That's not cool...

.Ryan wrote: Ya know, historically speaking, it's not really an undisputed fact that there was ever a first invasion from Mexico....The Mexican American War was full of all kinds of shady stuff like that though.... Oh and, your sig is stupid....both parts of it....Are you seriously that dense?

Bam! And the OS/Ryan war begins!

Man Bites Dog wrote: oldsoldier wrote: Unless the 9th circuit gets the injunction MEXICAN full semi 18 wheelers will have unlimited access to all 48 states effective 0001 20 Sep 07. Thats right vehicles and drivers who many suspect are not up to Federal DOT rules and regulations will share the road with trusting American motorists. Drivers without a basic understanding of language and American roads will be out among us. The CB is full of concerns, parking for trucks already at a premium now more trucks, rest areas at night will be that much more interesting, our major concern is safety. These trucks if the Larado/Nogalas expierience is any indication are junk. Will the Mexicans have to dump thier mixed diesel used motor oil fuel and fill with ULSD at the border, we have company issued fuel credit cards, many fear the mexicans will be issued a siphon hose and breath mints. What will be the cargos, illegals, drugs, no oversight as now with the tranfere points currently on the border, where the mexican trailers are unloaded under supervision and reloaded into american trailers under supervision. A Mexican truck hits your vehicle, Mexican companys are Mexican Government controled, so your insurance claim will be against the Mexican Government, lots of luck on the claim. Log books, vehicle inspections, fuel, Mexican $.11 per mile drivers replacing current american driver payscales. Yep, another fine Labor Day weekend. http://www.nbcsandiego.com/politics/14003768/detail.html?rss=dgo&psp=news - http://www.nbcsandiego.com/politics/14003768/detail.html?rss =dgo&psp=news xen·o·pho·bi·a    https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fxenophobia">   /ˌzɛnəˈfoʊbiə, ˌzinə-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[zen-uh-foh-bee-uh, zee-nuh-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun an unreasonable fear or hatred of foreigners or strangers or of that which is foreign or strange.

Huh, I thought xenophobia was an irrational fear of warrior princesses.

Wow, there is so much racism in OS's post that I'm not sure what to think.

On one hand, racism is bad.

On the other (we'll call this the "right" hand), its acceptable as long as it is masked by xenophobic comments.

OS, I can understand you being worried about the regulations not being followed, differences in fuel, etc (though the over crowded rest stops sounds like it might be a blessing in disguise, as it might prompt flying J to make more stops, causing the need for more labor, materials, jobs and whatnot, helping the economy), but what does having more mexicans in the country (that are working easy jobs and probably have a nice enough income coming in) have to do with your preconcieved notions that a group of mexicans will be more violent than a group of some other type of people, and risk jail/punishment that will prevent them from making more money?

oldsoldier wrote: Let me know how it works out in a few years in your life....change is inevitable..to what is allways the question. Our radical Liberal peace niks of the 60's have generated quite a few conservative recent era bussiness and governmental types.

Some of us find a happy bridge between the two. I try not classify everyone with leftist idealogies as radical liberals, just as I don't like being classified as a religious nut case conservative.

Though I will say alot of our current issues with Mexico make my blood boil. I won't jack the thread and go into them here, though.

stratoaxe wrote: Though I will say alot of our current issues with Mexico make my blood boil. I won't jack the thread and go into them here, though.

I think this thread is in desparate need of some jack.

Susan Storm wrote: stratoaxe wrote: Though I will say alot of our current issues with Mexico make my blood boil. I won't jack the thread and go into them here, though. I think this thread is in desparate need of some jack.

Meh, it's almost getting cliche to turn these threads into 10 page immigration arguments. I'll take the high road this time.

Bunkered wrote: Susan Storm wrote: yeah, darn that free-market capitalism. No offense, but that's just about the dumbest thing I've heard all day. OS does bring up several legitimate concerns. They should have to have their vehicles up to date and in line with regulations to drive in the US. Also, if the insurance thing is true, that could screw you over hardcore and something should be negotiated with the Mexicans in order to prevent that.

I will admit that my initial post was somewhat flip, and primarily a response to OS' continued anti-capitalism, anti-free-trade, anti-competition, pro-xenophobia and pro-isolationist stance, which he continued with this thread.

That said, it is of course legitimate to be concerned about the safety of trucks on our roads.  But, as daniero pointed out, the very same article that OS linked in the first post stated that:

Original Article wrote: A one-year demonstration project would allow 100 Mexican motor carriers full access to U.S. roads. It can begin as soon as the inspector general certifies that safety and inspection plans and facilities are sufficient to ensure the Mexican trucks are as safe as U.S. trucks.

As I stated in my followup post, this issue is chock full of misinformation, but people should at least read the very articles they are linking before starting their rants.

Further, Evil Elvis pointed to DOT stats that indicate that Mexican trucks and drivers may not be as dangerous as people seem to think.  If anything, it's the Canadians that should be frightened - frightened of Americans.  The US roads and drivers are among the most dangerous in the world.  I am not sure that we are in a position to assume that adding Mexican trucks will make it any worse.

Moreover, anybody throwing up massive panic flags like this has a duty to conduct at least a modicum of investigation to get some rounded facts.  Here is another look at the issue, for instance, from last year when this was first authorized - a very interesting read:  http://www.ooida.com/at_issue/NAFTA/special_report_NAFTA.html - http://www.ooida.com/at_issue/NAFTA/special_report_NAFTA.htm l

Particularly interesting is this quote:

Another Article wrote: Meanwhile, motor carriers domiciled in Mexico operating in the United States will be subject to the same federal and state laws, regulations and procedures that apply to carriers domiciled in the United States. These include safety regulations, such as drug and alcohol testing requirements; insurance requirements; taxes and fees; and other applicable laws and regulations, including those administered by the U.S. Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Labor, and federal and state environmental agencies. Mexican motor carriers are also subject to the same insurance requirements, another issue that raises concerns with OOIDA. Mexican carriers must be insured by a U.S.-approved company. But this amounts to untested waters for insurance companies, since there is no prior experience assessing risks associated with Mexican long haulers operating on U.S. roads.

This is a complicated issue and I will suspend judgement, but so far it looks to me like just another case of part-time capitalism.

oldsoldier wrote: Having driven in or around that old 25 mile trades zone surrounding El Paso, Laredo, Nogalas and Del Rio issues that Susan or the media do not understand in the safety realm are to be noted. The accident rates in truck stop parking incidents (private property DOT non-reportable) are way too high.

And in those free trade zones, Mexican trucks are NOT required to comply with US regulations.  Once they leave that enclave they WILL have to comply.

...Mexican drivers fearing intimidation retaliation in truck stops/parking areas would lead to extended driving times, tired drivers and a higher accident rate.

While I understand that there is a concern about black boxes and tired drivers, am I to understand that your point is that we shouldn't have Mexican drivers because they will be tired because they are afraid that 'Merican truckers will be mean to them?

Perhaps we should try not being mean to them...

Language and communication issues in complex truck routing instructions in major metros, even I recheck the low clearence issues when I call for directions and Ms Secretary gives me the directions she travels to work, under that Chicago 12 foot underpass (we need 13ft 7 in minimum).

Language and communication is obviously a legitimate concern - but here's the thing:  As is usually the case, what is new to the US is old hat elsewhere.  Europe has had cross-border trucking for decades, and they manage just fine.  Some of the same issues are there, such as concerns about safety and language from some countries, but on the whole these things get worked out.  Same thing in Asia.

Americans have a tendency to forget to look outside to see how issues were resolved elsewhere, and this may be a situation where we could benefit from looking outside our cocoon.

And, of course, according to the articles I read, the Mexican will be required to demonstrate at least some English proficiency.  Is that required of American drivers?

At least 10-15% of smaller American carriers have trucks do not meet DOT safety standards, pass any state DOT scalehouse and look out the trucks parked in the inspection area with the red "out of service" sricker on the driver window, and now allowing more questionable vehicles?

So, your argument is that our trucks are already too dangerous, so we shouldn't add more trucks?  Not exactly convincing...

Issues we drivers in our forums and communications try to pass on are ignored in the PC ruch to this economic nervanna.

If you think the "PC" position here is to support Mexican drivers, you haven't been paying attention.  You even posted a link yourself describing how "even the Democrats" hate this plan.  The protectionist unions hate it, the part-time capitalists hate, and the xenophobes hate it.  About the only people supporting this arrangement are President Bush and myself, and my support is contingent upon furhter information.

Several Mexican truck firms only want to go in 250 miles or less, now why? To avoid fueling in the US and avoid paying the fuel and highway use taxes. SO the playing field is no where near economically fair

How is that not fair?  I'll bet you know which states have lower gas taxes, and fill up there whenever you can.  Ditto for tolls.  And have you noticed how big trucks tend to be licensed in a few states?  I wonder if that has anything to do with taxes and licensing fees in those states...

... and once the accident rates rise, and other issues expose themselves with the purely "cultural" differences in the American vs Mexican driver way, will this mess become more of a concern to the American driver.

We'll just preserve OS' prediction of higher accident rates for later.

You may be right - I don't know.  But we shall see.  So far this still looks mostly like more self-serving protectionism.

oldsoldier wrote: Susan, do me a favor. Please let us know how you react the first time you are traveling on our interstate system, its 10 PM you need a "p" break, you pull into a rest area, see several Mexican plated trucks and a few hispanic drivers sitting around the enterance to the rest rooms. No fear or typecasting will be involved correct, for its a purely economic gain. There is a distinct cultural differance as well as behavioral difference here.

Well, I am always a bit apprehensive around large groups of men, as everybody should be. 

But you seem to imply that I would or should be MORE apprehensive around Mexican men than American men, based solely on their Mexican-ness.  Based on my experience, this is not accurate - if anything, the opposite should be true. 

Of course, if there are apparent gang signs prevalent I might feel differently, but I am guessing that there aren't many Mexican gangbangers engaged in interstate trucking.

But again, our feelings on the subject are irrelevant.  Whether somebody feels uncomfortable or not is not the issue.  If there is a rash of rest stop assaults linked to Mexican drivers following this change we can talk, but I do not believe that we should make economic or social policy based on your xenophobia.

Frankly, I continue to be amazed at the sheer depth and persistence of your xenophobic paranoia.  Perhaps it has something to do with how whenever you travel someplace, you are going there to shoot at the locals.  I travel to socialize and trade with the locals.  I guess it shapes our perspectives.

Susan Storm wrote: Well, I am always a bit apprehensive around large groups of men, as everybody should be.

Wow, that seems somewhat sexist.

Mack wrote: Susan Storm wrote: Well, I am always a bit apprehensive around large groups of men, as everybody should be.  Wow, that seems somewhat sexist.

What can I say - I prefer girls.