Just after having her car repaired following a Seattle hit and run incident, my daughter was sleeping when her roommate woke her up and told her that her car had just been sideswiped. Witnesses identified a white truck with a Mexican-appearing driver and passenger. Rather than stop, as is required by law, they merrily sped away from the scene of the collision. The result: $2800 collision repair bill borne by the insurance company and a $250 deductible covered by the daughter — since the ability to find the other party is negligible.
Unfortunately this seems to be the rule rather than the exception. While there is some large amount of data available on illegal immigration, it is difficult to obtain any specifically on hit-and-runs. Oddly, the Department of Transportation doesn’t specifically compile this particular set of statistics. The associated graph addresses only fatalities not accidents with just property damage. Only recently has the Insurance Research Council (IRC) attempted this where a possible correlation is found here and here.
| A Side-By-Side Correlation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arizona has a hit-and-run problem. California has a hit-and-run problem. “Coincidentally” these states also have a large population of illegals. Whatever one might say about the economic necessity of having illegals in the country, a guest worker program, whereby guests would actually have to obey the laws of the country, obtain insurance, driver’s licenses, and behave in a financially responsible manner would sure beat what we have now.
While researching, I came across this similar post. This guy went to a lot of trouble to document similar findings.
At least one precept of our ‘new’ immigration policy should be adherence to the Rule of Law. Whatever the congresscritters come up with should at least insure that citizens are not saddled with the costs of bad behavior on the part of the unlicensed , uninsured, and undocumented drivers.
The 12 Angry Men Blog 
June 19, 2007 at 7:50 pm
That is just the tip of the iceberg… I live on the Texas / Mexico border. Our property taxes are out of hand and getting worse every year. We are burdened with the education, care, etc. of these people and all they do is expect more. The crime here is terrible and our elected officials (who have done little to protect us) are now expecting more from us. I live in an area that the rest of the country will look like in short order. Believe me when I tell you that this is the end…
June 20, 2007 at 4:58 am
Wouldn’t it be better to rank the illegals by percentage of state population?
June 21, 2007 at 7:04 am
Wow. The implication you make with the beginning example is pretty racist. I’m not disagreeing with the reasoning that illegal immigrants are less law-abiding(hell hey’re law-breakers by definition), but when you start calling “illegal-immigrant!” on “Mexican-appearing” people, you’ve gone too far.
June 21, 2007 at 11:08 am
How about we just call the “dirty brown foreigner”? That way we are not implying that they are an illegal immigrant…
My word, what the hell is wrong with you?!? According to the US census bureau 57% of the ethnically hispanic-illegal population in the USA is of mexican decent. Thus it is not racism but math! In fact that means that over 50% of the mexicans in the US are illegal and over 50% of the illegals in the US are Mexican. If you are THAT bad at understanding statistics and playing the odds, then my friend I want to play poker with you! I could fund a trip to Disneyland in a few minutes.
I suppose next you’ll say its racism to say that terrorists are Muslim Arabs, despite not a single US plane ever being hijacked or downed by a single member of another race or religion. Its a case of (in terms of US aviation) all ‘Terrorists are Muslim Arabs, not all Muslim Arabs are Terrorists’. Saying so is fine, using that to proportionalize the odds of a persons status may be racial profiling, but it is also common sense, practical, and effective.
Colorblindness is fine in terms of promotions, and employment, but calling a spade ‘a spade’ is not racism, and trying to pull the big “R” card out to beat down someone who is telling the truth is not progressive enlightenment, but merely sticking ones head in the sand.
June 21, 2007 at 1:48 pm
I have nothing againt immigrants. In fact, I really have nothing personal against illegal immigrants. I wasn’t there and the eyewitness described the driver as “Mexican looking”. Now since he lived in the area, I suspect that he was aware of the difference between Mexican, Honduran, Bolivian, etc. —or maybe not.
I just want them to a)get a driver’s license; b)obtain insurance; and c) not drive away from the fucking scene of the accident.
June 22, 2007 at 2:20 pm
I’m going to have to stand with Ginnyman on this one, while at the same time defending APO.
Knowing APO, I can vouch that he is not a racist, and is in fact quite an awesome person to know. I’ll also note, as he said, he wasn’t the one who said “Mexican looking”.
But I’ll agree that racially profiling all hispanics as illegals is beyond stupid.
As for Math, AFL, you are the one who needs to learn math. And logic.
In 2003, there were 7,000,000 illegals estimated to be in the country, 70% of which were Mexican (INS). This would be 4.9 million Illegal Mexicans.
The US Census reported 26.8 million Legal Americans Citizens reported their ethnicity as Mexican.
So if we look at the total of 31.7 million Mexicans accounted for here, we see that 15.45% of all Mexicans in this country are illegal. Mathematics hardly allows one to draw the conclusion that if someone appears Mexican, they are an illegal.
Sorry, Ginnyman is right.
June 22, 2007 at 5:50 pm
The numbers I quoted were from 2006 and from both, the US Census and Immigration Departments. Either way however the point is not the precise numbers, it is the proportions.
The group size relations do not change. Mexicans make up the single largest portion of the illegal immigrant population and legal hispanic population. Thus a person automatically seeing a hispanic person and thinking ‘mexican’ is not a great leap into the realm of bigotry, but rather a normal human reaction to associate with the most familiar or common. When I hear the word car I think of a sedan, simply as it is the most common vehicle hence the default. As the largest portion of the illegal population it is not wrong, or odd to think Mexican when thinking illegal immigrant. Mathematics do not state if one is Mexican they are illegal, but it does by logic indicate that ‘if one is illegal then one is most likely Mexican’.
Ginnyman is wrong, it is unfair on APO or the people who made that report, to cry ‘racism’ for that statement.
Ultimately it is a matter of a personal crusade, that people can find offense to someone doing normal human association, with no ill effects or biases attached, and call them racisct. Yet the term ‘illegal immigrant’ is still readily used. I find the very phrase bitter to the point of intolerance. What ever happened to “Give us your poor, your tired, your huddled masses longing to be free”?!? A nation built on that concept is setting immigration quotas so low that it creates an entire class of people who can be exploited for cheap labor! I find it ever more difficult to have pride in a country whose population can tolerate an immigration policy that makes criminals out of people who are only trying to better their lot in life. That labels those only wishing to better their lot in life (an aspiration that Americans supposedly idealize) ‘illegal immigrant’. Illegal immigrant is a person who should not be allowed entry due to past behavior and affiliations (murderers, rapists, terrorists, drug smugglers, and the like) not someone who crosses the border without a visa because the border told them “Sorry we’re full this year”. Our land of hope and opportunity has been turned into the DMV from Hell: “Take a number we might be with you before you die of old age, or poverty, whichever comes first. Wait you are a White European, come right in, step on this express line”
Racism is what I saw in Iraq: Immigrants and minorities killing and being killed by Arabs, while whites glean profits from it. Not because someone says “Mexican” instead of “Hispanic” on a description of a police report.
June 22, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Mathematics do not state if one is Mexican they are illegal, but it does by logic indicate that ‘if one is illegal then one is most likely Mexican’.
And of course illegals all wear signs on their necks identifying themselves as such? Ah yes, now I remember, INS has no trouble rounding them up because they make themselves obvious upon visual inspection!
Ginnyman is wrong, it is unfair on APO or the people who made that report, to cry ‘racism’ for that statement.
It is unfair to APO, if you know him. I do, which is of course why I defended him. APO is quite an upstanding individual.
I also know Ginnyman, however. Quite well in fact as I’ve known him for about 23 years. He has experienced this sort of racism first hand, which is why he doesn’t like seeing it.
Note that racism doesn’t have to be intentionally negative. It is a complex issue. I’m not one for political correctness myself, but I respect Ginnyman’s opinions.
Yet the term ‘illegal immigrant’ is still readily used. I find the very phrase bitter to the point of intolerance.
While I too disagree with the idea of immigration being illegal, the term isn’t intolerant, it is unfortunately accurate. They have immigrated illegally. We should be ashamed that we have made immigration illegal in some cases, but the term is right.
Racism is what I saw in Iraq: Immigrants and minorities killing and being killed by Arabs, while whites glean profits from it. Not because someone says “Mexican” instead of “Hispanic” on a description of a police report.
Way to fly the pity flag, have any black friends you’d care to mention that you have? You saw an extreme form of racism in Iraq, true, but this does not mean other less extreme forms exist.
June 22, 2007 at 9:54 pm
AFL needs to read what I wrote again, and this time understand it. I did not complain that the police report used the term “Mexican-looking”. Nor did I take issue with the term “illegal-immigrant”.
I took issue with the idea that a Mexican-looking law breaker is immediately classified as an illegal immigrant. This has nothing to do with political-correctness.
The Mexican-looking fellow broke the law by performing a hit-and-run. Not a hit-and-run illegal-border-crossing. Don’t lump the crimes of an entire minority group upon an individual.
June 22, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Ginnyman: I did not, nor do not think you were taking issue with the term “illegal immigrant” that is entirely a hang up of my own. Nor did I mistake your objection to be about “Mexican looking”. I understood exactly what you were taking issue with. I am saying that if the theory of this article is true (that illegal immigrants who drive are more likely to hit and run then legal immigrants or citizens) then someone hit by a person of hispanic decent would actually be placing their assumption in the ‘safest bet’ as in largest possible category if they assume that other driver is a)an illegal immigrant and b)of Mexican decent. In which case (assuming that the theory is true) assuming so is not racist bigotry but playing the numbers and going with the proportionally largest group. I am not saying that it is automatically correct, nor accurate, but rather it is normal human behavior of association and not deserving of the term racist. Racism, meaning the belief that one race is inferior/superior to another, or account for differences in character or abilities, which leads to prejudiced or discrimintatory behavior does not apply to a person merely assuming the safest assumption by the numbers.
I was not aware however, that you were speaking from feelings as the result of personal experience and not a flimsy political correctness stance. Now I do.
Please do not misunderstand me either, I am not lumping the crimes of an entire minority group on one individual. I personally think it is rather silly to assume a Hispanic driver who commits a hit and run is an illegal immigrant from Mexico, because quite frankly I was run into by a hit and run driver of Hispanic origin. Who turned out to be a naturalized citizen from Guatalmala.
I never thought the person was an illegal immigrant, nor Mexican (I did however think them an ass-wipe). The comment is not implying all of any group is any thing, but rather that various groups do not commit the same percentage of hit and runs. If based on evidence then this is rational thought, if based on prejudice then it is racism. I was and am defending APO’s position because while I personally disagree with it (I dont think illegal immigrants commit a higher percentage of hit and runs) I dont sense any bias or deliberate attempt to smear an entire minority group.
That said, the example of the hit and run driver, if being used as evidence to support the theory is shaky, since no follow up gives the criminals status as even an immigrant let alone an illegal immigrant. However as with good writing often times it is a personal story (this may be the only one he had to share) that helps position the reader to the location the author is working from. It might have been better and more sensitive if he had added a disclaimer that “the driver may very well not have been an immigrant at all since they were never found”.
June 22, 2007 at 11:35 pm
And of course illegals all wear signs on their necks identifying themselves as such? Ah yes, now I remember, INS has no trouble rounding them up because they make themselves obvious upon visual inspection!
LOL you know that was not what I stated, nor implied. Good satire but it does not change the fact that all squares are rectangles not all rectangles are squares. Twisting it to imply the reverse in no way makes the proper statement less logical, rational, and true.
While I too disagree with the idea of immigration being illegal, the term isn’t intolerant, it is unfortunately accurate. They have immigrated illegally. We should be ashamed that we have made immigration illegal in some cases, but the term is right.
The term may be technically correct, but it makes it no less loathesome to my ears. I hear the abbreviation of the phrase into the word ‘illegal’ and it strikes me with the same as disgust any other racial slur.
Way to fly the pity flag, have any black friends you’d care to mention that you have? You saw an extreme form of racism in Iraq, true, but this does not mean other less extreme forms exist.
I hope that was a facetious comment or else you entirely missed th epoint of what I wrote. Racism exists and deserves to be cried out, but at real ongoing situations, not at APO for what he wrote. Someone taking offense to APO’s comment does not in and of themselves make them racist. By the very definition of ‘racist’, his comments are not racist.
Ginnyman seems offended by the comment, that is his perogative, and I respect his feelings. They are his own to have, and no one can tell him he is wrong. I in fact think that he has a point, the comments are somewhat offensive, but then again rants are sort of supposed to be offensive (anger doesnt tip toe). However no evidence has yet been shown that the comment fits the definition of ‘racism’:
-claiming characteristics, qualities, or abilities make one race superior/inferior to another
-prejudicial behavior towards another race based on that belief
June 24, 2007 at 8:34 pm
AFL, the way you are approaching this discussion is so disorganized and self-contradictory that I honestly don’t see the point in continuing.
I’ll just wrap up by saying that you shouldn’t cling to a dictionary definition of racism to make yourself feel better. I’ll give you a simpler one: Prejudice towards someone based on their race.
I challenge you to tell yourself that’s not racism. I challenge you to say calling a hispanic hit-and-run driver an illegal-immigrant isn’t prejudice based on race. If you can do both of the above, there’s nothing an internet argument will do to convince you otherwise.
June 24, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Well, this certainly got out of hand.
I was well aware when I wrote this article that I was implying a linkage when I juxtaposed the first paragraph detailing the accident with the second paragraph which discussed “illegal immigrants” and hit-and-runs. However, a careful read shows that no such explicit linkage was made — rather on purpose. The juxtaposition of paragraphs one and two could have merely been fortuitious. One event occurred and started me thinking about the other.
The first paragraph describes an incident detailed by witnesses who used the term “Mexican-appearing”. Full stop. The second paragraph begins a correlation between illegal immigration and hit and runs.
The problem here is that hit and runs ARE corellated with illegal immigration. A person in the country illegally for the purposes of achieving some sort of economic return, is in a precarious position with respect to other laws. For most of them, the object is to better themselves and their families. On a strictly ROI basis, leaving the scene of an accident provides the best return. What are the options? Staying and obeying the law: a fine and /or jail time; suspension of license (assuming they had one in the first place which is unlikely — no proper documentation obtain one); and deportation (which means another $3000 to a coyote and six weeks not working.) In fact, as soon as the person is identified as illegal —wham, bam, out of the country.
No amount of shashaying with the immigration laws will alter this fact. What is needed is a guest program where people can come to the United States to work, and while they are there, work within the structure of the existing laws. Anything less and the game payoff is always skewed in favor of ignoring the law.
I want to know what the split is between people who just want to come the the US to work, and those who actually want to become Americans? And I don’t think that there should be any quotas on either.
I do however think that those in the latter category should be required to learn and know English; obey the law; and become familiar with the history and political structure of the US. The first category need only obey the law.
So if linking these two makes me a racist, so be it. I actually am amused by people in the US decrying ‘racist’. Having spent some time in other countries: Asia, Southeast Asia, Japan, France, Sweden; I can say with some confidence that what is considered racist in the US pales by comparison with most of rest of the world.
June 25, 2007 at 1:00 am
APO, after reading your explanation I can understand how you might’ve not meant to imply that the Mexican-appearing driver was an illegal immigrant. It was your comment about it being “the rule rather than the exception” which led me to think as much.
I currently live in Japan with the intent of long-term(perhaps permanent) residence. I am hesistant to say I would attempt to become a Japanese citizen because, in a way, that would mean losing my claim to any nationality. This is because in the eyes of the Japanese people, I will always be a foreigner, regardless of naturalization.
I often like to tell Japanese people about how wonderful it is that anyone who becomes a citizen of the United States can become “American”, and it disturbs me when my countrymen do not uphold this ideal. While it is true that there are places in the world where racism is much worse than in America, I would prefer America to be the City upon a Hill, rather than simply a lesser-evil.
May 16, 2008 at 9:20 am
[…] time ago I wrote about a hit-and-run involving my daughter. That missive was based on the report from a bystander that the driver of the other vehicle (my daughter’s […]