blaming this on W because (1) it went into effect 7 years into his term. (and (2) it fits perfectly with his record on other border issues. With Katrina, he was one of many people at fault for problems--appointing a woefully unqualified FEMA director, lying (he said nobody could have anticipated the levees breaking, then a tape came out of Michael Brown telling him exactly that on 8/28), and intervening in Congress to kill the Baker Bill plan for recovery (leading to the alternative Road Home program, which suffered from inefficiency in Louisiana and corruption in Mississippi).

BTW, I didn't see anything inthose links that said this particular provision was part of NAFTA.

TroysBadDawg
11-14-2007, 10:59 AM
Going back to Katrina, if you would look further, they were given money for the levies but used it to buy trucks, and other things not fix the levies.

As far as NAFTA, that was BI-Partisan with the support of both sides of the isle. In fact Clinton added to it. So if you want to lay blame blame both parties, they are both to blame not just one. W wasn't in office even, it was his father H. Like I said before, Every one has a right to thier opinion but get the fact right. How can you blame W when he had nothing to do with the passage of NAFTA? That was Congress my friend. Congress makes laws and treaties, the President only signs them or Vetos them. Then congress can overide a veto. On a treaty I am not sure if the President can Veto a Treaty. Clinton has Promised to support Untited Nations proposition 2000, that put the Untinted States LAws under the approval of the United Nations. They can change, modify, veto, any law we have, including taxation, and hoow it is distributed and to whom. Check it out.


A person once told me never to discuss religion, weather, or politics and I find I am. To which I am now sorry. This ends my discussion. I return control of your computer and discussion to you the viewer.

Cape Cod Steel Head
11-14-2007, 04:38 PM
But American driver are still not alowed to drive in Mexico. Funny how that works ...huh?Not allowed to drive in Mexico??? Done it plenty of times as have millions of others.

GBMelBlount
11-14-2007, 07:40 PM
President Ass Wipe at work again.

Yep. You're right....

In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993.

BTW, if taxes weren't so high, our products & services would be alot more competitively priced. That would lower imports & increase exports (all other things being equal). Manufacturers and businesses have to account for the strangling taxes of the federal, state & local governments with inflated prices. This is partially the cause of the high prices of our goods & services.

BTW, this is not in anyway disagreeing with the legitimate concerns Mach1 has IMO.

:cheers:

Godfather
11-14-2007, 09:51 PM
Yep. You're right....



BTW, if taxes weren't so high, our products & services would be alot more competitively priced. That would lower imports & increase exports (all other things being equal). Manufacturers and businesses have to account for the strangling taxes of the federal, state & local governments with inflated prices. This is partially the cause of the high prices of our goods & services.

BTW, this is not in anyway disagreeing with the legitimate concerns Mach1 has IMO.

:cheers:

Yep, plus the costs of complying with government regulations. That can be just as bad as taxes. Some of the regulations are asinine...others are necessary but lax enforcement rewards lawbreakers and undercuts honest businesses.

TroysBadDawg
11-15-2007, 08:34 AM
Not allowed to drive in Mexico??? Done it plenty of times as have millions of others.

And how far into Mexico are you allowed to drive with out a pasport? 25 miles and is that as a tourist or a truck driver? Lets make it clear, for all ok. I know I had to take a passport when I went there because I drove 195 miles into Mexico, and thank Goodness I rented a car, at the airport. It disappeared the following day. While I ate in a restaurant, the police did nothing but checked my id's and passport inside out. Forget the car check out the victim, he is American.

Mexican drivers can go anywhere in our country without DOT inspections, when did you have your last DOT inspection? What would happen if your truck failed it? How many Mexican Trucks would pass it, better yet how many would fail it? How many have to have the same type of license you do if you drive over the road? How often do you have to take your physical and piss in the bottle, and do they? Oh wait if your a tourest you don't have to, neither do thier over the road drivers.

Come on campare oranges to oranges, apples to apples.

Cape Cod Steel Head
11-15-2007, 02:59 PM
And how far into Mexico are you allowed to drive with out a pasport? 25 miles and is that as a tourist or a truck driver? Lets make it clear, for all ok. I know I had to take a passport when I went there because I drove 195 miles into Mexico, and thank Goodness I rented a car, at the airport. It disappeared the following day. While I ate in a restaurant, the police did nothing but checked my id's and passport inside out. Forget the car check out the victim, he is American.

Mexican drivers can go anywhere in our country without DOT inspections, when did you have your last DOT inspection? What would happen if your truck failed it? How many Mexican Trucks would pass it, better yet how many would fail it? How many have to have the same type of license you do if you drive over the road? How often do you have to take your physical and piss in the bottle, and do they? Oh wait if your a tourest you don't have to, neither do thier over the road drivers.

Come on campare oranges to oranges, apples to apples.
Well it was pre passport days and I drove down from San Diego to Cabo. Well over 125 miles. Your orginal message stated simply that American drivers aren't allowed to drive in Mexico.

TroysBadDawg
11-15-2007, 04:39 PM
Come on you know that is a cop out, we are discussing now, not then. If I wanted to discuss then I would have included the bit about " hey meester, want too buy meyyy seeester?

I jumped in when W was blamed for NAFTA. That he had nothing to do with. It was not him that negotiated it, nor him that signed it. But some sure as heck blame him. Funny how that works isn't it?

Take a pot shot at the President of the United States of America, come one and all.
This is a free contry where you can say what you want when you want how you want with out any repercussions.

Well sorry about that. This is one former POW that is will to take out his armorment again, to protect this country, and the President against the liberals that seam to take pleasure in running him into the ground when they don't have the balls to run for office and do something about it. All they can do ius place balme on him for everything under the sun, and then some. I have left some chat rooms because of people like here and am about to do so now. See ya before I get to upset and get out my gun and come hunting.

Stlrs4Life
11-15-2007, 06:26 PM
Going back to Katrina, if you would look further, they were given money for the levies but used it to buy trucks, and other things not fix the levies.

As far as NAFTA, that was BI-Partisan with the support of both sides of the isle. In fact Clinton added to it. So if you want to lay blame blame both parties, they are both to blame not just one. W wasn't in office even, it was his father H. Like I said before, Every one has a right to thier opinion but get the fact right. How can you blame W when he had nothing to do with the passage of NAFTA? That was Congress my friend. Congress makes laws and treaties, the President only signs them or Vetos them. Then congress can overide a veto. On a treaty I am not sure if the President can Veto a Treaty. Clinton has Promised to support Untited Nations proposition 2000, that put the Untinted States LAws under the approval of the United Nations. They can change, modify, veto, any law we have, including taxation, and hoow it is distributed and to whom. Check it out.


A person once told me never to discuss religion, weather, or politics and I find I am. To which I am now sorry. This ends my discussion. I return control of your computer and discussion to you the viewer.



George Bush Sr. started NAFTA at the end of his last term before Clinton, yes Clinton made the mistake of not vetoing it. And was passed by a Republican Congress. And "W" extended it recently with CAFTA, and Gatt.

GBMelBlount
11-15-2007, 10:13 PM
George Bush Sr. started NAFTA at the end of his last term before Clinton, yes Clinton made the mistake of not vetoing it. And was passed by a Republican Congress. And "W" extended it recently with CAFTA, and Gatt.


Clinton's election ended an era in which the Republican Party had controlled the White House for 12 consecutive years, and for 20 of the previous 24 years. That election also brought the Democrats full control of the political branches of the federal government, including both houses of U.S. Congress as well as the presidency, for the first time since the administration of the last Democratic president, Jimmy Carter.

I'm not sure where this Republican Congress was? Clinton had the presidency and control of both houses of the U.S Congress from 1992 until 1996. This is when NAFTA was passed.....

fansince'76
11-15-2007, 10:31 PM
I'm not sure where this Republican Congress was? Clinton had the presidency and control of both houses of the U.S Congress from 1992 until 1996. This is when NAFTA was passed.....

Actually, the Republicans won back the majority in the House and Senate in '94 with their "Contract With America," but no matter - neither side of the aisle gives a rat's ass about outsourcing, spiraling health care costs, or anything else that affects the real working stiff outside of dutifully paying lip service to these issues come reelection time. Anybody who thinks they do is fooling themselves, IMO. If you can't make at LEAST a 6-7 figure contribution to either party's coffers, you won't be heard. In American politics, money talks and bullsh*t walks. Kinda why I'm a registered Independent.

GBMelBlount
11-15-2007, 10:48 PM
Actually, the Republicans won back the majority in the House and Senate in '94 with their "Contract With America,"

Yep, Pres, House & Senate ALL Dem in 2003, but changed in 2004, not 2006. You're Right.

TroysBadDawg
11-16-2007, 01:39 PM
And where are we Now? The Say then was "How can we afford them"

Well with the Dems wanting to remove the Child tax credit and the other tax credits the everyday citizens were given, plus now adding the taxes to social security they want to do plus intrest on investments (seniors) Then they want to add anther billion in other taxes, how can we afford the Dems? It is the dame old same old tax and spend. When are they going to learn to live like the American public does within our budget. They are behind now 6 weeks in sending a budget to the White House for approval (fat chance) with it being 2 billion over what the President submitted.

When are the VOTERS going to wake up and take notice we are getting screwed and not even getting kissed. Sure the Dems are going to Blame the War for it, but they are adding millions in Pork for themselves. Cut the Pork get the Federal Judge that said Line item veto was wrong hung. Put line item veto back in then any one including me will be able to Blame the President for the Budget until then we have to blame congress and thier Pork. You give me this and I will support that. Well that time has to end and end now. This country is Bankrupt and no one notices it.

When is the Lunicy going to end? Just keep Blaming W people, then who you going to blame next? Dems control the house that is out of control, They control the Senate that is out of control. Heck they can't get together on a budget even. Not to mention not allowing the Republicans in on the negotiations. But you just go ahead and Blame the President. You do it anyway, all the time, typical liberal crap. Don't like what is going on Blame W everybody else does, a bunch of Lemmings.