5 ms·

You can find some op-eds defending the bill. Here's this one: https://www.americanmaritimepartnership.com/articles/the-jones-act-is-essential-for-u-s-national-s

You can find some op-eds defending the bill. Here's this one: https://www.americanmaritimepartnership.com/articles/the-jones-act-is-essential-for-u-s-national-security/ https://www.americanmaritimepartnership.com/articles/the-jon... > Now imagine a future without the Jones Act, where Chinese-flagged vessels all controlled, in whole or in part, by the Chinese Communist Party—were able to freely dock at our domestic ports, cruise our coastlines, and travel up and down our inland waterways. From the St. Lawrence Seaway in the Great Lakes right through our heartland on the Mississippi River, the Chinese Communist Party would have virtually unrestricted access to essential American economic arteries. That access would position our adversaries to do far greater damage to American infrastructure than the pipeline hackers ever imagined. > Moreover, the American merchant marine and civilian shipping industry would be virtually eliminated by state-subsidized Chinese vessels, just like our manufacturing and industrial base were severely damaged by predatory Chinese practices over the past two decades. And critically, the reserve of merchant mariners and civilian cargo ships we require in the event of conflict would be significantly eroded. Which is dumb. You could still repeal the Jones Act and require the ships to be US flagged or crewed. Or restrict it to countries that have signed security/trade deals with the US. Even still, were war declared, a Chinese grain barge in Missouri isn't going to pose much of a threat. Most likely it would be commandeered by the US anyway!

pantsforbirds 3y ago
Thank you for the source! I'll be sure to give it a thorough read. I understand the (theoretical) uses during a peer/near-peer war, but even outside of the (IMO) poor economic implications, I think it can be extremely detrimental to something like emergency response times. Historically the government has been forced to issue temporary waivers during natural disasters but that delay in response time could be life-changing.
tivert 3y ago
> Which is dumb. You could still repeal the Jones Act and require the ships to be US flagged or crewed. Or restrict it to countries that have signed security/trade deals with the US. > Even still, were war declared, a Chinese grain barge in Missouri isn't going to pose much of a threat. Most likely it would be commandeered by the US anyway! No, your idea is dumb. If war is declared, are the Chinese going to let the US use its shipyards? The 90s called, and it wants its always-smooth-sailing free trade fantasies back.
- legitster 3y ago
  I mean, this whole hypothetical is dumb. The top shipbuilding companies in the world are in South Korea and Japan - strong US allies. But even if the Mississippi was covered in Chinese manufactured and owned ships, if war were to break out, we would just seize the ships. There would not be a huge impact to our infrastructure. The only real vulnerability would be deep-water domestic transport - places like Guam and Hawaii. But the irony is the Jones Act has made these places more reliant on Chinese shipping because domestic transit options are so stinking expensive.
  - eszed 3y ago
    In the interests of steelmanning: without the "US crewed" provision of the Jones Act, all of those ships would be manned by poorly-paid foreign sailors. Americans would be driven out of the profession, which - in the event of the war you postulate - would cripple US logistical infrastructure just as certainly as if those ships did not exist.
    - legitster 3y ago
      > without the "US crewed" provision of the Jones Act, all of those ships would be manned by poorly-paid foreign sailors Why would that be true? To work in the US you still need to (mostly) have legitimate papers. We don't require every truck or train in the US to only be driven by US citizens. It's weird to think that a barge going up and down the Mississippi would be held to a different standard. One thing people don't realize about the Jones Act is that it requires 75% of crews to be American citizens. The law dates back to a time when it was just as much about being anti-immigrant as it was protectionist.
      - eszed 3y ago
        If they're on foreign-flagged vessels, then US laws don't apply. That's kinda the whole point of foreign-flagged vessels. (As I understand it, crew can't go ashore without going through US immigration, but the ship itself is not - for legal purposes - under US jurisdiction.) I'd be on board (heh) for changing that - particularly for ships going up and down the Mississippi - but I don't know how you'd do it without changing hundreds of years of legal precedents, which I assume would be a hard lift. There may be elements of the Mississippi River Boat job which make using foreign crews completely impractical - like, maybe it can't be done without at least some of them going ashore? I'm pretty sure there aren't immigration agents at every river port!) - so maybe it's not a concern. I don't know anywhere near enough about the subject to make confident assertions about that. > 75% of crews to be American citizens I didn't know that, either! Thanks.

pantsforbirds 3y ago

Thank you for the source! I'll be sure to give it a thorough read. I understand the (theoretical) uses during a peer/near-peer war, but even outside of the (IMO) poor economic implications, I think it can be extremely detrimental to something like emergency response times. Historically the government has been forced to issue temporary waivers during natural disasters but that delay in response time could be life-changing.

tivert 3y ago

> Which is dumb. You could still repeal the Jones Act and require the ships to be US flagged or crewed. Or restrict it to countries that have signed security/trade deals with the US. > Even still, were war declared, a Chinese grain barge in Missouri isn't going to pose much of a threat. Most likely it would be commandeered by the US anyway! No, your idea is dumb. If war is declared, are the Chinese going to let the US use its shipyards? The 90s called, and it wants its always-smooth-sailing free trade fantasies back.

legitster 3y ago
I mean, this whole hypothetical is dumb. The top shipbuilding companies in the world are in South Korea and Japan - strong US allies. But even if the Mississippi was covered in Chinese manufactured and owned ships, if war were to break out, we would just seize the ships. There would not be a huge impact to our infrastructure. The only real vulnerability would be deep-water domestic transport - places like Guam and Hawaii. But the irony is the Jones Act has made these places more reliant on Chinese shipping because domestic transit options are so stinking expensive.
- eszed 3y ago
  In the interests of steelmanning: without the "US crewed" provision of the Jones Act, all of those ships would be manned by poorly-paid foreign sailors. Americans would be driven out of the profession, which - in the event of the war you postulate - would cripple US logistical infrastructure just as certainly as if those ships did not exist.
  - legitster 3y ago
    > without the "US crewed" provision of the Jones Act, all of those ships would be manned by poorly-paid foreign sailors Why would that be true? To work in the US you still need to (mostly) have legitimate papers. We don't require every truck or train in the US to only be driven by US citizens. It's weird to think that a barge going up and down the Mississippi would be held to a different standard. One thing people don't realize about the Jones Act is that it requires 75% of crews to be American citizens. The law dates back to a time when it was just as much about being anti-immigrant as it was protectionist.
    - eszed 3y ago
      If they're on foreign-flagged vessels, then US laws don't apply. That's kinda the whole point of foreign-flagged vessels. (As I understand it, crew can't go ashore without going through US immigration, but the ship itself is not - for legal purposes - under US jurisdiction.) I'd be on board (heh) for changing that - particularly for ships going up and down the Mississippi - but I don't know how you'd do it without changing hundreds of years of legal precedents, which I assume would be a hard lift. There may be elements of the Mississippi River Boat job which make using foreign crews completely impractical - like, maybe it can't be done without at least some of them going ashore? I'm pretty sure there aren't immigration agents at every river port!) - so maybe it's not a concern. I don't know anywhere near enough about the subject to make confident assertions about that. > 75% of crews to be American citizens I didn't know that, either! Thanks.