Reaction Swift To Border Announcement

is this a democracy or a dictatorship?

who the fu#k does bush think he is? we, the people, have told him that we don't want the pilot program to continue...and then, he ignores our will?

what is the judicial segment of our government doing to stop this dictatorial display of power by bush?

what are you doing bush? smoking marijuana? prozac?

guy. you got to get off the high horse, and quit dictating to the american people. read my lips..

..WE ..DON'T ..WANT ..NAFTA.

Republicans Caught in a Traffic Jam
The U.S. House voted 285-143 on June 26 to scuttle the Bush Administration plans. In the House debate, some Members argued that NAFTA requires us to admit the Mexican trucks freely. One Congressman retorted, "NAFTA is a trade pact; it is not a suicide pact." The Bush Administration promptly threatened a veto if the House restriction remains in the bill.

Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) then sponsored a truck safety amendment, unanimously approved by both the Senate Appropriations Committee and its Transportation Subcommittee, to the $60 billion Transportation bill. Their amendment was approved by the Senate in two votes on July 26 and 27, with all Democrats and 19 Republicans voting for safety and 30 Republicans voting for Mexican trucks.

Mexico's President Vicente Fox then had a tantrum and said on August 2 that, if these regulations go into effect, he will close the border to U.S. truckers!

The purpose of the Murray-Shelby amendment is to require Mexican trucks to meet the same safety standards that U.S. and Canadian trucks meet. U.S. and Canadian trucks can't drive on our highways without adequate insurance from a company licensed to operate within the United States. It is unacceptable to allow Mexican trucks on our highways that do not meet this essential requirement. Currently, they carry only Mexican insurance policies that are good for only one day and are granted without regard to the condition of the truck.

Mexican trucks have been crossing our border grossly over weight, without registration or U.S. insurance, with unlicensed drivers driving far longer hours than U.S. truckers are permitted to drive. The four-state limit has been routinely violated. Mexican trucks have been discovered in 26 states, as far away as New York, Washington State and Florida.

The United States has a uniform commercial drivers license system so that drivers whose licenses are revoked can't simply go to another state and get a new license. Mexico has no such system; Mexico has hardly any computerized data on who gets a driver's license.

Current U.S. law requires U.S. and Canadian trucks to be inspected at the trucking firm's facility where the record books, log-books, wage and hour records, etc., can be reviewed. There is no reason why Mexican trucks should not be subject to the same procedure.

The Senate bill requires Mexican trucks to cross the border only at points where inspectors are actually on duty. The bill closes the current loophole through which unsafe Mexican trucks cross the border at places and times where no safety inspector is on duty.

The Murray-Shelby amendment is accused of being anti-NAFTA and even anti-Mexican, both of which are false. When the NAFTA panel ruled that the United States must admit Mexican trucks, it also ruled that "U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe operation of trucks within U.S. territory." Murray-Shelby was itself a compromise; it doesn't even require truck drivers to speak enough English to read our road signs.

dangerous wrote:

perchlorate, an oxidizing substance, is known to be harmful to humans under certain circumstances and its existence in the white people could suggest that they are less hospitable to life than the scientists have so far believed.

And your point is?

Mexican trucks have been crossing our border grossly over weight, without registration or U.S. insurance, with unlicensed drivers driving far longer hours than U.S. truckers are permitted to drive. The four-state limit has been routinely violated. Mexican trucks have been discovered in 26 states, as far away as New York, Washington State and Florida.
==========
It would be nice to see statistics on this.

Cricket 23 wrote:

<quoted text>
And your point is?

His point is on the top of his head.

Joel E Wischkaemper wrote:

Mexican trucks have been crossing our border grossly over weight, without registration or U.S. insurance, with unlicensed drivers driving far longer hours than U.S. truckers are permitted to drive. The four-state limit has been routinely violated. Mexican trucks have been discovered in 26 states, as far away as New York, Washington State and Florida.
==========
It would be nice to see statistics on this.

Source:

http://murray.senate.gov/news.cfm...

The DOT IG found that 52 Mexican trucking firms have operated improperly in over 26 states outside the four southern border states. An additional 200 trucking firms violated the restriction to stay within the commercial zone in the border states. Mexican trucks have been found to be operating illegally as far away from the Mexican border as New York State in the Northeast and Washington in the Northwest. The IG reported on one shocking case where a Mexican truck was found on its way to Florida to deliver furniture. When the vehicle was pulled over, the driver had no log-book and no license. There have been experiences like this in half of the states in the continental U.S. Given this deplorable safety record, the official position of the United States Government since the ratification of NAFTA, was that the border could not be opened to cross-border trucking because of the safety risks involved.

I have eyes and friends in the industry. NE is not a state along the border! Outraged isn't close to my feelings! We're being sold out daily by the do-nothing for the US Citizens government and Senior Boosh!

Cricket 23 wrote:

Republicans Caught in a Traffic Jam
The U.S. House voted 285-143 on June 26 to scuttle the Bush Administration plans. In the House debate, some Members argued that NAFTA requires us to admit the Mexican trucks freely. One Congressman retorted, "NAFTA is a trade pact; it is not a suicide pact." The Bush Administration promptly threatened a veto if the House restriction remains in the bill.
Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) then sponsored a truck safety amendment, unanimously approved by both the Senate Appropriations Committee and its Transportation Subcommittee, to the $60 billion Transportation bill. Their amendment was approved by the Senate in two votes on July 26 and 27, with all Democrats and 19 Republicans voting for safety and 30 Republicans voting for Mexican trucks.
Mexico's President Vicente Fox then had a tantrum and said on August 2 that, if these regulations go into effect, he will close the border to U.S. truckers!
The purpose of the Murray-Shelby amendment is to require Mexican trucks to meet the same safety standards that U.S. and Canadian trucks meet. U.S. and Canadian trucks can't drive on our highways without adequate insurance from a company licensed to operate within the United States. It is unacceptable to allow Mexican trucks on our highways that do not meet this essential requirement. Currently, they carry only Mexican insurance policies that are good for only one day and are granted without regard to the condition of the truck.
Mexican trucks have been crossing our border grossly over weight, without registration or U.S. insurance, with unlicensed drivers driving far longer hours than U.S. truckers are permitted to drive. The four-state limit has been routinely violated. Mexican trucks have been discovered in 26 states, as far away as New York, Washington State and Florida.
The United States has a uniform commercial drivers license system so that drivers whose licenses are revoked can't simply go to another state and get a new license. Mexico has no such system; Mexico has hardly any computerized data on who gets a driver's license.
Current U.S. law requires U.S. and Canadian trucks to be inspected at the trucking firm's facility where the record books, log-books, wage and hour records, etc., can be reviewed. There is no reason why Mexican trucks should not be subject to the same procedure.
The Senate bill requires Mexican trucks to cross the border only at points where inspectors are actually on duty. The bill closes the current loophole through which unsafe Mexican trucks cross the border at places and times where no safety inspector is on duty.
The Murray-Shelby amendment is accused of being anti-NAFTA and even anti-Mexican, both of which are false. When the NAFTA panel ruled that the United States must admit Mexican trucks, it also ruled that "U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe operation of trucks within U.S. territory." Murray-Shelby was itself a compromise; it doesn't even require truck drivers to speak enough English to read our road signs.

Cricket this article is now here

Mexican Trucks_Republicans Are Getting Caught In A Traffic Jam -- Phyllis Schlafly
http://www.topix.net/who/illegal-aliens/2008/...
thank you, Cricket.

Our system is Safer System with information about carriers. You can search by DOT number or name of carrier. I use it often to see the safety rating, number of violations, accidents, unsafe equipment violations and other items of interest. If a carrier has a high number value and is up for inspection, I don't use that carrier. MX trucks aren't in the data base and MX doesn't have one. State Troopers and DOT inspectors have better and up to date information.

asian guy wrote:

is this a democracy or a dictatorship?
who the fu#k does bush think he is? we, the people, have told him that we don't want the pilot program to continue...and then, he ignores our will?
what is the judicial segment of our government doing to stop this dictatorial display of power by bush?
what are you doing bush? smoking marijuana? prozac?
guy. you got to get off the high horse, and quit dictating to the american people. read my lips..
..WE ..DON'T ..WANT ..NAFTA.

Mark my words , in five years when the pay is so low no one caqn afford to work these jobs anymore, and there are NO American Truckers left, the Governments line will be:

These are jobs American won't do.

Sound familiar?

I laugh last wrote:

<quoted text>
Mark my words , in five years when the pay is so low no one caqn afford to work these jobs anymore, and there are NO American Truckers left, the Governments line will be:
These are jobs American won't do.
Sound familiar?

Americans won't do them because they pay a wage that forces two or three families to share a two bedroom house.

Buff wrote:

<quoted text>
Americans won't do them because they pay a wage that forces two or three families to share a two bedroom house.

Big time! They say "you cannot get an American to do this."

What they really mean is "You cannot get an American in 2008 to work for 1987 wages."

NE Red wrote:

I have eyes and friends in the industry. NE is not a state along the border! Outraged isn't close to my feelings! We're being sold out daily by the do-nothing for the US Citizens government and Senior Boosh!

You loose again. Remember me, I have posted to your comments before - called you insulated and a racist - but most of all I advised you that you would loose this immigration war and you will - Obama McCain it does not matter both will give amnesty and why shouldn't they. The American voters picked both men and both men have been clear with regard to their immigration plans - perhaps most in the US are not racists and certainly most don't give two farts about whether we boot all the illegals out or give them amnesty so long as we collect taxes from them which are country desperatley needs to support all the crazy welfare and retirement plans and aid to the elderly who did not save enough bullshit - even in your own state of Nebraska your state government needs money that is why your proerty taxes are some of the highest in the country and you have an income tax to boot - Man you are ignorant

How is it that in the great US, we get to vote for elitists. Out of all the great Americans that truly love this country, we get from the head down to the feet, nothing but unprepared and incompetent leaders to vote for. Not only that, but Pelosi and Reid are the dems choice to run the country. Pelosi is out having a love fest with herself and her book. Reid is doing what he does and that is nothing, but figure out ways to screw the public. The repubs have nothing to be proud of either. They screwed up their chance. Now America, this is our time. Let us vote out all the incumbents, and vote in new and excited leaders to get this country together. A leader that unites blacks and whites together to fight the invaders and hordes of mexicans that have no love for this country. Vote out all the pricks and write in or vote for the new guy or woman. It matters not what any think does it? I mean, could we do worse than what we have had to endure for the last 3 presidents. Let your vote be heard and vote the do nothing congress and Senate out of office. You will be surprised how much gets done and how quickly it gets done if we get new blood in the offices. We can't lose this immigration war if, and only if we come together on this

viewthis wrote:

How is it that in the great US, we get to vote for elitists. Out of all the great Americans that truly love this country, we get from the head down to the feet, nothing but unprepared and incompetent leaders to vote for.

==========

We need, and very badly.. a national ballot iniative. I agree with this post, and we are slipping down the rope. We could lose our democracy if we cannot counter the lobby groups. It would be hellish for me if we lost to the Mexican Lobby groups.

Baron wrote:

<quoted text>
You loose again. Remember me, I have posted to your comments before - called you insulated and a racist - but most of all I advised you that you would loose this immigration war and you will - Obama McCain it does not matter both will give amnesty and why shouldn't they. The American voters picked both men and both men have been clear with regard to their immigration plans - perhaps most in the US are not racists and certainly most don't give two farts about whether we boot all the illegals out or give them amnesty so long as we collect taxes from them which are country desperatley needs to support all the crazy welfare and retirement plans and aid to the elderly who did not save enough bullshit - even in your own state of Nebraska your state government needs money that is why your proerty taxes are some of the highest in the country and you have an income tax to boot - Man you are ignorant

People arent voting immigration fucktard. They are voting the economy and war fucktard. Do you realy think Obama and McCain got nominated for their position on immigration?

Baron wrote:

<quoted text>
You loose again. Remember me, I have posted to your comments before - called you insulated and a racist - but most of all I advised you that you would loose this immigration war and you will - Obama McCain it does not matter both will give amnesty and why shouldn't they. The American voters picked both men and both men have been clear with regard to their immigration plans - perhaps most in the US are not racists and certainly most don't give two farts about whether we boot all the illegals out or give them amnesty so long as we collect taxes from them which are country desperatley needs to support all the crazy welfare and retirement plans and aid to the elderly who did not save enough bullshit - even in your own state of Nebraska your state government needs money that is why your proerty taxes are some of the highest in the country and you have an income tax to boot - Man you are ignorant

Right!

Source: Inter-American Development Bank, March 2006 report,“Remittance 2005”. Mexico remains the largest recipient of remittances, at over US$20 billion, followed by Brazil and Columbia which for the first time reached over US$6 and US$4 billion respectively. Central America and the Dominican Republic combined to reach over US$11 billion; and the Andean countries totaled almost US$9 billion.

http://www.iadb.org/mif/v2/files/guemez_remit...

As much as 50% of remittances are unreported. As published in the Development Prospect Group Briefing #3, "This amount only reflects transfers through official channels. Econometric analysis suggests that unrecorded flows through informal channels may add 50 percent or more to recorded flows. Including these unrecorded flows, the true size of remittances, is larger than foreign direct investment flows and more than twice as large as official aid received by developing countries."

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPROSPEC...

Baron wrote:

<quoted text>
so long as we collect taxes from them which are country desperatley needs to support all the crazy welfare and retirement plans and aid to the elderly who did not save enough bullshit

Right!

In June, an article in the Washington Post concluded that emergency-room
care "is on the verge of collapse." From 1993 to 2003, the newspaper
reported, the American population grew 12 percent, but emergency room visits
grew 27 percent. "In that same period, however, 425 emergency departments
closed, along with about 700 hospitals and nearly 200,000 beds." As well, in
2003, ambulances were diverted from emergency rooms 501,000 times because
the emergency rooms were full.
But the article doesn't mention that much of this care is for routine,
non-emergency illnesses. Nor does it mention a main cause in the crisis:
uninsured illegal immigrants. the Bush administration announced in May that
it would send $1 billion to hospitals to pay for the care of illegal
immigrants. "The largest allocations this fiscal year," the Times reported,
"are going to California, which will receive $70.8 million; Texas,$46
million; Arizona,$45 million; New York,$12.3 million; Illinois,$10.3
million; Florida,$8.7 million; and New Mexico,$5.1 million." And the $70.8
million for California, the newspaper reported, won't come close to covering
the cost of the state's $500 million bill for illegal immigrants.
According to the Washington Times, citing the American Hospital Association
(AHA), "hospitals in 24 Southwest border counties in Arizona, California,
Texas and New Mexico reported uncompensated care totaling nearly $832
million in 2000. A subsequent report prepared for the U.S.-Mexico Border
Counties Coalition determined that about 25 percent of those nonreimbursed
costs resulted from emergency medical treatment provided to undocumented
immigrants." Reported ABC News, "researchers at the RAND Corporation, a
nonpartisan think tank, analyzed data received from about 2,400 people in
Los Angeles County in 2000 and 2001, and applied that information to the
nation's undocumented population at large. The number of uninsured adults in
the United States grew by about 8.7 million between 1980 and 2000. If the
trend for Los Angeles County held true for the rest of the country, about a
third of that growth can be attributable to illegal immigrants."
About 35 percent of immigrants are uninsured, data show, and 65 percent of
illegal immigrants are uninsured. Citing data from Center for Immigration
Studies, immigration writer Ed Rubenstein concluded, "Immigrants accounted
for more than half - 59 percent - of the growth in the uninsured population
during the 1992-2001 period. When you include the 3.5-million immigrants
enrolled in Medicaid, almost half of all immigrants either are uninsured or
have it provided to them at taxpayers' expense."
All these data point to a culprit in the crisis that shut down 700 hospitals
and 425 emergency rooms in 10 years:

Baron wrote:

<quoted text>
so long as we collect taxes from them which are country desperatley needs to support all the crazy welfare and retirement plans and aid to the elderly who did not save enough bullshit

For what little taxes we collect from illegal aliens,it looks like they have the better deal,free basic medical care,free education for their children, and food stamps,rent assistance and WIC for their anchor babies! Oh,as you noticed on another post,they still manage to send 20 billion dollars a year back to Mexico.

Washington DC - A new study by the Federation for
American Immigration Reform (FAIR), Limited English
Proficiency Enrollment and Rapidly Rising Costs,
finds that between 1995 and 2005, the number of
children in our nation's public schools listed as
Limited English Proficient (LEP) increased by some
1.2 million. In 2005, approximately 4.5 million K-12
children in public schools around the country
required special educational programs to help them
master basic English, a 38 percent increase over a
decade earlier. The total bill to the taxpayers for
LEP programs likely exceeds $4 billion annually,
finds the report.

Continued large-scale immigration, particularly
illegal immigration, is the primary factor in the
increase in the LEP student population. FAIR
estimates that some 3.5 million children of illegal
aliens now attend K-12 schools around the country.
Most of the costs for educating LEP students fall on
state and local governments that are already
straining to provide educational resources to their
populations. Between 1995 and 2005, 11 states saw
their LEP student enrollment double, while eight
more saw enrollment triple.

"Education is by far the largest cost associated
with mass immigration generally, and illegal
immigration in particular," commented Dan Stein,
president of FAIR. "These mounting costs for basic
education and special LEP programs come at a time
when polls show that the public is increasingly
concerned about the overall quality of public
education in our country. While every politician in
America promises to improve public education,
government immigration policies continue to compound
the challenges faced by our schools."

The surge in LEP enrollment became a nationwide
phenomenon between 1995 and 2005, as virtually all
regions of the country experienced a rapid growth in
immigrant population. However, six states still
accounted for 69 percent of the LEP student
population in 2005, with California leading the way.
More than a quarter of California students were not
fluent in English in 2005.

http://www.fns.usda.gov/cga/FactSheets/reachi ...

In FY 2006, USDA spent nearly $5.1 billion to serve about 8.2 million WIC
participants. Hispanics represent the largest racial/ethnic group in the WIC
Program. In 2004, about 39 percent of those enrolled in WIC were of Hispanic
origin. Approximately 3/4 of the Hispanic infants born in the United States
participate in WIC.

(75% on govt. services shortly after being born....)