3 ms·

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. America

by 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.
- matthewowen 3y ago
  The default absent the Jones Act would likely be that vessels would move between US ports (which likely does include river ports) under non-US flags with non-US crews who simply never leave the vessel. Just as is the case for vessels going back and forth between the US and other countries. Requiring that these vessels adhere to American laws is exactly the intent of requiring them to be American flagged and crewed. I would agree with you that it's probably outdates that crewing has to be predominantly citizens and otherwise LPRs and it probably makes sense to open this up to legitimate immigrant labor too. But I'd argue that's an adjustment to the Jones Act vs a repeal of it. I think it's worth bearing in mind that we're responding to an article by the Cato Institute. Their interest is in stripping away regulations that put limits on big businesses. They are primarily funded by the Koch Family, whose companies spend _huge_ sums on domestic shipping in particular (think about the volume that Georgia-Pacific moves around). Of course they're in favor of reducing regulations that limit domestic shipping: they'd probably love to turn around and use a Liberia-flagged, Filipino crewed ship to move domestic shipments. It doesn't make their arguments _inherently_ valid, but there is an obvious self-serving motive.

by eszed 3y ago

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.
matthewowen 3y ago
The default absent the Jones Act would likely be that vessels would move between US ports (which likely does include river ports) under non-US flags with non-US crews who simply never leave the vessel. Just as is the case for vessels going back and forth between the US and other countries. Requiring that these vessels adhere to American laws is exactly the intent of requiring them to be American flagged and crewed. I would agree with you that it's probably outdates that crewing has to be predominantly citizens and otherwise LPRs and it probably makes sense to open this up to legitimate immigrant labor too. But I'd argue that's an adjustment to the Jones Act vs a repeal of it. I think it's worth bearing in mind that we're responding to an article by the Cato Institute. Their interest is in stripping away regulations that put limits on big businesses. They are primarily funded by the Koch Family, whose companies spend _huge_ sums on domestic shipping in particular (think about the volume that Georgia-Pacific moves around). Of course they're in favor of reducing regulations that limit domestic shipping: they'd probably love to turn around and use a Liberia-flagged, Filipino crewed ship to move domestic shipments. It doesn't make their arguments _inherently_ valid, but there is an obvious self-serving motive.