[nyx]

I've rambled about this on here before, but I'm pretty bothered that the media coverage of these always mentions the 25-year import law, but also always frames it simply as a matter of exemption from safety and emissions standards, never deigning to mention that the law originated in the first place as a protectionist measure.

In the late 80s, Mercedes in North America was getting its lunch eaten by grey-market importers who were bringing European models over and undercutting the American dealers on price. So they blew millions lobbying the government to crack down on these imports, and found a not-wholly-unsubstantiated justification in safety concerns around modifications not complying with American safety standards. So the US just enacted a sweeping ban of any new imports; you can bring in dodgy old cars from the 1990s unmodified, but you can't bring in a 2024 European Mercedes or Japanese kei truck, because they're "unsafe". The new cars can't be titled, and if the feds find out you got one in anyway, they'll literally confiscate it and throw it in the crusher.

Seeing Whistlindiesel in the article makes me realize that there could be a bipartisan coalition here of "government should let me do what I want" conservatives and libertarians, and urban-design lefties who resent having to drive everywhere and would love to buy the minimum amount of car possible to meet their needs if such a thing were possible. My conspiracy theory is that burying the lede on this is intentional because people buying $12,000 Japanese imports wouldn't be buying $60,000 F-150s.

[Cpoll]

> My conspiracy theory is that burying the lede on this is intentional because people buying $12,000 Japanese imports wouldn't be buying $60,000 F-150s.

I imagine they're buying the cheaper Toyotas, or Kias instead?