Mexico’s punitive tariffs raise stakes on US trucking dispute
By Jonathan Roeder | Contributor 03.18.09
MEXICO CITY – By slapping punitive tariffs on 90 products from the US, Mexico has followed up on threats to retaliate after the termination of a cross-border shipping program.
In doing so, Mexico is simultaneously raising the stakes in the decade-long dispute and creating a diplomatic stumbling block for President Obama’s new administration.
“It is a violation of the North American Free Trade Agreement, a case of protectionism, at a time when the Obama administration is messaging to the rest of the world not to succumb to the temptations of protectionism as a way to trigger a recovery,” said Armand Peschard-Sverdup, a Mexico expert with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
“It’s kind of mixed messaging,” he said. “It’s the equivalent of ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ ”
In a statement released late Monday, Mexican Commerce Minister Gerardo Ruiz Mateos said the products – agricultural and industrial goods – come from 40 different US states and their total commercial value in 2007 was $2.4 billion. The products were not further identified in the statement.
The tariffs are allowed under NAFTA, since the US has not honored its requirement under the treaty to allow Mexican trucks to operate on US highways.
“In moments of economic crisis, when we should avoid protectionism at all costs, the US decision goes the other way and sends a negative signal to Mexico and the rest of the world,” Mr. Ruiz said in the statement.
A $410 billion spending bill approved by US lawmakers and signed by President Obama last week explicitly withdraws funding for a pilot program that gave some Mexican trucking companies the right to ship goods beyond the border zone and to their final US market (click here for the Monitor’s story on the move). Some US companies were also allowed to do the same in the opposite direction.
The Mexican Commerce Ministry is expected this week to publish a list of the specific American products affected by the tariffs. Staples such as rice and wheat are not expected to face new duties. Ruiz said the ministry selected goods that would not affect the costs of basic essentials for Mexican consumers.
The tariffs come as representatives of the Obama administration say they have recommended that the office of the US Trade Representative work with transportation officials and lawmakers to come up with a new trucking program. In a radio interview Tuesday morning, Ruiz said he plans to meet with US officials soon to discuss the issue.
Mr. Peschard-Sverdup said the dispute was “inadvertently causing a bumpy start” for the Obama administration in its relationship with Mexico.
Allowing Mexican trucks to operate in the US interior would reduce shipping times and costs by eliminating the process of changing trucks at the border, experts say. However, opponents say Mexican trucks are unsafe and giving them access to the US would undermine US jobs.
Mexican trucks performed well in inspections under the pilot program, which went into effect in 2007. However, only small numbers of vehicles participated in the program.
<< Compassion and risk | MainComments
2. tnhwyman | 03.18.09
maybe the companies that moved to mexico to get cheap labor will now be forced to come back and employee american workers.
3. mahogma | 03.18.09
“It’s kind of mixed messaging,” he said. “It’s the equivalent of ‘do as I say, not as I do.’ ”
You mean it’s similar to Mexico’s immigration policy?
4. Karen Consumer | 03.18.09
The Obama Administration didn’t do this for public safety, they did this for union drivers. The US and Mexico will have equal financial losses, but politically, the administration will lose more in the long run internationally because they are determined to build up union membership at any cost.
6. Campbell | 03.18.09
“The tariffs are allowed under NAFTA, since the US has not honored its requirement under the treaty to allow Mexican trucks to operate on US highways.”
NAFTA is not a treaty. NAFTA was pushed through as a statute in 1993 in a trade agreement by the previous Clinton administration that was unable to get two-thirds Senate majority.
7. JD | 03.18.09
I can’t believe this has not been allowed already.
We give the Mexicans everything else. Free housing, medical, dental, social security, welfare, food stamps and free education for the kids that the American tax payers paid to birth. Oh yeah and American jobs when a lot of Americans don’t have one. The illegals need to go home and we need to get tough with Mexico. We need to start enforcing the immigration laws. Don’t have enough people to do it? Hire some. There are plenty people that need a job including myself. They have already driven the California economy into ruins.
8. Mr. Larry | 03.18.09
Obama is acting in an unprincipled and hypocritical manner in regards to this matter. Protectionism begets retalitory protectionism. Obama is simply pandering to the union cause for political reasons.
9. AZMac | 03.18.09
Mexico needs us much more than we need them. Without us, where would it’s people have to run to by the millions? It’s the equivalent of shooting themselves in the foot.
10. EFD | 03.18.09
My solution is simple. Place a Tariff on ALL goods from Mexico and close half of the border checkpoint gates making transit from Mexico to the US take twice as long and add full inspection of all vehicles comming to the US. In short - close out easy access to the US from Mexico. They need us more than we need them.
11. John Vautrain | 03.18.09
Expecting harsh action against Mexico to benefit the US market is wrong. Even if effective against Mexican exports to the US, such tactics will cost US consumers. Further that would send a clear message around the world that the US is ready for trade war. Smoot and Hawley ride again.
12. Mike | 03.18.09
Mr. Johnson.
Maybe you should read some history from about 80 years ago. This type of mentality will snowball to the point that global trade comes to a standstill, like it has before and then we’ll all be hurt severely financially. Stopping Mexican immigration will have a positive effect on the US economy? Where do you live? There obviously aren’t many Mexican immigrants there, perhaps you should ask business owners where there are Mexicans what they think the economic benefit would be of having them gone. If you’re in a career where Untrained, unskilled and basically uneducated Mexican laborers can take your job then you’re at the absolute rock bottom of the food chain and have turned your back on every opportunity that this country has allowed for you as a US citizen.
If people want to halt Mexican immigration then they need to start cutting there own grass, bricking their own houses and nailing down their own shingles. Otherwise be glad we have access to cheap labor.
13. DWayne | 03.18.09
Most Mexican trucks are unsafe and not fit to operate on US highways. This was a good move by the Obama admin. No doubt it will save thousands of American lives. Now Obama needs to put heavy tariffs on all Mexican goods entering the USA. Maybe if we make the Mexicans real mad, they’ll go home.
14. Mr Smith | 03.18.09
It’s not hard to see Mexico bullying the US. Eric Holder is willing to take away America’s right to keep and bear arms to make the failed and corrupt Narco-State of Mexico a bit “safer”. The BO administration just plain stinks.
15. Wanda Gomez-Berger | 03.18.09
The thought of hundreds of thousands of Mexican trucks fanning out across the U.S. is a nightmare. First, it is job killer for American truck drivers. Secondly, it is an invitation to flood the country with illegal drugs and more illegal aliens. Lastly, it is a certainty that accidents will rise. Imagine one of these folks in your rear view mirror.
NAFTA should be terminated. It killed the Mexican economy and failed to deliver on the promise of ending illegal immigration.
16. Y.Hall | 03.18.09
As someone who lives in Baja Sur Mexico part of the year, I’ve seen first hand the poorly maintained and unsafe trucks used here in Mexico. The drivers are terrible and there are no safety standards. US trucks are bad enough, and adding mexican trucks will simply make matters much worse.
17. Mr. Gray | 03.18.09
Perhaps if we allowed the trucks as we agreed many years ago to do the problem would be solved. Mexican trucks are safe and all the test have shown that. I live in southern AZ I see them all the time with never a problem.
18. Nick | 03.18.09
It’s about time! They have long been been get free rides in this country and it’s about time our Gov use taxpayer money for this country and people instead.
19. Bob Koure | 03.18.09
Sounds like the issue is that there’s at least a perception that Mexico-based trucks are unsafe or pollute.
Sounds like all we need is an inspection system, with inspection tags, like some states use, plus a similar system for drivers.
I’d encourage Mexico to do the same for US-based trucks operating in Mexico.
At that point, either things go forward, or if this is not the real reason the trucks are being blocked, at least the real reasons will have to be made public - and they can hopefully be dealt with.
What’s so hard here? We’re neighbors. We have a treaty. Let’s live up to our side as well.
20. Mr Let’s be fair | 03.18.09
Mr Johnson -
Did you not read the article? The tariffs are valid under mutually agreed upon rules. Mexico is the one retaliating to US not meeting it’s side of the deal.
The US has no recourse here but to renegotiate.
21. Jorge | 03.18.09
Yeah, because this is all about retaliation and inflicting damage into the other country, not about honoring trade agreements, isn’t it?
22. Mr Smith | 03.18.09
‘Retaliate quickly and harshly’? Sounds like we were shortsighted to sign on to the treaty and now we’re seeing the result. Look at either renegotiating the treaty or meeting its requirements. If the tariffs are valid under the treaty (because we’ve not met its requirements) then it sounds like Mexico is within its rights to levy them.
It’s a trade deal. You take the bad with the good or you don’t enter into them.
23. Mr. Gomez | 03.18.09
Mr. Johnson is completely wrong. As a US citizen, and a thoughtful student of the economy (but not an economist), the best course of action would be to open the border to more trade, not less. Johnson’s comment about US retaliation against Mexico belies his lack of knowledge about the history of this issue. It is the US which has acted badly in this dispute, while Mexico has shown restraint and a good-neighbor attitude. What Mexico is doing is (rightly) punishing the US for not living up to our commitments under NAFTA (which would also be good economically for the us). The US NEEDS Mexico. Shutting the border will only lead to a higher cost, lower employment, less-equal society in the US in the long run.
24. Mr. Dugas | 03.18.09
Only in the US do we get mad and want to retalite when a county obeys the law of the land JJ(ie treaty) and we willfully disobey it to keep teamsters happy.
25. Martin Juarez Russo | 03.18.09
Mexico would do better to dramatically expand commercial relations with China until the collapse of the USA economy has reached bottom and the Northamericans have gotten on their own feet again.
26. SKV | 03.18.09
I really don’t have problem with Mexico trucks as long as they within US requirements (safety, driving hrs per day and week, insurance level, exhaust etc).
The truth is that means NO to Mexico trucks.
27. Perry | 03.18.09
Open the border to more trade? An article in the Washington Post states that the drug cartels have a combined force of foot soldiers comparable to the Mexican army. I don’t think NAFTA or feelings on immigration are the issue here. Safety is. Now may not be a good time to open up or loosen anything.
28. cecil | 03.18.09
Maybe somebody is waking uo to the potential for a Mexican truck loaded with explosives.
29. Vishal | 03.18.09
Gotta love the ignorant responses by people wanting to trigger a trade war. We are doomed.
30. tdjohnson | 03.18.09
The trucks are highly inspected. We have trade surpluses in critical markets as a result of the pilot trucking program. Clinton passed this when he signed NAFTA. Obama’s administration is in bed with the teamsters and this is what this all about. Mexico is our neighbor, why on god’s earth would we cease the legal transport of goods and do nothing about illegal immigration. It’s at the very least morally corrupt and stupid. More of these shenannigans should be brought to our attention because the so-called transparency doctrine that Obama so elegantly sold us on is exactly that. You can’t see anything!
31. steve graves | 03.18.09
Allowing Mexican trucks on U.S. highways was insane in the first place. Has anyone who supports such a measure actually traveled on highways in Mexico? It’s pure third world, and allowing such chaos to cross our borders is insane, not to mention a slap to the well regulated U.S. trucking industry where rules actually matter. This isn’t about Teamsters; it’s about the difference between chaos and order.
32. Hilary Smith | 03.18.09
Why should we allow possibly-unsafe trucks operated by questionably-skilled drivers onto US roads? How does that benefit Americans? What if someone were killed (all in the name of “free trade”)? We are doing the right thing; we shouldn’t allow Mexican trucks onto our roads until we have proof that the Mexican government is administering an adequate licensing and safety program. When you have a government that is for the People, free trade doesn’t trump public safety.
33. Jim | 03.18.09
It’s not about trucks. It’s not about merchandise. It’s about who makes the money on all the cocaine and meth in those trucks. Mexican Army escorts the drugs to and ACROSS our borders at times.
I am married to a Mexican and I have lived there. Their drivers are the worst and routinely kill many innocents by high velocity and lack of skills.
34. Mr Quoix | 03.18.09
It is sad to see the allegedly moderate Obama administration blatantly renege on United States treaty commitments to its number two trading partner. Mexico has waited over a decade through a “pilot” trucking program in which it has amassed an safety record far better than any US carrier for its trucks operating in the US. Now the door is slammed shut rather than opening more fairly as it should. Mexico is certainly not the “bully” here.
35. Bryan | 03.18.09
Mexico is running 2003 EPA emission level trucks and the US is currently on EPA 2007 emission level. Next year we will be on EPA2010 levels.
I say let them in, if they buy brand new $150k trucks that meet US emissions.
36. gerry calhoun | 03.18.09
Perhaps the US should place an export tariff on staples such as wheat, rice and corn going TO mexico. While this might cut down on some of those exports, it would also help mexican farmers but the cost would be to mexican consumers.
37. Mr. Righteous | 03.18.09
I don’t agree that there should not be restrictions for Mexican trucking here in the US. After all, NAFTA did not work as it should be. Immigration should be restricted also to the point that if US could close the border totally then do it. It is a fallacy that we rely on Mexicans for cheap labor. Simple things such as mowing the grass can be done by an American.
Statistics showed that US has been populated by Hispanics and undeniably Mexicans. They are exploiting the loopholes of the law utilizing Medicaid, Social Security, Social Services etc.
38. rodrigo | 03.18.09
It is very sad to see that some “AMERICANS” still don’t get it. Mexico DO NOT CARE ABOUT ITS PEOPLE, why do you think Mexico would be concern about the well-being of the american people? Great move, now let’s kick out all of the “untrained, unskilled and basically uneducated illegal Mexicans”. I do not get the impression that everybody is a doctor in USA.
39. JEL | 03.18.09
This is plain and simple payback to the Teamsters for their support of Obama’s candidacy. Obama continually says what he thinks sounds right and turns around and does the opposite. He is certainly not the “Savior” and in reality, he is not up to the job. He is an inexperienced state politician. But we elected him so this is what we deserve (at least those of you who voted for him).
40. The Stickman | 03.18.09
A dual violation for both sides. However to try and say it is not “protectionism” is an out right lie. The last sentance tells you who is behind it, the unions. They want to get paid big wages for the same job that some others are willing to do for less money even if it means savings to the consumer. Americans - wake up! More unions will amount to higher costs and money out of your pocket. The unions have out lived their usefulness. Why is the car industry in trouble? Why is the steel industry almost disappearing? What is the new bill in congress aimed at, WalMarts. There goes affordable items for the everyday man just to increase union wages.
41. Stephan Andrew Brodhead | 03.18.09
The teamsters have worked hard to support American truckers. When that American trucker is making good money he can support his family. That American trucker can afford a nice home. there is nothing more beautiful than seeing American truckers hauling American goods on American highways in brand new American trucks. Should we allow Mexican trucks on American highways all they would do is lower the overall wage of American truckers. They would operate unsafe trucks and cit corners at every turn. Then there is drug trafficking as well as human trafficing. Just as illegals lower the overall wage for legal Hispanics in evey town in America, all they would do for American trucking is destroy the gains the Teamsters have made. So when do we stop? When do we stop exporting jobs to other countries and destroying the middleclass?
42. Mr. Russell | 03.18.09
I’m deeply concerned about the lack of true and factual knowledge on most of these comments on the aforementioned issue. Most of the comments I’ve been reading are nothing but scape-goating, finger-pointing, and protectionist comments. When we start taking responsibility for our own actions, and educate ourselves with facts released by trustworthy, reliable sources about economics and trade, ONLY THEN, we will be able to open our eyes and see the true, bigger picture. Last time I checked, the Mexicans were not running (yet) the US auto industry, the banking system, or AIG. I’d not be surprised by more blatant, uneducated comments to pin that on them as well. Let’s grow up as a nation people!
43. BW | 03.18.09
If the complaint is that Mexican trucks have a commercial advantage because they are “unsafe,” the solution is additional safety inspections. The American trucking industry actually fears that (a) American trucks will also end up being inspected and (b) that it will not be able to compete against low wage Mexican drivers. By the way, there is very little union involvement in this issue. The freight crossing the border is nearly all truckload, nonunion trucking.
44. Mr. Dean | 03.18.09
NAFTA and other so-called Trade agreements are at their core designed to undermine the national sovereignty of the countries that embrace these agreements. Bill Clinton’s mentor Carroll Quigley wrote about the globalists designs in his book Tragedy and Hope. Notice Clinton’s statements over the years about matters relating to a country’s sovereignty. The Bush’s were no better of course since all these guys are programmed with the same theme. If we don’t do something to protect the dollar-by protecting our industries-then all the financial stimulus will be for naught. It’s time to get rid of those in our government who continually undermine the best interests of our nation in order to server global elites. Have you ever asked yourself how is that the two countries we “defeated” in WW11 ended up dominating the car industry.
45. Mr. CARB | 03.18.09
California Air Resources Board just implemented a new regulation that requires all trucks in California to add aftermarket emission controls or change out the engine within the next few years. This will be very costly to California truckers, but deemed necessary to improve the poor air quality.
Is the Mexican Commerce Ministry requesting to allow ALL Mexican trucks into California or only the ones that meet the new regulations?
46. cav | 03.18.09
We can build on a allied relationship with Mexico or shun them and have an Iraq next door. It’s our choice.
47. David | 03.18.09
80 percent of the narcos leaders are US citizens
and very rich they can do anything they want in mexico
the president has declare war on them
48. your mum | 03.18.09
all you bilbe lovers need to chill and not give the mexicans such a bad time
49. Robert Anthony | 03.18.09
i hope we can fix this problem because we really depend on Mexico a lot. Not only is Mexico one of our top trading partners, we need their oil and their food and the drugs. We consume over half of all the narcotics in the world. And of course we need their cheap labor to compete in the global economy. Without Mexico we are lost totally.
50. Cristian | 03.18.09
Allowing Mexican truckers to drive in the United States is inherently unsafe due to the pervasive corruption of the Mexican state and its law enforcement. Backgrounds records and safety certifications in Mexico are unreliable. Anyone who has worked or traveled in the country knows that anything or anyone on the government payroll can be bought. Any US program that treats US and Mexican citizens under the same standards should be rethought in this context, such as the SENTRI passenger border crossing clearance. US citizens are screened by FBI records that go back half a century for minor offense, Mexican citizens cannot be held accountable as any criminal offense can be settled off the books on the spot with as little as $3 to the police officer. The country is not an equal partner in trade or law enforcement.
51. RC | 03.18.09
“We give the Mexicans everything else… Oh yeah and American jobs when a lot of Americans don’t have one”
JD, JD, why are you mad at the Mexicans for your job loss?
You should be mad at the guys that fired you to hire an illegal person.
What does that say about you?
Maybe you sucked at your job and they let you go!
These illegals don’t take jobs, they are given by business owners that want to save a dime. Get mad at those people for hiring them. Once they stop hiring illegals they will not cross that border!
52. Americano | 03.18.09
A) The U.S. time and time again has proven that is has a double standard when it comes to protecionism. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Why is it that you cannot find a single tea spoon full of Brazilian sugar when Brazil is the world’s largest producer of sugar??
B)To the ignoramous that proposes that all illegal Mexicans be deported. If all illegal persons were deported, this ecomony would simply collapse.
53. Richard | 03.18.09
I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Johnston.
Enough is enough! Why in the world should we allow broken down uninspected trucks from Mexico to travel our roads (which our tax’s, not Mexico’s, will have to maintain).
NAFTA was, and is, a terrible deal for the U.S.
Richard
54. Pedro | 03.18.09
Mr Johnson and JD seem to believe that all Mexicans who are in the U.S are illegal. and that they are being robbed of housing, jobs, education, medical, dental, welfare and their food stamps. Let me say in response, this LEGAL AMERICAN CITIZEN. Has worked Legally in the U.S. for over 23 years. Housing, education, medical and dental have not been given to me, but obtained by my hard work. Believe it or not, not every Mexican is on welfare or food stamp.
read the article more carefully and keep your racist comment to yourself it doesn’t help the cause, it just makes you sound ignorant and it embarrases us as AMERICANS.
55. SoCAL_Sailor | 03.18.09
This issue is a myriad of different problems. We subsidize corn, congress stopped funding the cross-border trucking program, our border is full of holes, illegal workers take jobs and bring down wages with a ripple effect on other jobs. We have to do a few, unpleasant things on the our side before we go kicking dirt across the border. Unions, lobbyists (you can’t imagine the size of the lobby for corn and other vegetables) all push the government toward the internal economy for buying goods, big business pushes for cheaper labor, and we push for lower prices.
Stop subsides on our goods, fund a trucking inspection program, close a few border crossing and put those guards on the line to protect our borders from illegal activity (that includes illegal immigration), reducing immigration to nearly zero would put 1.3MIL Americans back to work every year and support E-Verify to support the jobs we now have in the US. I’m all about employing people, but do it legally and safely. Skirting employment laws also puts underage, sick and unsafe people on the line that handle our food and other products.
56. Reg Gary | 03.18.09
The way to a good deal is to be fair on all sides and lets remember the little guy in the middle the drivers and mfg workers.
The result will most likely be a strike of independent drivers across America to show support against the drivers of Mexico from entering the US and taking jobs away from them.
I support the American workers but on the other hand if no trade no sales thus no jobs its a true catch 22.
57. Murr | 03.18.09
Since the Mexican government can’t be trusted to guarantee truck or driver safety through it’s own licensing, any Mexican truck wanting to run on our roads should have to be inspected in the U.S. yearly, at their expense. Drivers should be similarly certified and licensed to drive on U.S. roads. Costs for the certification program should be shared among the licensees, the Mexican government, and the U.S. But even this shouldn’t be offered unless Mexico immediately drops any new tariffs it has imposed.
The benefits will be that Mexico will see we’re serious about road safety and will learn how to run a truly effective certification program on their own. If they finally get it, the whole certification operation might move south of the border.
58. The Voice | 03.18.09
Seriously, there are a lot of people on this site that are completley ignorant and have absolutely no idea as to what they are saying.
IF, the US was to impose heavy tariffs to Mexico, than Mexico find some other country from the list it already has bilateral agreements with and do business with them. Granted it would not have the same revenue as it does with the US but if the product can be sold for profit then there is a market.
Remember people, the US is becoming an eyesore to the world, we have to make the US have better image or we will slowly start to fall. Did you people read the Article or just the Headline, the piloting Program worked well without a flaw, without the apocalypse looming on the US Highways. Again if you want to spend more money that at the time we do not have on shipping then be my guest.
I aggree with the Heavy inspeection on all Mexican Trucks to enter the US as well as a thorough examanation to prevent further immigration.
59. Mr. Jose | 03.18.09
It comes as no surprise that American blood boils easy and tongues run rampant with hate and despise for Mexico. The point that the Haters miss is that the current presidency is bending to the will and fancy of organized labor - Unions.
The Unions hampered the GM bailout, the unions are against Universal Health Care, and the unions are against non-union (i.e. Mexican) truckers. I have worked all my life outside of the union cancer and have done very well for myself.
America is the land of opportunity for Americans. Americans have all the educational tools at their disposal to succeed. If you are worried about “Pedro” taking away your paper route, or “Pancho” taking away your job at the local car wash, then you have totally squandered the educational and economic opportunities that this great country has to offer to its Citizens.
60. Dave | 03.18.09
None of the OTR companies are union, only the LTLs. Anyone who thinks the OTR drivers are teamsters has never driven a truck.
61. Mr. Park | 03.18.09
Ah, the return of nativist Know-Nothingism. As a nation of immigrants it is odd that we always turn on the newcomers. The only issues here should be safety and treaty/statutory obligations. The rest of this “discussion” is irrelevant and, frankly, of questionable motivation. I drive Mexican roads quite frequently. I travel I-35 between Laredo and San Antonio ten times a year on average. The long haul Mexican truckers and their trucks appear no different than the US equivalents (most Mexican trucks were probably made in the US). Local Mexican trucks are a different matter, but we aren’t discussing that. Nothing in NAFTA prevents US inspection for safety. There are three opportunities do so between Laredo and San Antonio. Two are operated by our Federal government and one by the Texas Department of Transportation. Safety is clearly a cover for other concerns.
62. Steven | 03.18.09
I’m an American living in Mexico. I shop at Walmart or Costco, eat fast food at McDonalds, buy home products at Home Depot. I can even do my banking at Walmart; something that the US Congress blocked in the US. None of this was possible 10 years ago; and certainly it is good for both the US and Mexico.
As for Mexican trucks on American highways, I agree with the need to have Mexican trucks enter the US, provided that they meet safety requirements. There are certainly unsafe Mexican trucks on Mexican roads today, and I think the US needs to make sure these are not allowed onto American highways.
However, I think the bigger question is President Obama’s commitment to NAFTA. It seems that this pilot program has been the target of American unions for a long time now, and in President Obama they see a chance to impose their will (he certainly doesn’t stand up to Democrats in Congress, and now we are seeing his unwillingness to stand up to the unions). As it turns out, NAFTA as a whole has been a target of American unions. Is there any doubt if the unions are allowed to succeed in eliminating this pilot program, that they will be inspired to eliminate all of NAFTA? In fact, maybe Mexico’s legal response to US protectionism will create the pretense that the unions (and President Obama) want to eliminate NAFTA entirely.
63. Bip | 03.18.09
I understand about the whole trade-agreement thing, but I fail to see how eliminating the funding for a pilot program allowing Mexican truckers into the US violates that.
It’s not like we are not letting them sell us their goods.
Also, even if the Mexican truckers were somehow protected by NAFTA, isn’t Mexico’s response a bit disproportionate?
64. EMD | 03.18.09
Mr. CARB,
All the heavy duty engine manufacturers (Paccar, Volvo, Detroit, etc)sell engines in Mexico that are below the required standard in the US. So, no, the Mexican trucks will not carry the same emissions standards. Mexicans can buy new trucks with engines carring emission equipment that we used in 2002. Next year, as a CARB advocate should fully understand, US truck must get an additional $9600 worth of emission equipment/technology.
65. Manu | 03.18.09
Yeah we’re total hypocrites as usual. Somehow we don’t have to keep our end of a policy which we implemented.
67. Jerry | 03.18.09
It’s really quite simple. Since we now have so much of Mexico’s population living here, they feel a need to have Mexican goods for those poor unfortunate souls, who are living off of our good graces. We give them schools, healthcare, welfare, and our jobs, so why not give them some good home grown products too? Now, seriously. What in the heck do we need with Mexican products? We already buy a huge amount of their dope. Seal the border. Send those who are here illegally, back home. Free up millions of jobs, put America back to work. After a few months, they will soon learn they need us a heck of a lot more than we need them. Now, let me clarify one thing. I have nothing against hard working Mexican people coming to this country for work. But, come here legally. Get a leagl job where you pay taxes under your own social security number. Enroll your children in English classes. No welfare. Make a living just like I have for over 50 years now. When tough times come, then tough people make due. And quit sending your earnings back to Mexico. You earn it here invest it here or spend it here. Help the nation where you live.
68. Phil | 03.18.09
Mexican trucks can be as safe as American trucks, or as deadly, predicated on the truck owner and the person behind the wheel.
However, if we allow unfettered access to our highways AND freight, which is the true underlying problem, it will destroy the American trucking industry. There is no way an American company or Independent Owner Operator can compete against a foreign driver in this country. American drivers can make up to $100,000 per year. Of course, that’s working 70 (the legal limit set by the US government)hours a week and being out on the road away from family for 4 to 6 weeks at a time, being home two to three days and then heading out again. And YES I did drive a big truck for three years after the post Y2K telecom meltdown in this country.
To those who believe Mexican workers are good for this country, ask the electricians, plumbers, carpenters, painters and yes even the landscapers, how their lives have been since illegal aliens have come in and taken their jobs? Ask yourself if you’ve seen the savings the home builders enjoyed reflected in the price of the home you bought.. or if it just went to their bottom line and to appease Wall Street?
We NEED industry in this country, including the trucking industry. No nation can survive as a nation of consumers, working as clerks in stores selling foreign made products.
69. John Gault | 03.18.09
Not only do we need more tariffs with Mexico and Canada, we should also raise tariffs on goods shipped between the states. Think of all that tax revenue! We could even impose duties as goods pass through each state, that way everyone would get their fair share. We can’t be expected to compete if we’re not even given a chance.
70. JOsue | 03.18.09
We give the Mexicans everything else. Free housing, medical, dental, social security, welfare, food stamps and free education for the kids that the American tax payers paid to birth. Oh yeah and American jobs when a lot of Americans don’t have one.
Above there was a comment made, that Mexicans get free this and that. You
shouldn’t assume that all Mexicans get things free. I’m a Mexican and I’ve never been given all of the things above free. In fact, I see more white people get things “free”, than do not appreciate what they’re getting than Mexicans. I pay taxes, my parents pay income taxes is that free? My family’s tax dollars also go to the same things as other Americans.
In the times we live in, it is not beneficial to act as a closed nation, at least not right now. Do you think America is self-sufficient right now? If America supposedly doesn’t need Mexico, why is it so worried about its collapse? What is good for Mexico is good for the US, and also the other way around. If Mexico had a good economy there would be less immigrants. Mexicans don’t want to leave Mexico, but they have to because of the economy. Everything is connected, one thing affects another.
71. awh | 03.18.09
The Obama administration is not ready to implement the trucking provisions of NAFTA. Allowing Mexican truckers into the U.S. would cause massive protests and political backlash. It is the intention of the international bankers, those who control our politicians, to destroy the border between the US and Mexico and the border between the US and Canada. They realize that the timing is not right. Mexico however, is facing serious financial and political problems and wants to open the border as soon as possible. Is it a coincidence that the US announced yesterday that they will be sending troops to the Mexican border to help with the drug war problem there. I think it has to do more with a projection of force on the border in retaliation to Mexicos imposed tariffs. We all should be able to understand that if the US government wanted to stop the flow of drugs into the US they could.
72. USMarine | 03.18.09
Impose a tariff on the US? Go ahead. The US should impose a tariff on ALL cash leaving the United States through Union Pacific (you know, the company that has ATM’s at 7/11 to directly wire cash out of the country). It’s estimated that $42 billion left the US in 2007, wired directly to Mexico alone. Impose a 10% tariff, and increase it 5% every year until Mexico extradites criminals who have killed US citizens and police officers. Use the tariff to build walls on the border and halt illegal immigration, to deport illegal immigrants who are committing criminal acts, and to help rebuild the medical and social services that they have depleted. Encourage Mexico to stand on their own and remove corruption from all levels of their government, then maybe we can talk about NAFTA. Good fences make good neighbors.
73. Frank Lloyds | 03.18.09
I’m a gringo living in sunny beautyfull Mexico, and I very much want to buy the American goods that come here from USA, Nafta is a win win for all, and this problem of transportacion is nothing but protectionism of the Teamsters by an industry that need to faced up to an global economy,Canada,USA and Mexico are destine to live toghether in a global economy they share some of the longest borders in the word. China,Rusia, and EU will replace us as a super power, if we can’t live with in our treatys.
Illigal drugs get to the USA do to corrup USA border officials, and Mexico is full of American arms do to the same on both side of the border.
There are reputable Mexican Trucking Company that will compete with whatever USA Trucking regulation trown at them, and with the proper USA inspection of this regulations, I dont see the problem.
Mexico is only acting with in the treaty, and this action now will force the Obama administration to come to the table and negociate….that is the mechanism that the treaty indicate, is iether that or quietly see a bullying Nation do with the treaty how ever it sees fit
Mexican and American Indians know a lot about American treaty’s
74. Spitt | 03.18.09
Smog check their vehicles, make them pass inspections every 3 months. If a Mexican trucking company has 3 or more trucks that do not pass inspection, then do not allow those trucks on the roads. Make each Mexican truck driver take annual classes and make them take tests to prove they know how to drive a truck. Stop saying it’s unsafe for them to be on the road, when it would be very easy to make them safe. We don’t have to give them money, as they would have to pay for the schooling and inspections.
As per Mexicans taking our jobs, perhaps you should consider that you get paid too much? Where I live, Mexicans take the jobs no one else wants… but at the same time, businesses which require a lot of labor, will not hire white or even black American’s, simply because they know that Mexicans will work harder then blacks and whites.
People will not like my POV, but I think we need a depression and an economic collapse, to reset the costs of everything. To take us back to paying little for work and for items. Inflation is killing the USA.
75. Bryan | 03.18.09
$100k gross income while possible becomes much less when you have to pay for medical insurance (and expenses - it is very rare for a trucker to retire without a disability or chronic pain, it is one of the worst industries for occupational health). In general the American trucker makes barely more what would be considered sustinance here.
The Trucking industry runs on extremely tight margins and every little item that puts the United States trucker at a disadvantage needs to be looked at very carefully.
If a mexican trucker (or company) can purchase a new truck in mexico that is running 2003 emissions and drive wherever they wish puts a severe disadvantage on not only American truckers but all American shipping companies. For example a 2007 emissions level truck costs about $5000 more than a 2003 emissions truck, and gets 2 MPG average less fuel economy. On top of that they are more complex and require more service and repairs.
A 2010 emissions truck will hopefully return the MPG lost in 2007 but will cost even more and require more service.
Have mexican truckers run American registered trucks, meeting American standards, and obtain American CDLs.
76. Russ | 03.18.09
Accusations that this decision is a favor to the teamsters are pure speculation and deserve no attention. Assertions that this will increase drug trafficking are unfounded, as the decision does not affect the amount of goods and number of trailers crossing the border, just the nationality of the truck that is towing them. The safety concern is legitimate. Trucks in the pilot program have done well. Strict safety inspections must be performed to ensure safety standards are maintained across the entire fleet of authorized trucks.
NAFTA has been an economic success for all three partners as trade in all six possible directions has increased as a result. NAFTA is the only way that North America is able to compete with unified European and southeast Asian trading blocs. Mr. Obama’s decision was ill-advised and should be reversed.
77. Joe Citizen | 03.18.09
We should take care of our neighbors before they turn to someone else. We already have Chavez sleeping with Russia, Iran and China. That’s a little too close for me and it should be for any other US Citizen also.
78. captainkona | 03.18.09
There may be no trucks coming across the border at all pretty soon.
Our military will have to get involved in the Drug Cartel activity on the border or this country will be in deep doo-doo.
What we need is for Obama to offer Mexican trucks entry in exchange for a demilitarized zone running two miles into Mexico territory, manned by joint forces, until we can get drugs legalized and regulated so the money these creeps are killing over will become non-existent.
Then make them bring their trucks up to our standards, their drivers must pass tests here to determine their competence, and all would be well.
Too bad that eight years of unprecedented incompetence allowed this to get so out of hand.
79. Jay | 03.18.09
So we negotiate a deal, don’t follow it, and then we get mad if Mexico doesn’t follow it? Makes perfect sense.
80. storrmi | 03.18.09
Clarification: The majority of truck drivers in this country ARE NOT UNION!
These are independent drivers working for companies. The embargo on Mexican trucks in this country is due to the influx of drugs, illegals and guns; Who checks them? I see them waved through in San Onefre, California. Further: NAFTA was the brainchild of Reagan and Bush 1; this cancelled the “Buy American Act” and as government employees, we were required to allow foreign materials to be purchased for government projects. This was in 1988! Bill Clinton did not become president until 1992.
81. Mr. C. | 03.18.09
First, the Mexican trucks allowed to enter under the pilot program had to comply with US health and safety standards, which they did. Also, they were thoroughly inspected at the border by US patrols. It is unlikely that drug smuggling or illegal immigration really had anything to do with the removal of the program.
Second, the removal of the program is not necessarily a domestic political tool by Obama to protect our truckers (partially at most). Instead, it creates an incentive for the US and Mexico to negotiate a more effective program. The pilot program was ambiguous, lacking a sufficient timeline to develop a long term permanent sollution. In general however, Mexico does need to modernize its trucking industry in order to increase efficiency.
Third, NAFTA was and is a positive agreement, even if it is still working out some kinks. The US is Mexico’s largest trading partner. Obviously there are winners and losers when it comes to negotiating a trilateral free trade agreement. Only since January 1, 2008 have the final tariffs been removed. This is not a long enough timeline to accurately judge the effectiveness of NAFTA.
We rely on Mexico (and the rest of Latin America) just as they rely on us. It is time that the United States government lives up to its promise of being a “Good Neighbor”. For too long we have intervened in LA in the wrong ways. Remove the Cuba embargo, respect LA elections, encourage regional cooperation and diplomacy, facilitate social empowerment. How can a country with so much wealth, that claims to be a proponent of peace and prosperity allow so much inequality and poverty in our region? Lets see some “change” in the Americas.
82. James | 03.18.09
All trucks (U.S., Canadian and Mexican) must be required to meet U.S. safety and vehicle inspection standards, if driven on U.S. roads.
All truck drivers must follow all U.S. laws, if driving in the U.S.
Anyone working in the U.S., even intermittently, must meet U.S. labor laws.
These are non-negotiable requirements.
83. Tired guy | 03.18.09
I have to agree with James and I would like to add that people are thinking with their livers instead of with their heads.
- if you do not like drugs then stop buying them.
- if you don’t want to loose your job to a ilegal person then start studying.
- if you go to another country you abide by their laws (it doesn matter if you are from the US or the prime minister of England)
- you do not need inmigrants? then what is this country made of?
- you want more jobs then start being competitive and stop complaining(every one wants cheaper things but they want to earn more money)
* Do not get me wrong the US is a great country but it depends on its people to improve. Think and then write something constructive.
PS: Mexico is not an important producer of drugs.
84. drobert | 03.18.09
Mexico has all the right to impose new rules as the U.S has broken their part of the agreement.
85. Jared | 03.18.09
Avoid Protectionism, eh? That’s the big myth, isn’t it? I know that the laisez faire style of economics is very en vogue (although the scales seem to be tipping back towards a more Keynesian style), but when one examines recent history, we see that a little bit of protectionism and gov’t interaction with the economy CAN be healthy. Japan, S. Korea, Malaysia, are examples where protectionism and gov’t intervention have helped (in the case of Japan, though, the pendulum swung back too far the other way and gov’t actions actually hurt the economy). But the lesson is that protectionism should not be taken off the table.
86. Robert Anthony | 03.18.09
If i were mexican i would say ok let’s not trade anymore. Take out all of your companies and your maquila factories that pay our people ten dollars for eight hours worth of labor, and we will keep all our vegetables and other food we sell you as well as our gold, silver, and oil. Mexico has resources beyond anyone’s imagination and doesn’t need to trade at all. It has always been foreign companies that want Mexico’s natural resources and trade.
87. Edward | 03.18.09
Protectionism, America First, Bring back Jobs, bring Manufacturing back to the USA. That’s down right Unamerican, just ask any corporate CEO he’ll tell how good NAFTA is …. For him and his pals.
88. S. Sandlin | 03.19.09
Thank you, President Obama: I’m getting to trust your policies more and more. Too, in the name of “Norma Rae” and all of us looking for a paycheck, let me ask people to look into the full working history of this country regarding the unions before they start railing against them as a matter of uninformed bias.
89. I am Arkad | 03.19.09
The increase in trade restrictions on either side of the border hurts both consumers and producers.
Example 1: - Country imposing tariffs - It hurts consumers by raising the price of goods purchased within the country that imposes the tariffs. As these consumers have less discretionary income they don’t buy as much which hurts producers. Producers then have to layoff more employees to remain profitable. More unemployment!
Example 2: Country subject to tariffs – Producers are charged additional fees to export which means that they produce less and have to layoff workers. These workers (consumers) consequently spend less and companies in previously unaffected industries sell less which means that they have to layoff more employees to remain profitable. More unemployment!
I know that it sounds fun to pick on the poor darker skinned Mexican south of the border and no one wants to loose face after loosing their integrity, but there is a reason why the Smoot Hawley tariffs took unemployment from 8% (where it is right now) to over 30%.
The other commonly repeated mantra is that Mexican trucks are unsafe. Well, unfortunately if common safety standards were applied to all trucks within the US that both American trucks and Canadian trucks would have to spend more to come up to the inspection frequency and inspection results of the Mexican trucks. The truth is that despite the fear-mongering of the Teamsters and the populist rants whenever anybody has actually conducted a serious study they have usually found that Mexican trucks in the US are in better shape than American trucks within the same borders. If you have any questions you can review the following articles.
http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13331117
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123742090606978583.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123739445919172781.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123734307385565407.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123733223751763197.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/opinion/19thu2.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=mexican%20trucking&st=cse
90. Cumulative Impacts | 03.22.09
INFO TO ALL.
1. Many US companies are now positioning them selves in Mexico.
2. All trucks and cargo containers, used by these companies are US made, latest model and are registered in the US, with Nevada, California or Colorado plates.
3. All drivers are employees of these companies, mostly dual citizens or with a legal status in US.
4. Such positioning is due to the continuous adherence to the old status quo.
5. Infringing upon the existence of these US multi national corporation status, will trigger massive lis pendens and Constitutional Tort.
6. These companies are also represented by US legal counsel.
7. All that fiasco is waste of time and resources, however curtailment will indubitable result in lis pendens, if any one have a stomach for legal costs.
8. Most of these companies produce agricultural crop, aimed to feed US, particularly the bone dry California, due to its pending bankruptcy agricultural base.
9. Those companies are creating jobs, equally on both side of the border. (Each $165K truck made in US creates jobs)
10. US is a country of many uninformed, uneducated, protectionism borne, racist, with a myriad of other negatives folks.
Endlessly balking at each other will result in self destruct. So, keep on balking until you have no food on the table. Not to mention the huge Cumulative Impacts.
91. Hemi | 03.22.09
90. Cumulative Impacts | 03.22.09
INFO TO ALL.
1. Many US companies are now positioning them selves in Mexico.
2. All trucks and cargo containers, used by these companies are US made, latest model and are registered in the US, with Nevada, California or Colorado plates.
3. All drivers are employees of these companies, mostly dual citizens or with a legal status in US.
4. Such positioning is due to the continuous adherence to the old status quo.
5. Infringing upon the existence of these US multi national corporation status, will trigger massive lis pendens and Constitutional Tort.
6. These companies are also represented by US legal counsel.
7. All that fiasco is waste of time and resources, however curtailment will indubitable result in lis pendens, if any one have a stomach for legal costs.
8. Most of these companies produce agricultural crop, aimed to feed US, particularly the bone dry California, due to its pending bankruptcy agricultural base.
9. Those companies are creating jobs, equally on both side of the border. (Each $165K truck made in US creates jobs)
10. US is a country of many uninformed, uneducated, protectionism borne, racist, with a myriad of other negatives folks.
Endlessly balking at each other will result in self destruct. So, keep on balking until you have no food on the table. Not to mention the huge Cumulative Impacts.
=========================
No food on the table? What makes you think we have food on the table now? And do you really think we can’t grow our food in other parts of the country? We’d be better off. At least it wouldn’t be loaded down with chemicals. And this has nothing to with protectionism. When we can employ our own then we’ll share the wealth. It don’t matter anyway, most of these companies will be going out of business real soon. They thought they could maximize profits by cutting us off at the knees and it backfired. Nobody spends like Americans. Now that we’re out of jobs and maxed out on credit the party’s over. We can barely afford to buy their cheep products from China, now both countries will suffer.
92. Ariel Lohr | 03.23.09
This is a result of arrogance and stupidity in both US and Mexican governments, Mexico and the United States are the two largest trade partners in the world US reaction should not be to do the same and place tariffs but to back off, grapes for example were placed a 45% tariff on by mexico if we were to do the same the mexican state of Sonora will fall into termoil and as already being a major base of the mexican drug cartel imagine what will happen if you unemploye half of the state it will destroy mexico and land a devestating blow to the US economy that will end up with us looking like mexico, aside from all that the cross-border trucking plan is actually a solid and smart business move, besides it is a pilot plan!! a promising experiment that has been destroyed by a labor union, the Teamsters may have signed North America’s death warrent.
93. Ken | 03.24.09
I say just sign the Mexican drivers up with Teamsters International, work up a minimal contract for them, and let the trucks roll. Let the Mexicans drive up here and let American drivers deliver goods in Mexico.
I am an IBEW members, and we have IBEW locals in Canada. “International” means the union represents workers in more than one nation.
Why doesn’t the Teamsters want more members?
Why is this so difficult?
Both the transportation of goods and exports are very important to our economy. We should not let this be one more stumbling block to getting the economy back on track. We have enough do deal with as it is.
94. Ruben Moreno | 03.27.09
There are sooo many igorant comments here, it’s almost freightening to think that these people will pass these ideals down to their children: “They need us more than we need them”, “Without us, where would it’s people have to run to by the millions?”, “We give the Mexicans everything else. Free housing, medical, dental, social security, welfare, food stamps and free education for the kids that the American tax payers paid to birth. Oh yeah and American jobs when a lot of Americans don’t have one.” (By the way, illegal immigrants do get taxed on their wages and do not file a tax return, which means Uncle Sam keeps billions more than the total cost of services rendered to illigals).
As a former active duty Marine, I have seen our great American “policies”. I carried out our “humanitarian” efforts, and let me tell you they are not altruistic. In case many of you don’t know, we have servicemen and women who are not citizens, but serving to expedite their process…many never made it that far.
What people need to understand is that this is a REaction, a counterpunch. They don’t happen if some action (or “punch”) didn’t occur in the first place, i.e. the U.S. not honring its requirement. There’s only so many years the U.S. can get away with it…well, maybe not if you think about what the U.S. has gotten away with in Latin America: coups, regime establishments, underwriting civil wars.
What is certain, is that what post #92 “Ariel Lohr” stated is true to the effect that both governments need to look for a mutually beneficial resolution to this. One that takes into account the regions of each country that is affected and the welfare of it’s people, American and Mexican.
As far as the drug issue is concerned, let us also not forget the basic rule of economics: Supply & Demand. Without the demand, there is no need for supply. Which side are we here in the U.S.?
95. Ken | 03.30.09
I agree with you regarding the drug cartels Ruben. If we Americans were not so keen on using the dope, then the narco-traficantes would not have a market.
I am a union man (IBEW electrical union), but I do not see why the Teamsters are digging in their heels on this so strongly. Why would the Teamsters collaborate with the Mexican tracking unions and get a good deal for all parties?
In any case, the USA is signatory to NAFTA and as a nation, we live up to treaty obligations. The business of America is business and whether the Teamsters unions like it or not, we will convince Mexico to remove the tariffs and the truck will keep moving.
Eventually then, because is is more economical i.e., because it is better for both the US and the Mexican economies, qualified Mexican truckers will drive the hi-ways and by-ways of America and likewise, qualified American truckers will drive the hi-hways and by-ways of old Mexico.
It only makes good sense to do this.
96. Ken | 03.30.09
Oops - Typo Alert. I should have typed “…Why would the Teamsters Not collaborate with the Mexican tracking unions and get a good deal for all parties?”
97. Michael | 07.08.09
Yes! Lets outsource/eliminate a few million MORE jobs in this country! Thats just what we need right now during this deep recession! We’ve already gutted our manufacturing base in this country. Now lets outsource our transportation capability to Mexico! What’s next? Our electricity, food, and water?
This is ridiculous. What is the Obama administration doing sitting around on this? Obama and his team need re-negotiate this and if talks fail revoke NAFTA and RAISE THE TARRIFS!
98. Michael | 07.08.09
@ 96
Ken your analysis fails to mention “Free Trade Agreements” means capital ALWAYS flows to the location in which goods and services are cheaper. So as long as the Peso is lower vs. the Dollar it’s guaranteed capital will flow to Mexico taking out US transportation capabilities in the process.
This is exactly what has happened to the US manufacturing base as a consequence of “Free Trade”.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
1. America’s Reaction the US Violation of NAFTA and Mexico’s Retaliatory Tariff’s | Mexico Trucker Online | 03.20.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. Mr Johnson | 03.18.09
The US needs to retaliate quickly and harshly. Mexico has much more to lose than the US, properly placed restrictions on Mexican imports or immigration could have immediate positive impact on the US economy/job market. Getting bullied by Mexico would be pathetic.