Thread: We need to be open to funding Mexico infrastructure projects

The Chinese firm Hutchison Whampoa dropped out of the Colonet Project while American railroad Union Pacific is still interested .

Originally Posted by Richard

From time to time I have suggested that in order to get rid of the over half of illegal aliens here who are Mexican the United States government should be prepared to invest in Mexican infrastructure. Some people have understood but others have shown the subway car effect. In a forum where anyone can speak the opinions expressed can show ignorance and bigotry. I have been thinking lately about the Canadian analogy which is our neighbor to the north and situations like Austria's dependence upon Trieste in Italy for marine shipping. People living here sometimes forget that much of the electricity needs in New England are supplied by power from HydroQuebec. I tried to think of an analogy between Trieste and the United States relations with Canada. Then it hit me that the entire Great Lakes navigation to the outside world is on the St. Lawrence Seaway which empties into the Atlantic in guess where yes, Canada. So when someone says we can not consume electric power delivered from another country I remember we already do, HydroQuebec. When someone puts down shipping through Mexico I think of the St. Lawrence Seaway.

When you consider Mexico asking for infrastructure assistance we need not give a blanket yes or no. There are infrastructure projects that are physically in Mexico but which provide support for our own interest such as our own shipping, our own electricity, our own petrochemical needs. The factories and consumers would be better served if we helped fund Mexico's ports. Even California which has Los Angeles and Long Beach would benefit if their shippers did not have to wait for inbound cargo to transit before theirs could be unloaded. Since Mexico exports crude oil and imports gasoline and jet fuel we can free up refinery capacity to supply ourselves if the Mexicans got more refineries.

Spend your own money how you see fit.

Keep your hand out of my pocket! (I'm serious about this.)

I've seen enough of mine sent south to hold me for a while.

Mexico has enough money to fund their own projects. I am not in favor of funding port or rail projects because they will be used to transport goods from Mexico to USA.

We should be growing our own food and making our own products right here, and hiring american workers to do it too. Mexico has many of its own resources and they should put them to use.

Our country is in trouble right now and every dollar should go to fund projects and hire americans in USA and nowhere else. Maybe later when we get on our feet we could think about it.

But actually I think we should get out of the habit of giving away taxpayer dollars to other countries. We have done this for decades and I dont see it doing any good anyway.

I find it ironic that our country is taking on so much debt and yet we still are talking about taking on more to give to other countries.

How much is your dollar worth?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdwILaDm ... re=related

While at youtube you might want to look up money as debt.

It is stupidly shortsighted to avoid funding projects which are of equal or primary benefit to us merely because they are located in another country. I guess you feel that the United States under Roosevelt should have refused to fund a Tehuantepec shipping route in favor of the Panama Canal because it was Mexican not that it was cheaper.

StokeyBob I guess you would rather fund the Teamsters

RedPony read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith

Roundabout like I said above we should not be shortsighted

I see you guys got on at Porter this is Kendall it is my stop.

Richard, I have no problem with having a good relationship with Mexico based upon mutual economic advatages provided these economic advatages do not erode our liberties granted too us in the Constitution.

Perhaps I am being shortsighted. Perhaps I am shortsighted because I do not see how we are going to balance our checkbook and keep our liberties intact while doing so.

The borrower is slave too the lender, comes too mind.

I think the current situation as regards shipping and energy is expensive to us as is the presence of illegals who are tapping our public budget for their education and health.

The best thing we could do for Mexico is repeal the NAFTA agreement!

How about we take care of our own infrastructure before worrying about the infrastructure of Mexico!

U.S. infrastructure crumbling
By Katherine Harmon in 60-Second Science Blog


The nation's roads, bridges, levees, schools, water supply and other infrastructure are in such bad shape that it would take $2.2 trillion over five years to bring them up to speed. But even that huge chunk of change would only raise their grade from a "D" average to a "B," according to the latest "Report Card for America's Infrastructure" released today by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

"We've been operating on a patch-and-pray system," says ASCE President D. Wayne Klotz. That is, patch something and pray that it holds up—instead of providing regular improvements for aging facilities.

Like a car, he notes, if you keep skipping oil changes and ignoring the funny clanking noise, it's going to be a lot more expensive to fix the major problems happen down the proverbial road. In fact, the current estimate of $2.2 trillion is 70 percent more than the $1.8 trillion the ASCE estimated it would cost to bring the U.S. infrastructure up to par four years ago. And the D grade has remained the same.

"It's the kind of report card you would have expected on the eve of the collapse of the Roman Empire," says Stephen Flynn, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan think tank in New York. "It's not the kind of grade you want to bring home to Mom."

Flynn says a major problem is that we take the infrastructure for granted, which makes it difficult to generate awareness until there's a major event, such as the 2007 fatal bridge collapse in Minneapolis or levee failures during deadly Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

"There's no sex appeal to invest in it, so we don't," he says.

Among those receiving D– grades: roads, levees, drinking water facilities (leaky water pipes lose about seven billion gallons of clean water in the U.S. daily, according to the report) and inland waterways. Solid waste was at the top of the class, earning a C+—the same grade it received on the last report card—because about a third of the millions of tons of garbage generated in the U.S. annually is recycled or otherwise repurposed.

Klotz says the report card, issued every four years since 1998, was released two months earlier than usual this year in the hope that it might encourage lawmakers to fork over more federal funds (in the pending $819 billion stimulus package) to overhaul the near-failing system.

Following are the ASCE infrastructure grades, which were based on an analysis of government records by a panel of engineers.

Aviation D
Bridges C
Dams D
Drinking Water D–
Energy D+
Hazardous Waste D
Inland Waterways D-
Levees D–
Public Parks & Recreation C–
Rail C–
Roads D–
School D
Solid Waste C+
Transit D
Wastewater D–

Overall: D

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/ ... 2009-01-28


I disagree with your premise that funding the building of Mexico infrastructure would be mutally beneficial. Furthermore, what you're asking us to do is support one of the major steps required for a North American Union!

CFR's solution to illegal immigration

World Net Daily | July 13 2006

Editor's note: With scarcely a mention of the horrendous illegal immigration problem plaguing America, the Council on Foreign Relations – which some call America's "shadow government" – has laid out a comprehensive plan to essentially merge the U.S., Mexico and Canada into one entity with an outer security perimeter. Following are selected excerpts of the 59-page document, titled "Building a North American Community."

Building a North American Community: Report of an Independent Task Force, Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales – May 2005

NOTE: WND editors' explanatory comments are in italics below.

The security and well-being of its citizens are at the pinnacle of any government’s responsibilities. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, the futures of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are shared as never before. As a result, all three countries face a historic challenge: Do they continue on the path of cooperation in promoting more secure and more prosperous North American societies, or do they pursue divergent and ultimately less secure and less prosperous courses?

To ask the question is to answer it; and yet, if important decisions are not pursued and implemented, the three countries may well find themselves on divergent paths. Such a development would be a tragic mistake, one that can be readily avoided if they stay the course and pursue a series of deliberate and cooperative steps that will enhance both the security and prosperity of their citizens. …

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security."

The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized. To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly, and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

The CFR report identifies several "common challenges" facing the three North American countries, including "Shared challenge of uneven economic development," which it explains this way:

A fast lane to development is crucial for Mexico to contribute to the security of the entire region. Mexico’s development has failed to prevent deep disparities between different regions of the country, and particularly between remote regions and those better connected to international markets. Northern states have grown ten times faster than those in the center and south of the country. Lack of economic opportunity encourages unauthorized migration and has been found to be associated with corruption, drug trafficking, violence, and human suffering.

Improvements in human capital and physical infrastructure in Mexico, particularly in the center and south of the country, would knit these regions more firmly into the North American economy and are in the economic and security interest of all three countries.

Translated, that means the U.S. needs to send money to Mexico.

One of the CFR report's key focal points is security. Under the heading, "Making North America Safer," it says:

The threat of international terrorism originates for the most part outside North America. Our external borders are a critical line of defense against this threat. Any weakness in controlling access to North America from abroad reduces the security of the continent as a whole and exacerbates the pressure to intensify controls on intra-continental movement and traffic, which increases the transaction costs associated with trade and travel within North America. …

Among the report's security recommendations:


Establish a common security perimeter by 2010. The governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States should articulate as their long-term goal a common security perimeter for North America. In particular, the three governments should strive toward a situation in which a terrorist trying to penetrate our borders will have an equally hard time doing so, no matter which country he elects to enter first. We believe that these measures should be extended to include a commitment to common approaches toward international negotiations on the global movement of people, cargo, and vessels. Like free trade a decade ago, a common security perimeter for North America is an ambitious but achievable goal that will require specific policy, statutory, and procedural changes in all three nations.

Develop a North American Border Pass. The three countries should develop a secure North American Border Pass with biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region. The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian "NEXUS" and the U.S.-Mexican "SENTRI" programs, which provide "smart cards" to allow swifter passage to those who pose no risk. Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs for a security clearance would obtain a Border Pass. The pass would be accepted at all border points within North America as a complement to, but not a replacement for, national identity documents or passports.
While polls show a majority of Americans favor a physical wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, the CFR report is advocating exactly the opposite:


Lay the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America. The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments’ physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.
Law Enforcement and Military Cooperation

Security cooperation among the three countries should also extend to cooperation on counterterrorism and law enforcement, which would include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center, the development of trinational ballistics and explosives registration, and joint training for law enforcement officials.

As founding members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Canada and the United States are close military allies. When Canadian troops hunt terrorists and support democracy in Afghanistan, or when Canadian ships lead patrols in the Persian Gulf, they engage in the "forward defense" of North America by attacking the bases of support for international terrorism around the world. Although Mexico is not a NATO member and does not share the same history of military cooperation, it has recently begun to consider closer collaboration on disaster relief and information-sharing about external threats. Defense cooperation, therefore, must proceed at two speeds toward a common goal. We propose that Mexico begin with confidence-building dialogue and information exchanges, moving gradually to further North American cooperation on issues such as joint threat assessment, peacekeeping operations, and eventually, a broader defense structure for the continent. …

Under the heading "Creating a North American Economic Space," the report advocates, among other innovations, the creation of a new North American tribunal to settle disputes.

To create a North American economic space that provides new opportunities for individuals in all three countries, the Task Force makes the following recommendations aimed at establishing a seamless North American market, adopting a North American approach to regulation, increasing labor mobility, and enhancing support for North American education programs.


Establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution. The current NAFTA dispute-resolution process is founded on ad hoc panels that are not capable of building institutional memory or establishing precedent, may be subject to conflicts of interest, and are appointed by authorities who may have an incentive to delay a given proceeding. As demonstrated by the efficiency of the World Trade Organization (WTO) appeal process, a permanent tribunal would likely encourage faster, more consistent, and more predictable resolution of disputes. In addition, there is a need to review the workings of NAFTA’s dispute-settlement mechanism to make it more efficient, transparent, and effective. …
While America is being transformed demographically, and in particular the U.S. Southwest targeted for takeover by militant illegal immigrant groups, the CFR recommends "increased labor mobility" between Mexico and the U.S.

Increase Labor Mobility within North America

People are North America’s greatest asset. Goods and services cross borders easily; ensuring the legal transit of North American workers has been more difficult. Experience with the NAFTA visa system suggests that its procedures need to be simplified, and such visas should be made available to a wider range of occupations and to additional categories of individuals such as students, professors, bona fide frequent visitors, and retirees.

To make the most of the impressive pool of skill and talent within North America, the three countries should look beyond the NAFTA visa system. The large volume of undocumented migrants from Mexico within the United States is an urgent matter for those two countries to address. A long-term goal should be to create a "North American Preference" – new rules that would make it much easier for employees to move and for employers to recruit across national boundaries within the continent. This would enhance North American competitiveness, increase productivity, contribute to Mexico’s development, and address one of the main outstanding issues on the Mexican-U.S. bilateral agenda.

Canada and the United States should consider eliminating restrictions on labor mobility altogether and work toward solutions that, in the long run, could enable the extension of full labor mobility to Mexico as well. …

There is even a plan to open up Social Security to Mexicans:


Implement the Social Security Totalization Agreement negotiated between the United States and Mexico. This agreement would recognize payroll contributions to each other’s systems, thus preventing double taxation. …
Conclusion

The global challenges faced by North America cannot be met solely through unilateral or bilateral efforts or existing patterns of cooperation. They require deepened cooperation based on the principle, affirmed in the March 2005 joint statement by Canada, Mexico, and the United States, that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary."

Establishment by 2010 of a security and economic community for North America is an ambitious but achievable goal that is consistent with this principle and, more important, buttresses the goals and values of the citizens of North America, who share a desire for safe and secure societies, economic opportunity and prosperity, and strong democratic institutions.

The entire CFR report, "Building a North American Community," can be read online here.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/immigr ... ration.htm

The thing that is missing which has made NAFTA unsuccessful compared with it's potential is capital. It has acheived growth of both economies already. There would be more demand for our production if there were more Mexican factories.

Unless our animus so unreasoning that we feel that cutting off our own nose to spite our own face because it will bruise the Mexicans we should be putting money into Mexico. To do otherwise is the equivalent of our banning navigation on the Great Lakes because it might be of benefit Canada. The shortest ocean navigation route for a lot of the United States is through Mexico and the closest place to put petroleum infrastructure outside the southern United States is Mexico.

Richard, aren't we already giving a big benefit to Mexico with the average $27 billion of remittances sent home from this country--their second largest part of the nation's income, after what Pemex produces. That money ends up in circulation there. Aren't we already giving them $1.4 billion to buy equipment to fight the drug cartels (hopefully buying from us.)
We have to go on the world market with Treasury obligations, paying interest rates decided by the auctions, only to give the money to a country who may buy products from China or Russia.
We have already given them enough of our factories moving there to hire Mexicans and layoff Americans here.
There are a lot more needy countries I would prefer to see those dollars given to, other than Mexico.