CSNbbs
The Jones Act - Printable Version

+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+----- Forum: The Buckley-Vidal No Spin Room (/forum-970.html)
+----- Thread: The Jones Act (/thread-872087.html)



The Jones Act - georgia_tech_swagger - 03-08-2019 08:08 PM

... it states (loosely paraphrased) that you cannot ship water based freight between the states unless the entirety of the crew, the parent company, the pilot, and the boat are American. I see this policy as being squarely in an increasingly large number of crosshairs seemingly all out of nowhere. Zeihan and CATO have both talked about it in the last week.

Word is that perhaps the US canal system would get a modernization overhaul after this as well.


RE: The Jones Act - JRsec - 03-08-2019 08:27 PM

(03-08-2019 08:08 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... it states (loosely paraphrased) that you cannot ship water based freight between the states unless the entirety of the crew, the parent company, the pilot, and the boat are American. I see this policy as being squarely in an increasingly large number of crosshairs seemingly all out of nowhere. Zeihan and CATO have both talked about it in the last week.

Word is that perhaps the US canal system would get a modernization overhaul after this as well.

Leave it alone. The issues for a foreign flagged ship getting a cargo into the heartland is too great of a security risk for this law to be changed. We need all foreign flagged carriers stopped and searched at POE's. The next thing you would find is a hold full of illegals jumping ship at ports along the Mississippi or the St. Lawrence, or even up the Savannah, Broad, and Trout/St John's rivers. No Thanks.


RE: The Jones Act - chargeradio - 03-10-2019 09:35 PM

I think the more likely candidate for change is the similar provision in the Passenger Vessel Services Act. Practically all cruise ships are registered outside the United States, but are owned by companies that have a significant presence in the United States, even if not legally domiciled here.


RE: The Jones Act - Captain Bearcat - 03-29-2019 10:41 AM

(03-08-2019 08:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-08-2019 08:08 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... it states (loosely paraphrased) that you cannot ship water based freight between the states unless the entirety of the crew, the parent company, the pilot, and the boat are American. I see this policy as being squarely in an increasingly large number of crosshairs seemingly all out of nowhere. Zeihan and CATO have both talked about it in the last week.

Word is that perhaps the US canal system would get a modernization overhaul after this as well.

Leave it alone. The issues for a foreign flagged ship getting a cargo into the heartland is too great of a security risk for this law to be changed. We need all foreign flagged carriers stopped and searched at POE's. The next thing you would find is a hold full of illegals jumping ship at ports along the Mississippi or the St. Lawrence, or even up the Savannah, Broad, and Trout/St John's rivers. No Thanks.

Why is a foreign-owned & operated ship more likely to offload drugs, WMDs, or illegals if we change the law to allow them to haul cargo from Honolulu to the mainland? Isn't the crime risk almost 100% due to them coming from a foreign port (which is legal under the Jones Act)?


RE: The Jones Act - JRsec - 03-29-2019 01:30 PM

(03-29-2019 10:41 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(03-08-2019 08:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-08-2019 08:08 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... it states (loosely paraphrased) that you cannot ship water based freight between the states unless the entirety of the crew, the parent company, the pilot, and the boat are American. I see this policy as being squarely in an increasingly large number of crosshairs seemingly all out of nowhere. Zeihan and CATO have both talked about it in the last week.

Word is that perhaps the US canal system would get a modernization overhaul after this as well.

Leave it alone. The issues for a foreign flagged ship getting a cargo into the heartland is too great of a security risk for this law to be changed. We need all foreign flagged carriers stopped and searched at POE's. The next thing you would find is a hold full of illegals jumping ship at ports along the Mississippi or the St. Lawrence, or even up the Savannah, Broad, and Trout/St John's rivers. No Thanks.

Why is a foreign-owned & operated ship more likely to offload drugs, WMDs, or illegals if we change the law to allow them to haul cargo from Honolulu to the mainland? Isn't the crime risk almost 100% due to them coming from a foreign port (which is legal under the Jones Act)?

Any ship at sea is subject to surreptitious exchanges at sea. Just because a cargo is shipped from Hawaii doesn't mean that a nefarious captain can't take contraband aboard between destinations. And contraband can include people, substances or devices.

That said my primary concern is still about foreign flagged ships being able to sail up rivers to internal ports of destination. This is a fundamental risk to internal security and given the relatively narrow waterways would provide easy access to the interior for smuggled persons, and would absolutely damage commerce and endanger lives if a ship chose to scuttle or if it carried a device.

And then there is the risk of pandemic. If their crew is not confined to coastlines and monitored it would be much easier to expose our populace. Just look at what is happening with the mumps and measles outbreak. Illegals are bringing back many diseases we had eradicated. In Muscogee County Georgia about a decade ago a middle school suffered a case of small pox. It was traced to illegal immigrants. Thankfully the small pox vaccinations were still sufficient to limit it's impact to just one student.

It's been 18 years since the homeland was hit. Our enemies are constantly probing for a way to hit us which would be hard to trace. Why, simply for the bucks for corporations, are we dismantling procedures that have protected us for decades? Screw the corporations and their desires. Protection of the homeland and its citizens is the primary responsibility of any government.

And it's a damned insane disgrace that we aren't controlling our borders.

So given the current lack of desire to do so the last damned thing I want to see are our internal waterways opened to incursion where inspections would not occur until an internal port destination was reached.

Here in my region it is possible for a ship to enter the St. John's river near Jacksonville Florida and to proceed up the Chattahoochee to Columbus. In my preretirement life I had to work against a group that wanted to open it. What the local folks didn't realize is that those seeking political influence in Southern port cities were working for a rival cartel to the Columbians. They were in fact working for Cubans looking to utilize narcotics trafficking to fund their activities of destabilization in Central and South America. So they wanted to bring political pressure to bear upon law enforcement to effectively take out their competition and open the port and waterways for easier access in trafficking than the use of mules and the highway system.

The intersection into my life was they were mobilizing non profits and citizens against drugs and using their money and political influence to push the elimination of their Columbian rivals and pushing the open ports issue with a different group posing as business men with the chamber of commerce.

So the good will of the people to do the right thing regarding illegal drug trade was being used against them to set up another drug trade which posed a much bigger threat in that its proceeds were being used against the nation as a whole in addition to being a threat to our kids.

So until this nation shows the capacity to not be deaf, blind and stupid with regard to what corporations posing as legitimate businesses claim they want, I simply don't trust our political leadership to ask enough questions, investigate the parties well enough, and think of the public and national interest first. Greed and ease of trade will be the Trojan Horse that allows our enemies within our gates. And we all know how it ended for Priam.


RE: The Jones Act - bullet - 03-29-2019 02:49 PM

(03-29-2019 01:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-29-2019 10:41 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(03-08-2019 08:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-08-2019 08:08 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... it states (loosely paraphrased) that you cannot ship water based freight between the states unless the entirety of the crew, the parent company, the pilot, and the boat are American. I see this policy as being squarely in an increasingly large number of crosshairs seemingly all out of nowhere. Zeihan and CATO have both talked about it in the last week.

Word is that perhaps the US canal system would get a modernization overhaul after this as well.

Leave it alone. The issues for a foreign flagged ship getting a cargo into the heartland is too great of a security risk for this law to be changed. We need all foreign flagged carriers stopped and searched at POE's. The next thing you would find is a hold full of illegals jumping ship at ports along the Mississippi or the St. Lawrence, or even up the Savannah, Broad, and Trout/St John's rivers. No Thanks.

Why is a foreign-owned & operated ship more likely to offload drugs, WMDs, or illegals if we change the law to allow them to haul cargo from Honolulu to the mainland? Isn't the crime risk almost 100% due to them coming from a foreign port (which is legal under the Jones Act)?

Any ship at sea is subject to surreptitious exchanges at sea. Just because a cargo is shipped from Hawaii doesn't mean that a nefarious captain can't take contraband aboard between destinations. And contraband can include people, substances or devices.

That said my primary concern is still about foreign flagged ships being able to sail up rivers to internal ports of destination. This is a fundamental risk to internal security and given the relatively narrow waterways would provide easy access to the interior for smuggled persons, and would absolutely damage commerce and endanger lives if a ship chose to scuttle or if it carried a device.

And then there is the risk of pandemic. If their crew is not confined to coastlines and monitored it would be much easier to expose our populace. Just look at what is happening with the mumps and measles outbreak. Illegals are bringing back many diseases we had eradicated. In Muscogee County Georgia about a decade ago a middle school suffered a case of small pox. It was traced to illegal immigrants. Thankfully the small pox vaccinations were still sufficient to limit it's impact to just one student.

It's been 18 years since the homeland was hit. Our enemies are constantly probing for a way to hit us which would be hard to trace. Why, simply for the bucks for corporations, are we dismantling procedures that have protected us for decades? Screw the corporations and their desires. Protection of the homeland and its citizens is the primary responsibility of any government.

And it's a damned insane disgrace that we aren't controlling our borders.

So given the current lack of desire to do so the last damned thing I want to see are our internal waterways opened to incursion where inspections would not occur until an internal port destination was reached.

Here in my region it is possible for a ship to enter the St. John's river near Jacksonville Florida and to proceed up the Chattahoochee to Columbus. In my preretirement life I had to work against a group that wanted to open it. What the local folks didn't realize is that those seeking political influence in Southern port cities were working for a rival cartel to the Columbians. They were in fact working for Cubans looking to utilize narcotics trafficking to fund their activities of destabilization in Central and South America. So they wanted to bring political pressure to bear upon law enforcement to effectively take out their competition and open the port and waterways for easier access in trafficking than the use of mules and the highway system.

The intersection into my life was they were mobilizing non profits and citizens against drugs and using their money and political influence to push the elimination of their Columbian rivals and pushing the open ports issue with a different group posing as business men with the chamber of commerce.

So the good will of the people to do the right thing regarding illegal drug trade was being used against them to set up another drug trade which posed a much bigger threat in that its proceeds were being used against the nation as a whole in addition to being a threat to our kids.

So until this nation shows the capacity to not be deaf, blind and stupid with regard to what corporations posing as legitimate businesses claim they want, I simply don't trust our political leadership to ask enough questions, investigate the parties well enough, and think of the public and national interest first. Greed and ease of trade will be the Trojan Horse that allows our enemies within our gates. And we all know how it ended for Priam.

I think you are missing the more fundamental risks.
1) Shipping will go to the nation with the laxest standards for safety and crew vetting.
2) There will be zero US merchant fleet. That is crucial in case of a real war.

Those are both huge security risks to the US.

There are a substantial number of jobs tied to this.


RE: The Jones Act - Owl 69/70/75 - 03-29-2019 05:45 PM

I have thought about two possibilities:

1) If you are going to call on US ports, or enter US territorial waters, you have to meet USCG standards.
2) If you are a US company with flag of convenience shipping, your ships are subject to US control in time of war.

Not sure exactly how either would work, but have thought about them conceptually.


RE: The Jones Act - JRsec - 03-29-2019 09:56 PM

(03-29-2019 02:49 PM)bullet Wrote:  
(03-29-2019 01:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-29-2019 10:41 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  
(03-08-2019 08:27 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(03-08-2019 08:08 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  ... it states (loosely paraphrased) that you cannot ship water based freight between the states unless the entirety of the crew, the parent company, the pilot, and the boat are American. I see this policy as being squarely in an increasingly large number of crosshairs seemingly all out of nowhere. Zeihan and CATO have both talked about it in the last week.

Word is that perhaps the US canal system would get a modernization overhaul after this as well.

Leave it alone. The issues for a foreign flagged ship getting a cargo into the heartland is too great of a security risk for this law to be changed. We need all foreign flagged carriers stopped and searched at POE's. The next thing you would find is a hold full of illegals jumping ship at ports along the Mississippi or the St. Lawrence, or even up the Savannah, Broad, and Trout/St John's rivers. No Thanks.

Why is a foreign-owned & operated ship more likely to offload drugs, WMDs, or illegals if we change the law to allow them to haul cargo from Honolulu to the mainland? Isn't the crime risk almost 100% due to them coming from a foreign port (which is legal under the Jones Act)?

Any ship at sea is subject to surreptitious exchanges at sea. Just because a cargo is shipped from Hawaii doesn't mean that a nefarious captain can't take contraband aboard between destinations. And contraband can include people, substances or devices.

That said my primary concern is still about foreign flagged ships being able to sail up rivers to internal ports of destination. This is a fundamental risk to internal security and given the relatively narrow waterways would provide easy access to the interior for smuggled persons, and would absolutely damage commerce and endanger lives if a ship chose to scuttle or if it carried a device.

And then there is the risk of pandemic. If their crew is not confined to coastlines and monitored it would be much easier to expose our populace. Just look at what is happening with the mumps and measles outbreak. Illegals are bringing back many diseases we had eradicated. In Muscogee County Georgia about a decade ago a middle school suffered a case of small pox. It was traced to illegal immigrants. Thankfully the small pox vaccinations were still sufficient to limit it's impact to just one student.

It's been 18 years since the homeland was hit. Our enemies are constantly probing for a way to hit us which would be hard to trace. Why, simply for the bucks for corporations, are we dismantling procedures that have protected us for decades? Screw the corporations and their desires. Protection of the homeland and its citizens is the primary responsibility of any government.

And it's a damned insane disgrace that we aren't controlling our borders.

So given the current lack of desire to do so the last damned thing I want to see are our internal waterways opened to incursion where inspections would not occur until an internal port destination was reached.

Here in my region it is possible for a ship to enter the St. John's river near Jacksonville Florida and to proceed up the Chattahoochee to Columbus. In my preretirement life I had to work against a group that wanted to open it. What the local folks didn't realize is that those seeking political influence in Southern port cities were working for a rival cartel to the Columbians. They were in fact working for Cubans looking to utilize narcotics trafficking to fund their activities of destabilization in Central and South America. So they wanted to bring political pressure to bear upon law enforcement to effectively take out their competition and open the port and waterways for easier access in trafficking than the use of mules and the highway system.

The intersection into my life was they were mobilizing non profits and citizens against drugs and using their money and political influence to push the elimination of their Columbian rivals and pushing the open ports issue with a different group posing as business men with the chamber of commerce.

So the good will of the people to do the right thing regarding illegal drug trade was being used against them to set up another drug trade which posed a much bigger threat in that its proceeds were being used against the nation as a whole in addition to being a threat to our kids.

So until this nation shows the capacity to not be deaf, blind and stupid with regard to what corporations posing as legitimate businesses claim they want, I simply don't trust our political leadership to ask enough questions, investigate the parties well enough, and think of the public and national interest first. Greed and ease of trade will be the Trojan Horse that allows our enemies within our gates. And we all know how it ended for Priam.

I think you are missing the more fundamental risks.
1) Shipping will go to the nation with the laxest standards for safety and crew vetting.
2) There will be zero US merchant fleet. That is crucial in case of a real war.

Those are both huge security risks to the US.

There are a substantial number of jobs tied to this.

I think you are missing my larger point that came from first hand experience. With the standards as they are it is already a war to control illegal substances. Why make it even easier for the bad guys?


RE: The Jones Act - JRsec - 03-29-2019 09:58 PM

(03-29-2019 05:45 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I have thought about two possibilities:

1) If you are going to call on US ports, or enter US territorial waters, you have to meet USCG standards.
2) If you are a US company with flag of convenience shipping, your ships are subject to US control in time of war.

Not sure exactly how either would work, but have thought about them conceptually.

As to your point (1) that's great, if we beef up the coast guard and give them inspection rights for all foreign flagged ships entering U.S. waters. Then they can flag any they wished inspected in greater detail when they reach their port.


RE: The Jones Act - DustMyBroom - 04-03-2019 03:13 PM

We already have considerable overland experience with NAFTA, which allowed Canadian and Mexican flagged truckload carriers to travel from point to point in the US (it’s still illegal for US based carriers to travel point to point in Canada and Mexico without a special permit). The takeaway is that US safety standards are higher and much more rigidly enforced, and foreign carriers therefore struggle to meet US standards for shipping goods within US borders. The US transportation industry still protects itself by promoting those rigorous safety standards, which forces Canadian and Mexican carriers to adopt them as well...which makes them less competitive on freight rates back home. Thus, foreign shipping has a toehold on the landward side, but it’s unlikely to overcome domestic shipping without serious changes back in their home nation.

Note that crime rates have not risen much. The most common felony before NAFTA for commercial drivers was transporting firearms into Canada. The most common felony during and now after NAFTA is still transporting firearms into Canada.