The Highway That Wasn't There

Chris Hayes reports on the nationwide grassroots movement to stop the construction of the NAFTA Superhighway, a Mexico City to Toronto corridor "four football fields wide" where "equipped with high-tech electronic customs monitors, freight from China, offloaded into nonunionized Mexican ports, will travel north, crossing the border with nary a speed bump, bound for Kansas City, where the cheap goods manufactured in booming Far East factories will embark on the final leg of their journey into the nation's Wal-Marts."

The story of the activists mobilizing against this highway is sort of inspiring except there are no plans for any such highway. It's all made up. The resulting article is a fascinating look at the populist backlash.

Comments

I wonder if these grassroots efforts will result in publicizing the idea to the point that this Superhighway actually gets built. A Mexico City-Toronto highway doesn't sound like such a bad idea.

Posted by Gabriel | August 13, 2007 3:12 PM

Are they going to put special bar codes on the backs of the traffic signs allowing the black helicopters sent by Hillary to find their way around for the United Nations occupation force?

Posted by El Cid | August 13, 2007 3:17 PM

Read the whole article. While the NAFTA Superhighway as such doesn't exist, there certainly are plans to bypass the unionized ports on the west coast and to bring more goods in through Mexican ports, and then up into the midwest using Mexican truckers. The paranoid folks took these actual plans and exaggerated them, but this doesn't mean that there's nothing there.

Posted by Joe Buck | August 13, 2007 3:17 PM

As usual, The Onion reported on this ("U.S. Protests Mexi-Canadian Overpass") a few years ago.

Posted by RSA | August 13, 2007 3:18 PM

I keep hearing this story, usually with maps and everything. then i hear "it's not true."

it seems like a kinda easy thing to work out no? true or not true? obviously, proving a negative is rather difficult but how can this story go on for years and years if the premise is 100% wrong?

Posted by this guy | August 13, 2007 3:21 PM

The Onion: best damn investigative reporting on the planet. But hey, go ahead, read the New York Times if you want. They get lucky sometimes.

Posted by sangfroid826 | August 13, 2007 3:22 PM

Any readers who are actually interested in the facts should really do their own research and draw their own conclusions. As in so many other things, you just can't trust what MattY is trying to sell:

eagleforum.org/topics/NAU
worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=223
lonewacko.com/blog/archives/nau-digest.html

I'm sure open-minded liberals won't have a problem with evaluating the information contained at those sites, but in case that's a little difficult bear in mind that most of the opposition in Canada is coming from the left side of things:

canadians.org

Check out the links, then let us know whether you still trust MattY and The Nation.

Posted by TLB | August 13, 2007 3:24 PM

It's "sort" of true. There is indeed work going on now on Interstate 69 (I love it!) and it does indeed terminate at the Mexican border and Canadian border.

Posted by Davebo | August 13, 2007 3:25 PM

"there certainly are plans to bypass the unionized ports on the west coast and to bring more goods in through Mexican ports, and then up into the midwest using Mexican truckers."

Yeah, looking at a map, it would be much shorter to transport goods from the west coast of mexico to the midwest than the west coast of the US. and with NAFTA, I don't there would be many regulations to stop the goods.

of course, Mexico is such a mess that building such a highway is too difficult for them.

Posted by thehova | August 13, 2007 3:35 PM

I thought that was a fair and interesting article. Then again, I'm not a populist by any stretch of the imagination.

Posted by Korha | August 13, 2007 4:47 PM

Huh. I always assumed it was a metaporial highway they were all up in arms about. Should've known it was even more idiotic than that.

of course, Mexico is such a mess that building such a highway is too difficult for them.

Yeah, remember when that bridge fell down during rush hour, or that coastal city got unnecessarily wiped out? Clearly they're no match for our superior infrastructure.

Posted by brenda | August 13, 2007 4:48 PM

I-69 runs about 7 miles from my house, and the people around here seem to think a lot of Mexi-Canadian traffic is coming. Right now it's still a pretty sleepy stretch of interstate, though.

Posted by Rob | August 13, 2007 6:20 PM

As discussed at the link, the NYT recently noted that candidates have been asked about this issue.

The NYT then proceeded to take the word of an unnamed federal official that no such plan existed and was, in the words of that official simply an "urban legend that has spread wildly on the Internet and talk radio".

The NYT also pointed out the Rudy was "befuddled" when asking about the scheme, claiming that he had no idea about it.

What the NYT failed to disclose is that Rudy's law firm handles all negotiations for the Spanish company that's building the Texas leg of the scheme.

This issue, like immigration, is a perfect storm of GOP/Dem corruption combined with journalistic corruption and malfeasance.

Posted by A mini-example | August 13, 2007 6:28 PM

I regularly get emails from a guy on various topics. Some of them have been on this topic. As I understand it, the issue isn't just a "superhighway". The issue is that a group of people seem to be pushing for a "North American Union" of Mexico, Canada and the US to be the equivalent of the European Union. The "Superhighway" is just the most visible project of this proposed "Union".

Apparently, the "usual suspects" are involved in promoting this project - the big names usually accused of being "One Worlders" and the like.

And naturally, this has a lot of people concerned that there may be laws passed that subject US citizens to the sort of things that go on in Mexico and Canada (good and bad things), and more importantly, that the US economy will get messed up by being tied to the actions of Mexico or Canada.

It's the equivalent of the problems Britain has in connection with the EU and probably related to the fears people have had for years that the US is going to be subordinate to the UN in some manner.

At this point in the Bush administration, I'd say being subjected to Vladimir Putin's rule would be a better state of affairs.

In fact, I'd like to see a grassroots movement start here before election time next year that puts up Putin for President and British MP George Galloway for Vice-President. At least we'd have some smart candidates to vote for instead of the stupids and liars we have in both parties now.

You want a "third party" - there ya go!

So I'm not all that concerned by this "plot" - especially since the "usual suspects" will be benefiting and the usual losers won't be - including me. So what else is new?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 13, 2007 6:52 PM

Joe Buck is right about the ports and effort to outsource the jobs of beinging in international goods from American longshoremen and truck drivers to "good, hard-working Mexican families willing to work for what lazy Americans won't"

I suppose the ideal economy for wealthy Globalists of both Parties in the USA would be China makes the stuff, Chinese ship it to CHina-owned ports in Mexico through the Chinese-operated Panama Canal to the other Coast. Then the goods are picked up and driven by Mexicans across the silly artificial Border NAFTA is helping "erase and make seamless to ease commercial flow of goods" (and bales of "other stuff" with no delays". And delivered to China-Marts. Where the China goods are unloaded, stocked and sold by illegal immigrants paid by China-Mart.

The American Ruling Elites like this because they see themselves as getting a "cut" of each stage in the process as owners and middlemen. From the factories in Guandong they transfer all capital construction and US technology to, to the cut they get at the end of the line as illegal aliens demand services the wealthy own& control and get large sums of money from US taxpayers to provide to illegals.

Be a bitch for the Richest 1% if the Chinese, sitting on 1 trillion in cash, decide to buy up all the trucking companies and China-Marts in America. But we can rest assured that the Ruling Elites would fight for their "jobs" a lot harder than they do for other American's jobs and industries they are out destroying now.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 13, 2007 7:29 PM

way to bring out the crazies Matt Y. Sheesh!

As an aside, offloading in Mexican ports will be more expensive for shippers from certain destinations, and any cost savings from cheaper longshoremen may certainly be offset by the speed and productivity of longshoremen in Mexico's less advanced ports. It costs a lot of money every hour a ship is in port longer than it needs be, and America's ports are extremely advanced.

I expect if anything that what will happen is that Mexican ports may get more traffic, without any appreciable dip in American port traffic, as America's ports are generally maxed out as it is and there is a lot of NIMBY pressure to curtail their expansion and pollution.

Posted by n_m | August 13, 2007 8:00 PM

You got to love it when right-wing wackos link to fringe blogs and WorldNetDaily as actual sources. Here's a hint: the Wall Street Journal is a source. Hell, comparatively, even the National Review and the Washington Times are sources. The equivalent would be lefties linking to the Workers' Daily or International Socialist Review. Right-wing populists are funny, like monkeys throwing their own feces at the zoo.

Posted by Reality Man | August 13, 2007 8:40 PM

Kansas City Business Journal - October 23, 2003
"KC Southern wants to build an intermodal hub there that would integrate truck and rail traffic on its line into Mexico. The railroad already has established an international freight gateway at Richards-Gebaur, where Mazda of North America opened a processing center in April 2000 to distribute vehicles. The gateway also handles F-150 pickups manufactured at Ford Motor Co.'s plant in Claycomo"

This may be where some of the rumor starts and as I remember the local promotors have been pushing the conversion of the old Richards Gabaur Airforce base, just south of Kansas City, as an inland port ever since the base was closed back in the ninties.

Jack

Posted by whskyjack | August 13, 2007 9:08 PM

Ron Paul Joins the woo!
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst103006.htm

Does it occur to anyone that Mexico, USA, and Canada are already linked by a system of highways? And some of them are almost one football field wide!

Posted by shecky | August 13, 2007 9:48 PM

Any readers who are actually interested in the facts should really do their own research and draw their own conclusions. As in so many other things, you just can't trust what MattY is trying to sell.

Well, you can also trust your common sense, and draw your own conclusions. I mean, why exactly would we need to build a special new highway to link Mexico City and Toronto, when we've already got ribbons of highway connecting these two places? Not that I can't see the efficacy of some degree of improvement in transportation infrastructure -- including highways. But seriously, would the many hundreds of billions such a project would surely cost really be justified by increases in trade efficiency? I doubt it. Again, it's already possible to move goods by truck around North America. Those of us trying to give birth to the borderless North American superstate still haven't managed to repeal the law of supply and demand, try as we might.

Posted by Jasper | August 13, 2007 9:57 PM

Anonymous commentors to the rescue! Of course, "liberals" are free to be closed-minded and not even try to evaluate claims at WND and other sites, but what of those on your side, such as canadians.org?

What of the fact that at least two state legislatures have passed resolutions opposing this overall scheme (an open-mindedness test: jbs.org/node/3520)?

Obviously, if such resolutions can pass state legislatures, perhaps they know something that apologists like MattY and The Nation don't.

Did those two state legislatures take leave of their senses? Or, is there something there, and should you look into it?

Posted by TLB | August 13, 2007 10:09 PM

I guess I forgot to take my marching orders from the ever-famous canadians.org today. As anyone who has ever worked in state government knows, a lot of people in state legislatures are actually rather odd. Utah recently considered a resolution condemning illegal immigration as the work of Satan. TLB, you're barking at the moon. Shouldn't you be spending your time on more productive things, like yelling at Courtney Love for killing Kurt?

Posted by Reality Man | August 13, 2007 10:34 PM

TLB's faith in our state legislatures is touching.

Never read Molly Ivins, have you...?

Posted by Thlayli | August 14, 2007 6:55 AM

I'm not going to trust the same Democratic party that passed FISA. I'm sorry, but just people Democrats say that this isn't what's happening doesn't make it true. The events of the last few weeks have made it clear that they are every bit as corrupt and disinterested in the average American's well being as the republicans are.

Posted by soullite | August 14, 2007 7:32 AM

Did anyone here actually RTFA?

The point is that, while there may not be any plans to build a "NAFTA superhighway" per se, there are plans to build a superhighway on the Trans-Texas Corridor. And while there may not be anything particularly objectionable about this (especially to someone like me who is pro-globalization), the problem is that the Texas legislature has authorized Rick Perry's state house to outsource and privatize the whole thing in a Build-Operate-Transfer scheme with a Cintra, a Spanish multi-national. Cintra will have exclusive rights to build, operate, and collect tolls on the highway for 50 years. And the entire highway will be built adjacent to existing roads.

Yes, some of the grass roots movement is based on Birch Society-type "one world" paranoia. Some of it is NIMBYism. They've all got the right answer, but for the wrong reasons. The article makes clear that the real reason the movement against the TTC has gained momentum is because of the privitization, not because of fear of globalization.

So, this isn't about some xenophobic fear of Mexicans and Chinese taking over our economy. It's about the Spanish taking over our infrastructure.

Posted by Tractarian | August 14, 2007 10:58 AM

There does seem to be a highway planned, regardless of the fact that Democratic bloggers keep saying it doesn't exist. There are people pushing for a road that would essentially kill many thousands of port jobs in this country. It may not be called the NAFTA super highway, but there are clearly business interests pushing this. It may not end all american sovereignty, but it will be bad for the Average american, no matter how good it is for corporate interests. These days, corporate interests seem to the the only interests the Democrats care about.

Posted by soullite | August 14, 2007 11:17 AM

The LA/Long Beach stevedore union is one of the most lucrative in the world -- even file clerks make six figures. (You may remember in "Reservoir Dogs" how the gangsters offer Michael Madsen a phony job with their union friends down at the port as a reward for doing four years hard time to protect them.) I'm sure Wal-Mart would love to bypass LA/Long Beach and use Mexican labor making an order of magnitude less to unload their freighters from China.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 17, 2007 1:24 AM

The Mexican government has long publicly called for a North American Union, or, at least, for the cash handouts that Spain and other lower-income countries got when joining the EU.

Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castaneda told the L.A. Times in 2001:

"That's what [President Vicente] Fox essentially wants, the type of resource transfers that occurred in Spain and, before Spain, in Ireland, and, after Spain, in Portugal and Greece. The Germans were willing to build highways in Spain. Somebody else has to build our highways. We don't have the money." ["Jorge Castaneda: Mexico's Man Abroad," LA Times, August 12, 2001, By Sergio Munoz]

Conversely, the ramshackle Mexican economy, with its surprisingly profitable government-protected private monopolies (such as the one that has made telecom mogul Carlos Slim the new world's richest man), tantalizes certain American business interests. The most lusted-after Mexican property remains the most important monopoly that has yet to be privatized: Pemex, the dilapidated government oil company. Texas oil man Robert Mosbacher, who was the elder President Bush's Treasury Secretary, reportedly said that he wanted to be the first CEO of a private Pemex.

Mosbacher is now Chairman Emeritus of the U.S. Council of the Mexico-U.S. Business Committee. In 2005, his organization issued a report entitled "A Strategy for Building Competitiveness Within North America." Its Executive Summary says that it's time to move beyond NAFTA:

"At the heart of the Compact lies a grand bargain: the United States and Canada will work closely with Mexico to mobilize additional public and private sector resources to advance Mexico’s development. In exchange, Mexico will commit to a robust program of second-generation reforms in regulatory harmonization, the rule of law, and infrastructure improvements …"

Wow! Another “Grand Bargain”! Where have we heard that phrase since?

Needless to say, "a robust, enforceable temporary worker program that will match willing workers with willing employers" is one of the four main planks of the Mosbacher group’s "grand bargain".

So, clearly, people close to the Bush dynasty, such as Mosbacher, who was in charge of raising money for the elder Bush's 1992 re-election campaign, have been thinking hard about integrating America and Mexico further.

Now, it's not wholly ridiculous for America to consider shelling out some cash to pay for good government reforms in Mexico. Things like better education. More honest policemen and tax collectors. At minimum, it makes more sense for us to try to fix Mexico than to try to fix Iraq … although that's setting the bar for making sense awfully low!

However, the obvious problem with Mosbacher's scheme is that billions handed over to Mexico as part of a proto-North American Union would likely just be stolen by the Mexican elite. In turn, that would encourage more of the sleaze that drains the Mexican economy of jobs.

So, unless somebody can come up with a solution to the corruption conundrum, going down the EU route should be a non-starter.

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 17, 2007 1:26 AM