More specifically, they are protesting the wait times (up to 12 hours now), not the inspections themselves. These wait times are generally unpaid, I believe they get a single flat fee per border crossing.
My experience talking to truck drivers is that many are paid per mile and per stop, not per hour. So sitting for 10 extra hours and not getting paid for it could easily piss someone off enough to strike. Especially if you change is as drastic as this:
> One trucker told the news outlet that prior to Abbott’s order, he made two crossings into the U.S. a day. Now, he’d be lucky to have one or two a week given the long delays at the bridges.
Truck drivers are treated like dog shit, seemingly anywhere. I saw some documentaries about them here in Germany, and it's an ungrateful soulsucking job. Sleep in a truck, get barely any showers, and shit in toilets that would make porta potties seem luxurious. Most of those left now seem to be eastern Europeans.
People express concerns that those jobs could get automated away, but I don't necessarily share those worries. Most of those people working those jobs are near retirement age, and we'll have a real problem filling up those positions in the coming years, at least in this region. Barely any young people want to work such jobs.
I have worked with a lot of freight drivers. They have to do some seriously stressful tasks:
- unloading pallets, some over 1.5k lbs in weight. When they’re stuck, the truck driver is responsible for getting them out, and that’s that. Not every small biz has a forklift lol.
- you drop off your load in a warehouse and nobody is there to receive it/unclear directions/your pickup directions suck. You spend the next hour walking around a warehouse searching for someone to sign for you.
- backing up to a dock and interrupting traffic = outraged commuters who get ridiculously upset
>When they’re stuck, the truck driver is responsible for getting them out, and that’s that
Not to say that it doesn’t suck being a truck driver, but most of my experience has been that if the load cannot be unloaded by the receiver, the shipment is taken back and the driver is still paid for the attempt.
I think it depends on the type of delivery/carrier. I've had full size lift gate trucks deliver pallets to my house and they were responsible for getting 1000lb oversized pallets out and down from the truck in one piece. They weren't always successful.
I'm genuinely curious what you're having delivered by the half-ton to your home? The only things I can think of would be a safe, or maybe gym equipment.
The trucker has to sign to say that the company loaded the truck correctly before departing. So if the load cannot be unloaded it's the truck drivers fault!!!
Not always. When I worked at Target as a receiver, C&S drivers got to choose their routes, but they didn't get to refuse bad loads; we (the driver and the store) just had to deal with pallets falling over.
Yup, trucking has become a race to the bottom. Drivers also generally pay their own vehicle maintenance, often on trucks their renting from the company that "hired" them.
I don't know when this all shifted in the past twenty years but it feels like the teamsters union (both here and in Mexico) needs to step up their game.
> Drivers also generally pay their own vehicle maintenance, often on trucks their renting from the company that "hired" them.
If the statistics are accurate, and my math isn't too horrible, in the US, something around 47% (679,127) of drivers (1,441,014) are owner operators. I'm not sure how many of that 679k are leasing from the company they drive for, but it's certainly not 100%. Drivers are not paying for their own maintenance when they don't lease/own the trucks.
Neither of your links support your claims. I don't know if the OP is correct or not but you're just saying "that's obvious false - no evidence, here's the definition of owner-operator". If you think outrageous BS is obviously impossible, you haven't been around in the last few, where many, many abusive and egregious practices have come to light.
I don't have any references that drivers don't pay for maintenance on trucks that they don't own/lease, I know that from friends, family, and myself having worked in the industry. I don't know how to show that here without being able to find any articles about it online.
I am well aware that outrageous BS is very possible in the trucking industry, having seen it and been subjected to it myself. It's not new, even if it has recently come to light for people outside the industry.
What I tried to show is that the drivers who are paying for their own maintenance on vehicles leased from the company they drive for is smaller than "generally". I don't know of any articles that show those numbers so I tried to show other statistics that would imply it. I thought the way that the comment I replied to could be perceived was unfair.
Drivers also generally pay their own vehicle maintenance, often on trucks their renting from the company that "hired" them.
47% of owner truckers are owner operators and 100% of them are paying for maintenance. Some of the remainder are leasing from the company they work for and also paying for maintenance which is what’s pushing things over 50%.
Lease operator and owner operator are synonymous mostly used to differentiate between those who buy a truck on their own credit and those who lease one and give it back to the company at the end (to usually get another lease).
—edit—
Should add lease operators almost always do this so they have a warranty on the truck because things get really expensive really fast when they don’t.
> Some of the remainder are leasing from the company they work for and also paying for maintenance which is what’s pushing things over 50%.
Those are included in the 47% owner/operators.
Edit:
Well, the page linked with the statistics doesn't mention it specifically, but I'm not sure why a lease purchase owner/operator would not be included in that number.
Hmm might be different terminology. An uncle owns a mid sized shipping company and described things as owner operators either own the truck outright or lease it from an independent company. Their employer then just pays per trip and maintenance is effectively coming from that payment. Either directly out of pocket or with higher lease payments.
The other option was for the employer to own the truck. They might then lease the truck to their employee but the difference is the lease automatically ends if their fired.
If you lease a truck you pay for maintenance as a general rule. Most (guessing here) lease operators also have a factory warranty so only have to pay for normal wear items like tires and brakes.
Company drivers pay for nothing related to the truck unless they’re really, really gullible and are working for some super shady outfit.
The upside is if you lease a truck you keep most of money from the freight fees and if there’s a warranty your cost are not too outrageous.
Source: I drive for an owner/operator leased on to one of the big carriers and due to the way they have the computers set up I can see what the truck gets paid per load.
the parent commenters' claims are likely sourced from the "last week tonight with john oliver" episode two weeks ago, which covered trucking and made those claims.
The inspections are political. Tx gov started them because Biden removed title 42 expulsions. He simply ramped up full inspections for 100% of trucks entering the state (under tx dot authority) instead of the random system they had before.
Abbott is using the inspections as a political bargaining chip to regain title 42 expulsions.
Presumably a Governor has a wider view than an agricultural commissioner. For example, one would not expect an agricultural commissioner to focus on drug or gun law enforcement.
They are both elected positions with separate offices, so the Texas Ag Commissioner is not a subordinate of the Texas Governor, for example. The Lieutenant Governor in Texas has quite a bit more power than the Governor in fact as their office sets the agenda for the Texas legislature which meets only once every two years though for several months. The Texas Lieutenant Governor is also individually elected.
This is security theater like TSA. The Texas GQP party has lost its collective minds now because they see their unconstitutional actions will be upheld without any resistance by the radical right (5 members at least) Supreme court that we currently have. Expect it to get much worse before it gets better.
I know, but there is a point to security even if most of it is worthless. Roads are one of the most dangerous things we have. If were want to get serious about lives saved everyone in TSA security would be reassigned to roadway safety, it wouldn't be hard to make a much larger difference in lives saved.
It doesn't seem like a good bargaining chip, since I imagine Texans are going to be the Americans feeling most of the pain from this. Are we sure that is the reason?
Technically, States maintain the right to control customs and quarantine procedures on all trade coming across their borders.
The Feds are literally only there for CBP/immigration/Customs. Federal regulations only set the minimum level of friction for entry. States are technically free to increase it. In fact, this is even more humorous, because it isn't even "interstate" commerce til the second state depending on your level of literal interpretation you apply.
Not that I agree with it, but I'd wager there is nothing unconstitutional here. State border crossings are well established delegated powers to the State.
I said Texans would be the Americans feeling most of the pain from this. Not that it wouldn't affect non-Texans. Why? Because Texas and California are, unsurprisingly, the states whose economies are most closely integrated with Mexico, and the states that engage in the largest amounts of trade with Mexico.
And most trucks destined for California from Mexico will just enter the US in California, so delays on the Texas border will not play as big a role in California as it does in Texas.
Please read my brief comment before calling me short sighted.
Even if the goods are ultimately destined for California they still will likely enter the US through Texas. It just doesn’t make sense for a truck coming from Laredo or Reynosa to snake it’s way accross northern Mexico.
What percent of California-bound Mexican trucks do you believe enter at one of the crossings affected by the governor's actions, versus at some other border crossing in California, Arizona, or Texas?
2. Labor cost is the largest portion of trucking costs. This would double or quadruple those costs if the idea is to make the trucker whole for Abbot’s temper tantrum.
I honestly didn't even notice the denominators were different. All of the fractions were in simplest terms, which is (imo) preferable to using a common denominator.
The other responder pointed out I was using the simplest terms, which frankly looks right to me. But the answer is more pedestrian. I read the information phrased it as 2/3 was diesel and 2/3 of the remaining amount was labor. So I eliminated the chain and simplified it to 2/3 and (1/3*2/3) 2/9.
I'm part owner on a small freight company and those aren't the numbers I'm seeing. Our current costs are about 80-90cpm on fuel, 65cpm for drivers (60cpm base rate + performance bonuses), about 15cpm for maintenance, and about 15cpm for insurance, tolls, plates, etc. For a total of $1.75 per mile more or less. Before diesel prices spiked the cost of fuel and driver were about even.
The numbers I quoted were post-diesel increase. But it's possible that the numbers are wrong or used a different diesel cost at the height of the spike or were using a diesel price from a really high-tax state or were using a really inefficient truck. The numbers I used would have seen diesel be about twice what you're spending, which is an insanely high multiple. I have no reason to think I'm righter than you, I'm just trying to troubleshoot the reason I was off.
The labor to maintenance/insurance/etc. ratio seems to track pretty accurately. So maybe I should have said 3/6, 2/6 and 1/6 respectively (since the other responder wanted the same denominator).
We're really picky about fuel efficiency. We have aerodynamic equipment on all of our trailers, we give our drivers bonuses on mpg, and also give them 10% of the discount on the fuel cards as a bonus so they actually get on the app and find the cheapest fuel with the most discount. I've heard some fleets have $1+ per mile cost on fuel. Our equipment isn't new though, we bought used 2015 trucks in 2019.
The problem is not just that the truckers are waiting. There are lots of refrigerated trucks that burn diesel while they wait. If that diesel runs out, the food can spoil. Not to mention how inefficient it is to have refrigerated trucks sitting in the sun for 12 hours.
It’s a stunt by the Texas state government, just like the activation and fleecing of Texas National Guardsmen on low paying state duty doing a whole lot of nothing.
The answer to the first question is in the article! There are new inspections being done by Texas state police, part of a political stunt by the governor to "protest" the elimination of covid-era federal inspections. And like any new bureaucracy, it's implemented poorly and causing backups.
1. Because the governor of Texas is an idiot, an idiot with racist tendencies and executive power. There won't be a return to normal operation until either the Feds step in or he is re-elected in November.
2. That's never going to happen because it has never happened before.
Interesting. That's only a few miles from me in McAllen. Coincidentally, the SpaceX "Starbase" facility is also only about 100 miles away as far as I know.
What I've been told by Uber drivers is that there have previously been significant military operations in the area related to combating cartels who desire to completely control border traffic.
So although the idea of searching everything or whatever they are doing is totally impractical and could result in many drivers not being able to make rent, the extensive smuggling may make things a little more complicated and difficult than people realize.
But it seems like if they try to search everything it is going to end up basically killing off some drivers and totally unrealistic.
This will not even slow cartels in the least. Fentanyl (the main reason for these searches) is extremely potent and just as easily snuck into the country with cars as with large trucks (probably easier). This security theater by Abbott, as a Texas of about 20 years I know this type of politician. He is playing to the hard right Trumpist republicans of the state. They love all the racist policies that the Texas GOP can cook up, it has become a common theme to really glom onto fear of “the other” politics here.
Can you provide a justification/explanation/citation for this claim? I have been to Mexico many times as a fascinated tourist and layperson. As yet I have not gotten an "almost failed state" vibe. While there seem to be clear challenges facing the populace, things seem to proceed fine at a day to day level.
I like 4x4 style offroading/overlanding/camping and staying with local folks to practice Spanish far from resort land. So I'm gonna land on the latter in my opinion.
To be fair, far from resort land isn't usually where the cartels are.
And, my comment wasn't meant to be as negative as it sounded. I live at the border. It's well known that the cartel regulates/protects Tijuana. A well visited Tijuana is a profitable Tijuana. They're not idiots.
I've traveled hundreds of kilometers around central Mexico in areas where I almost never saw another gringo. I've also seen zero cartel activity and had excellent experiences with local police.
The extent of violence and dangerous areas in Mexico is way, way overblown by certain news stations in America.
>I've also seen zero cartel activity and had excellent experiences with local police.
What exactly do you think "cartel activity" looks like? The fact that some random international tourist didn't witness any overt "cartel activity" does not remotely imply that it is not a problem in Mexico. These cartels have been in open war with the government for decades, police and military forces are regularly compromised, and frequently the cartels form defacto local governments when they take over towns. Pablo Escobar was one of the wealthiest people in the world when he went to war with the colombian government, mexico has similar issues.
Your individual experience may be enlightening on some level, but it's not hugely relevatn with respect to understanding the overall level of violence and systematic degredation in Mexico.
I lived in the USA for many years - and not once, ever, did I see someone do anything racist. I also never witnessed, or even heard of through colleagues, of the police doing something wrong.
But clearly, systematic racism does exist, and, there are problems with the justice system.
And, it's a bit glib to suggest you'd directly see some kind of 'cartel activity' as a wayward tourist. Most violent activity is focused 'among players'.
Your point on 'way overblown in the American press' is definitely reasonable, in the sense that, the news will make people think that 'walking down the street in Mexico is on the whole dangerous' - when obviously it's not. In fact, it's generally safe.
That's not the issue though.
The relative level of violence, systematic corruption, lawlessness is very real and it affects many people in indirect ways.
Living in Russia is not dangerous. Especially if you don't say anything about the the government, there's almost 0% chance you're going to have a problem.
But watch videos of Russians being interviewed about the war in Ukraine - they are hesitant to the point of fearful in 'having an opinion'. There are certain thoughts, they are not allowed to have. If you can't read, write or talk about a thing, that thing dissapears. That's what oppression is: large swaths of people actually disagreeing with the government, but otherwise going about their business as normal.
In a 'safe country' you'll have no problem saying anything about anyone. The government, or criminals.
The next time you're in a Mexican city known to be controlled by cartel members, simply ask the question: "What do you think of so and so" cartel boss? You'll find out very quickly how pervasive influence is, and if you dig a little deeper, you might find out how systematically that corruption extends into quite a lot of small things - all the nooks and crannies.
Saying 'Mexico is no bad' is like saying Putin isn't a problem, because 99% of Russians don't directly suffer consequences. It's the 1% we are concerned about, and more broadly, the systematic issues that affect us all.
Mexico should be much richer and more prosperous than it is, and it will not evolve in a positive direction while it's partially a narco state. That affects everyone.
I'm from Mexico. I still spend plenty of time every year and/or have family in states under the "Do Not Travel To" or "Reconsider Travel To" lists.
In my experience rather than having "nice tourist locations", it has the opposite: "dangerous crime locations". These are usually along the fault lines of cartel territories or in specific "sketchy areas". Mexico is nice for us non-tourists living in non-tourist places too IMO.
? Cartels have effective control over certain areas of Mexico and corrupted all layers of governance.
> 40 000 dead from direct conflict between cartels and government forces since 2006.
Just because it's technically unlikely that you're going to encounter the violence yourself, and therefore not give you a 'violence vibe' doesn't really have anything to do with how much violence there is.
40K is a gigantic number and will possibly be bigger than the Russian-Ukranian war when it's over.
If power of some armed groups rivals that of government, then it's a 'near failed state'.
We have the technology and wherewithal and hopefully 'learned lessons' to make progress on this.
The fact that this massive, organized violence exists, is to a great extent our responsibility for letting it metastasize.
The entire purpose of the border is to set the boundary for where the American government/control/processes ends and the Mexican government/control/processes begins. America shouldn't be doing their inspections on Mexican soil. They have no right or need.
Do you also expect all cars crossing the border to go through full inspection for all of the above all the time?
I guess my personal assessment is that none of those are that big a deal to warrant so much inconvenience to most Americans crossing the border, including our trucking companies and their trucks.
You could just let people buy and consume drugs if they want, don't know why we took away that freedom in the first place.
Texans love guns, so not sure why we'd want to prevent them from entering.
Illegal migrants can also be deported after the fact, so I'm not sure you have to catch them all on entry, and a lot of them provide valuable cheap labor.
And even if we want to prevent some of that, I really don't know if it's to the point of having trucks wait days for an inspection or spending all that money on infrared, AI, and what not.
Let's take the 'no borders' situation - and throw in 'no drug regulation':
1) The immediate availability of narcotics would devestate the country within a few months. The opioid epidemic is already causing great harm, and that's something that was actually contained initially within the confines of the American medical system: you had do have prescription, from a doctor, and access a controlled substance. And even then - it's bad.
With fentanyl now available, which by the way, is the #1 drug of choice among recent opioid addicts because it's just 'much better' - we're seeing devestating results.
A completely liberal free for all would mean all sorts of things: energy drinks, candy, food, would be embedded with various drugs.
America is not 'burning man' - with mostly high responsible actors, doing stuff 'on the side' where it's not open, and not usually within 'arms reach'. Even the professionals who can 'handle their stuff' at burning man, were things to become as easy as coca cola to access, would fall under.
Within about 5 months, 5% of the population would be addicted to meth or opiods, it would be a massive public health disaster of epic proportions. And while organized crime might not exist, petty crime would skyrocket.
2) "Texans love guns, so not sure why we'd want to prevent them from entering."
Because guns are a controlled commodity for similar reasons. Every state has regulations. Do you want fully automatic machine guns, grenades, CS gas easily accessible to every baddie in America for a few dollars? It's absurd.
3) "Illegal migrants can also be deported after the fact"
No, they can't.
Illegal immigrants are not deported unless they have committed major crimes, because it's too expensive and politically untenable. 'Open Borders' would mean millions of people arbitrarily flowing into the US until the system was degraded to the point where there wasn't an advantage in coming to the US. When it has failed as badly as Brazil, well, people will stop coming.
4)
It's really absurd that people think laws, borders, rules etc. don't matter and are somehow arbitrarily limiting. Those are part of the fundamental building blocks of civil society.
Mexico is a broken state, the US is mostly a civil state, which is a delicate thing.
One of the first things to happen with 'open borders' would be the Cartels themselves using it as an opportunity to corrupt American politicians. Money is a very powerful thing, unrestrained it would corrupt Arizona / New Mexico politics and Justice System relatively quickly and the dominoes would start to fall.
You seem to be jumping from one extreme to another, where as I'm taking the stance of keeping things in their current state, as it's been, for the last 20+ years, which haven't resulted in the devastation of the US that you seem to be so worried about.
That doesn't mean open borders, just don't force all trucks through a full inspection. Check papers, ask a few questions, randomly inspect a few, and inspect those that are more suspicious looking. Seems to have been working alright to me.
I also don't know why you jump straight to complete deregulation of all drugs. Coca cola can't put bleach in the drink and yet I can buy bleach. Alcohol doesn't show up in kid products, and THC isn't suddenly put in kit kat bars.
Also from my understanding, it wasn't contained to pharmaceutical, it was that over prescription made people who would have not taken opioid of their free will become addicted.
And there's definitely studies and papers on the counter effect of prohibition policies in actually making matters worse:
It’s weird to see reminiscing for the Bush-era GOP from people who presumably aren’t Republicans. Don’t we want the state to listen to its voters and not corporations? I mean, the GOP ignoring its voters in favor of corporations is what led to the Trump rebellion against the Bush/Cheney wing. Democrats of the time were right!
Do Texans really want all trucks from Mexico inspected for drugs and harboring illegal migrants? I guess as a non Texan, I just hadn't realize how big an issue this was to Texans personally.
What does that have to do with illegal immigration and drug trafficking?
I’m personally impacted by the shipment delays. I currently await more than $250,000 worth of product ordered from Mexico, so questioning my motives with false equivalencies isn’t going to get anywhere.
You care that they not be allowed to do that anymore and that the utmost level of enforcement and surveying be put in place at all cost to stop them?
I think that's the part you need to expand on, because even if I knew 10 people who crossed the border for that stuff, I wouldn't really care that much.
So what makes you care so much, are there visible, arguably tractable second order effects resulting from this that I wouldn't be able to deny if I lived in Texas? And they're so bad to the Texan state that I'd too want this surveyed and enforced at all cost?
It is an extremely big problem: https://twitter.com/USBPChiefRGV People that don't live here or those that just keep their head in the sand will never really see the big picture.
I checked your link, I'm not sure what to make of it though.
To be honest, I probably need to be schooled on the whole thing. Generally, when there's issues at a local level, my gut reaction is I probably just don't understand the problem. But I'll also probably start by asking naive questions.
My first question is, it seems that yes there are lots of people trying to smuggle drugs or illegally enter the US for... Maybe working under the radar? Escaping Mexico?
And I can believe that it is a hard job to prevent this.
But it also seems to me like we made up the problem, why are we wanting to prevent the drugs and migrants in the first place?
For the drugs, seems we might as well manufacture them ourselves, make them in the US, label them properly, dispense correct dosers, list out side effects and risks, and tax their sales.
If people can get them through other channels, the demand for the Mexican one will reduce and that seems like it would naturally cause the smuggling to decrease. Or maybe, it wouldn't be smuggling anymore, just another import they self-declare and we tax, just like avocados.
For migrants, I'm curious what they're looking for. Are they running away from danger and trying to find safety? Are they looking for work? And why don't we want them? We're worried they resort to crime and theft? We don't have jobs for them? They bring anti-democratic values with them and promote things that we worry would eventually destroy our democracy and take away our freedom?
I think if any of those were true for migrants, I could see it being a harder problem. I'm not sure they are true though. But say they do lead to crime, violence, loss of democracy, loss of employment, and loss of freedom. If that's the case, it's definitely going to be challenging to stop so many people from entering such a big border. I get that. I guess I'm just missing that first link, do they cause all that trouble? Or are we just making up the problem?
No we don't but probably 55% of the state is behind this. There has been pretty much a 10% gap between D's and R's here for decades, but that's enough for them to control 100% of the state government. That plus the recent (4 years of Trump) increase in Trumpist idiocracy style of government has driven the current state government into a frenzy of racist, misogynistic, and homophobic legislation because they know that current far right SCOTUS will back them up.
If the “state” wanted to listen to voters it would stop trying so hard to disenfranchise so many of us that live in Texas cities but might not vote Republican.
So much of state politics is currently Republicans dog whistling made up issues to their base rather than any kind of evidence based policy.
> We began by asking eligible voters how “convincing” they found a dog-whistle message lifted from Republican talking points. Among other elements, the message condemned “illegal immigration from places overrun with drugs and criminal gangs” and called for “fully funding the police, so our communities are not threatened by people who refuse to follow our laws.”
> Almost three out of five white respondents judged the message convincing. More surprising, exactly the same percentage of African-Americans agreed, as did an even higher percentage of Latinos.
I guess it’s easy not to care about this stuff if you didn’t literally flee your homeland to get away from it.
Yes, you can get results from push-polling with heavily loaded wording and unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims like "overrun with drugs and criminal gangs" and correlating police funding to public safety.
Yes, that's different from evidence-based policy.
Yes, the Texas state governement has enacted a program of disenfranchisement.
I feel like all I see you post now is political trolling, which is too bad. "Leading poll questions influence people's answers" isn't exactly hard hitting insight, and that opinion piece is literally about effective ways of reframing discussions to get popular support for different policies, bringing into question how much of this is really "listen[in] to its voters" at all.
You’ve got it backwards. The poll asks simple direct questions that reveal voter preferences. The article is about how to reframe those questions to get voters to give the answers progressives want.
I’m not “trolling.” In the last few years folks have become too comfortable calling policies “racist” or “dog whistling” without being confident that minorities actually perceive them that way. I think this is itself racist and manipulative—a way of fluffing apparent support for progressive policies by vaguely invoking minorities—and needs to be called out as such.
Cross-border criminal activity is a real concern that affects real people. There’s a reason majority Hispanic communities along the border have flipped Republican in the last couple of years. Right now Abbott is leading Beto among Hispanics in reputable polls: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2022/01/29/abbott-r.... Waving your hands and calling these concerns racist “dog whistles” is not only lazy but disrespectful to a distinct community with its own interests and often nuanced positions.
Rayiner, 70% of respondents in the last Oak Park election voted against "defunding" the Oak Park police. Biden carried Oak Park with 90% of our vote. He ran on fully funding the police; his campaign literally rebuked the "defund" movement. This simply isn't a partisan issue; it's a Twitter Elite issue that you elevate to beat up on. Yes, it is exclusively Democratic elites pushing "defund", just like it is exclusively Republicans pushing Catholic Integralism. It would be dishonest of me to claim that Catholic Integralism defines the Republican party.
You have a point with immigration! But you overplay your hand with the defund stuff. Democratic candidates who run on "defund" lose their primary elections everywhere except a tiny number of ultra-blue uncompetitive districts.
I’d probably vote for defund, from the safety of my Larry Hogan +30 suburb. I’m harping about it because it exemplifies the practice of invoking minorities as involuntary political surrogates by calling policies—in that case policing or stopping riots—“racist dog whistles.”
It’s not just the Twitter elite doing that—it’s a lot of folks who don’t necessarily want to defund the police, but just wanted an opportunity to call republicans racist. But the end result is that we went about a year invoking minorities to attack policies that the minorities themselves supported, which is gross. The underlying practice needs to stop.
Granted the let's get rid of all police was fringe. But the let's have fewer police officers and more counselors and call that defunding the police was pretty popular. At least among my friend group in Houston, and it was especially popular among the more politically engaged of my friends, the ones more likely to volunteer or vote in a primary.
It's easy to find groups of people online who believe in getting rid of all the police, and even easier to find people in favor of reducing the number of police (before this issue became a political football, reducing police headcount was a bipartisan idea in local politics, as was pushing back on their unions). But where the issue has been put to the test with real voters, it has failed dramatically.
That the primary system elevates fringe candidates is, yes, a problem. But those candidates lose.
Like I said, we have an exceptionally mobilized defund movement in Oak Park, with demonstrations, proposed ordinances, and candidate slates. They got slaughtered. We're a single-party municipality; being outed as in any way sympathetic to Republicans is fatal here. It came to nothing: liberals don't want to defund the police.
More importantly, "defund" is a fringe idea among Black people. This is the important aspect of the point I'm trying to make. Through BLM, progressive activists hijacked the broader call among Black people for police reform to push a fringe idea that Black people themselves didn't support. To do that, they weaponized accusations of racism. The New York Times fired an editor for publishing an Op-Ed by Tom Cotton that advocated doing basically the same thing Larry Hogan did in Baltimore in 2015, which caused his approval rating to skyrocket to over 70% in the majority Black city.
Faced with that, Democrats in 2020 did not treat the idea as "fringe." The put up the BLM signs on their yards and didn't say a word against the activists promoting defund. Aside from Joe Biden, prominent Democrats equivocated when confronted directly: Elizabeth Warren responded to a question about "defund" by saying "it's not the term I would use." That's not how you describe what you think is a "fringe" idea.
Considering Texas has been complaining for a while about the illegal immigrant issue that the federal government is causing, this actually make perfect sense in terms of looking out for their constituents?
I'd dare say it's malicious, at least in this case.
Perfect time to shift blame upwards following the already ongoing shipping and supply problems. Endless aggressive expansion of the starve the beast tactic is bound to reach its limits eventually, and all that's left is outright attacking it.
Inventing a problem and proposing awful solutions is a proven election strategy.
Depends on the authority they're claiming. If they claim to be regulating trade, that's probably gonna get slapped down really quick. The feds don't really like that. Doing background checks on the drivers would probably also get slapped down. Freedom of movement once you've been permitted entry to the US is pretty settled.
If they're claiming it's to make sure the trucks are safe enough to drive on Texas roads, it's a little different. The truckers, presumably, are allowed in the country, but they can't use any of the roads in Texas. That's the same effect, but a much more grey area. That would probably have to wind its way through the court. I'm also not sure how federal highway vs Texan maintained road would play into that.
> Freedom of movement once you've been permitted entry to the US is pretty settled.
If you're driving commercially you are subject to a lot of federal and state regulations, including vehicle and paperwork inspections. Abbott is clearly exploiting that to effectively deny freedom of movement, yes, and the judiciary isn't that stupid.
He knows he'll eventually lose a court case either from affected businesses or the feds - but in the meantime he gets "stuck it to the libtards" points with his constituents. It'll probably take at least a few days to get an emergency order, he'll fight that, and he'll probably waste millions taking it to the supreme court, all the while braying about "state's rights."
BTW - as far as the courts are concerned you only truly have freedom of movement on foot. They've consistently maintained driving is a privilege, not a right - which is why police have to clear a very low bar to stop and detain you.
Commercial bus, rail, and air travel? Even more of a 'privilege', which is why we have to submit to the pat-downs, microwave scans, anal probings, and having our luggage rifled through/stolen.
Those inspections may technically be illegal. Depending on how you turn your head and squint, impeding those trucks (especially if it's via inspections domestic vehicles don't experience) could be a violation of the commerce clause of the Constitution.
Sure, but that's the point. The reinterpretation of the commerce clause circa the Great Depression seems (to my not-a-lawyer eyes) to imply that if these border stops are going to raise prices in Oklahoma, the Executive is within its purview to tell the Governor to give his state troopers something else to do.
My gut says that Abbott knows this, but he just needs to string the legal process out 'til election day so he doesn't care.
It's quite a stretch to suggest that (interstate/international) Commerce clause doesn't grant the Federal gvernment the power to regulate commercial trucks crossing state and Federal borders. Oklahoma prices don't matter for this.
The existence of a person may have a potential affect of some degree on interstate commerce, and therefore can be regulated in entirety under the commerce Claude.
That is the reasoning behind the affordable health care act on existing without government mandated levels of health insurance e. Your existence as a human affects commerce, and therefore is penalizable.
And the stupid 16th amendment. That's caused just as many problems as the commerce clause.
Why was I downvoted? The text of the sixteenth amendment makes this obvious:
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
That qualifier -- "without apportionment among the states" -- allows income taxes that aren't head taxes. Head taxes were already allowed. Nothing to do with any interpretation of the commerce clause.
Does a state have no control of its international borders, especially if it can be proved that customs is performing insufficient inspections? I would imagine Texas could claim that they have to pay for these people, to some extent.
Generally, no. "... and [the United States] shall protect each of them [the States] against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence." This plus the 10th amendment makes the division of responsibility (and authority) pretty clear.
If the federal government is doing a poor job, the remedy is to vote the bastards out, not subsume a federal obligation. This was made even clearer after the Civil War, because States had attempted to use such authority to disregard federal law regarding anti-foreign-competition tariffs.
> Does a state have no control of its international borders
States have very little control of their borders, either interstate or international or internal with Indian reservations, and that which they do have is what they are granted by Congress, to which the Constitution grants authority “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
You're not wrong. But I'd be very interested to hear the counter argument. I've been trying to chew through the reporting on the topic and I haven't actually found yet what the Governor's justification is for these inspections. The best I can tell is he appears to be lumping them under general public safety authority, which is a paper thin excuse when the thing that he admits we're keeping people safe from is international trafficking. There are vast swathes of public safety that are not the responsibility of a state government.
You're talking about a governor who passed legislation that allows private citizens to enforce a criminal statute and financially rewards them for doing so.
IANAL but IMHO if the commerce clause prevented states from controlling who,what, and how moves on its roads then it surely had been used already to abolish state licensing and registration for one. Not to mention smog checks, weight stations, California Border Protection Stations etc.
I was specifically referring to "especially if it's via inspections domestic vehicles don't experience".
But fair point, Commerce Clause also has a less well known international aspect, but court cases have indicated that the states do have some ability to control that trade.
Maintaining international order is sometimes held above short term economic losses. See the ongoing war with Russia for another example. My question is, does Texas have the right/authority to do this?
Republicans are causing humanitarian disaster to Mexican people who are immensly contributing to US economy. We've to do everything to fight against racist xenophobic republicans and treat Mexican people with honor and dignity.
First, Mexicans face extreme violence form Mexicans, not Americans. They flee to America largely to avoid that, and to have some hope of prosperity, which is afforded to them by the millions.
Second, responsible border control is a foundation of stability when disparate nations share a border. Open borders between a state which is to some extent run by hyper violent cartels, and where there is a normal civil situation on the other, is only going to lead to disaster.
Finally, there really should be border controls going in the other direction as well. In the US->Mexico direction, there's nary any control.
There are all sorts of ways to facilitate a proper customs union, keep traffic moving, and make sure everything is in order - it just takes a bit of political will.
We find it silly how Russians are calling their war a "Special military operation", but have we stopped to think how we call our trade arrangement here as the "North America FREE TRADE Agreement".
173 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 265 ms ] thread> One trucker told the news outlet that prior to Abbott’s order, he made two crossings into the U.S. a day. Now, he’d be lucky to have one or two a week given the long delays at the bridges.
People express concerns that those jobs could get automated away, but I don't necessarily share those worries. Most of those people working those jobs are near retirement age, and we'll have a real problem filling up those positions in the coming years, at least in this region. Barely any young people want to work such jobs.
https://tucson.com/news/national/walmart-boosts-trucker-pay-...
- unloading pallets, some over 1.5k lbs in weight. When they’re stuck, the truck driver is responsible for getting them out, and that’s that. Not every small biz has a forklift lol.
- you drop off your load in a warehouse and nobody is there to receive it/unclear directions/your pickup directions suck. You spend the next hour walking around a warehouse searching for someone to sign for you.
- backing up to a dock and interrupting traffic = outraged commuters who get ridiculously upset
- unloading broken pallet loads by hand.
I couldn’t and wouldn’t do it.
Not to say that it doesn’t suck being a truck driver, but most of my experience has been that if the load cannot be unloaded by the receiver, the shipment is taken back and the driver is still paid for the attempt.
Go find a builder class, you'll learn a lot and have a good time, even if you decide not to go forward with it.
I don't know when this all shifted in the past twenty years but it feels like the teamsters union (both here and in Mexico) needs to step up their game.
If the statistics are accurate, and my math isn't too horrible, in the US, something around 47% (679,127) of drivers (1,441,014) are owner operators. I'm not sure how many of that 679k are leasing from the company they drive for, but it's certainly not 100%. Drivers are not paying for their own maintenance when they don't lease/own the trucks.
https://www.zippia.com/owner-operator-jobs/demographics/
https://www.zippia.com/truck-driver-jobs/demographics/
I am well aware that outrageous BS is very possible in the trucking industry, having seen it and been subjected to it myself. It's not new, even if it has recently come to light for people outside the industry.
What I tried to show is that the drivers who are paying for their own maintenance on vehicles leased from the company they drive for is smaller than "generally". I don't know of any articles that show those numbers so I tried to show other statistics that would imply it. I thought the way that the comment I replied to could be perceived was unfair.
Drivers also generally pay their own vehicle maintenance, often on trucks their renting from the company that "hired" them.
47% of owner truckers are owner operators and 100% of them are paying for maintenance. Some of the remainder are leasing from the company they work for and also paying for maintenance which is what’s pushing things over 50%.
—edit—
Should add lease operators almost always do this so they have a warranty on the truck because things get really expensive really fast when they don’t.
Those are included in the 47% owner/operators.
Edit:
Well, the page linked with the statistics doesn't mention it specifically, but I'm not sure why a lease purchase owner/operator would not be included in that number.
The other option was for the employer to own the truck. They might then lease the truck to their employee but the difference is the lease automatically ends if their fired.
Company drivers pay for nothing related to the truck unless they’re really, really gullible and are working for some super shady outfit.
The upside is if you lease a truck you keep most of money from the freight fees and if there’s a warranty your cost are not too outrageous.
Source: I drive for an owner/operator leased on to one of the big carriers and due to the way they have the computers set up I can see what the truck gets paid per load.
There’s different types of regulation. The in-state truckers in labor friendly states get a decent deal.
2. How much would it impact the costs of goods to pay truckers an hourly wage during these downtimes?
Abbott is using the inspections as a political bargaining chip to regain title 42 expulsions.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-12/top-texas...
Under no circumstances would one expect that Greg Abbott would do so, as he is wholly driven by a sandman's ideology.
If Biden is not enforcing the law, Congress or another party with standing should sue in the Courts.
The Feds are literally only there for CBP/immigration/Customs. Federal regulations only set the minimum level of friction for entry. States are technically free to increase it. In fact, this is even more humorous, because it isn't even "interstate" commerce til the second state depending on your level of literal interpretation you apply.
Not that I agree with it, but I'd wager there is nothing unconstitutional here. State border crossings are well established delegated powers to the State.
Do you mean "this influx of goods that were ordered by American companies for sale to Americans"? Because that's the impact of this action.
And most trucks destined for California from Mexico will just enter the US in California, so delays on the Texas border will not play as big a role in California as it does in Texas.
Please read my brief comment before calling me short sighted.
2. Labor cost is the largest portion of trucking costs. This would double or quadruple those costs if the idea is to make the trucker whole for Abbot’s temper tantrum.
FTFY. Why would you used different denominators, this isn't an algebra test, it makes communication harder for no reason.
The labor to maintenance/insurance/etc. ratio seems to track pretty accurately. So maybe I should have said 3/6, 2/6 and 1/6 respectively (since the other responder wanted the same denominator).
It’s a stunt by the Texas state government, just like the activation and fleecing of Texas National Guardsmen on low paying state duty doing a whole lot of nothing.
It sounds good on talk radio though.
2. That's never going to happen because it has never happened before.
What I've been told by Uber drivers is that there have previously been significant military operations in the area related to combating cartels who desire to completely control border traffic.
So although the idea of searching everything or whatever they are doing is totally impractical and could result in many drivers not being able to make rent, the extensive smuggling may make things a little more complicated and difficult than people realize.
But it seems like if they try to search everything it is going to end up basically killing off some drivers and totally unrealistic.
It is a testament to the resilience of ordinary Texans (and the Mexicans right across the border) that the state continues to do so well economically.
Can you provide a justification/explanation/citation for this claim? I have been to Mexico many times as a fascinated tourist and layperson. As yet I have not gotten an "almost failed state" vibe. While there seem to be clear challenges facing the populace, things seem to proceed fine at a day to day level.
Does this mean you stayed on cartel protected tourist routes, or did you have a chance to go "off the tracks" a bit?
And, my comment wasn't meant to be as negative as it sounded. I live at the border. It's well known that the cartel regulates/protects Tijuana. A well visited Tijuana is a profitable Tijuana. They're not idiots.
The extent of violence and dangerous areas in Mexico is way, way overblown by certain news stations in America.
What exactly do you think "cartel activity" looks like? The fact that some random international tourist didn't witness any overt "cartel activity" does not remotely imply that it is not a problem in Mexico. These cartels have been in open war with the government for decades, police and military forces are regularly compromised, and frequently the cartels form defacto local governments when they take over towns. Pablo Escobar was one of the wealthiest people in the world when he went to war with the colombian government, mexico has similar issues.
I know it's a problem, but I also think english media depicts Mexico in a much more bleak light than it warrants.
I lived in the USA for many years - and not once, ever, did I see someone do anything racist. I also never witnessed, or even heard of through colleagues, of the police doing something wrong.
But clearly, systematic racism does exist, and, there are problems with the justice system.
And, it's a bit glib to suggest you'd directly see some kind of 'cartel activity' as a wayward tourist. Most violent activity is focused 'among players'.
Your point on 'way overblown in the American press' is definitely reasonable, in the sense that, the news will make people think that 'walking down the street in Mexico is on the whole dangerous' - when obviously it's not. In fact, it's generally safe.
That's not the issue though.
The relative level of violence, systematic corruption, lawlessness is very real and it affects many people in indirect ways.
Living in Russia is not dangerous. Especially if you don't say anything about the the government, there's almost 0% chance you're going to have a problem.
But watch videos of Russians being interviewed about the war in Ukraine - they are hesitant to the point of fearful in 'having an opinion'. There are certain thoughts, they are not allowed to have. If you can't read, write or talk about a thing, that thing dissapears. That's what oppression is: large swaths of people actually disagreeing with the government, but otherwise going about their business as normal.
In a 'safe country' you'll have no problem saying anything about anyone. The government, or criminals.
The next time you're in a Mexican city known to be controlled by cartel members, simply ask the question: "What do you think of so and so" cartel boss? You'll find out very quickly how pervasive influence is, and if you dig a little deeper, you might find out how systematically that corruption extends into quite a lot of small things - all the nooks and crannies.
Saying 'Mexico is no bad' is like saying Putin isn't a problem, because 99% of Russians don't directly suffer consequences. It's the 1% we are concerned about, and more broadly, the systematic issues that affect us all.
Mexico should be much richer and more prosperous than it is, and it will not evolve in a positive direction while it's partially a narco state. That affects everyone.
Of course the tourist locations are nice and don't give off an "almost failed state" vibe.
"Country Summary: Violent crime – such as homicide, kidnapping, carjacking, and robbery – is widespread and common in Mexico."
Heck, even Wikipedia does a good job covering it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Mexico
In my experience rather than having "nice tourist locations", it has the opposite: "dangerous crime locations". These are usually along the fault lines of cartel territories or in specific "sketchy areas". Mexico is nice for us non-tourists living in non-tourist places too IMO.
> 40 000 dead from direct conflict between cartels and government forces since 2006.
Just because it's technically unlikely that you're going to encounter the violence yourself, and therefore not give you a 'violence vibe' doesn't really have anything to do with how much violence there is.
40K is a gigantic number and will possibly be bigger than the Russian-Ukranian war when it's over.
If power of some armed groups rivals that of government, then it's a 'near failed state'.
We have the technology and wherewithal and hopefully 'learned lessons' to make progress on this.
The fact that this massive, organized violence exists, is to a great extent our responsibility for letting it metastasize.
This requires that the inspection station in Mexico is not spoiled by corruption. That is not a sane perspective.
I guess my personal assessment is that none of those are that big a deal to warrant so much inconvenience to most Americans crossing the border, including our trucking companies and their trucks.
You could just let people buy and consume drugs if they want, don't know why we took away that freedom in the first place.
Texans love guns, so not sure why we'd want to prevent them from entering.
Illegal migrants can also be deported after the fact, so I'm not sure you have to catch them all on entry, and a lot of them provide valuable cheap labor.
And even if we want to prevent some of that, I really don't know if it's to the point of having trucks wait days for an inspection or spending all that money on infrared, AI, and what not.
Let's take the 'no borders' situation - and throw in 'no drug regulation':
1) The immediate availability of narcotics would devestate the country within a few months. The opioid epidemic is already causing great harm, and that's something that was actually contained initially within the confines of the American medical system: you had do have prescription, from a doctor, and access a controlled substance. And even then - it's bad.
With fentanyl now available, which by the way, is the #1 drug of choice among recent opioid addicts because it's just 'much better' - we're seeing devestating results.
A completely liberal free for all would mean all sorts of things: energy drinks, candy, food, would be embedded with various drugs.
America is not 'burning man' - with mostly high responsible actors, doing stuff 'on the side' where it's not open, and not usually within 'arms reach'. Even the professionals who can 'handle their stuff' at burning man, were things to become as easy as coca cola to access, would fall under.
Within about 5 months, 5% of the population would be addicted to meth or opiods, it would be a massive public health disaster of epic proportions. And while organized crime might not exist, petty crime would skyrocket.
2) "Texans love guns, so not sure why we'd want to prevent them from entering."
Because guns are a controlled commodity for similar reasons. Every state has regulations. Do you want fully automatic machine guns, grenades, CS gas easily accessible to every baddie in America for a few dollars? It's absurd.
3) "Illegal migrants can also be deported after the fact"
No, they can't.
Illegal immigrants are not deported unless they have committed major crimes, because it's too expensive and politically untenable. 'Open Borders' would mean millions of people arbitrarily flowing into the US until the system was degraded to the point where there wasn't an advantage in coming to the US. When it has failed as badly as Brazil, well, people will stop coming.
4)
It's really absurd that people think laws, borders, rules etc. don't matter and are somehow arbitrarily limiting. Those are part of the fundamental building blocks of civil society.
Mexico is a broken state, the US is mostly a civil state, which is a delicate thing.
One of the first things to happen with 'open borders' would be the Cartels themselves using it as an opportunity to corrupt American politicians. Money is a very powerful thing, unrestrained it would corrupt Arizona / New Mexico politics and Justice System relatively quickly and the dominoes would start to fall.
That doesn't mean open borders, just don't force all trucks through a full inspection. Check papers, ask a few questions, randomly inspect a few, and inspect those that are more suspicious looking. Seems to have been working alright to me.
I also don't know why you jump straight to complete deregulation of all drugs. Coca cola can't put bleach in the drink and yet I can buy bleach. Alcohol doesn't show up in kid products, and THC isn't suddenly put in kit kat bars.
Also from my understanding, it wasn't contained to pharmaceutical, it was that over prescription made people who would have not taken opioid of their free will become addicted.
And there's definitely studies and papers on the counter effect of prohibition policies in actually making matters worse:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09553...
I care.
I’m personally impacted by the shipment delays. I currently await more than $250,000 worth of product ordered from Mexico, so questioning my motives with false equivalencies isn’t going to get anywhere.
I think that's the part you need to expand on, because even if I knew 10 people who crossed the border for that stuff, I wouldn't really care that much.
So what makes you care so much, are there visible, arguably tractable second order effects resulting from this that I wouldn't be able to deny if I lived in Texas? And they're so bad to the Texan state that I'd too want this surveyed and enforced at all cost?
To be honest, I probably need to be schooled on the whole thing. Generally, when there's issues at a local level, my gut reaction is I probably just don't understand the problem. But I'll also probably start by asking naive questions.
My first question is, it seems that yes there are lots of people trying to smuggle drugs or illegally enter the US for... Maybe working under the radar? Escaping Mexico?
And I can believe that it is a hard job to prevent this.
But it also seems to me like we made up the problem, why are we wanting to prevent the drugs and migrants in the first place?
For the drugs, seems we might as well manufacture them ourselves, make them in the US, label them properly, dispense correct dosers, list out side effects and risks, and tax their sales.
If people can get them through other channels, the demand for the Mexican one will reduce and that seems like it would naturally cause the smuggling to decrease. Or maybe, it wouldn't be smuggling anymore, just another import they self-declare and we tax, just like avocados.
For migrants, I'm curious what they're looking for. Are they running away from danger and trying to find safety? Are they looking for work? And why don't we want them? We're worried they resort to crime and theft? We don't have jobs for them? They bring anti-democratic values with them and promote things that we worry would eventually destroy our democracy and take away our freedom?
I think if any of those were true for migrants, I could see it being a harder problem. I'm not sure they are true though. But say they do lead to crime, violence, loss of democracy, loss of employment, and loss of freedom. If that's the case, it's definitely going to be challenging to stop so many people from entering such a big border. I get that. I guess I'm just missing that first link, do they cause all that trouble? Or are we just making up the problem?
So much of state politics is currently Republicans dog whistling made up issues to their base rather than any kind of evidence based policy.
> We began by asking eligible voters how “convincing” they found a dog-whistle message lifted from Republican talking points. Among other elements, the message condemned “illegal immigration from places overrun with drugs and criminal gangs” and called for “fully funding the police, so our communities are not threatened by people who refuse to follow our laws.”
> Almost three out of five white respondents judged the message convincing. More surprising, exactly the same percentage of African-Americans agreed, as did an even higher percentage of Latinos.
I guess it’s easy not to care about this stuff if you didn’t literally flee your homeland to get away from it.
Yes, you can get results from push-polling with heavily loaded wording and unsubstantiated, hyperbolic claims like "overrun with drugs and criminal gangs" and correlating police funding to public safety.
Yes, that's different from evidence-based policy.
Yes, the Texas state governement has enacted a program of disenfranchisement.
I’m not “trolling.” In the last few years folks have become too comfortable calling policies “racist” or “dog whistling” without being confident that minorities actually perceive them that way. I think this is itself racist and manipulative—a way of fluffing apparent support for progressive policies by vaguely invoking minorities—and needs to be called out as such.
Cross-border criminal activity is a real concern that affects real people. There’s a reason majority Hispanic communities along the border have flipped Republican in the last couple of years. Right now Abbott is leading Beto among Hispanics in reputable polls: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2022/01/29/abbott-r.... Waving your hands and calling these concerns racist “dog whistles” is not only lazy but disrespectful to a distinct community with its own interests and often nuanced positions.
You have a point with immigration! But you overplay your hand with the defund stuff. Democratic candidates who run on "defund" lose their primary elections everywhere except a tiny number of ultra-blue uncompetitive districts.
It’s not just the Twitter elite doing that—it’s a lot of folks who don’t necessarily want to defund the police, but just wanted an opportunity to call republicans racist. But the end result is that we went about a year invoking minorities to attack policies that the minorities themselves supported, which is gross. The underlying practice needs to stop.
That the primary system elevates fringe candidates is, yes, a problem. But those candidates lose.
Like I said, we have an exceptionally mobilized defund movement in Oak Park, with demonstrations, proposed ordinances, and candidate slates. They got slaughtered. We're a single-party municipality; being outed as in any way sympathetic to Republicans is fatal here. It came to nothing: liberals don't want to defund the police.
Faced with that, Democrats in 2020 did not treat the idea as "fringe." The put up the BLM signs on their yards and didn't say a word against the activists promoting defund. Aside from Joe Biden, prominent Democrats equivocated when confronted directly: Elizabeth Warren responded to a question about "defund" by saying "it's not the term I would use." That's not how you describe what you think is a "fringe" idea.
Perfect time to shift blame upwards following the already ongoing shipping and supply problems. Endless aggressive expansion of the starve the beast tactic is bound to reach its limits eventually, and all that's left is outright attacking it.
Inventing a problem and proposing awful solutions is a proven election strategy.
If they're claiming it's to make sure the trucks are safe enough to drive on Texas roads, it's a little different. The truckers, presumably, are allowed in the country, but they can't use any of the roads in Texas. That's the same effect, but a much more grey area. That would probably have to wind its way through the court. I'm also not sure how federal highway vs Texan maintained road would play into that.
If you're driving commercially you are subject to a lot of federal and state regulations, including vehicle and paperwork inspections. Abbott is clearly exploiting that to effectively deny freedom of movement, yes, and the judiciary isn't that stupid.
He knows he'll eventually lose a court case either from affected businesses or the feds - but in the meantime he gets "stuck it to the libtards" points with his constituents. It'll probably take at least a few days to get an emergency order, he'll fight that, and he'll probably waste millions taking it to the supreme court, all the while braying about "state's rights."
BTW - as far as the courts are concerned you only truly have freedom of movement on foot. They've consistently maintained driving is a privilege, not a right - which is why police have to clear a very low bar to stop and detain you.
Commercial bus, rail, and air travel? Even more of a 'privilege', which is why we have to submit to the pat-downs, microwave scans, anal probings, and having our luggage rifled through/stolen.
My gut says that Abbott knows this, but he just needs to string the legal process out 'til election day so he doesn't care.
That is the reasoning behind the affordable health care act on existing without government mandated levels of health insurance e. Your existence as a human affects commerce, and therefore is penalizable.
And the stupid 16th amendment. That's caused just as many problems as the commerce clause.
Ability to have income taxes, without the states objecting?
Or is your criticism that some states should pay more income tax than others?
Your existence can be taxed directly under the original constitution; that doesn't need the reinterpreted commerce clause.
> The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
That qualifier -- "without apportionment among the states" -- allows income taxes that aren't head taxes. Head taxes were already allowed. Nothing to do with any interpretation of the commerce clause.
Generally, no, and not in usurpation of Federal law. That's what the Commerce Clause literally says -- regulating foreign trade is a Federal role.
They or Congress can sue the Federal executive in Federal court.
How does it work the other way around? Does the federal court sue Texas?
If the federal government is doing a poor job, the remedy is to vote the bastards out, not subsume a federal obligation. This was made even clearer after the Civil War, because States had attempted to use such authority to disregard federal law regarding anti-foreign-competition tariffs.
Ultimately Texas benefits greatly from Mexican trade, so even by the dim bulb standard set by modern Texan officials, this is a really stupid measure.
States have very little control of their borders, either interstate or international or internal with Indian reservations, and that which they do have is what they are granted by Congress, to which the Constitution grants authority “[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.”
Yeah, but actual cross-border trade being an exclusive federal authority isn't one of the squinty bits.
> To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
But fair point, Commerce Clause also has a less well known international aspect, but court cases have indicated that the states do have some ability to control that trade.
It starts at the top.
If he can do whatever he wants to do, so can/will others.
First, Mexicans face extreme violence form Mexicans, not Americans. They flee to America largely to avoid that, and to have some hope of prosperity, which is afforded to them by the millions.
Second, responsible border control is a foundation of stability when disparate nations share a border. Open borders between a state which is to some extent run by hyper violent cartels, and where there is a normal civil situation on the other, is only going to lead to disaster.
Finally, there really should be border controls going in the other direction as well. In the US->Mexico direction, there's nary any control.
There are all sorts of ways to facilitate a proper customs union, keep traffic moving, and make sure everything is in order - it just takes a bit of political will.