[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-324050-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-324050-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","hansons-latin-american-letter-washington-27-january-1979","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Washington - 27 January 1979","","Letter dated 27 January 1979 from Washington addressing Legislative Agenda items focused on Mexico imports under Tariff Item 807 and the proposal of the “Sugar and Fructose Act of 1979.” It describes import trends, discusses an administrative approach involving financing “twin plants” in Mexican provinces farther from the border, and contrasts labor-union pressure with policy objectives. It further examines sugar legislation’s consumer cost, Senate and House vote history, and reactions to policy arguments about coffee versus oil price dynamics.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/hansons-latin-american-letter-washington-27-january-1979/324050/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/hansons-latin-american-letter-washington-27-january-1979/324050.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Aria","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",9,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What is Tariff Item 807 and how are Mexico import trends described?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The letter cites record-breaking imports under Tariff Item 807 from Mexico running at an annual rate of $1.7 billion by September 1978, with a 37% increase over the comparable period in 1977.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What solution does the administration propose for both illegal immigration and the Item 807 tariff problem?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The administration proposes financing more “twin plants” in Mexico but locating them farther from the border, reducing pressure for immigration and shifting spending toward Mexican provinces.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How does the letter evaluate the proposed Sugar and Fructose Act of 1979?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It outlines a target domestic market price of 15 cents maintained via import fees, payment of the gap to producers and refiners, and estimates consumer cost implications, while noting prior rejection and later narrow Senate acceptance.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},324050,1790115026,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,101,106,111,115,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":97,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":98,"show_sort_weight":99,"slug":100},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":102,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":103,"show_sort_weight":104,"slug":105},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":107,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":108,"show_sort_weight":109,"slug":110},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":112,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},8,30,"research-report",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":112,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":97,"language":139,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":140,"faqs":141,"seo_title":142,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":143,"read_time":144,"preview_page_count":4},2336464648322,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/2200025388227c56fec?_k=1778556882303663488","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER  \nWASHINGTON  \n27 January 1979  \nDear Sir:  \nNumber 1767  \nLegislative Agenda.  \n   \n(1)By September 1978,record-breaking imports under Tariff Item 807from Mexico were running at the annual rate of $1.7 billion.  For ninemonths of 1978,the increase over the same period of 1977 had been 37%.Any hope of escaping a severe campaign by the labor unions to curtailthis traffic was thus disappearing.  (September data are the latestavailable).  \nITEM 807  \nIMPORTS  \nFROM MEXICO  \nThe Administration,in proposing a solution that might be acceptable isCARTERcaught by the effort to solve both the illegal alien problem and the ItemSOLUTION807 tariff problem,with a single solution.  Speaking for the Administra-tion,the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization has told theCongress that the solution is to finance more \"twin plants\"in Mexico butto locate them farther from the border.  \nAs Commissioner Castillo puts it:\"If we could locate some plants in theprovinces that send the immigrants(illegal aliens)to the United States,there would belots less pressure for immigration and the money earned would be distributed in the local(Mexican)economy instead of the present situation where 60%of the money the Mexicansearn in the twin plants in Mexico is spent on the U.S.side because they just walk acrossthe bridge and spend the money here..The Mexican provinces are well identified and thereis pretty general agreement that there are eight provinces that provide the majority ofthe immigrants from Mexico.\"  \nThe Commissioner conceded that \"there are very strong pressures againstsuch an idea from both U.S.business and U.s.labor,but I think that some 1imited effortto move into the interior will have enormous and immediate impact.\"  \nThe Congress under the pressure of the labor unions is more likely toATTITUDEbe concerned with the existing $1.7 billion per year pace of such im-ports and its trend upwards at a very fast pace,than with the desirabil-OF THEity of subsidizing expansion of the imports by developmental financing,CONGRESSwhich actually is not properly involved in this traffic anyway,which isa matter of private U.S.corporate decision.  \nThus,a dual challenge of illegal aliens and Item 807 imports offerlittle hope of reconciliation of objective.  \nThe most effective argument remains the one that is advanced so often,namely,that if the plants are not maintained in Mexico,the imports will be comingfrom competitive Far East locations where compensation of workers is much lower,as thetable of data used in the government indicates:  \nManufacturing Labor Costs:Hourly Compensation1977Mexico$1.82Taiwan0.75S.Korea0.64Hong Kong1.05U.S.7.60  \n(2)On sugar,the Executive Branch has submitted its new proposed \"Sugarand Fructose Act of 1979\"to industry representatives for analysis andcomment.The proposed bill rehashes the bill rejected in 1978 by theHouse in a 177-194 vote and accepted by the Senate 36-10 with hardlymore than half the senators daring to vote.  \n# SUGAR\n\nLEGISLATION  \nThe proposed bill provides \"a domestic market price objective\"of 15THE SUGARcents to be maintained through import fees and with no escalator clause.ANDIt also provides for devising of an \"established price\"based on the costFRUCTOSEof production studies that have not yet been made.And it would have theACT OF 1979government pay the difference between the \"domestic market price objec-tive\"and the \"established price objective\"by direct payments to pro-ducers and refiners.  \nAt 15 cents the cost of the legislation to the consumer is put at roughly$95 million per year.(The House Agriculture Committee in 1978 approved 16 cents with an8%per year escalator clause to bring the cost to the consumer to $800 million per year).  \nAnd of course Senators Long and Church claim that if studies are madesuch as the bill proposes,the \"established price\"would be justified at 17 cents.Thisis almost universally denied by the Executive Branch and by many members of the Congre","cbCaieD5nCGX5BzX","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaieD5nCGX5BzX","pdf",1082795,"English","# Legislative Agenda\n## Tariff Item 807 Imports from Mexico\n## Sugar Legislation: Sugar and Fructose Act of 1979\n## Coffee Price versus Oil Price Analysis\n## Sugar Policy and International Sugar Agreement","[{\"question\":\"What is Tariff Item 807 and how are Mexico import trends described?\",\"answer\":\"The letter cites record-breaking imports under Tariff Item 807 from Mexico running at an annual rate of $1.7 billion by September 1978, with a 37% increase over the comparable period in 1977.\"},{\"question\":\"What solution does the administration propose for both illegal immigration and the Item 807 tariff problem?\",\"answer\":\"The administration proposes financing more “twin plants” in Mexico but locating them farther from the border, reducing pressure for immigration and shifting spending toward Mexican provinces.\"},{\"question\":\"How does the letter evaluate the proposed Sugar and Fructose Act of 1979?\",\"answer\":\"It outlines a target domestic market price of 15 cents maintained via import fees, payment of the gap to producers and refiners, and estimates consumer cost implications, while noting prior rejection and later narrow Senate acceptance.\"}]","HANSON'S LATIN AMERICAN LETTER - Washington - 27 January 1979 | PDF",1789966896,13]