Talk:Merchant Marine Act of 1920

message: Is there not a lot more to the "Jones Act" than the "sailors rights" part? - Marshman 19:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true. It's all part of the same "Merchant Marine Act of 1920". Though there is alot to the act that should be added to the article. You can read the full text (if you are into that sort of stuff) here.  Pjbflynn 03:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ^ This is correct. Mwroark (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: So, for starters, it doesn't make sense to say that "[Subject] is commonly referred to as [subject]." Also, it is commonly referred to as the Jones Act, as the first page on a Google search shows . In nearly twenty years in the maritime trades, I've never heard it referred to as anything but Jones Act. Furthermore, as Jones Act redirects here, there must be at least some mention of the relevance. Pjbflynn 02:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonly referred to as... 

message: Near the end of the article, there are two inconsistent paragraphs:
:In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff temporarily waived the U.S. Shipping Act for foreign vessels carrying oil and natural gas from September 1 to September 19, 2005. [1][2]
:Pressure exerted by 21 agriculture groups, including the American Farm Bureau Federation, failed to secure a waiver following Hurricane Katrina. The groups contended that farmers would be harmed without additional shipping options to transport grains and oilseeds.[6]
I believe the first one is the accurate one, but I'm not an expert, so I won't change it.
Kenmaze (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent information 

message: There was something in the article about the current BP Oil Spill cleanup being affected by the Jones Act.  It was deleted. I suspect that the addition that was deleted may very well have been biased, but I'm too tired to research it.
However, I think that it is worthy of mention (not a deep discussion) that the conservative press (as personified by Fox News) is calling for a waiver of the Jones Act as a tool during the clean up operations.  Then link to the full article on the Oil Spill Article.  That would not be a biased addition to the article.
Stick in after the mention of the oil derrick waiver.
--Fredrik Coulter (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include in article 

message: The Jones Act absolutely is irrelevant to the BP oil spill: USA Today: "GOP's false talking point: Jones Act blocks Gulf help".  That's a newspaper article, not an editorial, nor a non-reliable statement by a Republican senator (John McCain).
As to whether this belongs in the article, if it does, it belongs in the form of a couple paragraphs that claims were made and publicized (see, for example, http://mediamatters.org/research/201006150033 ) and are in fact untrue. -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 15:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus complaint 

message: The Coast Guard is claiming that the Jones Act applies only within the three-mile limit and therefore not to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. But I've looked through the entire act and no phrase equivalent to "three-mile limit" (or any other number of miles) appears. This would seem to be the operative section. It specifies "waters of the United States," not any particular number of miles. Note that according to this section, the Coast Guard cannot grant a waiver, not even in an emergency, unless the foreign country allows U.S. ships to operate in its waters. I doubt there were rules for skimmers in the 1920 version of the act, so this provision would seem to be a later addition. Kauffner (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a reliable source that says that the Coast Guard interpretation is incorrect, then feel free to include that information.  But personal research, and conclusions, is something that Wikipedia editors are not to use in actually editing articles.  -- John Broughton   (♫♫) 22:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Three-mile limit?

message: The act wanted to protect american shipowners, shipyards and other transport companies from international competition. The result is that coastwise traffic is trucked instead of shipped by sea. The US has no internationally operating merchant fleet (unless on charter by the government, which has to use expensive US-vessels if one is available) and has to rely on the MSLC for strategic transports. American commercial shipyards are practically not existing.
The US should get their legislation in line with international standards. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protectionism 

message: i was told yesterday by a former merchant officer, that he now finds himself in the navy as
a result of some provision of this act. if i recall correctly, the jimmy cagney character in 'mr. roberts' was in similar circumstances.
in any event i see no mention of such a provision in the article. an oversight? did i miss it? or was this guy blowing smoke?Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Impressment?

message: There are several uncited or dead-link cited statements in the Criticism and Support sections. The sentence in the intro section that starts "As global trade increased..." is also uncited and feels a little heavy-handed. I'm going to tag the sections for citations, and if there's no updating, I'll clean them up in a couple weeks. Ipsherman (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations needed in Criticism and Support Sections 

message: Why the insistence on reinserting this? Obviously it's easy to find politicians' comments supporting any protectionist measure - usually economically-illiterate soundbites about "support our industries ... create jobs" &c. - but it doesn't belong in an encyclopædia. bobrayner (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz, why do you keep on adding it? This content poses a serious neutrality problem. bobrayner (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello...? Why is this awful content still in the article? bobrayner (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed it. This is supposed to be an encyclopædia, not a protectionist political platform. If anybody can think of a good reason to restore any of that content, please say so... bobrayner (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz, why do you keep on reinserting this stuff? bobrayner (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello...? Why is this awful content still in the article? bobrayner (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz, why do you keep on adding it? This content poses a serious neutrality problem. bobrayner (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political commentary 

message: :Bobrayner, The view presented by editors when I came upon this article was a very negative and less than objective view of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920. It is a U.S. law. Why insist on a criticism section without a section citing support. Apparently your idea of objective editing is to delete content that disagrees with your point of view. Your issue relating to unreliable sources is bogus. Who would be more qualified relating to facts about the Merchant Marine Act of 1920 than those that deal with it on a daily basis. The American Maritime Partnership represents a great many United States companies in the maritime industry that are familiar with all facets of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920.  Both Criticism and Support may be subjective on some level. Certainly those that are familiar with the law and those affected by the law are entitled to present the facts in proper perspective. If you were concerned about the integrity of the article why did you allow the criticism section to remain while you constantly delete the support section. If there is room for criticism there must be room for support. The perspective may differ from yours but it is a valid perspective and the sources are reliable. CaptainWrongwayPeachfuzz (talk) 21:50 January 30,2014 UTC  —Preceding undated comment added 21:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support Content Restored 

message: The criticism section is not a criticism at all. The article has nothing on the cost to consumers and increased shipping costs, increased cost of gasoline, disadvantages of protectionism, etc.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjedgar (talk • contribs) 18:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is biased and now has no real criticism 

message: One of the primary, if not the primary, reason for the Jones Act is national security, yet, this aspect is not discussed. Overall the article is not balanced, but, adding a section about benefits to national security would make this article more accurate and balanced. See below for references regarding the national security benefits of the Jones Act: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c113:7:./temp/~c113iL5jJf:e1969403:(section 3503)
http://www.marinelink.com/news/maritime-invest-china401119.aspx  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ohm monster (talk • contribs) 19:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Security 

message: This article might benefit from the following: 
[1] in the introduction, checking or revising the citation of the Act itself. Ref 2 cites 46. U.S.C. § 50101 et seq., but I don't see in Chapter 501 the anti-cabotage rules.  Those rules are central to the Jones Act subject (and controversies). Q: revise the reference in the introduction?
[2] Same as above for this article's section on Cabotage, and the main article of the same name.
Isaclee (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accurate law citation for anti-cabotage rules of the Jones Act 

message: "Jones Act restrictions can be circumvented by making a stop in a foreign country between two US ports, e.g., Anchorage–Vancouver–Seattle."
This is incorrect, although there are loopholes this is not one of them, at least not this broadly. In 1893, Congress inserted into the coastwise trade statutes the language restricting foreign vessels from transporting goods “via any foreign port.” Act of Feb. 15, 1893, ch. 117, 27 Stat. 455 (current version at 46 U.S.C. § 55102(b) (2006)).
This was an attempt to close a loophole created by a pending Ninth Circuit decision, which ultimately held that a shipment of goods from New York to California by way of Belgium was outside the scope of the coastwise trade laws then in force. See United States v. 250 Kegs of Nails, 61 F. 410, 413 (9th Cir. 1894).
Mwroark (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect 

message: I'm seeing a good deal of disagreement online about how this act applies to foreign-flagged ships arriving in Puerto Rico and was wondering if anyone could provide clarity on this issue.
According to an article in the NY Times today(https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/opinion/hurricane-puerto-rico-jones-act.html?mcubz=0) "Under the law, any foreign registry vessel that enters Puerto Rico must pay punitive tariffs, fees and taxes, which are passed on to the Puerto Rican consumer. The foreign vessel has one other option: It can reroute to Jacksonville, Fla., where all the goods will be transferred to an American vessel, then shipped to Puerto Rico where — again — all the rerouting costs are passed through to the consumer."
That is, the implication is that only Jones-act-eligible ships can move cargo to Puerto Rico without paying additional fees -- fees greater than they would incur shipping directly to the mainland US. 
However, what I've read about the act is that it covers only the movement of products between US ports; in fact I've read that Puerto Rico almost exclusively uses Venezuelan oil because they don't have to use Jones-Act-eligible boats to move it. 
Does anyone have special insight into this issue?
Secretlyironic (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tariffs 

message: I think it is very important to note that the US VI is excluded from the Jones Act. I have added that exemption to this page. However it has been deleted?
--Pannam1 (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: US virgin Islands

message: Merge from: Coastwise_shipping_lawsPannam1 (talk) 07:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: . Obvious content fork. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: MERGER PROPOSAL

message: You have a link to the British Navigation Acts, but no article about the earlier US Navigation Acts.  There should be an article and a link.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.95.174.225 (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need Article on Earlier US Navigation Acts 

message: This article seems to be increasingly skewed toward opinion, and away from neutrality. The article could use considerable clean-up. Arllaw (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of Neutrality