Illegal immagrant workers to have a union?

[A+]

Maybe it has already been posted. I just walked pass the break room here at work and heard this. Also something about mexican truck crossing the border without being checked. can someone inform me :confused:

[Stevo]

Maybe it has already been posted. I just walked pass the break room here at work and heard this. Also something about mexican truck crossing the border without being checked. can someone inform me :confused:

The last part is an indirect offshoot from Bill Clinton's NAFTA agreement, but now being pushed through by the Dept. of Transportation, it supposedly allows 100 Mexican trucking firms to be allowed to cross the border and drive in the US without the loads being transfered to American trucks. They claim it will be profitable to US trucking firms because it also allows for 100 US firms to do the same, to go into Mexico without transferring the load to a Mexican truck, but concidering that ZERO American companies have applied for the permit, I guess it isn't as profitable for Americans as it is the Mexicans, just like the entire NAFTA clusterfuck.

Stevo

[line-em-up]

The media must think we are stupid. Everytime they talk about the messican trucks being allowed over here, they end their story by saying that is a fair deal because American truck will be allowed over there. What american trucker is going to want to or be able to afford to go over there? It wouldn't be cost effective unless they lived close.

[White trash wagon]

The last part is an indirect offshoot from Bill Clinton's NAFTA agreement, Stevo

Check your facts Stevo, NAFTA was signed by George HW Bush in 1992, congress voted it into law with a vote of : FOR: 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats, AGAINST: 43 Republicans and 156 Democrats.

So Nafta is a mostly Republican cause, being initially signed by a Republican and having overwhelming Republican congressional support.

Clinton did support NAFTA, which put him at odds with the Democratic party.
Remember only 43 Republicans voted against NAFTA.

The agreement was initially pursued by conservative governments in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three-nation NAFTA was signed during December 1992, pending its ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries, but in the United States it was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative initiative in 1993. During his presidential campaign he had promised to review the agreement, which he considered inadequate. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against).[4] and the U.S. Senate passed it by 61-38[5] Finally, Clinton sanctioned the ratification in November 1993.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Scott

[46Tbird]

Right. Both parties fucked us then, too.

[White trash wagon]

Right. Both parties fucked us then, too.


That's what I've said all along.........

Scott

[Stevo]

I stand corrected, I forgot to list the NAALC, which is the offshoot of NAFTA that I was referring to in my post, which was actually signed into law by Slick Willy in 1994... Thanks for pointing that out, someone might have been confused by my omission of the proper name.

Stevo

[line-em-up]

I stand corrected, I forgot to list the NAALC, which is the offshoot of NAFTA that I was referring to in my post, which was actually signed into law by Slick Willy in 1994... Thanks for pointing that out, someone might have been confused by my omission of the proper name.

Stevo

And you forgot to give Bush the credit where credit is due.

[Stevo]

And you forgot to give Bush the credit where credit is due.

Why, he had nothing to do with the NAALC, which was passed to help equate the labor conditions in the US, Canada, and Mexico. And by equate, I mean move American jobs to Mexico, or at least that is what actually happened.

Stevo

[line-em-up]

The NAALC is part of the NAFTA, which GH Bush signed.

The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation
The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) was signed on September 14, 1993, by the Presidents of Mexico and the United States, and the Prime Minister of Canada, as one of the supplementary accords to the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It entered into force on January 1, 1994.

The NAALC was the first international agreement on labor to be linked to an international trade agreement. It provides a mechanism for member countries to ensure the effective enforcement of existing and future domestic labor standards and laws without interfering in the sovereign functioning of the different national labor systems, an approach that made it novel and unique. Likewise, the Commission for Labor Cooperation is the only international body since the founding of the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 1919, to be devoted exclusively to labor rights and labor-related matters.

Along with its companion agreement on environmental cooperation, the NAALC adds a social dimension to NAFTA. Through the NAALC, the regional trading partners seek to improve working conditions and living standards, and to protect, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights. To accomplish these goals the NAALC establishes a set of Objectives, Obligations and Labor Principles that all Parties are committed to promote; it also creates mechanisms for cooperative activities and intergovernmental consultations, as well as for independent evaluations and dispute settlement related to the enforcement of each nation's labor laws.

[Stevo]

The NAALC is part of the NAFTA, which GH Bush signed.

The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation
The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) was signed on September 14, 1993, by the Presidents of Mexico and the United States, and the Prime Minister of Canada, as one of the supplementary accords to the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It entered into force on January 1, 1994.

The NAALC was the first international agreement on labor to be linked to an international trade agreement. It provides a mechanism for member countries to ensure the effective enforcement of existing and future domestic labor standards and laws without interfering in the sovereign functioning of the different national labor systems, an approach that made it novel and unique. Likewise, the Commission for Labor Cooperation is the only international body since the founding of the International Labor Organization (ILO) in 1919, to be devoted exclusively to labor rights and labor-related matters.

Along with its companion agreement on environmental cooperation, the NAALC adds a social dimension to NAFTA. Through the NAALC, the regional trading partners seek to improve working conditions and living standards, and to protect, enhance and enforce basic workers' rights. To accomplish these goals the NAALC establishes a set of Objectives, Obligations and Labor Principles that all Parties are committed to promote; it also creates mechanisms for cooperative activities and intergovernmental consultations, as well as for independent evaluations and dispute settlement related to the enforcement of each nation's labor laws.

Lets see, it was signed on September 14, 1993, which was after the first Bush left office. As I said, it was signed by Bill Clinton, not Bush, it was an offshoot of NAFTA, not an original part, why do you keep arguing?

Stevo

[BP]

Give them a union and make them wear an insignia. It'll make it easier to find the guilty parties when our government finally gets the balls to enforce immigration laws.

[line-em-up]

Lets see, it was signed on September 14, 1993, which was after the first Bush left office. As I said, it was signed by Bill Clinton, not Bush, it was an offshoot of NAFTA, not an original part, why do you keep arguing?

Stevo

It was a "supplementary accord", whatever the fuck that means. Or, as you said, it was an offshoot.

Definition of supplementary:
added to complete or make up a deficiency; "

Definition of accord:
treaty: a written agreement between two states or sovereigns

My point is that the basic groundwork had alraedy been laid (and signed) by GH Bush. It was to set up to make sure the workers which were going to be part of NAFTA were treated fairly according to the labor laws. Clinton may have signed it, but he wouldn't have needed to do it if NAFTA didn't exist.

[Slowhand]

Give them a union and make them wear an insignia. It'll make it easier to find the guilty parties when our government finally gets the balls to enforce immigration laws.

that's what I was thinking.

this has to be the worst idea ever. unchecked trucks?

there's about to be 100 mexican startup companies charging to take people across the borders in an 18 wheeler! could probably get a couple thousand across a day.

[BP]

this has to be the worst idea ever. unchecked trucks?


They'll be checked, just not at the border. State troopers are going to have a field day pulling these guys over. The American truckers won't hesitate to call in anything suspicious in a Mexican truck either.

We don't export hardly anything to Mexico so it's no suprise that American trucking companies aren't beating down the door.

[LeMans-67]

We don't export hardly anything to Mexico so it's no suprise that American trucking companies aren't beating down the door.

Your are right with this assumption. The U.S. doesn't have anything to offer but the value of the dollar and the opportunity to make millions. As far as the U.S. not benefiting form this deal, it would be erroneous to think the borders would be open without any gain whatsoever. The U.S. needs everything to feed, cloth, transport, heat, provide electrical power and drinking water to us citizens since we do not have the workforce needed to do it for ourselves. Yes, we get DRINKING water from Mexico which is rain water collected there then released into our rivers. That is just one example. Chevy, Ford and Dodge have most of the parts manufactured there and in Canada and then they're brought in the U.S. and we pay 10 fold from what the actual cost to build these vehicles was. There's another example.

[Stevo]

Yes, we get DRINKING water from Mexico which is rain water collected there then released into our rivers.

I cannot think of a single river that starts in Mexico, then flows through a state. :confused:

The U.S. doesn't have anything to offer but the value of the dollar and the opportunity to make millions

I beg to differ, we offer plenty (in both technical services and products), but Mexico as a whole cannot afford our goods.

Stevo

[LeMans-67]

I cannot think of a single river that starts in Mexico, then flows through a state. :confused:



I beg to differ, we offer plenty (in both technical services and products), but Mexico as a whole cannot afford our goods.

Stevo


Oil and gas do not flow and yet they have developed a system to MAKE THEM FLOW--ever heard of pipelines?

As for technical services and products, again they are developed by many workers that are NOT U.S. citizens. Yes I said developed. As an example, the COLOR TV was made by a Mexican for the world's benefit. Research it if you doubt this.

[SlowLX]

Oil and gas do not flow and yet they have developed a system to MAKE THEM FLOW--ever heard of pipelines?

As for technical services and products, again they are developed by many workers that are NOT U.S. citizens. Yes I said developed. As an example, the COLOR TV was made by a Mexican for the world's benefit. Research it if you doubt this.
You're contradicting yourself....

you first said rivers as in water then when you were confronted about it you reverted to oil.

The issue isnt that Mexico can R&D one amazing thing every now and then but their economy as a whole has nothing to offer America.

[LeMans-67]

You're contradicting yourself....

you first said rivers as in water then when you were confronted about it you reverted to oil.

The issue isnt that Mexico can R&D one amazing thing every now and then but their economy as a whole has nothing to offer America.

Ok then, you explain how we get that rain water collected outside this country and then trasnported here. Water or oil same thing, it doesn't matter, both are being imported for our comsumption. If you want to learn more about the subject, research it and don't take my word for it.

Their economy offers the greatest component of a strong economic country such as ours. Cheaper labor and same quality or better products for less than the ones produced here by overpaid people who think they should get $100K a year just because of their ethnic origin. The issue I was addressing was that the world benefits from each other and no one country is really self-sufficient now-a-days. Didn't I agree with what someone said before about how "ignorance is bliss"? Can't help to have this grin on my face :D there's so much I don't know.

[Stevo]

I really do not feel like trying to translate/decipher what exactly you are trying to say say, so I'll just say 'whatever'. If you feel like posting it (or someone cares to translate it) in something that resembles proper english, I'll give it a whirl.

Stevo

[SlowLX]

I really do not feel like trying to translate/decipher what exactly you are trying to say say, so I'll just say 'whatever'. If you feel like posting it (or someone cares to translate it) in something that resembles proper english, I'll give it a whirl.

Stevo
He's trying to enough of our water comes from Mexico to make a difference that if mexico cut off our supply we'd run out of water :confused: :rolleyes:

And he thinks their third world economy is strong enough to be a legit competitive partner with the US like Canada is. NAFTA would have been great if it included just Canada and US, Mexico economy is like the retarded little brother that you have to hang out with when you go play video games with your friend.

[BP]

He's trying to enough of our water comes from Mexico to make a difference that if mexico cut off our supply we'd run out of water :confused: :rolleyes:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Boundary_and_Water_Commission

Mexico is holding back water and it's killing west Texas farming, have been for years.

[LeMans-67]

I really do not feel like trying to translate/decipher what exactly you are trying to say say, so I'll just say 'whatever'. If you feel like posting it (or someone cares to translate it) in something that resembles proper english, I'll give it a whirl.

Stevo

Other intelligent individuals are following these posts. If it helps you understand, I can use shorter sentences and small words. Please let me know where you got confused.

[line-em-up]

[QUOTE=LeMans-67 As an example, the COLOR TV was made by a Mexican for the world's benefit. Research it if you doubt this.[/QUOTE]

Wrong,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television

[line-em-up]

Their economy offers the greatest component of a strong economic country such as ours. Cheaper labor and same quality or better products for less than the ones produced here by overpaid people who think they should get $100K a year just because of their ethnic origin.

You mean for cheaper labor and inferior products. The USA would be just fine not doing business with mexico if is wasn't for the greedy, wealthy corporations who keep sending our jobs down there and hiring illegals up here to do our jobs. Because the dumbasses from mexico are too dumb, too desperate or don't have enough self respect to work for anything more than chump change doesn't mean we should be willing to do the same thing.

[LeMans-67]

Wrong,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television

Yup, you are wrong definitely.

Here you go...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonz%C3%A1lez_Camarena

[Stevo]

Ok then, you explain how we get that rain water collected outside this country and then trasnported here. Water or oil same thing, it doesn't matter, both are being imported for our comsumption. If you want to learn more about the subject, research it and don't take my word for it.

Their economy offers the greatest component of a strong economic country such as ours. Cheaper labor and same quality or better products for less than the ones produced here by overpaid people who think they should get $100K a year just because of their ethnic origin. The issue I was addressing was that the world benefits from each other and no one country is really self-sufficient now-a-days. Didn't I agree with what someone said before about how "ignorance is bliss"? Can't help to have this grin on my face :D there's so much I don't know.

There you go. Maybe it would help if you used shorter sentences, it appears to be somewhat taxing your faculties trying to assemble these somewhat long sentences.

Stevo

[line-em-up]

Yup, you are wrong definitely.

Here you go...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Gonz%C3%A1lez_Camarena

Look at the dates.

Mexican - He applied for this patent the August 14, 1941 and obtained the patents for color television systems the September 15, 1942 (U.S. Patent 2296019), 1960 and 1962.

Russian/German - Most television researchers appreciated the value of color image transmission, with an early patent application in Russia in 1889 for a mechanically-scanned color system showing how early the importance of color was realized. John Logie Baird demonstrated the world's first color transmission on July 3, 1928, using scanning discs at the transmitting and receiving ends with three spirals of apertures, each spiral with filters of a different primary color; and three light sources at the receiving end, with a commutator to alternate their illumination. In 1938 shadow mask technology for color television was patented by Werner Flechsig in Germany. Color television was demonstrated at the International radio exhibition Berlin in 1939. On August 16, 1944, Baird gave a demonstration of a fully electronic color television display. His 600-line color system used triple interlacing, using six scans to build each picture.[4]

It would appear that the mexican made his many years after the Russian/German did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_television

[Pro Trash]

Lets see, it was signed on September 14, 1993, which was after the first Bush left office. As I said, it was signed by Bill Clinton, not Bush, it was an offshoot of NAFTA, not an original part, why do you keep arguing?

Stevo

So if it was a good thing that was signed it would not be Bill Clintons but Bush 1 getting credit; however because it was signed less than 9 months after Bill Clinton took office lets pen it on him? LOL You are showing that your right wing-ed-ness defies logic.

I can give you lots of examples where Bill Clinton screwed up for I was in the Army from 89-98. Also if you wish to get technical the NAFTA agreement which led to the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperations was essentially an expansion of the earlier Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement of 1988, so which administration is to be held accountable, given credit or berated?

[Mustangman_2000]

Right. Both parties fucked us then, too.

Yep.

[black01gt]

Right. Both parties fucked us then, too.
fucked is fucked and that only benefits a certain small set of citizens. Our best plan is to quit with the party bickering which by design has divided us, and show both parties that we're sick and tired of being fucked. It's our country.

[gearhead78]

fucked is fucked and that only benefits a certain small set of citizens. Our best plan is to quit with the party bickering which by design has divided us, and show both parties that we're sick and tired of being fucked. It's our country.

Amen to that. If we all don't start waking up and elect people who accually care about our country and not just their personal pocket book we are all screwed. :(