|
|
Post by BOLO on Sept 27, 2004 21:14:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by americanfirst on Sept 29, 2004 17:32:17 GMT -5
Sheesh this is from very story that you posted! Didn't you read it.
"It's an honor for me today to be joined by my
predecessor, President Bush, who took the major steps in negotiating this North American Free Trade Agreement."
This is exactly what I said! GHW Bush's administration negotiated NAFTA, GHW Bush signed NAFTA, GHW Bush could not get enough Democrat votes to get it ratified. It's unlikely that any Republican President could have gotton enough Democrat votes to ratify it. Then Clinton twisted enough Democart arms and handed out enought pork to finally get it passed. I'm not letting Clinton off the hook. I did not vote for Clinton either time. I voted for GHW Bush both times he ran. I don't care if this was FDR's idea.
But you refuse to answer any of my other questions. Again why should I have to compete for a job in this country with a foreign national that pays no taxes in this country, is not a resident of this country, who lives somewhere were they can live on less than 25% of what it costs to live here.
How about the fact that Fox wants have open borders from Canada to Mexico like the European Union but will not open his sourthern border. The simple fact is that the Mexicans whom live in the U. S. support the Mexican economy and pump billions and billions of dollars into their economy. Why are Western Union and the banks in favor of them being in this county. Because they siphon off at least 10% of what they send home at a cost of pennies per transaction. In fact they even make money on the float. Which is the time they hold the money until it is picked up. In other words billions of dollars. The same as the 7 million overseas workers from the Philippines do. They are considered patriots and saviors of their country.
NAFTA has passed I accept that but do you think that foreign nationals from a third world country should be competing against blue collar workers in this country for jobs. I'm not talking about rocket scientists. I'm talking about truck drivers and construction workers. Would you not agree that if workers from one country are allowed to work in another one that the reverse should also be true. You know what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Come on just say it. I am in favor letting blue collar workers from the third world compete against and work in this country even though American workers will never work in their country. I think that we shoud just throw open the doors and let anyone from any place work in this country. Take any job they want and let employers pay them anything they will work for. Come on let's see those conservative values show themselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Sept 29, 2004 18:37:40 GMT -5
Great topic. I don't care who was responsible for NAFTA. I'm not going to address it. This is not a political response on my part. I'm just gonna use a little common sense. Here goes.
If a Mexican wants to come to this country to work, fine. But whether they're a citizen of this country or not, they should have to pay taxes on their earnings just like we do. After that, if they want to mail their paycheck back to Mexico, fine with me. And if Western Union makes a ton of money, fine with me.
When immigrant workers don't have to pay taxes on the money they earn in the US, they can afford to work for a cheaper wage than American workers. That's not fair.
It seems to me the government of Mexico spends more time fighting for jobs in America than they do developing their own domestic economy. The USA should not be held responsible for the Mexican economy or the quality of life there. They have a wealth of natural resources and one of the largest workforces in the world. More of their attention should be focused on developing their own resources and training their own workforce. Again, that's not our responsibility. I've never seen a government try harder to get its citizens jobs in another country.
If Mexicans want to come to this country to make a better life for themselves, they can start by learning to speak English. If I decided tomorrow that I was going to move to Japan to make a better life for myself, the first thing I'd do is learn to speak Japanese. I wouldn't expect the Japanese government to pick up the tab to teach the language to me or my kids, especially if I wasn't paying taxes. After all, it was my choice to go there, they didn't force me to come. Its impossible to participate fully and productively in the economy and social structure of the United States if you can't speak English.
Mexicans who come to this country should not be allowed to vote in US elections unless they become legal citizens of the United States.
The Mexicans I've met are some of the hardest working, kindest people I've ever met. They value family and education. They are as capable and intelligent as any American. We are doing ourselves and Mexicans a disservice by expecting and requiring less of them. They are motivated and appreciative of the opportunities America provides. It shames me that we have used them as a political football. "What can we give them" seems to be a popular political theme. I'll tell you what we can give them; the same thing we give everyone else...an opportunity. Beyond that, its up to the individual. Thats what America is supposed to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by americanfirst on Sept 29, 2004 20:11:59 GMT -5
I agree with 95% of what you said. I am not anti-immigrant. I am not racist. I am married to an immigrant not of my race. But most of you still don't understand the truck driving issue. Let me try again. There not coming to American to live and spend money. Their driving a truck equiped with a sleeper cab. They live in Mexico. When in this country they will live in the truck. It's just like the Canadians have done for years, and we have driven in Canada for years, but their pay and cost of living is somewhat like it is in this country so we can compete, we also assume the Canadians will go home after they come to this country, but do you really believe all of the Mexicans will go home.
The the difference in pay, benifits, and cost of living is like the difference between night and day in the US and Mexico. They can load up their taco's, refried beans and rice in Mexico and put in in the fridge. Just as I load up my chow in a fridge in the truck and then cook it in a microwave just as I do. The difference is that their food is a hell of a lot cheaper in Mexico then it is here and I can't buy or rent a house for less than $50 a month like they can. What it costs to live in Mexico is much different than what it cost to live here.
Some examples I got off the web.
Posted by Charlie on March 22, 2000
I have family in Monterrey. My brother-in-law earns approximately $60 US per week. He is a supervisor in a garage for buses. This is a pretty good job. He works 6 days a week, about 9 hours a day. Of course, there is no such thing as overtime. My other brother-in-law works in a factory in Monterrey that makes span-dex clothing (exercise stuff) and makes about $45.00 per week working a different shift every month. Also a decent job. My sister-in-law lives in Cd. Mante and cleans house for a pretty well off family for about $30 per week. I am not sure what kinds of jobs you are looking at, but these wages I have mentioned are typical for the Mexican working class.
Again and again and again if I can't work in Mexico for an American company why in world should they be able to work for an American company in this country.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Sept 29, 2004 20:13:36 GMT -5
From there you wandered over to GHW Bush. From there you have gone on a tangent.
Clinton signed NAFTA.
Which part of that did you miss? The Peanut Pusher Carter Started the NAFTA ball rolling. You want to ignore facts do so. That underscores what I said about you not wanting to vote for President Bush.
Not for any real reason other than you don't like him. Stretch this anyway you want.
If you were looking for discussion about NAFTA, and Republicans ( I'm not one) then you should have said so. Not laid out this phoney baloney about President Bush. If you want to discuss Immigration it appears TN is ready to do so.
Did I read the story? Of course. Amazing how you read something different. I showed you the Link making it obvious who signed it. I further stated it was GHW Bush not GW Bush. GHW Bush had a Democratic led congress. If you want to deny the facts there is no room for further discussion as you base what you say on fallacy. That has nowhere to go. From the Time of Carter until the 2nd Term of Clinton it has been a Democrat Led Congress. The NAFTA is something both parties agreed on. You keep wanting to separate them. Can't be done. Dems pushed, and led the way. Republicans that were in agreement went along. Most everyone liked, and still likes, the Bill, Republicans and Democrats. You don't. You want to blame GW Bush, and Republicans. Do so. No hair off my head.
So gee wiz. Get it straight. NAFTA was not signed by President Bush. I am not playing semantic games with you. You meant the current President.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Sept 29, 2004 21:30:44 GMT -5
Here's a hypothetical for you. Lets say a Mexican comes to the US as a legal worker, drives a truck for a US company, and pays taxes on the money he makes in this country. Just because his permanent residence is in Mexico doesn't mean his services should be worth less than yours so long as he can perform the task equally. Sure, his cost of living is cheaper living in Mexico, but the value of your labor is not based on where you live, its based on the market's demand for your skills and the service you provide. If I live in a trailer and you live in a 3-bedroom home, my cost of living is cheaper than yours, but does it mean my labor is worth less than yours? The free market doesn't pay us for what our living expenses are, they pay us based on the market value of our labor. Your argument is based on a "to each according to his needs" concept. I don't think that applies in a free market economy.
|
|
|
|
Post by americanfirst on Sept 29, 2004 23:46:19 GMT -5
This is for TN because I think that you are smart enough to get it. Forget about the hypothetical let's talk about what is happening. They aren't coming to American and working and paying taxes in this country. They are just working in this country and paying no taxes. They don't even live here. I can't work in Mexico why should they be able to work here. That's fact.
Now for Bolo this is from the bio on George H. Bush from his presidential library.
"On the international economic front, President Bush sought to seize new opportunities through a policy of free trade, pushing to lower trade restrictions and tariff barriers in the GATT talks. In the hemisphere, President Bush's free trade efforts culminated in the Enterprise for the Americas initiative and the North American Free Trade Agreement."
I've said all along that Clinton signed the final agreement after it was passed by congress.
What I was talking about is the fact that Clinton blocked passage of legislation that allowed the Mexican drivers to drive here. Legal or not that is what he did. George W. Bush insisted on legislation that allowed it. No Mexican drivers legally drove trunks in this country when Clinton was president they do now.
Now if you really want to discuss selective enforcement of the laws of our nation we could discuss the fact that the last year Clinton was in office they prosecuted 1100 employers for hiring illegal aliens and patted them on the wrist and sent them home and last year they prosecuted 13 and winked at them when they fined them a pitiance instead of jailing them. I will agree this is a much more serious problem than the truck driving issue. I thank the members of the Republican party in congress that stick up for the will of the people instead of going along with the bad ideas of this administration and the equally bad ideas of the whole Democrat party including Kerry. Another reason why I'm voting none of the above.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Oct 1, 2004 17:18:18 GMT -5
If what you say is happening is actually happening, then I agree with you. Its DEAD wrong. Like I said, a Mexican working in this country who doesn't have to pay taxes in this country can work for a cheaper wage than an American worker. That's WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
I don't think Mexicans should be prohibited from working here regardless of whether we can work there or not. That's the difference in the USA and Mexico. Besides, I don't see many Americans beating down Mexico's door looking for jobs. BUT, if a Mexican wants to come here to work they should have to pay taxes on every single penny they make just like we do.
Its ludicrous to me why someone not from this country who is not a citizen of this country would be allowed by OUR government to have a competitive advantage over our own people.
I think we're on the same page here.
|
|
|
|
Post by americanfirst on Oct 1, 2004 20:36:54 GMT -5
I'm getting somewhere now. I will give you an example of what I am talking about. Now remember both of these drivers work for the same company. If they both lived in this country there would be cause for a discrinination lawsuit. This would be a blantant case of racial discrimination. You or someone else said in a reply that wages should not be dependent on where someone lives. How blantant is this?
"There also are hard economic gains through use of Mexican drivers. An American driver at Celadon earns on average 39.4 cents a mile, or 34 percent of its average rate of $1.17 a mile. But a Mexican driver earns just 11.8 cents a mile [at Celadon], or 15 percent of the average rate."
When you add in benifits the American driver makes over 5 times as much as the Mexican driver. I drove an average of 2400 miles a week when I was on the road. I earned $.42 cents a mile. Do you really think that I could contribute to the economy at 11.9 cents per mile. Couple that with the fact that I wouldn't have health insurance and even if the company offered it I wouldn't be able to pay my share of it and still put food on the table and a roof over my families head. I had colon cancer and was operated on three times in the last 3 years plus chemo. Who would have had to pay for the over $100,000 in hospital and doctor bill? You and your employers with higher hospital and doctors charges, and higher health insurance premiums. I would earn 285.60 per week for a 5 1/2 day week. That would be $51.92 a day which between driving and time spent loading and unloading average about 14 hours. We don't get paid for loading and unloading just for the miles we drive. That would be $3.70 an hour plus the fact I only get to spend about 36 hours a week at home.
Now do you see where I am coming from. I am told that Mexican drivers make an average of $7.00 a day in Mexico. This makes sense to me because I know for a fact that Filipino drivers earn around $5.00 in the Philippines so at over $50 a day this would be a huge raise for the Mexican driver. I do know of a company that pays it's drivers that live in Nashville, TN $.34 a mile and pays their Mexican American drivers that live in Southern New Mexico $.25 cents a mile and a Mexican co-driver only $.08 per mile.
I talked to one of the Mexican American drivers that was loading in Ky at the same place I was and he told me his Mexican co-driver earned $.07 cents a mile but we can go with the $.08 cents per mile listed on their site. My company starts drivers with similar experiance somewhere between $.36 and $.40 cents a mile with the same experiance they listed on their site. The difference in starting pay at my company depends on how long the driver was with his last company. My company would rather hire drivers that don't jump from company to company every 6 mo. The reason I know that the driver from the new Nashville terminal earns is that we brokered a load with that company and I met him at our wharehouse were I am now working locally while recovering from a broken shoulder. The white driver from Nashville, the Mexican American driver from New Mexico and the Mexican driver from Mexico all do the same job, pick up and deliver to the same or simular customers, the only difference is where they live.
The Mexican American told me that half the cars in the company parking lot have Mexican tags. Do you now understand the threat I feel to my job if my non-union employer tries to do the right thing. This disparity doesn't even take into considertion the fact that my employer provides me with benifits like paid vacations, paid holidays, health, dental, disability and life insurance. Pays half of my social security and medicare primiums, pays un-employment and workers comp insurance and provides me with good safe equipment. None of the above is required for the Mexican driver. I probably earn with benifits about $.60 per mile. I would think that as more and more companies go the same route as these other companies that my company would either have to cut wages and benifits or go out of business. They have been in business since the 1930's. I've been with these guys for 14 yrs and yes we have legal immigrant drivers some of whom are my best friends but my company pays them the same and does not discriminate. I am married to a wonderful wife from the Philippines and am certainly not anti-immigrant or racist but I am against American employers whom use foreign nationals to line their own pockets at the expense of American workers. My wife thinks Americans are stupid for allowing this to happen. The workers in her country would never allow it happen there. They wouldn't stand for it. This is just pure greed.
Oh! I'm sure you wonder how they get away with this. In the case of Celadon they own a company based in Mexico called Jaguar that the drivers actually work for. In case of the company in southern New Mexico the co- driver does not actually work for them. They work for a driver leasing company that they own and is based in Mexico. Yes! It's the same thing as owning your own temp agency so they don't acutally have to give these people the same wages and benifits as their other workers. The reason that they can get away with paying the lower wage to the people in New Mexico than Nashville is that it's a different location and traditionally right or wrong Mexican Americans which in large part live in getto's along the border get screwed and even get screwed worse by people of their own race when they work for them.
The Mexican-Americans are scared to death to file a complaint because maybe they aren't really legal either or their co-driver may be a relative from Mexico or maybe their afraid if the spill the beans their co-workers would beat their A _ _ or kill them if the government came in a cleaned house and they were the cause of it by filing a complaint.
President Bush is pushing for the FTAA lets just see how many south American countries will go for truck drivers from other countries working in their country. I can't wait until it's legal for a Columbian truck driver to make deliveries directly to the United States. President Bush is also pushing to let Turkey become a member of the European Union which most European countries are opposed to. Under the EU workers from one country can work in any country they wish. The EU is being overrun by Muslims already. Could you imagine what would happen if they opened this Pandora's box? Citizens of most western European countries can already travel to the United States without a visa. Can you see the risk I am talking about?
|
|
|
|
Post by americanfirst on Oct 2, 2004 21:56:40 GMT -5
For Bolo
1990
"U.S. President George Bush and Mexican President Carlos Salinas meet in June to discuss a North American free-trade accord that would eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers between the two countries. The pact would become the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). "
November 13, 1979
While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a “North American Agreement” which will produce “a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.”<br>
January 1981
President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market
October 9, 1984
The US Congress adopts the Trade and Tariff Act, an omnibus trade act that notably extends the powers of the president to concede trade benefits and enter into bilateral free trade agreements. The Act would be passed on October 30, 1984.
September 26, 1985
Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney announces that Canada will try to reach a free trade agreement with the US.
December 10, 1985
President Reagan officially informs Congress about his intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada under the authority of trade promotion. Referred to as fast track, trade promotion authority is an accelerated legislative procedure which obliges the House of Representatives and the Senate to decide within 90 days whether or not to establish a trade trade unit. No amendments are permitted.
May 1986
Simon Reisman, Chief negotiator for Canada, and Peter Murphy, the American negotiator, start negotiations.
October 3, 1987
Conclusion of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Washington.
January 2, 1988
Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan sign the FTA.
January 1, 1989
The FTA takes effect.
November 6, 1987
Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.
June 10, 1990
Presidents Bush and Salinas announce that they will begin discussions aimed at liberalizing trade between their countries.
August 21, 1990
President Salinas officially proposes to the US president the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
February 5, 1991
Negotiations between the US and Mexico aimed at liberalizing trade between the two countries officially become trilateral at the request of the Canadian government.
April 7 to 10, 1991
Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports.
May 24, 1991
The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.
June 12, 1991
Start of trade negotiations between Canada, the US and Mexico.
April 4, 1992
Signing in Mexico by Canada and Mexico of a protocol agreement on cooperation projects regarding labour.
August 12, 1992
Signing of an agreement in principle on NAFTA.
September 17, 1992
Creation of a trilateral commission responsible for examining cooperation in the area of the environment.
October 7, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Michaël Wilson of Canada (minister), American ambassador Carla Hills and Mexican secretary Jaime Serra Puche, in San Antonio (Texas).
December 17, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.
January 20, 1993 Clinton takes office.
March 17 and 18, 1993
Start of tripartite discussions in Washington aimed at reaching subsidiary agreements covering labor and the environment.
September 14, 1993
Official signing of parallel agreements covering labor and the environment in the capitals of the three countries.
January 1, 1994
NAFTA and the two agreements on labor and the environment take effect.
|
|
