NAFTA Canada-Mexico "Super-highway" 7 replies

Please wait...

Ryette

suburban baroness of bud

50 XP

19th April 2005

0 Uploads

1,887 Posts

0 Threads

#1 11 years ago

Has anyone heard about this? One of my more politically active relatives just pointed this out to me:

Canada, Mexico, and the United States have signed a trilateral agreement under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to begin constructing a 10-lane “super highway” from Mexico to Canada as early as 2007.

The limited-access road and rail line, to be built along Interstate 35, would allow shippers to transport goods that arrive at the Mexican port of Lazaro Cardenas directly to a Kansas City, Missouri, customs stop and eventually on to Canada. There is also concern that the new corridor will create security risks by further opening the U.S.-Mexican border to terrorists.

Link: Quoted Article

Link: Detailed article

Anyway, this kind of pisses me off, especially since I live right next to I-35 (literally), and about an hour from Kansas City.

And if it's true what the article says, that many people don't know about this... well, I think it's time people did. : \

The person I got this from also said that the highway would be used by Mexico only. I don't know if that's true, and it seems a bit strange to give American territory to Mexico, but the article does mention "limited access." Not that I'd want to use a Mexican highway.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#2 11 years ago

Yeah spooky isn’t it. I remember hearing about this a few weeks back, and it's relatively ‘backburner’ in respect too the media. Surely 'if' the public new about it, they would oppose it, hence it's secrecy. I disagree with it completely. We don’t need to provide Mexico with a route into Canada, at our expense and loss of territory. It wont just present a security risk either, it will be one.




Ryette

suburban baroness of bud

50 XP

19th April 2005

0 Uploads

1,887 Posts

0 Threads

#3 11 years ago
Sedistix;3336970Yeah spooky isn’t it. I remember hearing about this a few weeks back, and it's relatively ‘backburner’ in respect too the media. Surely 'if' the public new about it, they would oppose it, hence it's secrecy. I disagree with it completely. We don’t need to provide Mexico with a route into Canada, at our expense and loss of territory. It wont just present a security risk either, it will be one.

That's what scares me the most. Not only the fact that it's costing us [people in the KC-metro...which I am included in] $3 million to build a hub for them, but they're going to be right next to me, geographically speaking.

I also don't like the mention of "cheap Far East goods." Mostly it sounds like a way to further ruin the American economy.




SilentHitz

When in doubt...KILL IT!!

50 XP

24th June 2005

0 Uploads

937 Posts

0 Threads

#4 11 years ago

Well, isn't that "special"? That sure isn't gonna help border security and illegal immagration...:rolleyes:




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#5 11 years ago

It sort of depends on how well guarded the road is. But knowing this country that won't be very well, which means it will probaly going to be a shitty idea.

A real shame too, as the idea itself has merit, having an international North American Highway could substantially boost the economy. But that would only work out if Canada, the U.S. and Mexico all worked together to keep it safe, which they won't.




Dan2004

Oonteenee!

50 XP

10th July 2004

0 Uploads

864 Posts

0 Threads

#6 11 years ago

You know for shipping goods, there's something that's probably alot easier and cheaper than this NAFTA abomination: Air-Freight anyone?




SilentHitz

When in doubt...KILL IT!!

50 XP

24th June 2005

0 Uploads

937 Posts

0 Threads

#7 11 years ago
Dan2004;3337177You know for shipping goods, there's something that's probably alot easier and cheaper than this NAFTA abomination: Air-Freight anyone?

Sounds like a MUCH better alternative to me.:nodding:




deathwarder

Part of the EPA's swat team

50 XP

2nd January 2006

0 Uploads

2,088 Posts

0 Threads

#8 11 years ago

I think it would be better for the environment for this abomination not to be constructed, and for the goods to travel by train.