1st U.S. truck drives into Mexico after UScongress bars Mexican (but not Canadian) trucks into U.S.

[UTUSN]

So here's the falsity. The outcry here at DU and beyond is against Mexican trucks and drivers operating in the U.S. because they are supposedly unsafe, environmentally unsound, scabs, and non-English speaking---yes, the TRUCKS should be made to SPEAK ENGLISH!!1 Btw, the first Mexican trucks that PENETRATED our virgin U.S. completed their round trip without incident of ANY sort. Yet Canadian trucking has been proceeding right along since who-knows-when. And now U.S. trucks are operating in Mexico. Even with the SUPERIORITY of the U.S. trucks and drivers, it might be said that they will not operate safely in Mexico because of the narrow, winding, mountainous roads --not to mention the U.S. drivers' non-Spanish speakingness, their national characteristic of honoring ignorance of other cultures and languages.

Since we cannot agree here at DU over this issue, let's set the economics aside and move on to the COLONIALISM implicit in the whole situation. Yes, it really *does* sound like White drivers are safer, more intelligent, superior, with more NATURAL RIGHT to do as they please, higher in every way---penetrate into whosever country!!1

*******QUOTE*******

http://news.search.yahoo.com/news/search?p=first+U.S.++truck+Mexico&c= (626 items)

http://azdailysun.com/articles/2007/09/15/news/local/20070915_local_news_11.txt

First U.S. commercial truck drives into Mexico roads

By
Associated Press
Saturday, September 15, 2007



WASHINGTON (AP) -- A U.S.-owned commercial truck became the first to drive deep into Mexico on Friday, days after the Senate voted to quit funding a program allowing Mexican trucks to do the same in the United States. ....




"Today is historic. We're giving U.S. trucking companies the opportunity to compete in a new market that they have never before been allowed to penetrate," said John Hill, head of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Senate voted to prevent Mexican trucks from getting more access to U.S. highways by prohibiting spending on an ongoing pilot project. The House has taken similar action.

The measures are attached to separate transportation spending bills that must still be reconciled. ....




Trucks from Canada, Mexico and the U.S. were given access to roadways in all three countries under the North American Free Trade Agreement signed in 1993.

But opposition from organized labor and safety groups delayed Mexican trucks from driving further into the U.S.


********UNQUOTE*******

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[NI4NI]

2. just a few questions for my Congressmen,

what kind of freight were they hauling? what country did it come from? Where was it inspected? And what port city was it unloaded at?

Adios, Stevedores, Longshoremens, and many Teamster Union jobs.

[Bobbieo]

3. This whole thing is designed to get rid of union jobs and unions!!!!

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. The answer is actually in the side agreements

nobody wants to even look at

And yes working WITH, NOT AGAINST Mexican Unions

:banghead:

Far, far less painful, and the wall gets it

(By the way, how do you think those in power would react to a CONTINENT WIDE strike by the Teamsters unions on all three countries demanding that I don't know living wages are now part of the deal?)

By the way, piece of trivia, a living wage in Mexico is NOT that much lower than here... just that truckers DO NOT make living wages down there

And yes, side agreement, LIVING WAGES in the three countries

Oh yes, let me go back to this


:banghead:

Far... and I mean FAR LESS PAINFUL

[pampango]

4. We signed a treaty with Mexico regarding this.

I think that it's a good idea to live up to our word until we withdraw from or renegotiate the treaty (which I hope happens tomorrow or sooner.)

[entanglement]

6. Bosses and union leaders often work to pit workers of different countries against each other

to the detriment of both. While capitalist bosses launch attacks on jobs, working conditions and pay, the union bureaucracy strives to keep the workers' anger directed elsewhere by promoting the worst forms of jingoism and nationalism. They betray strikes, "work with" management and generally act as co-managers of the bosses. That is the precise state of the trade union movement today.

[B Calm]

7. What trade union movement? Thanks to idiots voting for

cheap labor conservatives, unions have declined in strength. Cheap labor cons know that when labor "sticks together", wages and benifits go up. That is why republicans despise labor unions, they want cheap as they can get labor! Hell look at the way they despise raising the min wage. They HATE WORKING PEOPLE!

[UTUSN]

8. Speaking of working people & their being pitted against each other, where in DU are the AMLO & Hugo

supporters about the colonialist way Mexican truckers are being treated vis a vis Canadian and U.S. truckers? I suspect they are against NAFTA, but as in many things over the past six years, clear partisan lines have broken down, with some DUers sympathizing with the positions of the Minutemen, at least, while technically opposing the Minutemen.

(I'm only kicking this since it has already ended up on p.1 without my doing.)

[iaviate1]

9. Isn't this to outsource labor at our ports?

The work is done much cheaper in Mexico and then the cheaper drivers distribute the cargo... isn't that the idea? What purpose does this serve for the working class of this country?

[Fading Captain]

10. Use your head

Big business is going to put Mexican drivers on the US roads. Not out of any love for the Mexican people or their workers. But because they'll work without regard for labor laws, without threat of strike, without demands for middle-class wages.

Fine, American trucks are in Mexico.

Great.

So, you think the SMART and FAIR thing to do is allow MORE cheap, desperate Mexican labor to flood our labor market?

That's a good idea?


Good god. When did so many Democrats start hating the American working class?

[pampango]

11. When did so many Democrats start hating Mexicans?

Most here seem determined to deport illegal immigrants (or have them "deport" themselves by drying up their jobs). The claim is usually made that this is not because they have anything against Hispanics, it is a "rule of law" thing. The immigrants have broken the law, hence are "criminals" and should be deported.

I haven't seem too many of the posters that have this "rule of law" position come out in favor of allowing Mexican truck drivers into the US because the "law" which we agreed to with Mexico gives them legal access and we should enforce the law. The prospect of "legal" Mexicans entering the country seems to have raised as big a stink as allowing "illegal" Mexicans in did. Instead DU seems to support the change in the trucking law to make "legal" Mexicans "illegal", while opposing earlier immigration reform provisions that would have made "illegal" Mexicans "legal".

Reminds me of the Repubs who are for limited government until they are it doesn't suit their purpose, against nation building until they need it, and a host of other back flips to suit their immediate purpose. We are for the "rule of law" until it is inconvenient, for international negotiations and treaties (rather than military solutions) until a treaty makes us do something we don't want to do.

I am happy that Hispanic voters blame the immigration debacle on the repubs, even though many here were as opposed to "legalization" as were Rush, Tancredo and the Minutemen. I only hope that the Democratic Senate blocking legal Mexican truck drivers, thus reneging on part of our agreement with Mexico, does not start any momentum in the other direction.

[B Calm]

12. I don't hate Mexicans, I hate the cheap labor cons that hire them

with the sole purpose of bringing down wages for working people in our country.

[pampango]

13. And I don't hate the American working class, just people who don't want us to live up

to our agreements. I believe we should live up to our treaties (though Bush would disagree with me on this) until we renegotiate them or withdraw from them. If Mexico followed through on their promised actions in their treaty with us, I don't see what gives us the right to not do what we promised and allow their truck drivers (14 years after we promised to do so.)

[B Calm]

14. The working people never agreed to NAFTA. So quit acting acting

like its our treaty. Treaties for corporations are made to be broken!

[pampango]

15. I am all for "breaking" the treaty. I just wish we would do it the "old fashioned"

way, and withdraw from it which is easy to do by vote, and not the "Bush" way, by enforcing the provisions that you like and ignoring or removing those you don't like.

I agree that NAFTA has been not been good for workers anywhere, particularly in Mexico, and should be scrapped. I just don't think that developing a reputation of unilaterally changing provisions of international agreements, rather than mutual renegotiation, helps our chances of solving issues with North Korea, China, Iran and others by peaceful negotiation and agreement rather than force. They will rightfully be more leery of negotiating with us, when they can't trust us to live up to concessions we make.