NationStates Jolt Archive

Well treachery knows no bounds.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration can proceed with a plan to open the U.S. border to long haul Mexican trucks as early as next week after an appeals court rejected a bid by labor, consumer and environmental interests to block the initiative.
ADVERTISEMENT

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco late on Friday denied an emergency petition sought by the Teamsters union, the Sierra Club and consumer group Public Citizen to halt the start of a one-year pilot program that was approved by Congress after years of legal and political wrangling.

The Transportation Department welcomed the decision and said in a statement that allowing more direct shipments from Mexico will benefit U.S. consumers.

The 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement approved broader access for ground shipments from both countries but the Clinton administration never complied with the trucking provision. A special tribunal ordered the Bush administration to do so in 2001.

"This is the wrong decision for working men and women," Jim Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, said in a statement after the court ruling. "We believe this program clearly breaks the law." The Teamsters represents truckers that would be affected by the change.

The emergency stay was sought on grounds the administration's pilot program had not satisfied the U.S. Congress' requirements on safety and other issues. But the appeals court ruled otherwise.

SAFETY ASPECTS

The administration plans to start the program on September 6. Transportation Department officials hope to receive final clearance early next week from the department's inspector general's office, which is reviewing its safety aspects, and finalize details with Mexican authorities.

The Mexican government must grant reciprocal access to U.S. trucks under NAFTA. That provision is not expected to be a problem, regulators said.

Mexican trucks operating in the United States have for years been restricted to U.S. points near certain large border crossings where their goods are transferred to trucks owned by U.S. firms.

Under the pilot program, Mexican long haul trucking companies that have met safety, licensing, and other U.S. requirements will be allowed to operate their rigs throughout the country. Proponents say this will reduce costs and speed up shipments.

Trucking regulators said in a court filing the goal is to gradually accommodate 100 Mexican trucking companies by the end of the pilot program, or roughly 540 large trucks.

But opponents said those figures do not reflect the number of companies that could seek access to U.S. roads if the pilot is successful, which they said raises safety concerns.

"This (pilot) program is basically a show trial. They haven't provided notice up front about who will participate. You just don't know what the program will look like," said Bonnie Robin-Vergeer, attorney for Public Citizen.

Public Citizen and the Teamsters still plan to proceed with a lawsuit they filed in federal court, challenging the Mexican truck program on broader grounds. That case will not likely be decided until next year.

Trucks from Canada have no operating restrictions in the United States.

(Reporting by John Crawley)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070901/us_nm/mexico_trucks_us_dc_1

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a glutton for destroying America has struck again and with much help from our so-called leaders. So who wants to take bets on how many more illegals (especially with criminal records) and drugs will come into America from this decision? It isn't enough that our borders are like sheets of paper already soaking wet, now there's this. [and this coming from a person who once voted Republican, albeit I'm not fan of the Democrats either since both parties seem hell bent on dismantling America, its Constitution, and putting its people out to pasture]

Wait, so Mexican trucks had not been allowed in the USA previous to this? That is just... insane enough to be on par with regular USA insanity.

Seriously, you banned transcontinental trucking? :rolleyes: You idiots...

First of all, I'm against this. That being said, I think they should restrict the Canadian border as well. It's been a major security hazard for far too long. Do you have any idea how many drugs come across the Canadian border every day?

ANd need I point out that all 19 known 9/11 terrorists entered the US from Canada?

We need a wall up there. :mad:

Wait, so Mexican trucks had not been allowed in the USA previous to this? That is just... insane enough to be on par with regular USA insanity.

Seriously, you banned transcontinental trucking? :rolleyes: You idiots...

I suggest you read up on the concerns about their trucks.

As to this ruling, :headbang:

I suggest you read up on the concerns about their trucks.

The same xenophobic protectionism as always?

ANd need I point out that 0 of the known 9/11 terrorists entered the US from Canada?
fixed for accuracy

Well treachery knows no bounds.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070901/us_nm/mexico_trucks_us_dc_1

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a glutton for destroying America has struck again and with much help from our so-called leaders. So who wants to take bets on how many more illegals (especially with criminal records) and drugs will come into America from this decision? It isn't enough that our borders are like sheets of paper already soaking wet, now there's this. [and this coming from a person who once voted Republican, albeit I'm not fan of the Democrats either since both parties seem hell bent on dismantling America, its Constitution, and putting its people out to pasture]

Well, duh... how else are the illegals already here supposed to get access to their stuff. this way they can easily ship it over. :p

:eek:

"This is the wrong decision for working men and women," Jim Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, said in a statement after the court ruling. "We believe this program clearly breaks the law." The Teamsters represents truckers that would be affected by the change.

WE FOUND JIMMY HOFFA!!!!

First of all, I'm against this. That being said, I think they should restrict the Canadian border as well. It's been a major security hazard for far too long. Do you have any idea how many drugs come across the Canadian border every day?

ANd need I point out that all 19 known 9/11 terrorists entered the US from Canada?

We need a wall up there. :mad:

Silly LG.
There's no brown people in Canada.

The same xenophobic protectionism as always?

When environmental clubs and everyone else is against this, groups that normally are at odds with eachother? The 9th actually gave the Bush Administration a victory.

No. Mexican trucks are the most unsafest vehicles. This has nothing to do with xenophobia, something that I am most certianly not, but everything to do with safety.

I suggest you read up on the concerns about their trucks.

As to this ruling, :headbang:

Honestly, I can't find a wall strong enough to bang my head against for this one. When the Roman Empire went down it went down with glory and inundated the history books. We're just going to be a fizzle of embarrassment.

When environmental clubs and everyone else is against this, groups that normally are at odds with eachother? The 9th actually gave the Bush Administration a victory.

No. Mexican trucks are the most unsafest vehicles. This has nothing to do with xenophobia, something that I am most certianly not, but everything to do with safety.

Rates of alcohol-related accidents are high enough, imagine the rates now when it isn't a Civic causing the accident but an 80,000 lb. big-rig! People usually don't walk away from accidents with 80,000 lb. vs. 2,800 lb. vehicles.

When environmental clubs and everyone else is against this, groups that normally are at odds with eachother? The 9th actually gave the Bush Administration a victory.

No. Mexican trucks are the most unsafest vehicles. This has nothing to do with xenophobia, something that I am most certianly not, but everything to do with safety.

Yeah, right...

mexican trucks are already allowed inside the us. what is the accident rate on them? how much smuggling is being done by the big trucking companies?

Rates of alcohol-related accidents are high enough, imagine the rates now when it isn't a Civic causing the accident but an 80,000 lb. big-rig! People usually don't walk away from accidents with 80,000 lb. vs. 2,800 lb. vehicles.

Which makes my dad still being alive a miracle in and of itself. His car was toteled by an 18 wheeler. *shudders*

We're just going to be a fizzle of embarrassment.

Oh no, no no. We're bringing down some others with us. Just watch.
"Fizzle" won't cover it.

Yeah, right...

Tell me, if Sweden shared a land border with Russia would it allow the Russian Federation to move trucks throughout its country without checks, balances, checkpoints, inspections, safety records, etc.?

Silly LG.
There's no brown people in Canada.

of course as LG said, they came into the USA already. :p

Honestly, I can’t find a wall strong enough to bang my head against for this one. When the Roman Empire went down it went down with glory and inundated the history books. We’re just going to be a fizzle of embarrassment.
Why on Earth would you want to be comparable with the Roman empire?

Proceed with Python references at your peril. :p

Which makes my dad still being alive a miracle in and of itself. His car was toteled by an 18 wheeler. *shudders*

Glad to hear that, those instances are, unfortunately, few are far between. I don't want to imagine the number of big rigs speeding away at 75 mph with drivers that don't speak English, drunk as a skunk, driving 18+ hour days because they aren't unionized. The Midwest is about to become a very uncomfortable place.

fixed for accuracy

You're just lucky I can't find a source for my statement and have to temporarily retreat from it until such a time as I do.

I'll remember this. Curse you, Dakini! The weasels have been sent...

Wait, let me get this straight. Those MORONS on the 9th circuit actually expect the government to uphold the treaty it signed? Those IDIOTS actually require us to follow through with our agreements?

How DARE they, those traitorous bastards? What, they actually expect that once our country agrees to do something, that we should be expected to do it?

Fass, study up on Mexican trucks. They really are unsafe.

Fuckin wetbacks, stealin all the jobs and spreading drugs around the place. Note - if you're quoting to agree with me, you're stupid. If you're quoting to disagree, go ahead!
My solution - mine the border, that'll learn 'em.

Tell me, if Sweden shared a land border with Russia would it allow the Russian Federation to move trucks throughout its country without checks, balances, checkpoints, inspections, safety records, etc.?

There are safety concerns, yes. But that does not mean that there is nothing being done about it.

Under the pilot program, Mexican long haul trucking companies that have met safety, licensing, and other U.S. requirements will be allowed to operate their rigs throughout the country. Proponents say this will reduce costs and speed up shipments.

Tell me, if Sweden shared a land border with Russia would it allow the Russian Federation to move trucks throughout its country without checks, balances, checkpoints, inspections, safety records, etc.?

Under the pilot program, Mexican long haul trucking companies that have met safety, licensing, and other U.S. requirements will be allowed to operate their rigs throughout the country.


seems like no one would.

**CURSE YOU PEDRO!!**

There are safety concerns, yes. But that does not mean that there is nothing being done about it.

Suddenly I feel the overwhelming need to go Spam something.:gundge::)

seems like no one would.

**CURSE YOU PEDRO!!**

:fluffle:

Fass, study up on Mexican trucks. They really are unsafe.

well it's a really good thing that this agreement only covers trucks that have met american safety and licensing standard then, isn't it?

Wait, what's that, the sound of your thinly veiled racist argument crashing down around you? Shocking.

of course, regardless of what safety measures the law requires, that is completely and totally irrelevant to this decision of the court, which anyone with even the most basic familiarity with the americna legal system (which of course we all know doesn't include corny here) would understand.

In general, I have zero problem with international trucking. Good shipped across borders should be allowed to be transported by companies across borders; it's a basic and logical component of free trade. My sole concern is that there are no safety provisions and an inadequate border inspection system to ensure that problems do not enter the country along with legitimate commerce.

I support international trucking, but not international trucking without any provisions to ensure the safety of roads, workers and borders on both sides. We've made this mistake before with China and we shouldn't do it again.

In general, I have zero problem with international trucking. Good shipped across borders should be allowed to be transported by companies across borders; it's a basic and logical component of free trade. My sole concern is that there are no safety provisions and an inadequate border inspection system to ensure that problems do not enter the country along with legitimate commerce.

I support international trucking, but not international trucking without any provisions to ensure the safety of roads, workers and borders on both sides. We've made this mistake before with China and we shouldn't do it again.

I agree 100%

of course, regardless of what safety measures the law requires, that is completely and totally irrelevant to this decision of the court, which anyone with even the most basic familiarity with the americna legal system (which of course we all know doesn't include corny here) would understand.

:rolleyes:

I am glad that it goes with the trucks that meet standards but let me ask you this! If the program is a success, what about the trucks that do not meet standards? How is this going to be enforced?

And I do have basic knowledge of the American Judicial System asshat.

:rolleyes:

I am glad that it goes with the trucks that meet standards but let me ask you this! If the program is a success, what about the trucks that do not meet standards? How is this going to be enforced?

....the same way those standards are enforced for american vehicles I'd imagine...duh?

And I do have basic knowledge of the American Judicial System asshat.

Talk's cheap. I'll believe it when I see it. We can start with you explaining what particular legal contours of this ruling you object to, and why you think it is a bad ruling.

Go ahead, this should be interesting.

Wait, what's that, the sound of your thinly veiled racist argument crashing down around you? Shocking.

Yes, and Fass is any less racist. :rollseyes:

Replace the word American with Muslim in nearly all of his posts, and this would look disturbingly similar to Ebaumsworld. Yet, because it's impossible for a white person to be racist against another white person he gets off clean. Never mind he is one of the most bigoted posters around.

....the same way those standards are enforced for american vehicles I'd imagine...duh?

Or perhaps even the way that they're enforced for Canadian vehicles.

You're just lucky I can't find a source for my statement and have to temporarily retreat from it until such a time as I do.

I'll remember this. Curse you, Dakini! The weasels have been sent...
*sets out weasel repellant*

Yes, and Fass is any less racist. :rollseyes:

And even if that were to be true, that would be relevant....how?

And even if that were to be true, that would be relevant....how?

If you're going to call one out on it, you may as well call all of them out on it.

When environmental clubs and everyone else is against this, groups that normally are at odds with eachother? The 9th actually gave the Bush Administration a victory.

No. Mexican trucks are the most unsafest vehicles. This has nothing to do with xenophobia, something that I am most certianly not, but everything to do with safety.

From what I understand, the safety standards set are more stringent then those required for the average American family car.

....the same way those standards are enforced for american vehicles I'd imagine...duh?

With emmissions stickers and all of that jazz? Documents can be forged you know Neo Art.

Talk's cheap.

Naw? really?

I'll believe it when I see it. We can start with you explaining what particular legal contours of this ruling you object to, and why you think it is a bad ruling.

For starters, where's the insurance that unsafe trucks are not going to be using I-76?

Go ahead, this should be interesting.

Tell me how this is going to be enforced and I just might change my opinion. that's my challenge to you.

If you're going to call one out on it, you may as well call all of them out on it.

Whatever one poster's particular viewpoints on a group totally unrelated to the topic are, it doesn't at all relate to arguments on THIS topic being firmly rooted, or merely thinly veiled racism.

You can go ahead and "call people out" if you want, I prefer to actually stick to the topic at hand.

So I'll ask again, your allegations about another poster are relevant to this discussion...how?

Whatever one poster's particular viewpoints on a group totally unrelated to the topic are, it doesn't at all relate to arguments on THIS topic being firmly rooted, or merely thinly veiled racism.

How are American's not relevant to the topic?

There are safety concerns, yes. But that does not mean that there is nothing being done about it.

Mexican political system = super corrupt; us political system = corrupt; way to circumvent unions (which can be corrupt); just a bad idea written all over it. The problem is that we don't have adequate personnel to man the borders period, now with an influx of trucks, we're going to be even shorter staffed and the personnel there have no enforcement power whatsoever. Most of them aren't even armed. Like Carlos Mencia said, just give them a counter and they can count the number of them running across so we'd have an accurate total. It's going to be completely fubar'd and despite any decrease in costs that it gives companies it'll have an even bigger decrease in American safety and security. "Security regulations," is a euphemism for "did he pay a tax to get a certificate?"

With emmissions stickers and all of that jazz? Documents can be forged you know Neo Art.
Can't American truck drivers also forge those documents?

Mexican political system = super corrupt; us political system = corrupt; way to circumvent unions (which can be corrupt); just a bad idea written all over it. The problem is that we don't have adequate personnel to man the borders period, now with an influx of trucks, we're going to be even shorter staffed and the personnel there have no enforcement power whatsoever. Most of them aren't even armed. Like Carlos Mencia said, just give them a counter and they can count the number of them running across so we'd have an accurate total. It's going to be completely fubar'd and despite any decrease in costs that it gives companies it'll have an even bigger decrease in American safety and security. "Security regulations," is a euphemism for "did he pay a tax to get a certificate?"

mexican

trucks

already

come

into

the

country.

Tell me how this is going to be enforced and I just might change my opinion. that's my challenge to you.

If we actually enforced the laws already in place the issue of immigration and illegal drugs would be completely moot but since there is no enforcement, double standards, and underhanded dealings, the laws in place are basically worthless because they aren't used. The same enforcement that applies to them will apply to these "standards," which will probably favor budgets over lives. To the companies and the government, a budget is more important than a 7 year old girl on the way to her grandparents' house for Christmas.

mexican

trucks

already

come

into

the

country.

not

in

the

droves

they'll

come

in

with

this

new

ruling


nor are they coming in with any numbers to offset labor unions.

With emmissions stickers and all of that jazz? Documents can be forged you know Neo Art.

Sure they can. By canadians and americans just as easily as they can by mexicans.

For starters, where's the insurance that unsafe trucks are not going to be using I-76?

What, exactly, does that have to do with the 9th circuit's opinion? Are you having trouble following the train of thought?

I'll ask my question again, how does this invalidate the opinion of the 9th circuit?

Tell me how this is going to be enforced and I just might change my opinion. that's my challenge to you.

As I said, it will be enforced in the same way that it is enforced for american and canadian vehicles.

Where is the insrurance that you are going to drive a safe vehicle?

Which is fundamentally the point. Those mexican trucks are monitored by the same methods that american trucks are, that canadian trucks are, that YOU yourself are.

Your argument is not that they're not monitored, they are. Your argument is not that there are no safety standards for these trucks, there are.

The same exact standards that apply to american and canadian trucks apply to mexican trucks. The same exact insurance that apply to american and canadian trucks apply to mexican trucks.

It's not that there are no standards, that there are no assurances. Your argument is that it's ok for americans to operate under those standards, it's ok for canadians to operate under those standards, but that it's not ok for mexicans to operate under those standards. Because they're mexican.

Congratulations! You're a fucking racist.

not

in

the

droves

they'll

come

in

with

this

new

ruling


nor are they coming in with any numbers to offset labor unions.

no. the amount of goods coming into the country from mexico is not going to increase due to the trucks being able to go farther into the US.

all the problems that you indicated in the post i replied to are not going to be exacerbated by trucks coming farther in the US.

here is here no matter how far they come in.

Sure they can. By canadians and americans just as easily as they can by mexicans.



What, exactly, does that have to do with the 9th circuit's opinion? Are you having trouble following the train of thought?

I'll ask my question again, how does this invalidate the opinion of the 9th circuit?



As I said, it will be enforced in the same way that it is enforced for american and canadian vehicles.

Where is the insrurance that you are going to drive a safe vehicle?

Which is fundamentally the point. Those mexican trucks are monitored by the same methods that american trucks are, that canadian trucks are, that YOU yourself are.

Your argument is not that they're not monitored, they are. Your argument is not that there are no safety standards for these trucks, there are.

The same exact standards that apply to american and canadian trucks apply to mexican trucks. The same exact insurance that apply to american and canadian trucks apply to mexican trucks.

It's not that there are no standards, that there are no assurances. Your argument is that it's ok for americans to operate under those standards, it's ok for canadians to operate under those standards, but that it's not ok for mexicans to operate under those standards. Because they're mexican.

Congratulations! You're a fucking racist.

So I guess anyone opposed to this because they feel unsafe because of a lack of trust in the people in charge to make sure these drivers and trucks will be up to par is a racist. I guess that's typical though with NSG, call anyone a racist if they don't agree with and support every and anything under the sun, unless of course they're spitting out any anti-America or anti-Bush or even a lot of anti-Christian stuff here (those people are never called racists). I feel unsafe because the Mexican government is very corrupt, more than the US government and that corruption is going to sneak its way into this area. So I guess I'm racist too. I should go make a pic up: "If you feel unsafe because you are put in a situation you might be unsafe in, YOU are a racist."

not

in

the

droves

they'll

come

in

with

this

new

ruling


nor are they coming in with any numbers to offset labor unions.


And I'll ask you the same question I asked Corny. By what legal standard should the court have ruled otherwise? By what legal reason should the courts have ruled otherwise?

That the trucks are unsafe? That there are no assurances? Why is that the concern of the 9th circuit? By what legal reason should the 9th circuit have ruled otherwise?

because it makes the roads unsafe? That's a concern for the legislature. Because there are not adequate assurances? That's a concern for the legislature.

The courts don't care about whether a law is a good law, or a smart law, or a wise law, or a beneficial law. It cares about none of that. It cares only about whether it's a legal law.

It is.

If it's a bad, stupid, unwise and harmful law, that's not the concern of the courts. That's not the problem of the courts. That's not a problem the courts can address. The courts care only about whether it is a legitimatly passed, constitutional law. And it is.

So what the fuck do you expect the 9th circuit to do about it? Your complaint is that the 9th circuit upheld the law.

That's fucking idiotic. If you don't like the law, take it up with the people who MADE the law. But you are pissed at the court for doing its job.

Wait, so Mexican trucks had not been allowed in the USA previous to this? That is just... insane enough to be on par with regular USA insanity.

Seriously, you banned transcontinental trucking? :rolleyes: You idiots...

Wouldn't it be transnational? The last time I checked, Mexico and the US were both considered part of North America.

I may be wrong though...:confused:

So I guess anyone opposed to this because they feel unsafe because of a lack of trust in the people in charge to make sure these drivers and trucks will be up to par is a racist.

The "people in charge" of making sure the trucks are up to par when they enter america are americans. The "people in charge" of assuring that a vehicle is safe on the road are the same people that are in charge of making sure YOUR vehicle is safe on the road.

Fearing that standards might not be upheld because a government is corrupt doesn't make you a racist. Fearing that the vehicles are unsafe because the drivers are mexican does.

From what I understand, the safety standards set are more stringent then those required for the average American family car.

Then why has the number of qualified trucks been dropping for the last 3 to 4 years?

Can't American truck drivers also forge those documents?

Yep and if you have a very good forger...it is hard to detect.

no. the amount of goods coming into the country from mexico is not going to increase due to the trucks being able to go farther into the US.

all the problems that you indicated in the post i replied to are not going to be exacerbated by trucks coming farther in the US.

here is here no matter how far they come in.

There will be an influx in goods coming in, an influx in trucks, and less control over where these trucks can go. That is a problem. Until this came in they were limited to just 15 miles into the country. Now they can go anywhere in it and that is a problem. There will be more of them as they can deliver more direct shipments, meaning that volume can increase because there won't be as much time in between the stops to offload, onload, etc., which happens. It takes carpet rolls (just an example) 7 days to go from Georgia to New York and they make several stops along the way to transfer product. Now if a truck bringing a good from Mexico won't have to do that, it can just drive straight through, that means quicker turn around time, which means you can now get more product, increasing the amount of volume you can use in a month, requiring more trucks. For a company, this is the best idea ever and it will push profits through the roof but at what it's going to cost us, I cannot support.

And I'll ask you the same question I asked Corny. By what legal standard should the court have ruled otherwise? By what legal reason should the courts have ruled otherwise?

That the trucks are unsafe? That there are no assurances? Why is that the concern of the 9th circuit? By what legal reason should the 9th circuit have ruled otherwise?

because it makes the roads unsafe? That's a concern for the legislature. Because there are not adequate assurances? That's a concern for the legislature.

The courts don't care about whether a law is a good law, or a smart law, or a wise law, or a beneficial law. It cares about none of that. It cares only about whether it's a legal law.

It is.

If it's a bad, stupid, unwise and harmful law, that's not the concern of the courts. That's not the problem of the courts. That's not a problem the courts can address. The courts care only about whether it is a legitimatly passed, constitutional law. And it is.

So what the fuck do you expect the 9th circuit to do about it?

Personally I would have liked this issue to never get to a court, to have died in Congress, where it should have been killed but given the issues lately about border security, I'm not surprised. It would be nice if the Courts only looked out for the constitution but there's more than just the Constitution here. The Constitution definitely has no provision or language for international trucking in the 21st century nor was it ever planned to have any such area. It should be the courts providing a check and balance to the legislature and if a bill puts US interests and Americans in jeopardy because of haphazard practices that have plagued areas in the past and that threaten to plague them in the future, they should, at the very least, delay said bill until it can be guaranteed safe but, in this instance, there is little to do with legality or not because of course it's legal. I have more concern with the legislature for this ruling period than I do with the 9th Circuit, which is just tertiary. I was hoping that the court ruling would come favorable for the unions as the 9th Circuit is a left-leaning judicial area (which is favorable to unions) but that obviously didn't happen. So to answer your questions, I'm not putting too much onto the 9th Circuit in this matter, my disagreement is directed more to the legislature as yes, you are correct, courts are only to deal with matters of legality and constitutionality. In this situation they ruled as they were supposed to, that it was legal. I would prefer though that the bill would have never reached them.

The "people in charge" of making sure the trucks are up to par when they enter america are americans. The "people in charge" of assuring that a vehicle is safe on the road are the same people that are in charge of making sure YOUR vehicle is safe on the road.

Fearing that standards might not be upheld because a government is corrupt doesn't make you a racist. Fearing that the vehicles are unsafe because the drivers are mexican does.

one point. the people who do my safety inspections for my car is not the same people who inspect your car. some places do better inspections than others. Some only check the bare minimum, while others go the extra mile.

now, unless those vehicles coming in are inspected in the US, how can one be sure that the standards of such inspections being done in Mexico is up to the same level as the US.

Not saying they're not... but considering how many dangerious items from China already made to the shelves and homes of many people...

one point. the people who do my safety inspections for my car is not the same people who inspect your car. some places do better inspections than others. Some only check the bare minimum, while others go the extra mile.

Thank you, you just made my point. We can't be sure that the person who inspected random mexican truck driver's truck did a fully competant job, and we can't be sure that the person who inspected YOUR car did a competant job.

The same standards that exist for one exist for the other. But gee, we don't see anyone here arguing about not letting YOU drive, do we? Or not letting canadian truck drivers, who again we don't know who did their inspections, drive.

nope, only not letting those dirty dirty mexicans drive on our clean american roads.

I have no more and no less reason to suspect that a mexican truck is safe than I do that an american truck is safe. Nor does anyone else.

So to answer your questions, I'm not putting too much onto the 9th Circuit in this matter, my disagreement is directed more to the legislature as yes, you are correct, courts are only to deal with matters of legality and constitutionality. In this situation they ruled as they were supposed to, that it was legal. I would prefer though that the bill would have never reached them.

Then at least on a legal reason, we can agree, the ruling of the court was proper.

Now maybe, since you stated that the court's decision was a proper one, you can explain why you refered to it as "treachery"

What, exactly, does that have to do with the 9th circuit's opinion? Are you having trouble following the train of thought?

I'll ask my question again, how does this invalidate the opinion of the 9th circuit?

Now you are dodging. What insurance will this ruling have that will prevent unsafe trucks from using I-76?

As I said, it will be enforced in the same way that it is enforced for american and canadian vehicles.

And that would be?

Where is the insrurance that you are going to drive a safe vehicle?

My dad's car passed inspection. That tells me that his car is safe to drive. My mother's car is going to be inspected soon and my Fiance's car passed her inspection.

How are these trucks going to be inspected? Are they going to be inspected in Mexico or the United States?

Which is fundamentally the point. Those mexican trucks are monitored by the same methods that american trucks are, that canadian trucks are, that YOU yourself are.

Are you 100% sure about that? I am not so sure. Unlike you, I do not trust the Mexican Transportation Authorities.

Your argument is not that they're not monitored, they are. Your argument is not that there are no safety standards for these trucks, there are.

And what garuntees can you give me that an unsafe Mexican Truck will not be driving on I-76?

The same exact standards that apply to american and canadian trucks apply to mexican trucks. The same exact insurance that apply to american and canadian trucks apply to mexican trucks.

Ok but we all know how the Mexican government operates. Hell, they have one of the most corrupt governments on the planet.

It's not that there are no standards, that there are no assurances. Your argument is that it's ok for americans to operate under those standards, it's ok for canadians to operate under those standards, but that it's not ok for mexicans to operate under those standards. Because they're mexican.

Bull fucking shit. Prove that last statement.

Congratulations! You're a fucking racist.

Congratulations, you're fucking retarded.

The "people in charge" of making sure the trucks are up to par when they enter america are americans. The "people in charge" of assuring that a vehicle is safe on the road are the same people that are in charge of making sure YOUR vehicle is safe on the road.

Fearing that standards might not be upheld because a government is corrupt doesn't make you a racist. Fearing that the vehicles are unsafe because the drivers are mexican does.

I'm unsafe with many AMERICAN drivers out there, doesn't matter to me what nationality they are, many people driving ought not to be on the road and I don't have trust in our OWN driver program so I have even less trust in one from a country that is even MORE corrupt. My main question now is what does this favor out there. Does this favor the American citizen who is buying the products or does it favor the companies receiving the products? The company receiving the products many now only have to pay (arbitrary figure) $4.00 to receive the product versus $8.00. They always sold it as $20.00. They're NOT going to be selling it any cheaper now with this so who is benefiting? Our government should NOT be jeopardizing the sanctity of our borders or of our roads or of our lives to give companies a profit increase. They should not be putting the interests of a country that is heavily DEADSET against the way border issues have been handled aside for their own. One of the few things Americans agree on a whole is border security. Back a few months ago when Congress was trying to pass that extremely horrid immigration bill, polls (many of them not just one) put opinion ratings in the 80 to 90 percent margin for disagreement with the way it was being handled by both Congress and the President. For the first time in a long time, Americans actually agreed, largely on a whole, against something and yet they pushed the issue forward until finally it was a dead issue. Now they've revived it, just in another way. The interests of the few continue to shelve the interests of the many and that is a problem. This is just another example of the interests of America being put aside in a seemingly growing contest on which party can screw America the most. Democrats have traditionally led that race but it's rather even now or the Republicans have just taken a further step out in front.

I'm unsafe with many AMERICAN drivers out there, doesn't matter to me what nationality they are, many people driving ought not to be on the road and I don't have trust in our OWN driver program so I have even less trust in one from a country that is even MORE corrupt. My main question now is what does this favor out there. Does this favor the American citizen who is buying the products or does it favor the companies receiving the products? The company receiving the products many now only have to pay (arbitrary figure) $4.00 to receive the product versus $8.00. They always sold it as $20.00. They're NOT going to be selling it any cheaper now with this so who is benefiting? Our government should NOT be jeopardizing the sanctity of our borders or of our roads or of our lives to give companies a profit increase. They should not be putting the interests of a country that is heavily DEADSET against the way border issues have been handled aside for their own. One of the few things Americans agree on a whole is border security. Back a few months ago when Congress was trying to pass that extremely horrid immigration bill, polls (many of them not just one) put opinion ratings in the 80 to 90 percent margin for disagreement with the way it was being handled by both Congress and the President. For the first time in a long time, Americans actually agreed, largely on a whole, against something and yet they pushed the issue forward until finally it was a dead issue. Now they've revived it, just in another way. The interests of the few continue to shelve the interests of the many and that is a problem. This is just another example of the interests of America being put aside in a seemingly growing contest on which party can screw America the most. Democrats have traditionally led that race but it's rather even now or the Republicans have just taken a further step out in front.

Well said.

Halp! The Mexicans are coming, the Mexicans are coming! For every Mexican that's not simply shot on sight, that means an American Race Traitor is at work!

:rolleyes:

Then at least on a legal reason, we can agree, the ruling of the court was proper.

Now maybe, since you stated that the court's decision was a proper one, you can explain why you refered to it as "treachery"

I refer to the whole situation, bill and all as treachery. Despite it being a proper decision in concerns to legal matter and constitutionality I think that the court should have examined further aspects to it and also looked at a possible delay in the ruling. The 9th Circuit has had controversial rulings in the past, especially the pledge ruling (and no I'm not a Bible thumper but the majority of the country believes in God and because of one minority group, which was VERY small, the interests of the many were shelved for the interests of the VERY few). I don't put much favorableness into the rulings of the 9th Circuit because they seemingly always put America's interests aside for interests of a minority group, in the sense of size not race, this not being that particular instance. I would have liked to see the ruling gravitate towards the unions simply as a matter of protecting national interests, a loose term I agree but a reference.

Halp! The Mexicans are coming, the Mexicans are coming! For every Mexican that's not simply shot on sight, that means an American Race Traitor is at work!

Before we go further down the downward spiral of your idiocy, I'll ask my question yet again.

For what reason should the safety of these trucks be of concern to the 9th circuit?

Um because they are traveling in our country and unsafe trucks are a hazard to society?

Now you are dodging. What insurance will this ruling have that will prevent unsafe trucks from using I-76?


Before we go further down the downward spiral of your idiocy, I'll ask my question yet again.

This was a matter regarding a law passed by congress. The court had but two options. Uphold it, or overturn it. It upheld it. You disagree with that decision, so by necessity you must believe the court should have overturned it.

For the court to overturn a law, it must have a legal foundation to do so. What legal foundation existed in this case? What legal justification can there be for a court to overturn this law. Or, to put it simply, for what reason should the safety of these trucks be of concern to the 9th circuit?

Go on, tell me. By what legal justification could the court have overturned this law? Surely someone with a basic understanding of our legal system would understand that a court must have a valid legal reason to overturn a law.

So go ahead, what is it corny?

Before we go further down the downward spiral of your idiocy, I'll ask my question yet again.

For what reason should the safety of these trucks be of concern to the 9th circuit?

Well to go to him, their safety should be a concern because safety standards are a legal standard. Obviously a court can't factor in corruption to a ruling, that's trying to predict the future but the safety of these vehicles is the safety of us citizens. The courts protect us through matters of legal and constitutional matters and national safety, interests can fall under a constitutional category, albeit that's a far stretch I'll admit but not an entirely lacking one.

I refer to the whole situation, bill and all as treachery. Despite it being a proper decision in concerns to legal matter and constitutionality I think that the court should have examined further aspects to it and also looked at a possible delay in the ruling. The 9th Circuit has had controversial rulings in the past, especially the pledge ruling (and no I'm not a Bible thumper but the majority of the country believes in God and because of one minority group, which was VERY small, the interests of the many were shelved for the interests of the VERY few). I don't put much favorableness into the rulings of the 9th Circuit because they seemingly always put America's interests aside for interests of a minority group, in the sense of size not race, this not being that particular instance. I would have liked to see the ruling gravitate towards the unions simply as a matter of protecting national interests, a loose term I agree but a reference.

*nods in agreement*

Well treachery knows no bounds.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070901/us_nm/mexico_trucks_us_dc_1

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a glutton for destroying America has struck again and with much help from our so-called leaders. So who wants to take bets on how many more illegals (especially with criminal records) and drugs will come into America from this decision? It isn't enough that our borders are like sheets of paper already soaking wet, now there's this. [and this coming from a person who once voted Republican, albeit I'm not fan of the Democrats either since both parties seem hell bent on dismantling America, its Constitution, and putting its people out to pasture]

Eh.

Um because they are traveling in our country and unsafe trucks are a hazard to society?

and, once again, as a matter of law, when deciding the validity of this law, why should the 9th circuit care?

Well to go to him, their safety should be a concern because safety standards are a legal standard. Obviously a court can't factor in corruption to a ruling, that's trying to predict the future but the safety of these vehicles is the safety of us citizens. The courts protect us through matters of legal and constitutional matters and national safety, interests can fall under a constitutional category, albeit that's a far stretch I'll admit but not an entirely lacking one.

you're arguing that a court should overturn a law constitutionally passed, forget about deference to the legislature, ignore every precident on the matter because they think that maybe, possible, it might make the country somehow in some way maybe a bit less safe and place themselves as the final aribiter of national security?

Are you fucking shitting me?

That is beyond inane.

and, once again, as a matter of law, when deciding the validity of this law, why should the 9th circuit care?

Because the safety of Americans needs to be taken into account? I think Layarteb said it best:

Well to go to him, their safety should be a concern because safety standards are a legal standard. Obviously a court can't factor in corruption to a ruling, that's trying to predict the future but the safety of these vehicles is the safety of us citizens. The courts protect us through matters of legal and constitutional matters and national safety, interests can fall under a constitutional category, albeit that's a far stretch I'll admit but not an entirely lacking one.

And I agree with the sentiments.

Because the safety of Americans needs to be taken into account?

When determining whether a law is legal or not?

No, it should not. Safety of americans is the concern of the legislature, not the courts. The courts don't get to overturn a law because they don't like it.


I think Layarteb said it best:



And I agree with the sentiments.


And the fact that you would agree with that....nonsense enforces what I sad at the onsent of this thread. You don't have the most basic clue how the legal system of this country works.

The role of the courts in this country is to interpret what the law is. The role of the courts is not and never has been to decide what the law should be. And that's exactly what you're implying here. That the courts should decide that the law, legally passed, meeting constitutional requirements, shouldn't be valid.

Which is beyond stupid.

When determining whether a law is legal or not?

No, it should not. Safety of americans is the concern of the legislature, not the courts. The courts don't get to overturn a law because they don't like it.





And the fact that you would agree with that....nonsense enforces what I sad at the onsent of this thread. You don't have the most basic clue how the legal system of this country works.

And I do know the most basic clue how the legal system of this country works. I understand the ruling as it is ruled on law (another point that I agree with Layarteb on) but I believe in the full safety of the United States people and want assurances that unsafe trucks are not going to be cruising I-76.

you're arguing that a court should overturn a law constitutionally passed, forget about deference to the legislature, ignore every precident on the matter because they think that maybe, possible, it might make the country somehow in some way maybe a bit less safe and place themselves as the final aribiter of national security?

Are you fucking shitting me?

That is beyond inane.

Courts have overturned constitutionally passed laws in the past. Over the years many state supreme courts have upheld laws on the banning of abortion but courts have gone against said laws. In those cases, the rights of states were supplanted.

However, it is the duty of the courts to uphold law and the constitution and to balance and check both the executive and legislature branches. If said branches pass a bill that seeks to undermine the constitution and previously established laws then it is the duty of the courts to do the checks and balances that they were created for, among other things. This I see is a bill that undermines our borders, undermines our safety, undermines established statutes for regulation of the border and inspections of vehicles (many of which just don't happen), and does undermine national security. Despite any inspections they can do to the issue of safety they simply won't be able to inspect each and every truck and its full cargo. Drugs and illegals will get in through another avenue, as if there weren't enough already. Terrorism concerns are the least concerns in this issue as I just don't see an Al Qaeda cell coming in via truck from Mexico, they just fly in and walk through our front door, why bother with the back door, it's too much effort. Rather than a step TOWARDS border integrity, this is a step away from it, which is an issue of national security, which is a constitutional issue.

It's bad enough American truck companies have a habit of taking shortcuts with safety measures and encouraging their drivers to shave a bit off their mandatory rest periods so they can deliver sooner and make more money. Now throw in even more truckers from companies with just as much if not less scruples onto the American highway.

It's getting to the point where eventually you need something from Mad Max or Car Wars just to get to work in one piece.

Courts have overturned constitutionally passed laws in the past. Over the years many state supreme courts have upheld laws on the banning of abortion but courts have gone against said laws. In those cases, the rights of states were supplanted.

However, it is the duty of the courts to uphold law and the constitution and to balance and check both the executive and legislature branches. If said branches pass a bill that seeks to undermine the constitution and previously established laws then it is the duty of the courts to do the checks and balances that they were created for, among other things. This I see is a bill that undermines our borders, undermines our safety, undermines established statutes for regulation of the border and inspections of vehicles (many of which just don't happen), and does undermine national security. Despite any inspections they can do to the issue of safety they simply won't be able to inspect each and every truck and its full cargo. Drugs and illegals will get in through another avenue, as if there weren't enough already. Terrorism concerns are the least concerns in this issue as I just don't see an Al Qaeda cell coming in via truck from Mexico, they just fly in and walk through our front door, why bother with the back door, it's too much effort. Rather than a step TOWARDS border integrity, this is a step away from it, which is an issue of national security, which is a constitutional issue.

Well said Layarteb. Well said indeed.

And I do know the most basic clue how the legal system of this country works. I understand the ruling as it is ruled on law

OK then, please give me a yes, or a no.

Do you believe that this ruling by the 9th circuit was the correct one? Yes or no.

The role of the courts in this country is to interpret what the law is. The role of the courts is not and never has been to decide what the law should be. And that's exactly what you're implying here. That the courts should decide that the law, legally passed, meeting constitutional requirements, shouldn't be valid.

Which is beyond stupid.

Courts have, in many cases, struck down legally passed bills from Congress. The Supreme Court, our highest court of the land, has done it. Courts don't decide on every bill that is passed, they only deal with those that are challenged. There are many bills out there that can violate the constitution and are throughout the country and those are left alone and vice versa. The courts have actually given themselves power through judicial review, an aspect that was never originally intended for them but that John Jay set a precedent for way back when.

Thank you, you just made my point. We can't be sure that the person who inspected random mexican truck driver's truck did a fully competant job, and we can't be sure that the person who inspected YOUR car did a competant job. actually, here in Hawaii (dunno if it's the same in other areas of the US) you can. after all, if it's found that the car isn't safe, but was inspected and deemed safe, the sticker can be traced back to the inspection site. each set of stickers are registered and assigned to every safety inspection site.

The same standards that exist for one exist for the other. But gee, we don't see anyone here arguing about not letting YOU drive, do we? Or not letting canadian truck drivers, who again we don't know who did their inspections, drive. Can you provide proof of their standards? If you can't, then you can't say that. for all you know, Mexico's safety standard could be "as long as it doesn't burst into flames 10 minutes after starting the car...". heck, that is assuming that they do have yearly safety checks for their vehicles...

OK then, please give me a yes, or a no.

Do you believe that this ruling by the 9th circuit was the correct one? Yes or no.

I am not going to play this game. If I say yes, you will label me as a hypocrit. If I say no, you will insult my intelligence. Nice try Neo Art! I am not going to play this game.

And in those instances the courts were wrong

What's your point? Generally "hey, well, they fucked up in the past, we should let them fuck up this time" is not a good argument.

I merely pointing out to you that the absolute statements you present are, in fact, not absolute.

Courts have overturned constitutionally passed laws in the past. Over the years many state supreme courts have upheld laws on the banning of abortion

And in those instances the courts were wrong

What's your point? Generally "hey, well, they fucked up in the past, we should let them fuck up this time" is not a good argument.

Can you provide proof of their standards? If you can't, then you can't say that. for all you know, Mexico's safety standard could be "as long as it doesn't burst into flames 10 minutes after starting the car...". heck, that is assuming that they do have yearly safety checks for their vehicles...

I've asked for proof. He has not given it yet.

Can you provide proof of their standards? If you can't, then you can't say that. for all you know, Mexico's safety standard could be "as long as it doesn't burst into flames 10 minutes after starting the car...". heck, that is assuming that they do have yearly safety checks for their vehicles...

And yet as pointed out earlier in this thread it doesn't matter what mexico's safety standards are since, as it has already been pointed out here, trucks entering the US are required to meet AMERICAN safety standards

And yet as pointed out earlier in this thread it doesn't matter what mexico's safety standards are since, as it has already been pointed out here, trucks entering the US are required to meet AMERICAN safety standards

And can you prove that the trucks that are going to travel the interests are going to meet those standards.

And yet as pointed out earlier in this thread it doesn't matter what mexico's safety standards are since, as it has already been pointed out here, trucks entering the US are required to meet AMERICAN safety standards

American truck drivers still cause accidents despite those AMERICAN safety standards.

The FDA approved Vioxx for sale.

It's kinda like Iraq. Physician, Heal Thyself and get our own houses in order before we start handling things with other countries. We don't need the additional workload to check to see if Mexico's truckers are following the same standards quite a few Americans as it is aren't even up to par on.

Courts have, in many cases, struck down legally passed bills from Congress.

sure they have, however you will note that I did not say "legally passed laws" I said "legally passed laws meeting constitutional requirements".

That's a really big difference. A law may meet all procedural requirements, but if it's unconstitutional it's still void.

Sure, SCOTUS has struck down many laws passed with procedural validity. Because they were unconstitutional.

Please point out to me the relevant part of the constitution that this law invalidates.

The courts have actually given themselves power through judicial review, an aspect that was never originally intended for them but that John Jay set a precedent for way back when.

OH please, the foundation of marbury v. madison was firmly entrenched in the federalist papers. And in fact, judicial review was more a matter for marshall, not jay.

And can you prove that the trucks that are going to travel the interests are going to meet those standards.

can you prove that american trucks that are going to travel are going to meet those standards?

can you prove that american trucks that are going to travel are going to meet those standards?

Can you prove that canadian trucks that are traveling our highways meet those standards?

sure they have, however you will note that I did not say "legally passed laws" I said "legally passed laws meeting constitutional requirements".

That's a really big difference. A law may meet all procedural requirements, but if it's unconstitutional it's still void.

Sure, SCOTUS has struck down many laws passed with procedural validity. Because they were unconstitutional.

Please point out to me the relevant part of the constitution that this law invalidates.



OH please, the foundation of marbury v. madison was firmly entrenched in the federalist papers. And in fact, judicial review was more a matter for marshall, not jay.

I told you before I'm more opposed to the bill itself not the ruling as I told you before that the ruling does fit within the parameters of constitutional review and legality. I'm merely telling you that these statements you make about the courts never doing this or that are wrong. The Pledge of Allegiance decision was and remains a constitutionally valid law. Saying "under God" does not violate separation of church and state because if it did, it would have never gotten passed in the first place. That is an instance right there of a legally passed law meeting constitutional requirements that was struck down by a court, this same court in fact.

I am not going to play this game. If I say yes, you will label me as a hypocrit. If I say no, you will insult my intelligence. Nice try Neo Art! I am not going to play this game.

exactly. If you say yes you're a hyporic and if you say no then your intelligence is called into question. You got that exactly right.

The only problem is, you put yourself in that position. You once again don't have a clue. You once again talk about topics you know nothing about. You once again made claims that you lacked the knowledge to substantiate.

And once again, you got pinned into a corner where you try desperatly to pretend that "no no, I know what I meant, I didn't REALLY say that, you're twisting my words, that's not what I meant, you know that's not what I meant, I'm not playing your game anymore, I swear I'm not Lancaster County!"

But go ahead, pretend that people still believe you. Pretend that you really know what you're talking about. Pretend that your blatant ignorance isn't apparent to everyone here. Pretend that you didn't just get caught in your own idiocy and are not trying to desperatly weasle out of it it.

That's ok, keep pretending. You're not fooling anyone.

can I prove that ANY of them meet those standards? of course I can't. But unlike you, I recognize that I can't prove any of them are really meeting those standards, but don't have the racist hypocracy to try and stop only the mexicans.

I love how you throw that word racist around because I disapprove of this ruling. please prove that I am racist. You have yet to do so.

And yet as pointed out earlier in this thread it doesn't matter what mexico's safety standards are since, as it has already been pointed out here, trucks entering the US are required to meet AMERICAN safety standards

which bring up this point. WHERE are these trucks doing their inspections? Mexico or the US.

if it's in Mexico, then I question the inspector's interpretation of the US safety standards. if they see it as being "overly excessive" they may say "Eh, good enough." (as many people here post that they would gladly break laws they themselves deem unlawful).

if it's here in the US, fine.

if the safety sticker can be traced back to the inspector/inspection site should anything be wrong, then even better.

Can you prove that canadian trucks that are traveling our highways meet those standards?

can I prove that ANY of them meet those standards? of course I can't. But unlike you, I recognize that I can't prove any of them are really meeting those standards, but don't have the racist hypocracy to try and stop only the mexicans.

That's an interesting question, and I have no idea. And it appears nor does anyone else here. I, however, don't use my ignorance as an excuse to rail against those dirty mexicans as some others do.

I'm not railing against anyone. You stated it yourself that you do not know where these inspections are taking place. That is a big question mark and until I know who is doing these inspections, I oppose the law.

which bring up this point. WHERE are these trucks doing their inspections? Mexico or the US.

That's an interesting question, and I have no idea. And it appears nor does anyone else here. I, however, don't use my ignorance as an excuse to rail against those dirty mexicans as some others do.

to clarify my posistion.

I have no real problems with this. only that it will undermine efforts to control illegal trafficing between the borders.

Will every truck be carefully inspected for illegals (persons as well as things) from both entering and leaving the country?

That's my only concern.

My quess is no.

to clarify my posistion.

I have no real problems with this. only that it will undermine efforts to control illegal trafficing between the borders.

Will every truck be carefully inspected for illegals (persons as well as things) from both entering and leaving the country?

That's my only concern.

What I do know is that U.S. inspectors are doing the inspections. Where they are being done, I do not know. I would imagine that they would be done here in the US, perhaps allowing trucks to come to this specially designated area for the inspection and then if they pass they can go further. That would seemingly be a possibility to me.

My concern is like that of JuNii. Illegal immigration is an issue already. We cannot screen more than I think 10 - 20% of the containers coming into our ports and our ports are better manned that our southern border. Now that companies shipping across the Pacific don't have to go to the west coast, they can bypass a LOT of inspections there and go through Mexico and come up to the US, where they're already undermanned. I doubt they'll be able to inspect at least 10% of the vehicles to any degree except opening the back doors and opening a crate or two, if even that much.

Saying "under God" does not violate separation of church and state because if it did, it would have never gotten passed in the first place.

What the fuck? How the hell do you figure that nonsense out? It's constitutional because if it wasn't then it wouldn't have been passed? The law is legal because if it wasn't legal it would have never been passed into law...

Seriously, what warped version of logic did you use to come up with that gem? I don't even understand how a reasonably intelligent person could even make that claim.

How the HELL do you figure that an unconstitutional law would not be passed, so by the mere fact that a law was passed it is constitutional. Where did you get that from?

And yes, of course, when I say "a court can't do X" then yeah, you can find examples of when a court did, in fact, do X. Wrongly I might note. Yes, courts do make mistakes and do things they shouldn't. However what I say a court can not do, is perhaps better phrased as what a court SHOULD NOT do. And to advocate that this court overturn this law is to advocate that a court do what it should not do.

That is a big question mark and until I know who is doing these inspections, I oppose the law.

so you oppose a law out of your own ignorance. Well, most people wouldn't admit that they make their arguments out of ignorance, but I'm not surprised that it's coming from you.

I love how you throw that word racist around because I disapprove of this ruling. please prove that I am racist. You have yet to do so.

you disapprove of mexican trucks in the US because the inspection wasn't done in the US and you don't know how well mexico will adhere to those standards.

Do you disapprove of canadian trucks for the same reasons? No? Just the mexican ones?

So Canada good, mexico bad. Gee, let's think about what that makes you.

That's an interesting question, and I have no idea. And it appears nor does anyone else here. I, however, don't use my ignorance as an excuse to rail against those dirty mexicans as some others do.

but to assume that the trucks will meet those standards without knowing is also arguing from ignorance.

to just assume that those arguing against is racists is rather... presumptuous.

so you oppose a law out of your own ignorance. Well, most people wouldn't admit that they make their arguments out of ignorance, but I'm not surprised that it's coming from you.

Out of ignorance? You think worrying about the lives of Americans is doing things out of ignorance? :headbang:

excuse me for worrying about Unsafe Mexican Trucking.

What the fuck? How the hell do you figure that nonsense out? It's constitutional because if it wasn't then it wouldn't have been passed? The law is legal because if it wasn't legal it would have never been passed into law...

Seriously, what warped version of logic did you use to come up with that gem? I don't even understand how a reasonably intelligent person could even make that claim.

How the HELL do you figure that an unconstitutional law would not be passed, so by the mere fact that a law was passed it is constitutional. Where did you get that from?

And yes, of course, when I say "a court can't do X" then yeah, you can find examples of when a court did, in fact, do X. Wrongly I might note. Yes, courts do make mistakes and do things they shouldn't. However what I say a court can not do, is perhaps better phrased as what a court SHOULD NOT do. And to advocate that this court overturn this law is to advocate that a court do what it should not do.

Simply to that issue was because of its notoriety. In that one instance, the ruling was such a big issue that no doubt every district court and appeals court saw the same issue on their own docket and it didn't get banned elsewhere. That and because it just don't violate the constitution.

You accused Corneliu of twisting your words around but you're doing it here as well. You are simply looking at one sentence or paragraph and only at face value, not the underlying matters to the statements and further posting absolute statements to which you just ignore everything said against them yourself using whatever logic you have yourself.

to just assume that those arguing against is racists is rather... presumptuous.

When those talk about not letting those mexican trucks in, yet seem to not be concerned with the canadian trucks that will ALSO be let it, there seems to be one pressing conclusion to be drawn.

excuse me for worrying about Unsafe Mexican Trucking.

And you wonder why I call you a racist.

When those talk about not letting those mexican trucks in, yet seem to not be concerned with the canadian trucks that will ALSO be let it, there seems to be one pressing conclusion to be drawn.

Illegal immigration through Canada is indeed a problem but the sheer number of illegals coming through US-Mexico border is significantly higher. I am sure JuNii has a concern with any foreign truck that comes into our country and doesn't pass safety standards as any domestic truck doing the same and I would agree with that wholeheartedly. It doesn't matter where they come from, if they are unsafe, we're all unsafe. However, the political climate to our south is polar opposite to that from our north.

you disapprove of mexican trucks in the US because the inspection wasn't done in the US and you don't know how well mexico will adhere to those standards.

Nice mischaracterization. Something I expect for a piece of shit like you. First of all, I do not care if Mexican trucks are crossing our border. I read the stats. I know there are safe trucks and I would not mind having them traveling our interest highways. Its the accountability of making sure that UNSAFE trucks that I am questioning and worrying about and that is why I object to this law.

Point 1 refuted.

Do you disapprove of canadian trucks for the same reasons? No? Just the mexican ones?

Just unsafe mexican ones

point 2 refuted.

So Canada good, mexico bad. Gee, let's think about what that makes you.

Point 3 was refuted by point 1

Try again asshat.

you disapprove of mexican trucks in the US because the inspection wasn't done in the US and you don't know how well mexico will adhere to those standards.

Do you disapprove of canadian trucks for the same reasons? No? Just the mexican ones?

So Canada good, mexico bad. Gee, let's think about what that makes you.

My objection is that if American trucks and truck drivers can slip through the cracks and end up killing lots of people in horrific and spectacular wrecks, then adding more truckers from a country not exactly famous for honesty and respectability is going to add even more burden to the system, which will lead to more horrific and spectacular wrecks that kill people.

a possiblitiy, but impractical as it would create a bottleneck for the first couple of months.
Having the inspectors in Mexico may be a solution. but there are ways to transfer the sticker onto trucks if the effort wants to be taken. (removing the bumper and placing it on another truck for example.) thus the inspector can pass 20 trucks over several days, but in actuality, he would've only seen 5 trucks.

yeah, that's my devious mind at work... so go ahead and read it like a mystery fiction. :p

BINGO! Volume is the issue. You have hit that nail right on the head. We simply don't have the manpower to uphold any regulations set and enforce them as we do not have the manpower to enforce already established statutes and regulations.

but to assume that the trucks will meet those standards without knowing is also arguing from ignorance.

Amen.

to just assume that those arguing against is racists is rather... presumptuous.

And stupid. And here I thought the lawyer would know better. I guess not.

What I do know is that U.S. inspectors are doing the inspections. Where they are being done, I do not know. I would imagine that they would be done here in the US, perhaps allowing trucks to come to this specially designated area for the inspection and then if they pass they can go further. That would seemingly be a possibility to me. a possiblitiy, but impractical as it would create a bottleneck for the first couple of months.
Having the inspectors in Mexico may be a solution. but there are ways to transfer the sticker onto trucks if the effort wants to be taken. (removing the bumper and placing it on another truck for example.) thus the inspector can pass 20 trucks over several days, but in actuality, he would've only seen 5 trucks.

yeah, that's my devious mind at work... so go ahead and read it like a mystery fiction. :p

When those talk about not letting those mexican trucks in, yet seem to not be concerned with the canadian trucks that will ALSO be let it, there seems to be one pressing conclusion to be drawn.
well, the law is specifically aimed at Mexican trucks... is it not?

And you wonder why I call you a racist.

I see you forgot the word UNSAFE? Yep. I see you have the inability to fucking read fool.

Simply to that issue was because of its notoriety. In that one instance, the ruling was such a big issue that no doubt every district court and appeals court saw the same issue on their own docket and it didn't get banned elsewhere.

If the question of whether "under god" was dealt with by other courts, surely you can find me a citation right?

If there's no doubt that all those district courts and appeals courts dealt with the issue, if there are all these court decisions out there saying that under god is not constitutional, you should have absolutly no problem finding them, right?

So please, by all means, find them for me. Go ahead and find the opinions of all these district courts and appeals courts that no doubt ruled on this issue. Give me a few citations.



You accused Corneliu of twisting your words around but you're doing it here as well. You are simply looking at one sentence or paragraph and only at face value

By taking words at their face value I am twisting them? Here's a thought. If you want me to understand what you mean, and not what you say, I would suggest that you take extra special effort to say what you mean, and not somehow expect me to magically read your mind to figure out what you really meant, because you are either incapable or could not be bothered to adequately articulate your ideas.

When those talk about not letting those mexican trucks in, yet seem to not be concerned with the canadian trucks that will ALSO be let it, there seems to be one pressing conclusion to be drawn.

This thread is also about mexico and not canada. If this was about Canada, I would say the same thing about unsafe Canadian trucks. however this is about mexico and therefor, I am talking about Unsafe mexican trucks. Please try to keep that in mind when arguing.

Just unsafe mexican ones

So yeah, you don't care about the unsafe canadian trucks then? Again, you wonder why I call you a racist.

well, the law is specifically aimed at Mexican trucks... is it not?

NAFTA covers both actually.

Illegal immigration through Canada is indeed a problem but the sheer number of illegals coming through US-Mexico border is significantly higher. I am sure JuNii has a concern with any foreign truck that comes into our country and doesn't pass safety standards as any domestic truck doing the same and I would agree with that wholeheartedly. It doesn't matter where they come from, if they are unsafe, we're all unsafe. However, the political climate to our south is polar opposite to that from our north.

Well said.

to clarify my posistion.

I have no real problems with this. only that it will undermine efforts to control illegal trafficing between the borders.

Will every truck be carefully inspected for illegals (persons as well as things) from both entering and leaving the country?

That's my only concern.

this ruling is NOT an issue of national security, drug running, illegal aliens or any other issue involving crossing the border.

the trucks ALREADY cross the border. they are inspected by us customs.

this will not change.

no more trucks will come into the country than come into the country now.

the only difference is that now trucks come into the country, go to a truck depot and the cargo is transferred to US trucks. under this ruling the cargo will remain on the mexican trucks (that have to meet US standards) and the mexican truck will deliver them to their final destination.

there are no extra national security or crime issues involved. all the changes to current procedures take place on THIS SIDE OF THE BORDER.

well, the law is specifically aimed at Mexican trucks... is it not?

Yep it is. And why I keep focusing on mexican trucks and not canadian, german, british, etc trucks.

If the question of whether "under god" was dealt with by other courts, surely you can find me a citation right?

If there's no doubt that all those district courts and appeals courts dealt with the issue, if there are all these court decisions out there saying that under god is not constitutional, you should have absolutly no problem finding them, right?

So please, by all means, find them for me. Go ahead and find the opinions of all these district courts and appeals courts that no doubt ruled on this issue. Give me a few citations.

By taking words at their face value I am twisting them? Here's a thought. If you want me to understand what you mean, and not what you say, I would suggest that you take extra special effort to say what you mean, and not somehow expect me to magically read your mind to figure out what you really meant, because you are either incapable or could not be bothered to adequately articulate your ideas.

So I should dumb down my words simply because you cannot dig deep and decipher, we've been doing it the whole time with your words? Many of these rulings I doubt ever got heard but since I don't have access to JSTOR anymore or Lexus-Nexus I can't spend hours upon hours trying to find you sources (and for citations concerning legal matters Google-News will give you 1 proper result for every 10,000 false ones). I do have things to do, which certainly gives you the edge there because of the whole burden of proof argument but I don't need to find citations to show that our courts have never dismissed a constitutionally valid law simply because of the laws of probability and knowledge of how the US system works at all levels. How about you sift through every court case and show me each and every one of them? There's got to be hundreds of thousands, hell millions of them, millions of them. It is simply inconceivable to search through them without the proper tools, time, or eyes. Sure you'll say this is a cop out to avoid going through it but it is simply a statement on the reality of the matter and the task. If you show me every case that ever existed and show me that each one of them that struck down a law struck it down because it was constitutionally invalid I'll search through them and find laws that were struck down and were constitutionally valid. I'll challenge you to the same thing since as my claim is placed so too has been yours.

So yeah, you don't care about the unsafe canadian trucks then? Again, you wonder why I call you a racist.

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT MEXICAN TRUCKS YOU FUCKING RETARD

this ruling is NOT an issue of national security, drug running, illegal aliens or any other issue involving crossing the border.

the trucks ALREADY cross the border. they are inspected by us customs.

this will not change.

no more trucks will come into the country than come into the country now.

the only difference is that now trucks come into the country, go to a truck depot and the cargo is transferred to US trucks. under this ruling the cargo will remain on the mexican trucks (that have to meet US standards) and the mexican truck will deliver them to their final destination.

there are no extra national security or crime issues involved. all the changes to current procedures take place on THIS SIDE OF THE BORDER.

I simply cannot see how volume will not increase? By the simple laws of mathematics if companies can receive products this way and it is cheaper to do so and their profit goes up, how too will the volume not increase if it is available quicker?

there are no extra national security or crime issues involved. all the changes to current procedures take place on THIS SIDE OF THE BORDER.

shhh, don't let facts get in the way of national security! Them filthy mexicans are taking our jobs!

THIS THREAD IS ABOUT MEXICAN TRUCKS YOU FUCKING RETARD

Easy now, no need to flame.

Easy now, no need to flame.

He keeps harping on the fact that I am focused on mexican trucks and calls me a racist for it forgetting that this whole thing is about Mexico and not any other god forsaken nation.

shhh, don't let facts get in the way of national security! Them filthy mexicans are taking our jobs!

I agree with your sarcasm. I don't see this measure as a measure that will put the US trucking industry in the hole.

shhh, don't let facts get in the way of national security! Them filthy mexicans are taking our jobs!

actually the only REAL issue with this program is that mexican truck drivers WILL take american jobs. or eliminate the need for certain truck driving jobs.

now the mexican trucks stop in depots in cities like el paso, drop their cargo (or maybe the whole trailers, i wouldnt know) and go home. then american truck drivers driving american trucks finish the job.

under this program there would be no transfer of cargo, the mexican truck drivers would take their load to whoever ordered it.

if i worked in one of those trucking depots, id be looking at losing my job.

Many of these rulings I doubt ever got heard but since I don't have access to JSTOR anymore or Lexus-Nexus I can't spend hours upon hours trying to find you sources (and for citations concerning legal matters Google-News will give you 1 proper result for every 10,000 false ones).

So...you can't back up your argument then? You have absolutly no facts to back up your assertions? You can't even demonstrate it to be even the slightest bit valid?

OK, since we've established that you can't be bothered to ensure that you can validate your claims, I have no further interest in listening to you, it's not worth my time.

If you show me every case that ever existed and show me that each one of them that struck down a law struck it down because it was constitutionally invalid I'll search through them and find laws that were struck down and were constitutionally valid.

Wow, you mean that judges, being human beings, occassionally make mistakes? Oh my fucking god, I can't believe it! You sir have shattered my worldview. How can I ever return to my life now that you have shown me the truth, that people make mistakes?

So...you can't back up your argument then? You have absolutly no facts to back up your assertions? You can't even demonstrate it to be even the slightest bit valid?

OK, since we've established that you can't be bothered to ensure that you can validate your claims, I have no further interest in listening to you, it's not worth my time.

Wow, you mean that judges, being human beings, occassionally make mistakes? Oh my fucking god, I can't believe it! You sir have shattered my worldview. How can I ever return to my life now that you have shown me the truth, that people make mistakes?

And you too have no facts to back up your own arguments so I guess we're even there. Am I to just accept what you say as truth without any valid backing. I am not a lawyer but the term heresay does ring a bell.

Yep it is.

Except that this is a NAFTA situation and, had you read the op, you would have noticed this little bit:

Trucks from Canada have no operating restrictions in the United States.

So that this law brings mexican trucks to the state that canadian trucks already WERE at. This is about a regulation under NAFTA, and yet you have argued your objections to it, yet not the same overarching regulation that does the same thing for canadian trucks. And trying to obscure the issue by arguing "OMG it's about mexican trucks not canadian one!" when the underlying regulation is a NAFTA regulation just is another poor attempt by you to hide the fact that you really are bothered by the mexican part of this more than anything else.

*snip*

I see you are ignoring statements. I will spell it out for you:

1) I have ZERO PROBLEMS with Mexican trucks on our interestate. I have a problem with unsafe trucks on our interstate.

2) I have ZERO PROBLEMS with Canadian trucks on our interestate. I have a problem with unsafe trucks on our interstate.

3) I have problems with unsafe American trucks on our interstates as well.

Now what part of this process is escaping that pea-sized brain of yours?

I am not a lawyer but the term heresay does ring a bell.

It's obvious your not, because hearsay (not heresay) has to do with making statements under oath regarding statements made by other people not under oath.


So it's pretty obvious you're not a lawyer, since hearsay has nothing really to do with this.

Unless "heresay" is some new fangled term I haven't heard of.

Now as to my actual argument it is what it always has been. The 9th circuit has no legal justification for overturning this law, ergo their decision was the proper legal decision. And since I can not prove a negative, I am unsure what kind of argument you expect from me. There is no constitutional provision that this law violates. If we don't like the law, tough shit, take it up with the legislature. The court's decision was proper.

It's obvious your not, because hearsay (not heresay) has to do with making statements under oath regarding statements made by other people not under oath.


So it's pretty obvious you're not a lawyer, since hearsay has nothing really to do with this.

Unless "heresay" is some new fangled term I haven't heard of.

Now as to my actual argument it is what it always has been. The 9th circuit has no legal justification for overturning this law, ergo their decision was the proper legal decision. And since I can not prove a negative, I am unsure what kind of argument you expect from me. There is no constitutional provision that this law violates. If we don't like the law, tough shit, take it up with the legislature. The court's decision was proper.

He's either talking about hearsay or heresy.

*snip*

Its been explained. You just choose to ignore it because it does not fit your opinion on the issue.

thank you captain obvious. Now go, your work here is done! Dan Quayle needs to be informed that there is no "e" in potato post haste!

um.... ok? :confused:

I see you are ignoring statements. I will spell it out for you:

1) I have ZERO PROBLEMS with Mexican trucks on our interestate. I have a problem with unsafe trucks on our interstate.

2) I have ZERO PROBLEMS with Canadian trucks on our interestate. I have a problem with unsafe trucks on our interstate.

3) I have problems with unsafe American trucks on our interstates as well.

Now what part of this process is escaping that pea-sized brain of yours?

well maybe you can explain something to my "pea-sized brain" if you please:

I suggest you read up on the concerns about their trucks.

Whose trucks were you talking about here?

And:

As to this ruling, :headbang:

What was that :headbang: for when refering to this ruling?

Because it seems to my pea-sized brain you were talking about MEXICAN trucks specifically there, and you seemed to have some problems with that ruling, care to explain what legal reasons there were for that?

You know, for the benefit of my teeny tiny brain, I'm sure you can explain what legal problems you had with this ruling.

I see you are ignoring statements. I will spell it out for you:

1) I have ZERO PROBLEMS with Mexican trucks on our interestate. I have a problem with unsafe trucks on our interstate.

2) I have ZERO PROBLEMS with Canadian trucks on our interestate. I have a problem with unsafe trucks on our interstate.

3) I have problems with unsafe American trucks on our interstates as well.

Now what part of this process is escaping that pea-sized brain of yours?

anyone would be concerned about truck safety

thats why its a one year pilot program. at the end of the year they can evaluate the problems and figure out what needs to be done about them.

He's either talking about hearsay or heresy.

thank you captain obvious. Now go, your work here is done! Dan Quayle needs to be informed that there is no "e" in potato post haste!

It's obvious your not, because hearsay (not heresay) has to do with making statements under oath regarding statements made by other people not under oath.


So it's pretty obvious you're not a lawyer, since hearsay has nothing really to do with this.

Unless "heresay" is some new fangled term I haven't heard of.

Now as to my actual argument it is what it always has been. The 9th circuit has no legal justification for overturning this law, ergo their decision was the proper legal decision. And since I can not prove a negative, I am unsure what kind of argument you expect from me. There is no constitutional provision that this law violates. If we don't like the law, tough shit, take it up with the legislature. The court's decision was proper.

Yes that's part of it but I am also am under the impression that heresay also has to do with statements that cannot be cross examined. So you are asking me for my citations to examine mine and I ask you for yours to examine yours. Because of the logistical disaster it would take to do either of these, they, in our instance, cannot be cross examined, hence my gravitation to the principle of heresay.

anyone would be concerned about truck safety

thats why its a one year pilot program. at the end of the year they can evaluate the problems and figure out what needs to be done about them.

Perhaps the only part about this whole situation that gives some hope is the one year time limit. I just hope that the investigation and "watching" methods during that one year isn't corrupted and a fair analysis comes out of it in the end based on the actual happenings. I personally think it will be a disaster but I won't negate the possibility of it going the opposite although I think probability suggests otherwise.

Yes that's part of it but I am also am under the impression that heresay also has to do with statements that cannot be cross examined. So you are asking me for my citations to examine mine and I ask you for yours to examine yours. Because of the logistical disaster it would take to do either of these, they, in our instance, cannot be cross examined, hence my gravitation to the principle of heresay.

It is spelled H-e-a-r-s-a-y

thank you captain obvious. Now go, your work here is done! Dan Quayle needs to be informed that there is no "e" in potato post haste!

I did tell him that flamming is unnecessary and you have done a lot of it and baiting too. For someone who denounces every argument against his as illogical and lacking in intelligence, you sure use a lot of non-intelligent methods.

It is spelled H-e-a-r-s-a-y

Do you feel better now? We use periods at the end of sentences too.

Hopefully this makes some people realise that free trade without deeper institutional cooperation is a lot of hassle.

Because the easiest way to solve this would be to sit down with other NAFTA governments and work out a common truck safety legislation which brings every truck in the NAFTA zone up to standard. Better for Mexican roads, too.

Forward thinking is seemingly always lacking nowadays.

Hopefully this makes some people realise that free trade without deeper institutional cooperation is a lot of hassle.

Because the easiest way to solve this would be to sit down with other NAFTA governments and work out a common truck safety legislation which brings every truck in the NAFTA zone up to standard. Better for Mexican roads, too.

Hopefully this makes some people realise that free trade without deeper institutional cooperation is a lot of hassle.

Because the easiest way to solve this would be to sit down with other NAFTA governments and work out a common truck safety legislation which brings every truck in the NAFTA zone up to standard. Better for Mexican roads, too.

That is a terrific idea :)

Hopefully this makes some people realise that free trade without deeper institutional cooperation is a lot of hassle.

Because the easiest way to solve this would be to sit down with other NAFTA governments and work out a common truck safety legislation which brings every truck in the NAFTA zone up to standard. Better for Mexican roads, too.

Unfortunately, good ideas only take hold after decades of bad ideas have already failed.

Unfortunately, good ideas only take hold after decades of bad ideas have already failed.

Sometimes... :)

I suggest you read up on the concerns about their trucks.

What, brown people are driving them?

What, brown people are driving them?

Not another fucking idiot :headbang:

What, brown people are driving them?

Only the low riders with 18 people in the bed and "spinner" rims.

This is ridiculous. Getting all anxious over transcontinental freight because you are worried about some mexican drivers breaking the law. Forgetting that the economic benefits of such activity would massively outweigh the anecdotal few cases of detriment, there is one huge conceptual fallacy in such a position. It is not the place of the legislature to uphold the law, that is the role of the judiciary. It is foolish to cite incidence of infringement upon a potential act of parliment as cause to block said act.

The whole point of the law is that it will be followed, should it be broken, it will be dealt with appropriately by our large and functioning justice system. Citing that allowing mexican freight is a bad idea because of all of the potential infringements upon justice and social well being is not a valid opposition to the idea- as we already have systems in place to deal with such concerns.

This is ridiculous. Getting all anxious over transcontinental freight because you are worried about some mexican drivers breaking the law.

*begins slamming face into keyboard*

*begins slamming face into keyboard*

*takes keyboard away*

Now now. Its not nice to do that to your own keyboard.

The weasels have been sent...
Hey!
http://www.mtnvet.com/images/ferrets.gif
http://photos10.flickr.com/16346725_7011de3812_b.jpg

*takes keyboard away*

Now now. Its not nice to do that to your own keyboard.

Yeah! Let Zilam do that, with his patented jumping-jack technique!
*inquire per TG for more information*

*begins slamming face into keyboard*

Slam away, it is the highway patrol's job to ensure that the international freight carriers obey local regulations, not the legislators'.

Well anyway, it's clear to me that if this were just a thread about truck safety standards, it would be about truck safety standards. But since it's about trucks coming in from Mexico, it's about "A Secure America."

Well anyway, it's clear to me that if this were just a thread about truck safety standards, it would be about truck safety standards. But since it's about trucks coming in from Mexico, it's about "A Secure America."

To me anyways race is irrelevant. It's about trucks coming from a country that has an international reputation for corruption and known to have an active insurgency going about that concerns me. If that was Canada instead of Mexico, I'd be worrying about Canadian trucks.

To me anyways race is irrelevant. It's about trucks coming from a country that has an international reputation for corruption and known to have an active insurgency going about that concerns me. If that was Canada instead of Mexico, I'd be worrying about Canadian trucks. So you police them keenly. The economic benefits clearly outweigh the detriment of having to carefully monitor trucks laden with cash.

I really can't see the problem with this. First off, most illegal aliens (not the grays or the greens or the giant mantis space monsters:D) get a visa and go north to disapear, they don't just hop the fence where there is one. Second, those sheet metal fences can be breached in 3 different ways in 2 minutes flat, they even demonstrated this on Showtime so there is really very little short of a 20 ft. tall concrete and razor wire wall that will keep people from just walking through. Third, the war on drugs is a dismal failure and something like a $20 billion waste of cash. Forth, the first painkillers were opium and cocaine and today the most powerful painkillers are derived from those drugs and pot is great at keeping chemo patients from spewing their intestines all over th floor so there is real money; legal, legitimate money in most illegal drugs. Fifth, what's wrong with international trade? I thought it strengthened relations and provided a cheap alternative to domestic products.

Yes drugs can really screw you up, but is locking someone in prison for making a self-destructive choice really going to help them? And not every addict is going to end up a stoned loser on the couch. Iron Butterfly, Ted Kennedy, Rush Limbaugh, Keith Richards, George Bush, and just about every Hollywood celebrity and many more have all abused drugs at some time in their life; everything from alcohol to coke.

Wouldn't it simply be better to allow anyone to come and go as they please? I wouldn't object to forcing everyone to go through security checkpoints but the current systems of both border policy and drug policy are broken. When you criminalize things that aren't real crimes you still create real criminals.

First of all, I'm against this. That being said, I think they should restrict the Canadian border as well. It's been a major security hazard for far too long. Do you have any idea how many drugs come across the Canadian border every day?

ANd need I point out that all 19 known 9/11 terrorists entered the US from Canada?

We need a wall up there. :mad:We don't need no stinking trucks to get drugs into your country. We are creative.

so there is really very little short of a 20 ft. tall concrete and razor wire wall that will keep people from just walking through.

In Soviet Russia wall keeps you in.

In Soviet Russia wall keeps you in.

Um, that was East Germany.

:D

*begins slamming face into keyboard**takes pic of Luporum's Keyboard Face* :p

NAFTA covers both actually.and this ruling is NAFTA or a US Legislated Law?

this ruling is NOT an issue of national security, drug running, illegal aliens or any other issue involving crossing the border.

the trucks ALREADY cross the border. they are inspected by us customs.

this will not change.

no more trucks will come into the country than come into the country now.

the only difference is that now trucks come into the country, go to a truck depot and the cargo is transferred to US trucks. under this ruling the cargo will remain on the mexican trucks (that have to meet US standards) and the mexican truck will deliver them to their final destination.

there are no extra national security or crime issues involved. all the changes to current procedures take place on THIS SIDE OF THE BORDER.and you don't see a potential security problem with that?

Under the old procedure there are actually TWO areas where contraband can be detected possibly three. Under the new ruling only one, maybe two. Before, these trucks go to a set point, the Depot and under the new ruling, they can now go anywhere they desire. even being "lost".

Also, how can you insure that "no more trucks will come into the country than come into the country now" when you just said that under new ruling the trucks will not be going to a depot, but now taking a longer trip directly to the final delivery destination. that means longer trips for the trucks, and thus more trucks needed to move the same amount of frieght. (if a truck can make two trips to the depot in one day, they would now be making one delivery trip since now the trip is now longer. so to move the same amount of frieght, two trucks will be needed where one was sufficent.)

The new ruling is effective for freight handling, I never said that the new ruling was totally bad. It removes an area where goods can be contaminated, lost, damaged, or even stolen. but you can't say that it doesn't compromise security.

and this ruling is NAFTA or a US Legislated Law?

According to all that I am seeing, the ruling is about Legislated Law and not NAFTA.

*takes pic of Luporum's Keyboard Face* :p

and this ruling is NAFTA or a US Legislated Law?

and you don't see a potential security problem with that?

Under the old procedure there are actually TWO areas where contraband can be detected possibly three. Under the new ruling only one, maybe two. Before, these trucks go to a set point, the Depot and under the new ruling, they can now go anywhere they desire. even being "lost".

Also, how can you insure that "no more trucks will come into the country than come into the country now" when you just said that under new ruling the trucks will not be going to a depot, but now taking a longer trip directly to the final delivery destination. that means longer trips for the trucks, and thus more trucks needed to move the same amount of frieght. (if a truck can make two trips to the depot in one day, they would now be making one delivery trip since now the trip is now longer. so to move the same amount of frieght, two trucks will be needed where one was sufficent.)

The new ruling is effective for freight handling, I never said that the new ruling was totally bad. It removes an area where goods can be contaminated, lost, damaged, or even stolen. but you can't say that it doesn't compromise security.


geez junii

if they are bringing contraban into the country and get it past customs, they dont bring it to the depot. no one offloads a ton of marijuana at the truck depot eh?

this program doesnt open up the US to any mexican truck that wants to enter. they have to be part of the program. they have to be inspected.

no i dont think that the cream of the crop of mexican trucking is going to be a bigger security threat than what we have today.

Well treachery knows no bounds.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070901/us_nm/mexico_trucks_us_dc_1

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, a glutton for destroying America has struck again and with much help from our so-called leaders. So who wants to take bets on how many more illegals (especially with criminal records) and drugs will come into America from this decision? It isn't enough that our borders are like sheets of paper already soaking wet, now there's this. [and this coming from a person who once voted Republican, albeit I'm not fan of the Democrats either since both parties seem hell bent on dismantling America, its Constitution, and putting its people out to pasture]

1. Let's see. This is a program of the Bush Administration pursuant to a law enacted by Congress, but somehow 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is to be blamed for it because they did not grant an emergency petition to stay the implementation of the program. Care to explain that logic?

2. You rather obviously know nothing about the 9th Circuit, appellate procedure, or the relevant law. Here (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/Documents.nsf/54dbe3fb372dcb6c88256ce50065fcb8/b5d033d73e2c9da88825734800819503/$FILE/SierraClubOrder.pdf) is the actual order about which you have gotten your panties in a bunch. As you should be able to figure out, the decision is purely procedural -- rather routinely refusing to grant the extraordinary emergency stay pending resolution of the matter on the merits. The merits of the case are still at issue and the case will proceed through normal channels.

3. On the substance of the question, you make further clear your ignorance. This has nothing to do with immigration or drug smuggling. Nice try at perverting the issue.

geez where have you been TCT, could have used a hand last few weeks :p

According to all that I am seeing, the ruling is about Legislated Law and not NAFTA.

As usual your legal analysis is deeply appreciated -- for its humor value.

This "ruling" is purely procedural. Plaintiff failed to satisfy the extraordinary grounds for an emergency stay pending hearing.

The underlying dispute involves a law passed by Congress to comply with NAFTA obligations.

As usual your legal analysis is deeply appreciated -- for its humor value.

This "ruling" is purely procedural. Plaintiff failed to satisfy the extraordinary grounds for an emergency stay pending hearing.

The underlying dispute involves a law passed by Congress to comply with NAFTA obligations.

Considering your audience you might well as written:

"May' Daa jaHDI' SuvwI' juppu' Daj lonbe, QamuIs Heg qaq law' lorvIs yInqaq puS, qaStaH nuq jay!"

Umm I said with Neo Art before that by the grounds of court ruling and procedure they did make a proper ruling and that most of my opposition is against the actual bill itself but that the court could have used a possibility of security to delay the bill. Reread the past few pages and don't just quote the first post.

Umm I said with Neo Art before that by the grounds of court ruling and procedure they did make a proper ruling and that most of my opposition is against the actual bill itself but that the court could have used a possibility of security to delay the bill. Reread the past few pages and don't just quote the first post.

*nods*

Umm I said with Neo Art before that by the grounds of court ruling and procedure they did make a proper ruling and that most of my opposition is against the actual bill itself but that the court could have used a possibility of security to delay the bill. Reread the past few pages and don't just quote the first post.

1. I made three points. You have made a half-assed response to my second point only.

2. I have read the entire thread. I made new points about the issue.

3. Do you really think your idiotic rambling about judicial review and the Pledge of Allegiance corrects the errors you made in your OP?

4. I assert again that your critique of the 9th Circuit is misplaced. If you want to discuss the 9th Circuit's record in more detail, feel free. I'd love to correct your misunderstandings. But the point stands. Simply because you saw a story with the 9th Circuit and Mexico both mentioned doesn't somehow make the 9th Circuit responsible for this law, let alone illegal immigration and drug smuggling.

5. Again, my second point that this was a fully procedural ruling and did not address the merits of the lawsuit appears to have gone over your head. The 9th Circuit could still reach the result of holding this policy invalid, but they have properly refused to grant extraordinary relief in advance of the merits.

6. No. A court can't sua sponte go about issuing injunctions against laws on the grounds of "security." That is bizarre. (And if they did, people like you and Corny would complain about judicial activism.)

7. Go back and re-read the OP article. It makes clear that not just your OP but also the many pages of discussion you refer to are based on complete ignorance of what the actual issues are in this case.

*nods*

Uh-hum.

You don't really want me to go back and point out all the stupid things you've said in this thread, now do you?

I was trying to be merciful by just pointing out your most recent stumble.

More to the point, how does anything in the thread redeem your statement to which I responded about the ruling being based on legislation and not NAFTA?

As I've tried to make clear the ruling is actually purely procedural and doesn't address the merits of either legislation or NAFTA.

2. I have read the entire thread. I made new points about the issue.


You should, it's full of chuckles.

if they are bringing contraban into the country and get it past customs, they dont bring it to the depot. no one offloads a ton of marijuana at the truck depot eh? no, but with a centralized location that they would head to, any truck deviating from that route would be suspicious. add to that the route would be known and can be watched. after all, it's from point A to point B.

with the removal of such centralized depot, it would make detecting any contraband that much harder.

this program doesnt open up the US to any mexican truck that wants to enter. they have to be part of the program. they have to be inspected. and how does a truck get into the program? I didn't see anything "limiting" the number of trucks to be part of this program.

Remember, my concern isn't the quality of the trucks.

no i dont think that the cream of the crop of mexican trucking is going to be a bigger security threat than what we have today."Cream of the crop"? can you show me where it's limiting the number of trucks that will be allowed into this program?

or are you agreeing with Corneliu's assessment of the quality of Mexico's trucks. :p

So I guess anyone opposed to this because they feel unsafe because of a lack of trust in the people in charge to make sure these drivers and trucks will be up to par is a racist.....So I guess I'm racist too. I should go make a pic up: "If you feel unsafe because you are put in a situation you might be unsafe in, YOU are a racist."

Actually it was your continued portrayal of Mexicans as drunkards that made me think you were racist, not your really crappy arguments, or your position on illegal immigrants or border security.

I have no real problems with this. only that it will undermine efforts to control illegal trafficing between the borders.

Will every truck be carefully inspected for illegals (persons as well as things) from both entering and leaving the country?

That's my only concern.

This will probably allow for more smuggling of illegals. I am sure that those industries that profit from exploiting illegals also lobbied for this law way back when.

actually the only REAL issue with this program is that mexican truck drivers WILL take american jobs. or eliminate the need for certain truck driving jobs. ...if i worked in one of those trucking depots, id be looking at losing my job.

Estamos en tus carreteras, robando tus trabajos!

To me anyways race is irrelevant. It's about trucks coming from a country that has an international reputation for corruption and known to have an active insurgency going about that concerns me. If that was Canada instead of Mexico, I'd be worrying about Canadian trucks.

Well, the USA has an international reputation for economic protectionism and reneging on international trade agreements, so Mexico probably had some concerns too.

You should, it's full of chuckles.

This thread is fucking hilarious. I almost feel sorry for Corny. Almost.

no, but with a centralized location that they would head to, any truck deviating from that route would be suspicious. add to that the route would be known and can be watched. after all, it's from point A to point B.

with the removal of such centralized depot, it would make detecting any contraband that much harder.

and how does a truck get into the program? I didn't see anything "limiting" the number of trucks to be part of this program.

Remember, my concern isn't the quality of the trucks.

"Cream of the crop"? can you show me where it's limiting the number of trucks that will be allowed into this program?

or are you agreeing with Corneliu's assessment of the quality of Mexico's trucks. :p


Since the trucking companies have to pass certain international standards, one would assume that these standards would act as a limiting factor on the number of trucks.

Since the trucking companies have to pass certain international standards, one would assume that these standards would act as a limiting factor on the number of trucks.
which is in itself, not a limiting factor.

If the company has 12 trucks making 2 trips a day, delivering goods to the central depot in America, and now with this new bill, that company needs more trucks (since now they will be out longer, thus not moving as much as before... only one trip per day.) What's stopping that company from assigning 12 more trucks (all of wich will pass those standards) to deliver goods to America?

so more trucks that need to be inspected, meaning either 1) a bottleneck at the border or 2) spot checks which will allow more contraband to be smuggled in.

Now, unless there is a way to track these trucks (why should there be, since we, as a government, don't track ours) there is no way to know where these trucks go except through their destinations.

which is in itself, not a limiting factor....Now, unless there is a way to track these trucks (why should there be, since we, as a government, don't track ours) there is no way to know where these trucks go except through their destinations.

Well, considering that it is supposed to increase trade among the North American nations, I would assume that NAFTA is supposed to increase truck volume.

Well, considering that it is supposed to increase trade among the North American nations, I would assume that NAFTA is supposed to increase truck volume.

which in and of itself, and as I said, i have no problem with the agreements/laws. my only concern is the possiblity of increased traffiking both of goods and people.

this ruling can make it easier for that to happen, and any attempts to tighten the security will mean bottlenecks at the border which would defeat the purpose of this new legislation.

I'm for increase trade, but again, i'm not for increased traffiking as well.

"This is the wrong decision for working men and women," Jim Hoffa, president of the Teamsters, said in a statement after the court ruling. "We believe this program clearly breaks the law." The Teamsters represents truckers that would be affected by the change.

They found him?!?!?

They found him?!?!?

The local media calls him James Hoffa to avoid confusion.

They found him?!?!?

And he's still alive? :eek:

:eek:


WE FOUND JIMMY HOFFA!!!!
I think Jimmy Hoffa is more of a Teamsters title, like President, or Caesar.

I think Jimmy Hoffa is more of a Teamsters title, like President, or Caesar.

I'm assuming your kidding, but for the sake of anyone who doesn't know the Jimmy Hoffa they're talking about is James P. Hoffa, the son of the disappeared Jimmy Hoffa.

I'm assuming your kidding, but for the sake of anyone who doesn't know the Jimmy Hoffa they're talking about is James P. Hoffa, the son of the disappeared Jimmy Hoffa.
Yes, I am kidding.

and how does a truck get into the program? I didn't see anything "limiting" the number of trucks to be part of this program.

Remember, my concern isn't the quality of the trucks.

"Cream of the crop"? can you show me where it's limiting the number of trucks that will be allowed into this program?


its right in the OP

"Trucking regulators said in a court filing the goal is to gradually accommodate 100 Mexican trucking companies by the end of the pilot program, or roughly 540 large trucks."

its right in the OP

"Trucking regulators said in a court filing the goal is to gradually accommodate 100 Mexican trucking companies by the end of the pilot program, or roughly 540 large trucks."

two words that don't mean definitively in both lawyer and beuracrat speak.

and note, "Pilot Program" does not mean that all. it means test group. so after the pilot program then what?

in other words. 5 years from now, it could end up with 125 Mexican Trucking Companies with 6 trucks each with more companies and trucks sending in their applications. Which would be great since it means that business between the two countries is growing, and the economies stabilizing and improving. However, it doesn't answer the security question.

two words that don't mean definitively in both lawyer and beuracrat speak.

and note, "Pilot Program" does not mean that all. it means test group. so after the pilot program then what?

in other words. 5 years from now, it could end up with 125 Mexican Trucking Companies with 6 trucks each with more companies and trucks sending in their applications. Which would be great since it means that business between the two countries is growing, and the economies stabilizing and improving. However, it doesn't answer the security question.

there is no sense in supposing what will happen after this pilot program is over. the point of having it is to study the problems and see what needs to be done. until it is done, we can only speculate on what might happen in the future.

security lies where it will always lie-- in the customs service. every single mexican truck will have to cross the border. the security of that is not significantly different than the security of it now. either the customs service does its job or it doesnt. if it doesnt, the problem isnt with mexican trucking.

there is no sense in supposing what will happen after this pilot program is over. the point of having it is to study the problems and see what needs to be done. until it is done, we can only speculate on what might happen in the future. which is why I'm not really set against the ruling/legislation. I'm just plain concerned.

security lies where it will always lie-- in the customs service. every single mexican truck will have to cross the border. the security of that is not significantly different than the security of it now. either the customs service does its job or it doesnt. if it doesnt, the problem isnt with mexican trucking. I never said the problem is with the Mexican Trucking Companies, but the attitude of "it's Custom Services problem" is something I see too many times in most businesses. they want some fancy and brand new program. they make their case argument, then when they get it it's suddenly "Oh, Tech support will make it work..."

and do they give us the budget to make it work? Hell no!

if there is no plan to handle the security, that means that CS [Custom Services] is being told "handle it." now whether or not they will get the support to handle it is also speculation. but chances are, no they won't. and should this program fail, who will people look at?

Don't know if this has been posted yet, but here goes:

http://www.nascocorridor.com/new_home_images/nasco_home_page_09.jpg

Yes, I am kidding.

I assumed so, but one never knows on these Internets.

I'm assuming your kidding, but for the sake of anyone who doesn't know the Jimmy Hoffa they're talking about is James P. Hoffa, the son of the disappeared Jimmy Hoffa.

That's what he WANTS you to think! He's really an immortal alien being who had to go into hiding and later reemerged posing as his own son! </Paranoid Rant>

We need a shifty eyed paranoid looking smiley . . .