By on March 3, 2017

Enjoy The Freedom of a Car Postcard, Image: "Free!" (CC BY 2.0) by Payton Chung

“One day in Maryland about four years ago, Carr was teaching his 16-year-old daughter how to drive when two police cars went rocketing by on the interstate, doing 80 in a 55 mph zone without lights on.” From that tiny seed — which, let’s face it, is planted about fifty thousand times a day on American roads — a great tree grew. Soldier and veteran Glen Carr now spends a significant portion of his time photographing illegally-parked police cars. It’s hard to think of a more quintessentially American thing: a man comes back from war and decides to fixate on some injustice, major or minor. It’s a story that in various forms has underpinned everything from Victorian novels to the movie Walking Tall.

What makes Carr’s jihad so engaging and admirable? Perhaps it’s the certain knowledge that he is doomed to fail. At best, he’s gonna get tired of documenting these quotidian injustices. At worst, some cop is going to shoot him dead when Carr pulls out his camera then claim he thought it was a gun. You can’t fight City Hall. Illegal vehicle operation by police officers isn’t going to stop any time soon. It might not stop until every cop car is fully autonomous. Maybe not even then. Does everybody remember the quote from Blade Runner? “If you’re not a cop, you’re little people!”

Meanwhile, for the little people in the UK, things are about to get significantly more strict.

If you’re a novice driver in Great Britain and you are observed using a mobile device while behind the wheel, you are going to lose your license. Period, point blank. I should point out that the UK licensing procedure is already significantly more strict than what we have here in the United States. It’s even worse for motorcyclists; the graduated licensing process is positively Byzantine compared to here in Freedom Land where 16-year-olds have the right to ride a Gixxer thou down the freeway at full throttle shortly after completing a short multiple-choice test.

Doesn’t that punishment seem a bit harsh to you, particularly given the low standard of “proof” needed to issue a citation? What if you’ve just spilled some coffee in your lap and a cop sees you looking down at a traffic light? After all, you don’t need to be in motion to be ticketed for mobile device use — which should be your first clue that the game is rigged against motorists. The only harm done by someone who is looking at his phone while stopped at a light is the possibility of a tardy departure when the light turns green. It’s annoying, but it’s not life-threatening.

Today, I got my latest issue of the American Motorcyclist Association in-house magazine. In the opening pages of said magazine, I was told that the AMA will be using my membership money to fight tooth-and-nail to have mobile-device use treated as a “primary offense.” which means that you can get pulled over and ticketed for it. But I commute 7,000 miles a year to work on a motorcycle and I have to say that the genuine threats to my life and limb I’ve observed are more often than not drivers who are fully engaged in their vehicle operation, absolutely not distracted by any mobile device of any kind, and with both hands on the wheel as they swerve into my spot in an attempt to knock 11 seconds off their drive home. The phone users just kind of drift around a bit. It’s mildly troubling but it rarely causes me to engage in evasive maneuvers.

Law enforcement being somewhat different in America than it is in Great Britain, you can expect that we will be issuing heavy fines to cellphone users and not taking their licenses entirely. Perhaps we will see an analogue to the hugely successful drunk-driving-industrial complex, where insurance companies, rehab places, and courts all collude to drain impaired drivers of every possible cent while steadfastly maintaining their access to automobiles. After your third time touching a phone while behind the wheel in four years, you can go to “distracted rehab” where a mild-faced recovering Samsung addict will charge you $5,000 for a ten-step program.

At the same time, the number of unlicensed drivers is soaring. More than seven thousand deaths a year occur in this country because of unlicensed drivers — for those of you counting along at home, that’s more dead people than we currently blame on “distracted driving” — and some major percentage of those people are illegal/undocumented/dreamer/beings-of-light/Daryl-Hannah-replicant immigrants. There’s a fellow out there who is trying to track that, because his son was run over twice by an unlicensed driver who was also not a citizen.

That sort of thing is not evenly distributed in this country. I’ve never had any personal interactions with an unlicensed driver, but my Albuquerque-born wife was the victim of two Mexican hit-and-runs over the course of slightly over a decade before she escaped to Ohio three years ago. In one of the accidents, the dreamer-in-question managed to center-punch her vehicle while he was engaged in a running gun battle with police. She was pregnant at the time, but that was okay because from an overall societal-benefit perspective it’s cheaper to miscarry a kid and replace him or her with an adult worker from another country. Before you ask — no, the fellow did not bother to purchase insurance while he was crossing the Rio Grande, despite the many outstanding online providers of auto coverage out there on the 4G-LTE network. It may just be a coincidence, but uninsured motorist coverage in that state is the most expensive part of your policy, even if you’re a 16-year-old with a Gixxer Thou. Danger Girl insures a Corvette, a Fiesta, and a Tahoe for less than an SUV alone cost her down New Mexico way.

Does it strike you as a little odd that our law enforcement community is so good at catching iPhone users while it’s simultaneously so bad at preventing undocumented immigrants from going mucho loco behind the wheel of a stolen Silverado? The infamous Sultan Knish offers some perspective on this:

The truly civilized man is expected not to notice uncivilized behavior. Relativism is the expected response to any violation of human norms, but not to violations of any element of the petty codes of urbania. It is very well for a man to strip naked on a train and run from car to car shouting that the aliens are coming, but not to throw his recycling into the trash.

The only free people in cities are eccentrics and criminals. Eccentricity is a necessary performance art in the face of anonymity. And criminality is often the only way to get things done.

Put another way: An ever-increasing percentage of America-dwellers are going to be permitted to do whatever they like, because they have nothing to lose. But if you are following the laws, you will be rewarded with more laws that you need to follow.

Let me give you a little glimpse of the future. You’re going to be driving down the road in your vehicle. Perhaps the vehicle will be driving, come to think of it. You will be leasing the vehicle with post-tax dollars; every dollar you pay the bank really represents two that you earned. You’ll be taxed on the monthly payment, on the miles driven, on the electricity consumed, on the wear and tear of the crumbling infrastructure. You will keep both hands on the wheel because removing a hand will result in the issuance of a distracted-driving ticket that will be direct-debited against your long-suffering bank account. Everything you do will cost you money. You will be milked for cash every day like a cow in the dairy machines. And while you’re doing this, you’re gonna see an old Suburban go blasting by, chock-full of non-citizens or career criminals. They’ll be blasting the music, swerving across lanes, smoking heavily from both tailpipes as they three-wheel-motion on a compact spare. When you look in the other direction, you’ll see a police cruiser doing 20 mph over the limit. The cop will be on his phone, laughing. He will ignore the Suburban; pulling over a vehicle like that generates way too much paperwork, amigo.

Look forward, citizen! You’ve been given a glimpse of both possible freedoms — the people with nothing to lose and the untouchable government employee. But those freedoms are not for you. There’s work to be done at your open-plan bench-seating code farm! The economy depends on you. You’re the only person left working in any industry besides Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate! Sucks to be you! Freedom for me, but not for thee!

[Image: “Free!” (CC BY 2.0) by Payton Chung]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

386 Comments on “No Fixed Abode: For Me But Not For Thee...”


  • avatar
    bunkie

    Wow. Even for you, Jack, this is a little over-the-top.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      Filling in for his brother now, I suppose. I preferred it when Jack wrote about cars. I see the “Cayenne won’t help ya, Cayenne won’t do you no good” link to the right and think what a great piece of writing that was.

    • 0 avatar
      vww12

      Jack,

      Excellent article, describing very perceptively _The_Way_We_Live_Now_® and the way things are probably going to be like for the rest of our natural lives.

      The book “3 Felonies a Day” fits nicely with this sort of societal observation.

      Keep up the good work,

  • avatar
    JimZ

    blah, blah, blah.

    it wasn’t an illegal immigrant who decided to introduce the door of his G6 into my knee a little over a year ago, it was a white guy who blindly jumped into my lane because his maps app on his phone told him to.

    save this crap for your safe space blog.

    • 0 avatar
      operagost

      Anecdotes aren’t evidence. Just because a cracker hit you doesn’t mean that crackers are the only threat on the road.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        no s**t. nor are illegals the only (or even biggest) threat on the road, despite the author’s anecdotes. and minus points for linking to Fox News.

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          The point of the article wasn’t about illegal IMMIGRANTS. But illegals in general, as in law breakers, as in guys who have given up even bothering complying with the idiocy since they have nothing left to lose anyway, in general. The illegal immigrants are just at the vanguard, since they start off in that spot from the get go. And, with the way the new Jefe tweets, are probably not going to get any less likely of remaining there.

          It’s a baked in feature of totalitarian societies, that the only two ways to retain any sort of freedom at all, are to either be in, or very close to, the politburo. Or to have literally nothing left for those who are, to take from you. But what can you do. For now, at least, the progressives look to have won.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Stuki, Shhhh. You’re ruining their rage.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @Stuki – “The point of the article wasn’t about illegal IMMIGRANTS.”

            “and some major percentage of those people are illegal/undocumented/dreamer/beings-of-light/Daryl-Hannah-replicant immigrants.”

            This is just the continuation of:
            “Viewed in a larger context, this is the sort of thing that should keep American parents up at night. It is the effect of the “chabuduo” culture that we’ve imported along with the uncounted and unaccountable millions of immigrants to this country.”

            How can an officer tell if a driver has a licence?
            How can an officer tell if a person is an illegal immigrant?
            How can an officer tell if someone is on a device?

            A side effect of living in a “free” society means “the burden of proof” lies upon law enforcement. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

            Do we have the police and/or every other enforcement agency stop EVERY car to check for licences or residency status?

        • 0 avatar
          desertsoldier22

          I challenge you to drive in Houston for a day…most of the nutcase driver’s are third world expatriates who never formally learned to drive.

  • avatar
    gradall

    keep sipping the diet coke and let the cancer take hold, it won’t take long.

  • avatar
    notapreppie

    The undertones here have a more obvious anti-gov/libertarian slant than I’m used to from Jack.

    More of an observation than a criticism.

  • avatar
    Jeff Waingrow

    Some may see Jack’s piece as immigrant-bashing, but I think he’s on to something. The late Daniel Patrick Moynihan used the phrase “defining deviancy down” by which he meant overlooking lower-level criminality and violations of social norms. New arrivals can sometimes bring with them gang and drug activity that infects their new communities here. Google “Brentwood, Long Island” to see this today. Social turmoil has always been part of recent immigrant communities, but Jack is making the point that it’s being mostly ignored while the average law-abiding citizen is taking it on the chin. I’m inclined to mostly agree.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      Google “Detroit, Flint, Oakland.” they don’t need to be “new arrivals.” Poverty begets crime. period.

      and the whole concept of “defining deviancy down” has been the underpinning of the disastrous “War On (some)* Drugs” and large-scale incarceration of non-violent offenders because of some silly plant. it’s little more than old white people wanting to ban things that scare them.

      * drugs are bad if they come from countries of people with slightly darker skin who talk funny, but when Purdue Pharma gets scores of people hooked on opioids and kicks off an epidemic of heroin abuse, well, that’s just good business.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff Waingrow

        JimZ, I don’t really disagree with you. Poverty does indeed beget crime. I wasn’t really thinking of crime so much as more minor violations of laws and norms. In fact, recently arrived immigrants seem to commit less crime than the population as a whole. But as the social fabric frays, low levels of offense such as not being insured, driving drunk, etc., seems quite common and lightly punished, if at all. Overall though, my experience with recent immigrants has been largely positive and I welcome their arrival. And I also welcome the legalization of marijuana too.

        • 0 avatar
          ttacgreg

          Poverty begets crime? Hmmm, sure. It also seems evident that extraordinary, top of the economic pyramid wealth also begets criminal behavior.

        • 0 avatar
          tresmonos

          Ironically, the immigrants perpetuate the family values, male dominance, religion and 1950’s culture that Jack think is lacking in society. Without them, his presidential choice likely wouldn’t have been voted in.

          I just find this parallel fascinating. Small town, rural america is being saved by the Hispanic immigrants. No one else is setting up shop in these downtown squares and successfully selling goods and services in a very feel-good, home town fashion. Yet a lot of these communities cannot see this (google Fremont, Nebraska) and persecute through legislation.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Well said.

          • 0 avatar
            Hogie roll

            Ha. That’s cute. The new culture will be mexicos current, not small town America that you think they’re saving. Culture is a genetic product.

          • 0 avatar
            desertsoldier22

            He’s not talking about family values, he’s talking about driving behaviors. Drive for a day in Mexico City, then in Houston…you see parallels.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        JimZ, No one is saying poverty and crime is a problem exclusive to illegal immigrants. It seems Jack is saying we ought not import it and then once imported, turn a blind eye to it.

    • 0 avatar
      aristurtle

      Jacko here has his own history being a degenerate drug runner, but I’m sure he’ll be along to explain how that was somehow an immigrant’s fault. Or maybe the feminists are to blame; all his problems seem to come down to one of the two groups. Perhaps he was just trying to express his fine American freedom by driving his Phaeton down a public highway at 130, with his family in the passenger seats and, presumably, a trunk full of Freedom Powder.

      The unashamed hypocrisy of these Richard Spencer types never ceases to amaze me.

      • 0 avatar
        Jack Baruth

        “The unashamed hypocrisy of these Richard Spencer types never ceases to amaze me.”

        What’s a Richard Spencer type?

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff Waingrow

          I think he means you’re a white supremacist. Boy, that’s a stretch. Jack’s a blues musician and I’d guess he’s had lots of black and brown brothers that he’s bonded with. That’s a pretty scurrilous accusation. Now as for his brother…

          • 0 avatar

            Hi. I haven’t logged in here in over a month, but I’d love for you to explain to me what you mean by this. For the record, I’m the blues musician, not him.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            These are the same dipshits who call Ronnie a Nazi and a white supremacist. Never mind the fact that he’s a Torah scholar. Then they call him a racist despite the fact that he works nearly every day with the black bike clubs in Detroit.

            Serious response to the accusation: My son is Jewish via his mother. I’ll respond to allegations that I’m a Nazi with whatever tools I happen to have at my disposal.

            Quip in response: Our family mostly served in the Wehrmacht, not the SS.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff Waingrow

            Sorry, Bark. I’ve got it backwards. I should have left you out of this. Anyway, Jack doesn’t strike me as being the least bit intolerant, but he does like to be provocative. You, on the other hand, seem to me (and a lot of others) to be pretty angry and mean-spirited in your writings. The contrast between you two is quite stark.

          • 0 avatar
            stuki

            Don’t worry, Jack. The same crowd calls Netanyahu a nazi as well.

            And screw that Phaeton slowboat. Have you verified that you weren’t cheated out of a limiter on your 14R yet?

          • 0 avatar

            Angry? Never. Mean-spirited? All the time. White supremacist? Go die in a fire.

        • 0 avatar
          aristurtle

          When you started making your bed with the Alternative Right, you knew what bedfellows you were going to have. None of this should be a surprise to you.

          Hey, speaking of which! Why don’t you give us another rant on the evils of sexual promiscuity? I always get a good laugh seeing one of those from you. Or you could give us a thinkpiece on how liberals hate the hard-working American worker; those are fun to read from someone who sh*tposts on the internet for a living. Don’t forget to namedrop which specific model of Rolex you’re wearing!

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            you forget, it’s only evil if women do it.

          • 0 avatar
            Dave M.

            Not that Jack needs anyone to defend him, but dude you’ve got hater issues

          • 0 avatar

            I am often greatly amused by the fact that people who don’t even have the courage to post under their own name take such great effort in spouting their own brand of haterade toward me. Aristurtle’s name is super-appropriate—he’s a bit of a slow thinker, it would appear. Plus, Jack doesn’t even own any Rolexes.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Wow dude, you need a glass of wine, a yoga class, some tai chi or something to get your rage out. It’s not helping you or whatever argument you’re attempting to make.

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            Using an Internet screen name is almost never about “courage.” Usually, it’s more about getting to call yourself more interesting than “Trevor Madsen.”

        • 0 avatar

          I wonder how many folks who toss around the “alt-right” label have actually read Richard Spencer’s writings.

          It’s simply not intellectually honest to associate his views with that of American conservatism or libertarianism. American conservatives are about preserving a revolution that said that all men are created equal. Spencer openly disagrees with the foundational premises of America and is closer, ideologically, to reactionary monarchism than he certainly is to post 1950s Wm F Buckley style conservative fusionism. Maybe that explains his enchantment with Europe.

          Going farther back, Spencer even has problems with a lot of Enlightenment philosophy that underpinned the Aemrican revolution.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      The “normalization of deviance” is a term applied to the slow march away from safety standards in industry etc. The Challenger space shuttle explosion is where this initially came into public focus.
      There are those that place “overlooking lower-level criminality and violations of social norms” under the banner of “normalization of deviance”. It just a way to justify “Cultural” profiling. We’ve seen this “cultural” profiling as a means to justify “strict vetting” of certain “cultural” groups.
      Blaming immigrants is off base because different societies have different social norms. It is a matter of education. “They” need orientation to the society they are entering. There is always a transition period.
      Assuming criminality is “normal” among certain “cultures” is just as wrong as assuming “hate” or “terrorism” is normal among certain “cultures”.

      There is many that fear a lost of “culture” due to immigration. In this case the “American culture”.

      What is that specifically?

      “The United States is the third largest country in the word with a population of more than 320 million, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Because of this, the United States is one of the most culturally diverse countries in the world. Nearly every region of the world has influenced American culture, as it is a country of immigrants, most notably the English who colonized the country beginning in the early 1600s. U.S. culture has also been shaped by the cultures of Native Americans, Latin Americans, Africans and Asians.

      The United States is sometimes described as a “melting pot” in which different cultures have contributed their own distinct “flavors” to American culture. Just as cultures from around the world have influenced American culture, today American culture influences the world.”

  • avatar
    ant

    Sigh.

    Jack seems worried that America will not ever be great again.

    Or something.

    Why don’t you post this crap over wherever it is your brother does his thing these days Jack.

    Are you feeling well?

  • avatar
    zeru57

    Jack’s economic projection, political confirmation bias, and racist diatribes against crimmigrants running free while much of America is cucked is the sad price we pay for his incisive car reviews that always ride on the edge of sanity.

  • avatar
    heycarp

    There needs to be a way to guarantee that drivers carry insurance. Not sure if they still do it ; but next state over issued patrolmen with battery operated screwdrivers. They pulled plates in 30 sec. & impounded the uninsured vehicle.

    • 0 avatar
      Vega

      Easy. Don’t issue a plate without proof of insurance. Use an online database to verify.

      • 0 avatar
        Ermel

        That’s the way we do it in Germany: The insurance company gives you a code which you tell the operator when registering your car and getting plates. With new or shady customers, the insurance company will only do that if they are paid in advance; usually, you can get the code from your insurer over the phone or by e-mail.

        Later, if you fail to pay insurance, the insurance company will tell the police, who will eventually look for your car and when they find it, void its plates. And until they do, the insurance company still is obliged to pay for any damage done with the car. (They can try to get their money back from you afterwards.)

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        That’s the way it works in Colorado, Vega. But people skirt the system by signing up for insurance for a month so they can get their tags, and then letting it lapse.

        The key problem here, when you boil it down, is poverty. Let’s face it – folks who can afford insurance have it. But poor folks – whether they’re here legally or illegally – have a hard time affording a car. But in many places, not having a car means not having employment.

        It’s a quandry, and it goes beyond the whole illegal immigration debate.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        Unfortunately it’s possible to get insurance for a day and then cancel it.

    • 0 avatar
      kefkafloyd

      Automobile insurance is compulsory in the state of Massachusetts. Your registration says what your insurance company is and the insurance companies are required to report your status to the RMV, and you will be denied registration renewal or inspection stickers if your insurance is lapsed. Plus, the penalty for driving an uninsured vehicle is very stiff. If you’re in an accident or pulled over and you do not have insurance (the staties will know, as cancellations are reported to the RMV), you’ll be facing a $500 penalty plus more.

      However, because of compulsory insurance, there are clearly defined rights that you as a citizen have with regards to policies and how insurers can handle them.

      http://www.mass.gov/ocabr/insurance/vehicle/auto-insurance/massachusetts-consumer-bill-of-rights-for.html

  • avatar
    bikegoesbaa

    So the problem is illegal immigrants’ lack of citizenship giving them effective immunity from traffic laws?

    Sounds like a good case for just making them citizens.

  • avatar
    RobbieAZ

    There is truth in what Jack is saying. I live in the Phoenix area and illegals driving beaters with no insurance or license is very common here. Presumably they’re on their way to the job they got using someone’s stolen social security number. For those keeping score at home, that’s 4 crimes right there (crossing the border without proper documentation, driving without a license, driving without insurance, and identity theft). But we can’t call them criminals …

    • 0 avatar
      bunkie

      Yes, there is a problem. The question is, how to deal with it.

      How about, say, including the cost of insurance in gasoline and insuring everyone for basic liability? Or is it better to implement a police state with a built-in bias against anyone who looks foreign?

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        Because tax dollars are only ever used for their stated purpose. The government has proven time and again they are good stewards of tax dollars.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Government insurance programs have proven over time to be about the least fraud-prone programs government can run. Other countries have government-provided basic liability, and it’s a good system.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            What countries? I have lived in 3 countries besides the US and had to have automobile liability to drive in each one

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            Australia, New Zealand, and some provinces in Canada. Note that it is only basic liability for injuries you cause to others, and if you want things like collision or comprehensive you still need to buy them privately.

    • 0 avatar
      mshenzi

      And of course the employers checked for social security numbers, and they have no idea where the fake SSN’s came from, so nobody’s a criminal there, either.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Of course it’s a problem, Robbie. Of course people who come here illegally are breaking the law. No one disagrees with that.

      So…given that, I have three questions:
      1) What’s your solution?
      2) If these folks are criminals, then what’s the plan for evicting anywhere from 10 to 15 million of them without the whole thing devolving into a scene from “Children of Men”?
      3) What will the plan cost to implement?

      I’m not trolling. I’d love to hear any ideas people have.

      In the end, my suggestions would be a) increased border protection based on realistic methods, not some mythic “border wall,” b) helping Mexico deal with all the economic and societal issues that are causing so much illegal immigration in the first place, and c) integrating the folks who are here illegally into our system so that this kind of problem becomes less prevalent. I just don’t see how we evict 10 to 15 million people from this country without Gestapo tactics.

      • 0 avatar
        87 Morgan

        Freedmike…or how do you evict 10 – 15 million people without causing the largest humanitarian crises ever seen on this planet?

        Where do you send them? Do we put them on planes? Who pays for the Jet Fuel? Where do the planes land? Do we bus them to the border and say walk across? How do we know they are Mexican? What if they are from Panama? on and on and on…

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          My point exactly, 87Morgan.

          It’s easy to rant and get upset about this. I’m upset too. But people need to think it through.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            It’s already been thought through. You don’t need to bus fifteen million people to Juarez. Instead, you stop the flow of inbound people. Then you provide a path to citizenship for the best of the current undocumented crowd and you lower the employment opportunities for the rest of them.

            The left-wing equivalent is gun control. You don’t need to go house-to-house with the US Army. Instead, you stop the sale of new guns and you drastically increase the difficulty of transferring guns that are in existing hands.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            See, Jack, there it was – a proposed solution that makes sense and provides a decent starting point for discussion.

            Now, why wasn’t that in the original story?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            As long as we, us, big industries, HDC, and others, directly or indirectly, KEEP HIRING them, AFTER the current “illegals” are gone, we’re simply chasing our own tail.

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Death or Exile.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        We didn’t actively import 15 million of these people. The rewards that they received for coming here caused them to import themselves. Take those rewards away and they’ll remove themselves just as quickly.

        Absolute disqualification from all public benefits, including public schools and emergency rooms, and ending anchor baby citizenship would go a long way towards discouraging these trespassers. These changes not only wouldn’t cost a penny, they’d save tens of billions.

        Those billions could then be used to double the prison time for any of these people convicted of a crime while trespassing here.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I see. So…if one shows up in an emergency room, let him die.

          That’s certainly humane.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            At the risk of engaging in pure rhetoric, you’re free to leave your credit card number with the trauma center in Albuquerque and state that you’ll cover the costs for any Dreamers who are injured in collisions with young mothers.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Well, if we’re going to engage in pure rhetoric, then I suppose I could say that the cost of imprisoning the illegal aliens who drive uninsured could be sent in the form of an invoice to your home as well, Jack. Or perhaps you should do some citizen’s arrests and use your basement as an impromptu jail.

            Maybe the cops could tow the uninsured vehicles to your front lawn for storage as well.

            Sorry, human beings who are in need of medical care don’t deserve to suffer and die because they can’t prove their f**king citizenship and no one will write a check to pay for their treatment.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            We’re basically a society of “f**k you, I’ve got mine” now, and plenty of people are OK with that.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            …until they don’t have “theirs,” at which point they complain about how unfair things are.

            The essential flaw in this line of thinking is the assumption that it’d never happen to them. Well, it can. And it does. Every f**king day, 24/7, 365.

          • 0 avatar
            JD-Shifty

            “I see. So…if one shows up in an emergency room, let him die.

            That’s certainly humane.”

            For all of you that think a national healthcare system is bad and you want out, I owuld to offer you this option

        • 0 avatar
          EMedPA

          Be careful what you wish for. If the ED I work in gets to deny dark-skinned people care because they might not be citizens, then what’s to stop hospital management from denying care to an All American boy who drove his F250 into a tree at speed and didn’t buy health insurance because Freedom?

          (The answer to that question right now, by the way, is EMTALA. Look it up.)

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            This.

            Amusing how the “enforce the law” types don’t know the law…

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            don’t worry, I’m sure there’s a bill or two being cooked up right now to repeal that.

          • 0 avatar
            EMedPA

            I don’t think that even the current party in control is dumb enough to try and repeal EMTALA. After all, the standard conservative talking point with health care is that one can alway “go to the ER.”

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Well, yeah, go to the ER without insurance. Hope you have a bankruptcy attorney on retainer…

            And that illustrates the heart of this problem: we have a bunch of folks making laws for people who can’t afford insurance who’ve probably never even dreamed about what it’s like to not have it. From their perspective, therefore, it’s a “responsibility” issue – they made money so they could afford this kind of thing, so everyone else should, too. And from that perspective, it makes sense. But if they’ve walked in the shoes of an uninsured person, they’d know this problem is usually not about responsibility – it’s about affordability.

        • 0 avatar
          MPAVictoria

          “Absolute disqualification from all public benefits, including public schools and emergency rooms”

          You may be fine with watching people die on the street in front of your house but normal people frown on that sort of thing…

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          Dan – What, no blame directed at individuals/businesses that employ those people?

      • 0 avatar
        RobbieAZ

        I don’t know what to do with the people already here. I don’t think kicking them out is the way to go, but we’ve already seen what amnesty looks like. All it did was kick the can down the road and here we are.

        We need a secure border. I don’t really care how it’s done, but it needs to be done. Failing that, anything else we might do would be completely pointless.

        What to do after that, I have no idea.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Thanks for the honest answer, Robbie. I appreciate it.

          My thinking is that we have to make the people who are here “legals.” There’s just no other way to do this humanely.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            But isn’t that unfair to the people who have been waiting their turn for citizenship? Doesn’t that just encourage more people to jump the fence for the next amnesty?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            The answers to your questions, I believe, are 1) get over it and 2) no.

            1) The folks who have been “waiting in line patiently” will just have to deal with it, like the rest of us. It’s the only way to solve our problem without police state tactics, which I’m sure the rule-followers will appreciate.

            2) If we’ve refocused our enforcement efforts from evicting tens of millions of people using our courts – a Quixotic quest if there ever was one – to border security, then the problem of illegals who want to come here can be better handled. If fewer folks can successfully cross the border illegally, then fewer will want to. And we’ll be better able to deal with the smaller number of people who attempt illegal crossings.

            We’ve been mis-appropriating our resources in this regard for a LONG time.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            “…isn’t that unfair to the people who have been waiting their turn…”

            It’s a choice and a gamble either way. Except we created the game. But who’s to say those “waiting” aren’t also here “working” in the US, only hoping not to get caught?

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        “Integrating the folks who are here illegally into our system so that this kind of problem becomes less prevalent”

        Otherwise know as amnesty and just encourages the next generation of illegals to come and “just wait it out” Ronald Regan started this glorious trend in the 80s

        “I just don’t see how we evict 10 to 15 million people from this country without Gestapo tactics”

        There is no need to use “Gestapo” tactics (the Left just loves Nazis)Once you start denying welfare benefits, school enrollment, drivers licenses, employment,etc they will self-deport. Call ICE whenever one applies for a license or is pulled over or arrested.

        The notion that we have to round up 15 million people in a week is silly, they didn’t all come at once, no need to deport them all at once.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    It is difficult to attribute a single cause to any given crash without full audio/video proof. Much can be done to show what a given vehicle was doing up to the point of impact but how it got into that situation may in many cases never be proven. The only way to resolve this situation is to equip every vehicle with dash cams that look both forward and back. The drawback is the loss of personal privacy most feel is an absolute right.

    However, most crashes here in the States can now be attributed to “distracted driving”. Not all by any means, but most. The problem is that today the cars themselves contribute to that distraction by information and entertainment systems that drag the driver’s eyes off the road. The driver tends to lose their spacial awareness of what’s going on around their vehicle as they work to select a specific track in their music collection or try to follow their nav system’s map or maybe even just looking at the vehicles operating data such as live fuel economy or other relatively insignificant datum. Essentially, the driver is getting information overload when their attention needs to be outside the vehicle. How do we fix that?

    Well, one way might be to move the displays onto HUD units (heads-up display.) The entire instrumentation display could easily be projected onto the windshield itself and, if designed properly, could take up far less space than current instrumentation through a lens that expands the imagery onto the glass in front of the driver. The obvious advantage is that the driver’s eyes never leave the road and the data itself can be presented in a less-distracting format; digital representations of analog displays, for instance. Additionally, and more Importantly, rear-view data can be displayed in a more intuitive manner that’s less likely to be blocked by obstacles within the vehicle–though current safety regulations prohibit such as the primary rear-view solution. Treating the windshield as a kind of racing-game display would actually be highly effective towards keeping drivers’ eyes on the road. The more you limit the demand to pull your eyes off the road, the less distracted the driver is from what’s going on around them.

    In other words, the laws punishing people for distracted driving will not fix the problem, merely exacerbate it. At least here in the States, pulling someone’s license doesn’t necessarily stop them from driving in an illegal manner–they’ll just drive illegally.

    • 0 avatar
      focaltac

      You can move the data to the windshield but the driver is still distracted from driving. It’s treating the symptom (distraction). Just what is it that makes us so squirmy that we need constant distraction?

      We’ve become a nation of voyeurs. The act of living is now performed by idealized others. Burnouts, drifting, and every car magazine cover with THE FASTEST!, THE NEWEST!, THE HOTTEST! It’s product and activity we don’t expect to experience – it’s now enough for us to observe others doing it. How many of us will ever own a Bugatti Veyron, let alone drive one? Why does anyone care about “The Stig”?

    • 0 avatar
      silentsod

      I drive small cars so I bother to do things like see if I can spot the driver in their mirror when I’m in their blind spot. People don’t adjust their mirrors properly as I can often be directly behind a vehicle and see a driver in their side view mirror. There is a fundamental lack of effort on the part of most drivers in the US to be engaged enough with driving that I don’t think HUDing it up is going to fix the issue.

  • avatar
    Jimal

    And I think I’m going on another break now until the next mea culpa and editorial shakeup.

  • avatar

    The protestations are a little loud this morning. And there’s even a death wish!

    I don’t have to agree with every word written to appreciate the overall tone. Eternal vigilance is the cost of freedom. And if driving doesn’t represent freedom, IDK what does.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    I don’t disagree, but this is not what I come here for. And the Trojan horsing of the illegal immigration bit was pretty low too.

    • 0 avatar
      silentsod

      Don’t click on No Fixed Abode articles, then. You should have the capacity to realize that it’s an opinion piece and not a report or review by now.

      • 0 avatar
        56BelAire

        +1000 silentsod.

        I’ve been here for years(don’t post compulsively like many), but of late this site has become an echo chamber of aggrieved, aggressive liberals whining about authors’ stories. I might add the majority of them are new posters, I don’t recognize most of them.

        If the don’t like TTAC or a given writer, why….why are they here, why do they click?

        Must be a mental disorder.

        Great article Jack, always enjoy your writing.

  • avatar
    Chocolatedeath

    Is it to early for salted buttered popcorn???with NUTS..

  • avatar
    319583076

    Fool’s gold.

  • avatar
    USAFMech

    I love the smell of Jack roiling the Canadiennes in the morning. Smells like… FREEDOM.

  • avatar
    Vega

    So I guess the site will now be renamed from TTAC to Breitbaruth? You could also add a ‘feminist and illegal immigrant automotive crime’ section. When decency goes out the window, the possibilities are endless.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Much ranting. No solutions presented.

    I’ll pass, thanks.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      well, at least it’s pretty clear we’ve been given an Emmanuel Goldstein to distract us from other more serious issues.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Exactly, Jim.

      • 0 avatar
        Jack Baruth

        What are the more serious issues?

        AFAIK, the primary issue we have in this country, the most serious issue, is that the bulk of young men are out of work. That’s how revolutions get started.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          This just in: uninsured motorists just leapfrogged North Korea to become the number one threat to America.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            I realize you’re doing the rhetoric escalation that people often do when they feel they don’t have a strong logical point, but from the perspective of me and my family, you’re absolutely correct.

            My wife has been hospitalized twice by illegal immigrants driving without a license. But North Korea has never done so much as send me a nasty email.

            Or as the man said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd9aIamXjQI

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I presented my logical solution, Jack. But in the interests of civility, I’ll present it again:

            1) Better border security
            2) Help Mexico deal with its’ internal issues so that fewer Mexicans want to come here
            3) Integrate the remaining illegal aliens here into our system so that problems like the one you describe are at least ameliorated. It certainly won’t solve the problem of how poor folks can afford car insurance, but it’s a start.

            You’re the one engaging in rhetorical nonsense.

        • 0 avatar
          Astigmatism

          “The bulk of young men are out of work. That’s how revolutions get started.”

          The unemployment rate for men between 20-24 is currently 9.3%. For men between 25-34, it’s 4.9%. For young college graduates generally, it’s 5.6%.

          Aux barricades!

          • 0 avatar
            sarcheer

            That’s why he said bulk instead of citing the actual percentages

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            Those numbers don’t count people who have given up looking for work. And they also count people who are working part-time at Subway as “employed”.

            If the economy were so great, we wouldn’t need Obamacare, would we?

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “Integrate the remaining illegal aliens here into our system so that problems like the one you describe are at least ameliorated. It certainly won’t solve the problem of how poor folks can afford car insurance, but it’s a start.”

            So we the time, money and resources to “integrate” (assuming they want to integrate and do things like obey laws and pay taxes) the illegals but we are not able to deport them?

            So explain how you find and “integrate” 15 million while simultaneously claiming deportation is impossible without using “Gestapo” tactics….

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          Crumbling infrastructure? Dams collapsing in California? Bridges falling apart in Michigan? limping along nuclear power plants for decades beyond their design lives? And a government who thinks cutting taxes and spending more on the military for some goddamn reason is the way to go?

          all the while demanding that we settle in for our Two Minutes’ Hate against Mexicans and promising us the undeliverable?

          The 1950s are gone, Jack. They’re never coming back, no matter what that Gilded Moldering Cheez-it promises you. And they weren’t that great in the first place.

          “That’s how revolutions get started.”

          rather voyeuristic, since you clearly think that’s stuff other people should do for your enjoyment.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            to put a finer point on it, we’ve got a ton of stuff which needs fixing, which means it needs people to do actual work. Hey, perfect opportunity to create jobs for all of those young men.

            But! We keep electing politicians who think spending is evil, so we won’t pay for it. And when some try (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009) it gets ridiculed.

            You want to have your cake and eat it too, and not admit someone has to pay for it.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Jack the statement that “If the economy were so great, we wouldn’t need Obamacare, would we?” is totally nonsensical.

            Every 1st world nation with the exception of the USA has universal medical care. Most implemented this when their economies were booming. A number currently have better economies than the USA.

            Didn’t the USA provide Medicaire/Medicaid for those with the greatest financial needs? So what is the correlations between Affordable Care Act and the economy?

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “So what is the correlations between Affordable Care Act and the economy?”

            he’s saying that if the economy was doing great, everyone would have jobs and be able to get health insurance through work.

            which is a LOL-worthy pipe dream in and of itself.

        • 0 avatar
          MPAVictoria

          “hat the bulk of young men are out of work”

          This is what they call “fake news”.

        • 0 avatar
          Snooder

          But that’s not true though. At all.

          Even by the most pessimistic estimates, nobody is claiming that most (i.e. the bulk) young men are out of work. That’s just asinine.

          What is true is that specific portions of the population have have not benefit as much from the general prosperity as the rest. But blowing that up into a belief that just about every dude under 25 is broke and unemployed is bullshit.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            I am claiming that the bulk of young men in America are out of work as we’ve traditionally defined it.

            Never has it been harder to find a full-time job that supports even a small family.

            The fact that we have a lot of Uber drivers and temp workers and Subway sandwich artists out there might help the statistics but it doesn’t help in reality.

          • 0 avatar
            bikegoesbaa

            “Never has it been harder to find a full-time job that supports even a small family.”

            Not even in 1930?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            People are out of work because many aren’t in a position to adapt to changes in the workforce. It is easier to salute the flag of xenophobia than it is to accept some personal responsibility or to demand actual political change that will benefit the populace.

            The swamp won’t get drained when we leave it to the reptiles in the swamp. We naively believe that one group of billionaires is going to show us more compassion then the last group of billionaires.

            What is “work as we have traditionally defined it”?
            That is the problem. “Traditional” work has been slayed upon the alter of technology. Darwin’s natural selection at its finest: evolve or fade into extinction.

            Keeping the immigrants out isn’t going to help. In the 70’s we had a similar complaint with Indian immigrants. My dad told a bunch of whiners, “If you did all of those jobs yourselves, they’d have no jobs to steal.”

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Actually, one possible solution presented in the comments.

  • avatar
    TDIGuy

    Speaking of illegally parked, can I plug my FB page here? Posting a link probably won’t work, but the page is called “The Dick Parker”
    https://www.facebook.com/thedickparker/

  • avatar
    Frank Galvin

    He’s onto something that strikes a chord with many of us. I had the privilege of working in the trades at the height of an illegal wave that came through Eastern Mass in the mid to late 90’s. God knows how many painters, roofers, and landscapers went belly up because they could not compete with 10 guys living in one apartment rolling from job to job in a POS car with no license, insurance, registration, etc. What would the cops do? Nada. Impound a $500 Isuzu? No detainers – onto the next job! And the drinking and drug use – hey, no big deal. Just a few more innocents slaughtered from drunk driving crimes by a guy whose already been deported and/or has blown off his court date. Local suburban cops would not do f-all. Why should they? No fine will be paid, none of these guys are going to show at a hearing.

    Funny though, our State cops are going after the no-license, no registration crowd. Apparently, when you move that much heroin and fetanyl on the interstate, someone has decided to give a crap.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      You’re wrong, Frank, there are consequences to living illegally.

      I’ll illustrate from my own experience.

      My ex is a criminal, which is why she’s my ex. She has stolen money from my children and inflicted massive psychological damage on them. She has outright defrauded or screwed over friends, family, business associates, and even a rabbi. She obfuscated and manipulated the courts in order to extract well over $90,000 from me over the last six years. She’s been evicted at least three times that I know of, leaving tens of thousands of dollars in property damage in her wake. She hasn’t filed a tax return in years, despite being required to do so (her alimony income is taxable, after all).

      She belongs in jail, but she’s never spent a day behind bars.

      You may regard this as “flouting the law.” And for a long time, I was incredibly angry – not just because she hurt me and my kids, but because she got to “not play by the rules.”

      But the consequences of her not playing by the rules include a horrible lifestyle you and I would could never dream of. If you or I want a job, it’s a simple proposition: apply for one. She can’t, because no sane employer will hire someone with a 350 credit score and a criminal record that includes felony theft. If you or I want to rent an apartment, we just do an application. She can’t, because no sane landlord would rent to her with multiple evictions and judgments for property damage. If you or I want to have dinner with our kids, we just throw some chicken on the grill and put it on the table. She can’t, because her children refuse to spend time with her.

      This is what living outside the rules looks like. And you know what? I’d rather eat a bullet. I’ll take playing by the rules, every damn time.

      Would you trade places with those painters you talked about? Not in a million years.

      Eventually, the rule breakers may or may not be brought down by the law, but they are brought down surely enough. So, no, there’s no “Perry Mason” courtroom scene where the wrongdoer is held accountable. But the prison they make for themselves is quite real…and pathetic.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        never underestimate the arrogance of someone who THINKS he knows how things are for other people he’s never met.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          It’s hard to fathom that kind of thing unless you’ve had a taste of it. I did. And I’d rather die. Literally.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          For a large part of my life I picked up the pieces of those trapped in that life. I recall a comment made by a well respected RCMP officer in my community, ” you gotta be one hell of a swimmer to get out of that cesspool.”
          We see things through our middle class lens and that makes us myopic and therefore incredibly poor arbiters of social behavior.
          We have never had to struggle to survive but look down upon those that do!

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          Like you do to Conservatives everyday on this site?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            markf – I used to sit firmly on the side of Conservatism socially, financially and religiously. I could not find rational justification for the majority of those beliefs other than fiscal conservatism.

            So once again, your point is?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “I could not find rational justification for the majority of those beliefs other than fiscal conservatism.”

            You need more?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @28-Cars-Later – the other day my son stood up to a bully who was verbally abusing a girl in his class that had “come out” of that so called closet.
            A large chunk of the religious right would prefer to push them back into that closet and nail the door shut.
            I can cite more personal examples if you’d like?
            If one looks at fiscal Conservatism, are we seeing any of that in the budget proposed by Cheeto-Potus?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            “religious right”

            Ah there’s a vocabulary word: “religious”. Religion != Fiscal, your beef is with those Protestant whores who masquerade as “fiscal conservatives”. A “fiscal conservative” should be one who doesn’t allow his religious beliefs to control his behavior or views no matter who tells him otherwise. He’s all about the Benjamins first and foremost.

            FWIW some of us may be “religious” and “right” but don’t fall into the category of “religious right”.

            I have empathy for your friend’s son and this girl as I would personally like to know the true cause of homosexuality as much as anyone else. I believe those who are different are being used as pawns by the Bolsheviks (who are also frequently atheists) vs both the “religious right” but also ordinary people who don’t agree but probably would take a neutral stance given a choice. I like to think most of us can take at least the neutral stance but we can react negatively when aggressively confronted or taunted by those who have a desire to force their sexuality or beliefs on us uninvited. In any event I hope they can see how they are being used and not only resist and pursue their own identities, but also find peace in their lives. Life is too f*cking short to not be at peace.

      • 0 avatar
        Dan

        “Would you trade places with those painters you talked about? Not in a million years.”

        When the trade going on is trading up from living in El Salvador (Honduras, Africa, etc.) then you’d better believe you’d take it. Those painters and tens of millions more just like them did. Even more are only an opportunity away from doing the same thing.

        And secondly, telling yourself that these invaders are in some kind of pathetic prison doesn’t fix American cars when we’re hit and run, American neighborhoods and schools when they’re overrun, or American jobs that no longer pay anything resembling a living wage because the flood of third world peasants here will do them at third world pricing.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Says the guy who would like to refuse medical treatment to suffering human beings because they don’t happen to have their citizenship papers on them when they’re wheeled into the ER…

          Seriously, Dan, when you proceed from that premise, there’s little to discuss with you.

          • 0 avatar
            Dan

            Gotcha.

            Awfully righteous with other people’s checkbooks, aren’t we?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Awfully righteous with peoples’ lives, aren’t we?

            Gee, I sure hope you don’t “look Mexican”…otherwise, the next person who is told by the ER to go home because he didn’t have his citizenship papers on him might well be you.

            It’s always “someone else’s problem”…until it’s your problem. Consider that, please.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            “Awfully righteous with other people’s checkbooks, aren’t we?”

            ever heard of the concept of “pay a little now, or pay a lot later?” ‘s why- even though I don’t and won’t have kids- I don’t balk at paying property taxes towards funding schools. Me helping pay for your kid’s education today means it’s less likely he’ll be sticking a gun in my ribs and demanding my wallet tomorrow.

            just like this country’s infrastructure. we’ve refused to pay a little here and there along the way to keep it up to date, and now here we are facing a huge bill for having to replace so much of it as it fails all at once.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Dan “American jobs that no longer pay anything resembling a living wage because the flood of third world peasants here will do them at third world pricing.”

          That is why there are supposed to be minimum wage laws.

          And yes outsourcing jobs to Mexico, has raised the standards of living for most of those working in the maquiladoras. But certainly not to 1st world levels. And the destruction any semblance of the rule of law, created primarily by the US government’s misguided ‘war on drugs’ has in many instances made the life of the average Mexican worse.

          However offshoring/outsourcing has greatly enriched the executives, bankers and the corporations engaged in it.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            Minimum wages laws only apply to people following the law. Illegals don’t, they drive down wages for all workers

      • 0 avatar
        operagost

        The thing is that even a bad life in the USA, getting paid less than minimum wage by a hypocritical white “progressive” under the table, is better than life in Mexico for these people. That’s why they come here. And they come here illegally because we make it too hard, and take too long, for them to become citizens. I want to fast track the ones who have skills and motivation, and it will be easier to weed out the scumbuckets who still want to sneak across because we don’t want them, and they know it.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Hear, hear, operagost, and that’s why I am for helping Mexico develop economically. In the long run, if limiting illegal immigration is the goal, then it’s in our national interest to do this.

          And, for the record, slapping huge tariffs on Mexican goods will have the opposite effect. You heard it here first.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            FreedMike the outflow of jobs for the past two decades has seemingly done nothing to equilibrate things enough to make Mexicans wealthy enough to want to stay in Mexico but has decimated thousands of jobs (and continues to do so) here in the US. Why would we continue a policy of more of the same?

            Maybe when we’re all as destitute as Mexicans things will have truly all evened out and we will have your “utopia.”

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I’m not after “utopia.” I’m after a workable solution. Kneecapping the Mexican economy – which tariffs will certainly do – solves nothing and creates problems that dwarf the illegal immigration issue we’re talking about. The result of that will be far from utopian.

            Part of Mexico’s economic problems stem from endemic corruption, and that, in turn, stems from the narco-economy. Not coincidentally, that is also a major reason why Mexicans come here illegally – they’re fleeing narco gang violence.

            That’s just one example of something we can help them with.

            Either way, our national interests clearly favor an economically stable Mexico. And if it isn’t, then I don’t care how high the damn wall is – we’ll have problems that dwarf the ones we have now. How about a narco-state with a Hugo Chavez type in charge and enough oil money to arm itself to the teeth, right across the Rio Grande? Ponder that one for a moment. That’s exactly the kind of unintended consequence we could be looking at.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            the “outflow of jobs” has gone to automation and China. We were demonizing Mexico 30 years ago all the while industry was going elsewhere. and the War on (some) Drugs has done so much to keep many regions of Mexico (and South America) dangerous, violent places.

            we cause so many of our own problems and are too dumb to realize it.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            This, this, this, this, a hundred thousand times this.

            Want to put a nice big dent in the narcos’ wallets? Simple: legalize weed nationwide.

            But, of course, the incoming administration doesn’t seem to be very supportive of the rights of the states that have done this (probably because they didn’t vote Republican, but that’s neither here nor there). Thus, instead of a domestic industry which we could regulate (and tax), like alcohol, we have huge amounts of illegal weed grown in Mexico, and fueling the drug lords, and thus the violence that causes many Mexicans to want to come here in the first place.

            Now, we aren’t going to legalize the other stuff they sell, like heroin or cocaine. But they make a substantial portion of their income off weed. And we let them.

            Dumb, dumb, dumb.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Jim just here locally in the past year we had Carrier wanting to uproot 1100 people in Indy and another several hundred in Huntington, and another 300 jobs lost to Mexico by way of Rexnord bearing packing up. That’s just this year, just in Central Indiana. That’s the reality on the ground. Yes China is a problem (GM’s Delco Remy’s manufacturing in Anderson was mostly outsourced there), yes automation is perhaps the biggest culprit out of all of them, but its asinine to write off the very real Mexico problem just because there are other offenders.

          • 0 avatar
            Scoutdude

            Sorry but there is not a significant amount of weed coming from Mexico, it is grown in the US most likely in a house just down the road from you or the school your children go to. It took a year or two but after in was legalized in my state, Washington, the number of former grow houses that started coming on the market blew me away. Sure many are in crappy houses in crappy neighborhoods but there are a surprising number of them in nice houses (or at least they were) in nice neighborhoods.

            That is why I’m now an even bigger supporter of legalization than I was before. The tax money and the savings on enforcement are just nice little bonuses compared to the increase in public safety.

          • 0 avatar

            The glut of “cambiamos cheques” places on every corner represent your contribution to Mexican prosperity.

            I’m all for objectivity, but let’s not kid ourselves. As if these mostly-well-intentioned folks are fully integrated into our society and tax code.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            JimZ – “we cause so many of our own problems and are too dumb to realize it.”

            US foreign policy based upon “manifest destiny” has destabilized many South and Central American countries including Mexico. Cuba is a prime example of a problem created by US policy.

            The USA’s problems in the MiddleEast are another prime example.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            Mexico’s problems are not economic, they are cultural. Unless you are willing to assert some cultural confidence to change the 3rd world corruptocracy culture then all you economic help will be totally useless

          • 0 avatar
            raph

            @ Scoutdude

            >> Sorry but there is not a significant amount of weed coming from Mexico, it is grown in the US most likely in a house just down the road from you or the school your children go to <<

            This is my understanding as well. Its also my understanding that weed grown in Mexico is a throw-away crop used to keep the DEA off the scent.

            The cartels send a big haul of marijuana through and it gets busted while a more discreet shipment of more profitable heroin and/or meth rolls right on by in a win/win for everybody! The cartels pay a business tax of sorts but still make money, the DEA scores a "big" bust and can brag about an inflated street value in the news. America gets to see its tax dollars at work feeling just a bit safer.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          Funny WalMart was fined $11 million for the employment of ‘illegal’ immigrants.

          If you check you will find that far more illegals are employed by conservative or ‘free market’ types, or corporations, in particular ‘job brokers’.

          Just like in Canada when corporations brought in ‘Temporary Foreign Workers’ rather than raise the wages that they were offering.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Where would you check the stats on illegal alien employment by political ideology, Arthur?

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Good point. However corporations and businesses are larger employers than private citizens. Therefore it stands to reason, logically, that they employ more illegals.

            That is supported by the recent articles on large scale agricultural businesses, who supported the Trump campaign, now being worried that his policies may deprive them of their workforce.

            http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-5-trillion-hit-from-deporting-undocumented-workers/

            And I am 100% for legalizing marijuana and taxing it.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I don’t think that proves your argument, Arthur. And unless we had some kind of proof that conservative business hire more illegals, saying that kind of thing doesn’t do much to solve the problem. I’m sure business owners of all ideological stripes do this.

      • 0 avatar
        Snooder

        This.

        I briefly hung out with a stripper with similar issues. At one point she wanted to get a new apartment so she could live with her kids. I figured it would be simple, I’d lend her a few hundred dollars for the first month and deposit and maybe cosign.

        Hell no. Even the worst shit hole apartments wouldn’t take her. And then she got arrested for several prior issues when she went to bail her idiot kid out of jail for breaking into cars. Pretty sure the little shit keyed my car too.

        Luckily, by that point I was already done with the whole thing. So her being in jail for a few months was an easy out.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          freedmike” can we agree that it disproves ‘operagosts’ statement that “to be employed by a hypocritical white ‘progressive’ under the table, … is why they come here.”?

          And if we had the time, we could probably break down employment by sector to prove my argument as there has been a great deal of research on the political leanings of CEO’s.

        • 0 avatar
          TMA1

          Never cosign anything! You’re not vouching for that person’s good intentions, you’re promising to pay their bills when they default!

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      Frank, I don’t think people who disagree with you are interested in hearing about the unintended and downstream impact of illegal immigration. It simply doesn’t exist to them because from their perspective, criticizing illegal immigration is now a xenophobic position.

      They don’t want to hear what Jack wrote. They don’t want to hear about 18th Street Gang or Jamiel Shaw or human trafficking or coyotes who smuggle people and steal everything those people own.

      They envision people from other countries coming here for a better life, working hard and trying to live an American dream. And for the most part, that’s true. Most people here illegally are not gang members, or murderers of other flavors, rapists or pimps.

      The thing they don’t understand is that the victims of illegal immigrant crimes wouldn’t be crime victims if said illegal immigrants weren’t here. It’s crime that would not have happened.

      • 0 avatar
        Drzhivago138

        How do we know that crime wouldn’t have happened for certain? Couldn’t someone else have committed that same or similar crime on a same or similar victim? Now we’re getting into “for want of a nail”/”A Sound of Thunder”/multiverse speculation.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        “from their perspective, criticizing illegal immigration is now a xenophobic position”

        yet another genius who can’t see anything other than binary extremes. I think what we’re trying to say is “yes, this is a problem but demonizing it as the MOST URGENT CRISIS FACING THIS COUNTRY RIGHT THIS VERY MINUTE BECAUSE WE’D HAVE 0% UNEMPLOYMENT IF IT WASN’T FOR ALL OF THESE ILLEGALS isn’t what we should be doing.”

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          Jim, You said above that it’s hate against Mexicans that is feeding this. Binary extremes?

          You see hyperbole in others but won’t cop to yours.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I think it’s fair to assume bigotry has quite a bit to do with this, jkross…not for all by any means, but it clearly is for some.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Saying we should stop illegal immigration is not the same as stopping immigration. The latter is much more likely attributable to bigotry than the former, but the assumption of bigotry is attributed to both as if they were the same.

            Your comment seems reflective of this.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            I’m sorry, when people were chanting “Build the wall! Build the wall!” where were they wanting that wall built?

          • 0 avatar
            Frank Galvin

            Ok, where to unpack all of this. Its not bigotry for the vast majority of us. And it is a crisis. When anywhere between 3000 to 4000 Americans are killed each year (drunk driving, violent crime) by illegals – yeah, by the very definition its a crisis. My experience with illegals had nothing to do with Mexico. They were all from Brazil and Central / South America on expired tourist visas. 80% male. My police friends told me some lovely stories about how their female compatriots were dealing with forced prostitution, usually starting around 15. Lovely.

            Then there was the white collar in-shoring of tech support on phony H1Bs and again, the phony tourist visas for another set of 10 guys living in a 2 bedroom apartment.

            Let’s not forget our far Eastern friends – more tourist visas for their “bodywork massage artists” aka sex slaves that are moved around from town to town.

            Sometimes I need a break, so its nice to check in with family out west. Our federal government last I heard, was not adequately reimbursing Southwestern sheriffs for holding illegals, so rather than go broke, they’d rather not hold. Which is great for the local DAs office trying to prosecute border crossing assassins. The cartels send their folks into border towns to steal a gun before making their way to the target.

            Sometimes they get these guys on the simple B&E. But even the local DA’s office is somewhat hesitant, especially when the DEA / FBI shows up at the DAs office to announce how deeply the office has been penetrated and that the cartel has all of their personnel files.

            Its been a joy speaking with another family member who works at a hospital, a large state run hospital. They’re perpetually broke because the population they serve are non-citizens, uninsured, and carrying diseases that we thought were eradicated years ago.

            But as my former governor stated, there are all anecdotes when asked about a recent grad who was dragged for a mile, backed over twice by an illegal drunk out of his mind. There was an open 12 pack in the car, and the case is still going through the courts. Apparently we’re paying for a special translator because after being here 10 years (and subject to a deportation order(s)) he still can only speak in a specialized indigenous dialect. Oh, and then there is court appointed expert testifying to the drunk’s unique indigenous body chemistry that does not allow him to synthesize alcohol. Lovely.

            But I’ll keep showing up to work everyday, paying red light fines, paying ever increasing excise taxes, making sure my family stays insured so we don’t forfeit the tax return, and shut up, because I’m plainly “not understanding.”

            All I ask, and its really simple, if I do anything, just treat me like an illegal.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            “where were they wanting that wall built?” Along the border that we don’t control.

            Or do you believe we do control it and just have an oversight problem with 10-20 million illegal immigrants living here, some of which crossed the border without signing the guest book?

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        jkross22 – every society tends to have an impoverished “underbelly”. Illegal immigrants entering a new country in the hopes of a better life tend to fill that lower end. If you remove them, the problems will remain because the root causes are still there. Poverty is poverty.

        We need to blame the causes of poverty not blame those trying to survive.

        • 0 avatar
          jkross22

          Have you considered the consequences of illegal immigration on the poor already here? Manual labor jobs, especially construction jobs, used to pay more than they do now. The people who made a living as carpenters, roofers, gardeners found themselves unable to compete with people who lived in garages.

          Is that what we want?

          Here in LA, I’ve seen first hand one of the many reasons why we have a permanent underclass of people. 2nd and 3rd gen immigrant kids who are unable to read anywhere near grade level because their parents don’t speak English at home.

          That’s the next generation of poor people.

          We can do better than this, and encouraging more of it is the opposite of what we ought to be doing.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @jkross22 – I’m not talking about “encouraging more of it”. Poverty is poverty. Address that issue and the rest of it will self correct. It has to be a combination approach. Illegal immigration is a sign of a bigger disease.

            “Have you considered the consequences of illegal immigration on the poor already here?”

            Why are there poor people to begin with?

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            @jkoss22 – Never mind how they got here, how did they get on your roof???

            Try Canada. As a “tourist” can you even get a job there shoveling sh!t?? Never mind a carpenter for *pay*, but why do you think we have a “problem”?? Think hard!

            “Cure” *this* problem and the rest will take care of itself.

            *Then*, why would they jump the “fence”/”wall” or overstay their visas? For the yearly pass at Disneyland? They’d better bring lots and lottsa Pesos from *home*…

    • 0 avatar
      Detroit-Iron

      “God knows how many painters, roofers, and landscapers went belly up because they could not compete with 10 guys living in one apartment rolling from job to job in a POS car with no license, insurance, registration, etc.”

      But MSNBC and my liberal neighbors like freedmike have told me that the illegals only took jobs that US citizens would not do!

  • avatar
    mike1dog

    The accidents I’ve had with uninsured motorists were both natives. Let’s face facts, you can’t get around in a lot of places without a car. One had just had her insurance lapse, the other was driving a twenty year old Town Car without any kind of insurance. What happens when this happens is they pay for the minimal coverage, take the proof of insurance to court to avoid getting their license suspended, then immediately cancel the insurance, and get a refund. If your choice is between paying your electric bill or paying for car insurance, the insurance is going to go by the wayside.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    The part about Britain is quite humorous.
    One of the most impressive things I saw in London last summer was the ability of young women to drive a manual transmission car in gridlock traffic while applying makeup, drinking coffee, smoking, and texting.

  • avatar
    Astigmatism

    Feminist wimmins a few weeks ago.
    “Illegals” today.
    What should we expect in the coming weeks? Jews? Blacks?
    My money is on some high-quality transphobia, but I’m open to taking bets.

  • avatar
    Joss

    America the beautiful? America the inclusive? America the melting pot?

    Hell no! Americans the pecking order…

  • avatar
    Hummer

    But, but Jack, you have to make TTAC a safe space. You can’t allow opposing thoughts you might hurt someone’s feelings. Suggesting that an illegal alien could hurt an actual citizen, how could you.

    I see the brown shirts are in full force already.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I see.

      So…rhetorical rants are “freedom”. Calling the rhetorical rant a rhetorical rant makes you a “brown shirt.”

      Seems to me everyone’s using their right of free speech here, Hummer. You just don’t like that people are disagreeing with a viewpoint which you probably identify with.

    • 0 avatar
      MPAVictoria

      “I see the brown shirts are in full force already.”

      I love right wing nuts. Not only do they insist that we listen to their garbage they also claim repression if we happen to disagree.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Either Jack is trying to get evicted from this site, he is unaware of the use of statistical evidence or he is feeling empowered by the assumption of power by a group who seem to publicly embrace xenophobia or he has decided that ‘fake’ news generates interest.

    And not one of those in ‘power’ has even tried to address the easiest and quickest solution to the perceived problem of ‘illegal immigrants’. That would be to arrest anyone who employs an undocumented worker.

    Since they primarily come to America for jobs/money without any prospect of working there would then be little to no incentive to illegally cross the border.

    • 0 avatar
      JimZ

      As one of the two smartest guys in any room, Jack operates under the assumption that his personal experiences are universal. everyone experiences the same things he does, therefore he’s qualified to tell all of us How Things Ought To Be.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      “he is unaware of the use of statistical evidence”

      Which statistics would those be? I provided one statistic — the number of drivers killed by uninsured motorists — and I provided one assertion — that half of those motorists are not citizens.

      Are you arguing with the first or the second?

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Jack, Posted in August 2016 based on Ontario Provincial Police statistics: “The number of road deaths from distracted driving are on track to double the number of fatalities related to impaired driving this year.”

        So statistically distracted driving is proven to be the most dangerous type of driving in Ontario.

        You made an assertion, not based on statistics.

        Prior to that you used a single statistic, the number killed by uninsured motorists, but no qualifier such as the number killed by uninsured motorists as a percentage of the total number killed in collisions.

        And since you have no proof of how many of those drivers are illegal immigrants, you have only an opinion, not a reliable and statistically valid statement.

        As you said: “They might be the only two Mexicans in history who ever stole a car.”

        You also said that: “A few high-profile teen texting accidents isn’t by itself enough reason to change the law.” But the statistics provided by the OPP prove your statement to be false.

        • 0 avatar
          Jack Baruth

          Those aren’t statistics.

          “Jack, Posted in August 2016 based on Ontario Provincial Police statistics: “The number of road deaths from distracted driving are on track to double the number of fatalities related to impaired driving this year.””

          Not only is that a projection, that’s also a blatant fabrication.

          The OPP has no way to “test” for distraction. This is something that I HAVE covered in the past. The mere presence of a phone in the car can be enough to ascribe it to distraction.

          Furthermore, and I only mention this because you appear to have the attention span of that Ellen DeGeneres fish, we’re talking about unlicensed drivers, not impaired drivers, and we’re talking about the United States, not Ontario.

          Thank you, as always, for participating.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            You are accusing the OPP of fabrication?

            Let me walk you through this as you obviously are not thinking clearly today.

            1) Distracted driving is now the #1 cause of traffic collisions in Ontario. Statistically proven. Previously it was impaired driving.
            2) Yes you can check for distraction. Telephone records are easily obtainable. Usage time can be clearly tracked. Was their a text being sent at the time of the accident? A phone being in the car is not used as evidence. Those are not difficult concepts but obviously you did not think of them.
            3) Relating to #1, you complain about ‘unlicensed’ drivers but statistically they are involed in less collisions then ‘distracted’ drivers.
            4) Finally you then go on to complain about ‘illegal immigrant’ unlicensed drivers but provide zero statistical evidence that they are involved in a statistically significant number of collisions.

            So you have no evidence to support what you said, but are trying to argue against documented evidence backed up by professional investigations.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            “2) Yes you can check for distraction. Telephone records are easily obtainable. Usage time can be clearly tracked. Was their a text being sent at the time of the accident? A phone being in the car is not used as evidence. Those are not difficult concepts but obviously you did not think of them.”

            Come back when you can prove that such a thing is ever done. In the United States you’d need a warrant for it. What’s the setup in Ontario? The cop just makes a call to Rogers and they fess up the call records? Does he do that while he’s writing the ticket? You’re engaging in fantasy. Are you drunk?

    • 0 avatar
      RobbieAZ

      There is nothing remotely xenophobic about thinking people should not be entering the country illegally. And employing the despicable Leftist tactic of labeling people with derogatory terms in order to shut down debate does not advance the … debate.

      Having said that, your other point is right on the money. Those who employ illegals should be prosecuted.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        You don’t think conservatives label people to shut down debates, Robbie?

        Of course they do.

        And I’m with you on the employer penalties. Fine the living f**k out of anyone who knowingly hires someone who’s not authorized to work here. Problem is – and I’m being brutally honest here – most conservatives I’ve talked to find that to be “anti-business.” Perhaps they should re-think that position.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          freedmike” can we agree that it disproves ‘operagosts’ statement that “to be employed by a hypocritical white ‘progressive’ under the table, … is why they come here.”?

          And if we had the time, we could probably break down employment by sector to prove my argument as there has been a great deal of research on the political leanings of CEO’s.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Jack, so you demonstrate your true colours, slipping into mindless insults when you have been proven to be wrong.

        The Supreme Court of Canada allows the search and seizure of cellphones and cellphone records, without a warrant in most instances.
        https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/14502/index.do

        http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalfeeds/2426/supreme-court-allows-warrantless-cell-phone-searches.html

        Since it has become apparent that you cannot win a war of wits, then keep trying the childish name calling. I’ve been called much worse by much better.

        Or you can take the high road and ‘man-up’, as they say, if you have dug yourself into a hole, stop digging.

  • avatar
    Daniel J

    While I understand Jack’s comments about swerving cars and such, there have been some high-profile deadly accidents around here with teenagers who were texting and driving.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      This is one of those situations where people like to sit on whatever side of the anecdote/data equation works for them in that particular case.

      My wife was almost killed twice by Mexicans who were driving illegally. But that in and of itself is not statistically significant for policy-making. They might be the only two Mexicans in history who ever stole a car.

      A few high-profile teen texting accidents isn’t by itself enough reason to change the law.

      But if you read through the comments so far, I think you’ll see that a lot of people want to dismiss the first situation as anecdotal or non-representative while at the same time demanding policy be made on the second.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I was almost killed once by a black guy in a junk truck. He was driving illegally with no license or insurance. The cops let him go. This was in 1987.

      • 0 avatar
        JimZ

        ok, fine. so why is what happened to your wife the most pressing issue facing the entire country?

      • 0 avatar
        Dingleberrypiez_Returns

        Jack, by that token if you sat in urban traffic on a regular basis you would hate chronic cell phone users. Extremely annoying. Even if it’s not a safety issue (which I’m not convinced it isn’t), I’m all for cops enforcing the existing regs.

        • 0 avatar
          Jack Baruth

          I do! Twice a day. Usually on a motorcycle. Columbus OH isn’t Tokyo but we still have 1.5 million people.

          • 0 avatar
            Dingleberrypiez_Returns

            Fair enough. Surprised it doesn’t bother you more. That being said, from the two visits I’ve made to Columbus Ohio, the traffic is nowhere near the level of SF Bay Area. Chronic cell phone use is a plague.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            The cell phone users are preferable to the road-ragers. I say this as a motoryclist. Even when phone people wander into your lane, they do it slow-like.

            I don’t ask for drivers to respect the three feet of space around my Kwacker — that’s too much to ask and I know it. All I ask is that they force me off the road in a non-drastic fashion so I can adjust :)

      • 0 avatar
        Daniel J

        We can pick any side. I lived in Florida and every week some ole granny would about cause a ten car pile up. There has been legislation for age and or drivers test for the elderly. It is always a knee jerk reaction for the flavor of the day.

        Should we not have DUI laws? Some drivers could be over the legal limit and still drive better than a half wit who chooses to merge without checking blind spots.

        It’s always a slippery slope.

        • 0 avatar
          Paragon

          Have to admit that you also make some good points, too. The real question is, for the politicians at least, how do we change the laws to benefit the vast majority of us without enraging a significant voter demographic? And, that relates directly to what Jack was writing about. It’s always so much better when people can overlook their political leanings to look at what is truly best for the country. Sadly, that is extremely difficult with most of us. Far left and far right folks tend to be very reactionary. I have the most respect for the Libertarians, by the way.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    http://tinyurl.com/gm72kkw

    The only response I have.

  • avatar
    Boxerman

    I think most of you are missing the larger point of the piece. It’s not about illegals or criminals, that’s just a backdrop for contrast. It’s about how a system is operating and further gearing up to fleece the good citizens because the system needs hamsters running on a wheel ever faster to feed it.

    Unless your a criminal gov worker cop or in finance you’re effectively domestic livestock to be fed and worked for the benefit of gov and the finance industry.

    Consider the central evidences of the piece. Unlicensed drivers do more harm than distracted drivers, yet there are no benjamins to be had to feed the system from the unlicensed, hence little to no enforcement.

    Does anybody here think red light cameras are about safety?

    • 0 avatar
      gtemnykh

      Correct boxerman, I think most commenters are losing the forest for the trees (can’t blame them per se, Jack trolled them expertly).

      The analogy can be extended to gun control: Law abiding people where restricted in places like NY from 10 round magazines to 7 so Cuomo can pat himself on the back, but criminals with illegal weapons who weren’t following laws in the first place could care less.

      The question becomes: when laws become draconian enough that lawful people run out of patience and start flaunting them, where do we end up as a society?

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        It wasn’t that “expert,” gtemnykh…

      • 0 avatar
        sarcheer

        You can say people are missing the forest for the trees, but the premise upon which the article is based is patently false. No cops are ignoring unlicensed drivers in favor of those using their cell phones. You can tell just by looking through the driver’s window at speed whether they are checking their phone, you can’t tell whether or not they have a license.

        • 0 avatar
          Jack Baruth

          “No cops are ignoring unlicensed drivers in favor of those using their cell phones. You can tell just by looking through the driver’s window at speed whether they are checking their phone, you can’t tell whether or not they have a license.”

          Christ, you just contradicted yourself in two sentences running.

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            no he didn’t. Police pull people over either because of something they observe, or if they’re looking specifically for you. They can’t tell just by looking that a driver doesn’t have a license.

            That’s not “ignoring” unlicensed drivers.

            Unless you’re happy with a world where they just pull everyone over and demand papers.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            What both of you are saying is this: police would rather milk revenue from obviously law-abiding drivers than do the work necessary to get unlicensed drivers off the roads.

            All three of us are in fundamental agreement. It’s just that the two of you don’t see a problem with it.

          • 0 avatar
            Arthur Dailey

            Jack, and just how can a Police Officer driving past a vehicle identify that its driver is an illegal immigrant or an unlicensed driver?

            However they can readily spot a ‘distracted’ driver.

            Do you recommend that they institute ‘spot checks’ and pull over each car to determine the driver’s legal status?

            Isn’t that a direct contradiction of your political belief system?

          • 0 avatar
            JimZ

            It’s not that I don’t see a problem with it. I’ve said in the past more than once that speed traps are little more than revenue collection. What I’m saying is how do you identify an unlicensed driver *before you pull them over for something?* I mean, yeah, cop pulls over a guy for running a red light, finds he has no license and nothing to show who he is? Take him in and find out. Just like they can do for anyone caught driving without a license. But saying police can pull someone over because he “looks illegal” is not something I can get behind. That’s some Joe Arpaio-level BS right there.

            and maybe if you’d stop trying to tell people what they think, you’d get a lot less pushback.

          • 0 avatar
            Frank Galvin

            God almighty. Cops choose to ignore illegal operation all the time. Look at Ferguson – stable African American (stable in the sense that no-one was moving out) community – cops did everthing in their power to nickle and dime citizens because it was revenue stream. Courthouses, cars, overtime, employment.

            Now, are they going to do that in a dumpy a** Northeast milltown where more than half the population is ESL and god knows what status? Hell no. They’re going to concentrate on violent crime because that’s about all they can do. No one is going to jail, no one is going to be on parole, they pack up and go to the next place.

            Travis and Bryce in the 2015 Jetta on their way back from Whole Foods. Cha Ching!

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Frank, Ferguson was a speed trap for EVERYONE, and that includes the (largely poverty-stricken) contingent of black people who lived there. I’m from St. Louis, and I can tell you that for DECADES, pulling people over for “driving while black” was the second official team sport, second only to Cardinals baseball. I used to hear the cops in the town I lived in BRAGGING about it.

            And this led to massive issues with the (largely poverty stricken) black folks in Ferguson. Just because you’re poor didn’t mean you didn’t have to pay a ticket. Far from it. They soaked EVERYONE. Add to that the fact that there were a bunch of straight up racists working in City Hall – proven by emails and other documents the government procured after the riots – and you had a perfect storm.

            A few years before the Ferguson riots, the chief of police in one suburb went public with the mayor’s email request to concentrate on pulling over more black people.

            S**t like this happened for DECADES before Ferguson blew up.

            The only thing that surprised me about Ferguson was that it took as long as it did to happen. Black folks in the St. Louis area have a HIGHLY legitimate beef with most, if not all, of the local police departments.

          • 0 avatar
            TMA1

            “Travis and Bryce in the 2015 Jetta on their way back from Whole Foods.”

            Mirab, with sails unfurled!

    • 0 avatar
      Paragon

      Boxerman, you got it right. Thanks for keeping the focus on what the article was really about. Bringing it back from posts that were merely reactions to folks perceptions of the article. Kudos.

  • avatar
    orenwolf

    Yes, because the *citizen* white trash driving the insurance-less ancient beater down the road wouldn’t get the same reaction, right? *rolls eyes*

    Jack, you’re capable of weaving such amazing prose and rhetoric. You’re one of the few online-only authors I’ve ever *physically printed out* and brought copies to family gatherings (I do this each time, usually a passage from a book I’ve read recently or remembered, but you made the list, too!). But you choose to tarnish your great works by *forcing* in your agenda where it isn’t warranted.

    This could’ve been a great treatise on how as we push the legal justice system ever further with more rights and “please save us” attitude while simultaneously deriding oversight as causing them to feel like “they can’t do their jobs”, that the inevitable effect will be that they will choose the easy collars and quotas of fines and ignore the rest, and we as the people will not only have no choice in the matter, it will be *our fault* that we allowed it to happen in the first place.

    Ignoring the fact that it’s equally as likely that the car that will get pulled over will be the one with all the brown people in it, the idea that “only illegals drive unsafe, uninsured vehicles” is a crock, and the worst part is, *you* have explained *why* in your *own* posts! Your constant harping on how the *citizens* can’t find work and can’t afford new vehicles means they are far more likely to be jobless drifters, driving beaters and not giving two shits about what the rest of us think because *we let them down* should have been the obvious answer here – support the very people your politics fight for! But instead, you’ve chosen to bang the illegals drum and ignore the sins of the citizenry, the same way the officer in your story ignored the lawbreakers. Because it’s far simpler to go after the easy target.

    Pot, meet kettle.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      Listen, everything you’ve written here is fair — but I’ve written dozens of times about those issues as well, from police abuse of power to the greying of America’s fleet as the prospects of its workforce diminish.

      There’s only so much I can cover in 1,100 words or so. This time, I thought it was worth discussing the fact that we are milking citizens for cash while letting non-citizens play by different rules.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        What should we do about the folks who are driving illegally who happen to be illegal aliens, then?

        You’re an intelligent guy, Jack. I’m more interested in hearing what you suggest to solve the problem, versus hearing a bunch of snark that just ends begetting more snark. This could have been an interesting discussion. Instead, it’s a food fight. That, I believe, was Orenwolf’s point.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “This time, I thought it was worth discussing the fact that we are milking citizens for cash while letting non-citizens play by different rules.”

        How can an officer tell if a driver has a licence?

        How can an officer tell if a person is a “non-citizen”?

        How can an officer tell if someone is on a device?

    • 0 avatar
      Arthur Dailey

      Statistically at least in the Toronto area it has been demonstrated that a person of a visible minority is far more likely to be pulled over and/or questioned by the police than is a ‘white’ person.

  • avatar
    JD321

    Triggering the bratty little lefty parasites on a Friday….Outrageous!

  • avatar
    sportsuburbangt

    This is very interesting. It seems the trends are to enforce the laws on the people who can pay the fines. Its another way to milk the middle class.

    Another phenomenon that is rarely discussed is the huge number of “tourists” from Ohio, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, and now Washington state that are driving around Long Island and NYC. I often wonder how many of these folks actually have insurance or licenses. Its really scary that this goes on. These folks just drive the fees and insurance rates up for all of the people trying to earn a legit living here, not to mention the danger this introduces to the roadways without consequence (drunk driving and reckless driving).
    Once again if the people playing by the rules try any of these cost saving tactics like rate evading(registering and insuring your car out of state to avoid the Excessive NY rates) we would get slammed with fines and penalties. It is truly frustrating.

    From the looks of the recent arrests in Brentwood the pendulum is starting to change, but the folks on the Upper West and East sides that set the tone in the media are doing everything they can to prevent it.

    Either way kudos to Jack for bringing these issues up, these things effect all of us.

  • avatar
    maranello

    This piece just reinforces what most people who’ve had a brush with law enforcement are realising; they are revenue collectors with a gun and a badge. And there’s no money in going after “dreamers”.

  • avatar
    duncanator

    I’ve often wondered why I bothered to get licensed and insured. If I didn’t a house, why pay all that money? In all of my accidents, one where the driver was not licensed, there was never any penalty for him. My uninsured driver coverage covered it. What penalty did the other driver face? NONE. No jail, no debt, nothing. It seems that if you break the law, there are no consequences if no one is severely injured. If you obey the law, you get a ticket with massive fines, plus increased insurance rates.
    It’s no wonder that there is a rise in this activity when we as a society don’t enforce laws, even those we may not agree with.

  • avatar
    e30gator

    I’ve got to hand it to you, Jack, you’ve definitely got the political agenda click bait game down pat. And you continue to incorporate this, however flawed the reasoning, into an automotive blog.

    On a related note, I’ve seen several accidents and near misses caused by motorcyclists speeding and weaving in and out of traffic, as if the public roads are their own personal playground.

    As long as we’re deporting undesirables, can we also get rid of every one of these assholes? I propose we start with the squeakiest wheels first.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      You can have my ZX-14R when you pry it out of my cold, dead hands.

      I’m 100% in favor of the stunt riders and the Starboyz and the black dudes who wheelie their Busas in traffic. It gives me hope that the next generation of human beings won’t be 100% Pajama Boy androgynous.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        I spent the better part of a day hanging out in a motorcycle shop in Columbia Tennessee waiting for my friend to get new tires mounted on his old KZ650 (we were riding old UJMs across the continental US in 2008). He finally got the tires mounted, and proceeds to lowside it leaving the dealership driveway (slick mold release on tires). Two African American gentlemen who we were discussing the benefits of stretched swingarms with ran up to help out and had some sage advice:
        “Man you gotta burn it out bruh, just burn it out! Find a street where the po-lease can’t find you, hit the front brake and stick your foot in front of the peg, and burn it out!”

        Met a lot of really interesting and friendly people on that trip.

  • avatar
    Land Ark

    I try to keep my opinions out of the immigration debate. But as far as I’m concerned, it’s always been an issue, it’s just the nationality of the people which has changed – be it the Central Americans, Syrian refugees, Jewish people, the Irish, Japanese, Chinese, white people in the 1500s. It’s always been an issue here in the States, and it’s always been an issue in every wealthy country in history which wasn’t actively trying to take over those people.

    The line that got me in this article was this:
    “But if you are following the laws, you will be rewarded with more laws that you need to follow.”

    I think that is a larger problem that as citizens we have lost total control over. If everyone obeys the laws, we can’t afford to maintain the governments where we live. That’s fundamentally contrary to how it should be. We shouldn’t be able to support a citizenry wrought with criminals diverting necessary resources, we shouldn’t be counting on them to help generate the funding for the resources we shouldn’t need in the first place (SWAT teams and armored troop carriers in rural areas).

  • avatar
    whitworth

    I never understood the “outrage” when AZ passed a law making police officers turn over people to ICE that could not produce identification that they were here illegally. That’s probably why even after the media freak out, when polled, something like 70% of Americans agreed with the policy. I honestly thought it was already the law.

    If a police officer pulled me over for a crime and I didn’t produce a driver’s license and refused to disclose who I was, I would have the book thrown at me and be rotting in a jail cell. But apparently that’s supposed to be how it works if you’re here illegally, because they have big dreams.

    • 0 avatar
      Kyree S. Williams

      I will say that that law has the propensity to get applied unequally toward people of Latino or Asian descent. A white American, or a midwestern-sounding black American like myself might get in trouble for not having identification, but we probably won’t get tossed into ICE.

      • 0 avatar
        whitworth

        So the solution is police officers just let these people go? It goes back to Jack’s point that the people that actually follow the rules get shafted.

        An illegal alien gets a DUI, refuses to show who he is, and then just walks after sleeping it off in a cell with no further repercussions because how do they find this unknown person?

        I actually had a friend killed by an illegal alien that was intoxicated, he was simply a pedestrian walking and got hit.

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Is that the only other possible outcome?

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          “So the solution is police officers just let these people go?”

          yet another genius who thinks everything in the world is a binary choice between two extremes.

          • 0 avatar
            whitworth

            I don’t see anyone else offering a 3rd option.

            Either local law enforcement gets to find out who these people are or they cut them loose and they walk for whatever crime they are charged with.

            What’s your solution besides saying “it’s stupid” or “it’s racist”?

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          “So the solution is police officers just let these people go?”

          Well, let’s say Joe Policeman has some illegal immigrant stopped for having no car insurance, and gets the “armed robbery at XYZ Bank” or “woman being beaten by husband at 123 Oak Street” call over his radio. Hell, yes, he lets the illegal immigrant with no car insurance go.

          This is one of the problems that no one who wants cops to become immigration cops talks about – the bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens aren’t violent offenders, and therefore, every minute the cops spend on their new immigration cop jobs is a minute they can’t spend busting rapists, bank robbers, drug dealers, murderers, gang-bangers, drunk drivers, wife beaters and assorted human trash that we actually need protection from.

          I’m from St. Louis originally, and if it’s not the official Murder Capital of America, it’s right up there. The entire north side of the city is a shooting gallery. Now, who do you want the cops investing their time on – the people doing the shooting, or some guy with a bunch of landscaping equipment hanging off his old truck who they think might be an illegal immigrant?

          It’s not about being stupid or racist – it’s about acknowledging that, given the current spending on policing, they can only do so much, and going after nonviolent criminals may not be the best use of their (tax-funded) time.

          Now, if we want cops to be immigration cops, then fine, I suppose – we just have to figure out how to hire a LOT more cops and pay for it all. Your local sales and property taxes are going to go up. Are you OK with that?

          • 0 avatar
            whitworth

            That’s not how law enforcement works, you don’t cut people loose and let people walk for lesser crimes.

            Yes, a murder or rape charge is ALWAYS more serious than a DUI offense, does that mean we no longer enforce drunk driving laws and simply drop the charges?

            Is ANY department allowed to enforce immigration laws?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            The other problem with having local cops enforce immigration law is that then illegal immigrants won’t talk to the cops anymore. Suddenly real crimes just got a whole lot harder to solve.

            I think stepped-up immigration enforcement, as opposed to enforcement of other laws, is an absurd waste of money. But if we’re going to do it, it should be through a police force dedicated to that task (such as those operated by CBP and ICE). Making local police do it just makes life more crime-prone for everyone.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Yes, a murder or rape charge is ALWAYS more serious than a DUI offense, does that mean we no longer enforce drunk driving laws and simply drop the charges?”

            No, it means that if a cop is in the process of being “immigration cop” and gets a call for an attempted murder a mile away, he cuts the suspected illegal immigrant loose. That’s just common sense.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          That law wasn’t needed to make someone arrested for DUI identify themselves. The police could already do that.

          The whole point of the law, and the reason it was struck down, was to allow police to require people who had done nothing wrong to show ID. That’s unconstitutional.

        • 0 avatar
          Kyree S. Williams

          I didn’t say that. I was merely pointing out the issue inherent in laws like these. It’s really up to the police officer’s discretion. If you look and sound American, you’ll be fine. But they can’t exactly say that.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “If you look and sound American, you’ll be fine. But they can’t exactly say that.’

            So true.
            I just read that Mohammed Ali’s son was detained by border agents for 2 hours.

    • 0 avatar
      DenverMike

      Arizona stepped over the line, so the Feds had to step in. AZ cops were profiling, approaching and detaining anyone on the street, that happened to “look” like they could be illegal aliens.

    • 0 avatar
      kefkafloyd

      People fought and died to prevent “Papers, please” from happening here. They weren’t just targeting drivers, they were targeting random people on the street.

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        Funny, I just returned from living in Germany for 5 years. You can bet your ass you’d better have your “papers” on you when interacting with the Police….

  • avatar
    carguy

    This article as well as the previous and somewhat unique interpretation of the Audi Superbowl ad seem to say more about the state of Jack’s life than it does about the topics he is writing about.

    This is pity as Jack is a very talented writer.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      To the contrary. Were my writing related to my personal life and outlook, it would be stuff like

      “Knee Pain: America’s Biggest Problem”

      and

      “25-Year-Old Women: Do They Know We Exist Anymore?”

      • 0 avatar
        Land Ark

        “25-Year-Old Women: Do They Know We Exist Anymore?”

        A simple “no” would suffice there. However I guess you could flesh it out a bit by examining how exponentially more physically attractive they get while something as arbitrary as the nearness of my 40th birthday approaches.

        • 0 avatar
          Jack Baruth

          I think I’m getting somewhere with the 22-year-old manager at the local Little Caesar’s. She thinks my son is cute. She likes my old 911. She’s gorgeous. My wife is very annoyed with this. Keeps her on her toes.

          Other than that, I do seem to be vanishing from the perception of the newest generation. It’s a shame. They’re missing a real chance to hear first-hand accounts of the Eighties.

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff Waingrow

            Take it from me, Jack. You’ll be completely invisible to them in another ten years (unless you remind them of their father). And it only gets worse. The Caesar’s girl is charmed by your cute son and the 911. I wouldn’t show up there alone in the Accord.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            There are still a few Bank Tellers in their mid 20s who flirt with me a little too aggressively for my wife’s tastes. But at least one of them has seen me in my 1967 Mustang.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            My brother got slammed in the face by this when he bought his Harley. He was all proud of his new ride and a bunch of young women walked passed him like he was invisible. His comment was, “When did I become a harmless old man?”

            I see that now, I’m out with my older son and hot girls turn to check him out. I’m just blocking the view.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “25-Year-Old Women: Do They Know We Exist Anymore?”

        If they like a guy who knows his way around her nethers and can treat her like a lady, they sure should!

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          “He was all proud of his new ride and a bunch of young women walked passed him like he was invisible. His comment was, “When did I become a harmless old man?””

          Cause Harleys are only ridden by old men and women……

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      Actually, I thought the deconstruction of the Audi Super Bowl ad was brilliant.Part of the art of making a good ad is loading it with cultural cues that are so subtle that the targeted viewer is unaware of them. He or she would only notice them if they were missing.

      Of course, based on a now 37-year old terrible experience with one of their cars, I’m a confirmed Audi-hater. Just can’t help myself; sorry.

  • avatar
    buzzliteyear

    What? Police officers have become revenue collectors instead of enforcing laws in proportion to their negative impact on society?

    I’m shocked…SHOCKED!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

    This is nothing new and has very little to do with illegal immigration.

    20 years ago, my car was broken into and the stereo stolen. I called my local police. They said I could either come to the station to fill out a form or they’d mail it to me. The next day, I made an illegal U-turn at 8:00 a.m. on a Sunday in a deserted industrial park. A helpful local “server and protector” was there to cite me and add to the municipal coffers.

    10 years ago, during a budget crisis, the State of California decided to massively up traffic fines for even trivial non-dangerous offenses. Commit a car-pool lane violation in California and the MINIMUM fine is now $541.

    2 months ago (on MLK holiday), I was cited for ***jaywalking*** by a Honolulu PD officer. I disrupted traffic in no way and the nearest cars were at least an eight-mile away when I crossed the street. But he needed to pad his quota and the City/County of Honolulu needed some tax money ($130 in this case).

    Want to change this behavior? Elect politicians who will enact the appropriate incentive structure.

    Yes, illegal immigrants will fall into the “crimes not worth our time because we can’t collect money from them” category under the current regime. But blaming that on the immigrants is just nonsensical.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    Your uninsured motorist could just as easily be an American-born White, Black, Latino or Native American person who let his/her insurance lapse, either out of negligence or poverty. When I was in college, I had people come to class and loudly proclaim how glad they were that they didn’t get in any accidents on the way there, because they were “riding dirty.”

    It could also be an American-born repeat DUI offender who’s had his license suspended—and whose insurance is therefore invalid. I’ve seen that happen, too, lots of times. Nothing for it but to sue the person, not that you can necessarily collect on your judgment if that person doesn’t have any garnishable income or assets. And that doesn’t help your debilitating, lifelong injuries, either.

    I don’t know what the answer to this problem is, but getting rid of undocumented and unlicensed immigrants is only a small part of the battle.

    • 0 avatar
      carguy

      +1 Poverty is at the root of a lot of these issues. Nobody wants to not be uninsured – they just can’t afford it.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        “they just can’t afford it.”

        Many can, it’s just that liability insurance isn’t as cool as tattoos or as tempting as cigarettes and booze (this spans all races). A generalization, I know, but I’ve been around the environment enough to form a reasonably educated opinion.

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        Wow. Owning a car is expensive, and insurance is part of the expense. Want to own a car? Pony up for insurance.

        If it’s discovered a car owner is not insured, tow the car. If it’s not claimed in 60 days, auction it.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          It ain’t that simple, guys. Yes, there are irresponsible folks out there who will spend their insurance money on booze, or a fancy new phone, or whatever other irrelevant stuff you like to think of them spending money on.

          But far more often, it’s just a working stiff who can’t get back and forth to work without a car but isn’t paid enough to afford insurance for it. It’s a crappy situation.

          Now, if you want to make a dent in this problem, the solution is probably more mass transit. Yes, you’ll have to pay for it. But if more folks who shouldn’t be driving have other options, fewer of them won’t be driving around uninsured. That means the chances of having someone like wreck your car goes down, and it makes the remaining miscreants easier to deal with from a legal standpoint.

          Win-win.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            “…you like to think of them spending money on.”

            Correction:

            “…you see them spending money on.”

            I can see tattoos on peoples’ skin, I can see people smoking, and I can see them drinking out on their front porch couch. I’m intelligent enough to know the approximate costs of said items, as well as the cost of basic insurance in my state.

            It’s a calculated risk to prioritize immediate gratification: would you rather buy a few dime bags and a six pack or pay the insurance note, assuming that there is a low risk you will wreck, but a guarantee that you will feel good after cashing your check and getting drunk and high?

            Not saying that this is the majority of cases (same risk/reward analysis can be applied to people prioritizing food for their family over insurance), but there is a not-insignificant subset of the lower socio-economic class that functions this way. My wife’s uncle has stories for days about his coworkers at the sheetmetal stamping plant dodging medical bills and child support, while sporting full-sleeve tattoos. They’re more likely to settle a gambling debt where they know someone they’re personally acquainted with will come after them with physical violence (potentially) than something as unlikely as getting into an accident and not carrying insurance, or having some far away bill collector come after them.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            OK, so correct it to “we know some folks spend money on things they shouldn’t be, rather than car insurance.” No problem. And, yes, some people are financially irresponsible.

            My point still stands.

            For people with no money, getting to work is often a real problem. Car insurance is often unaffordable, but they can’t go without out a car; without that they can’t work. The solution is more public transit. The solution works whether the folks in question are either unable or unwilling to pay for car insurance. Would you rather see someone who’s a deadbeat on a bus, or behind the wheel of a car, where he can cause you financial loss (or worse) and then dodge bill collectors for it?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            More public transit won’t work without some changes in how we approach land use in much of America. The physical reality of much of America is that it is designed with the assumption that every citizen has a car — and that no accommodations at all should be made for those who are too poor, disabled, old, or young to drive. The root cause of that is land use, but it’s made exponentially worse by things like subdivisions with no pedestrian pass-throughs and roads with no place to cross and no or tiny sidewalks.

    • 0 avatar
      whitworth

      It stands to reason that someone that is driving on our roads illegally has a far greater likelihood of also not carrying the proper insurance for their motor vehicle.

      Most states (almost all) will not grant a driver’s license to someone here illegally, so it follows that same person is not going to also get auto insurance.

      This is not an assumption based on race, just logic.

      It’s the same with taxes, someone here working illegally is probably not going to file a valid tax return.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        True, but the taxes that they pay on the invalid SSN go to the same coffer that yours and mine do. There is that.

        • 0 avatar
          whitworth

          So now you’re conceding these same people are also involved in identity theft in addition to being here illegally.

          Also no big deal, right?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Of course some are.

            Stop with the accusatory tone, whitworth. Seriously. I understand this is a problem and I understand the dimensions of it. Believe me, as someone who’s worked in finance for 15 years, I understand the realities of identity theft quite well.

            But if we had a sane immigration policy this stuff wouldn’t be happening, would it?

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        Of course, what they cost (healthcare/incarceration/etc) is real easy to count, but where do we begin to add up all the “no account” estimated millions that are just here creating positive cash-flow for us, keep the wheels turning in many jobs so demeaning, dirty, back breaking, and or disgusting, many “positions” would go unfilled.

        Yeah we’d find a way to survive without them, re-adjust, etc. But the point is we willingly made a deal with the devil. *Surprisingly*, we want the “good” and not the bad.

        Further, if we don’t change our ways, (fix what’s broken) stop employing them, what’s the point of deporting 11 or whatever million, when just as many replacements will march over the border? Do employers really care if it’s “them” or their replacement cousins??

  • avatar
    threeer

    This entire article and thread is marginally (at best) related to cars. Shark has been jumped…

    Can we please…PLEASE…get back to automotive reviews, finding old clunkers in the junkyard, dissecting design elements and discussing the automotive industry???

    • 0 avatar
      silentsod

      There’s a review of the compact Jag just a few articles away. There are even news pieces on right on the front page! Get it through your head that the “No Fixed Abode” articles aren’t reviews or news and stop clicking on them if you dislike them so much.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    Illegal immigrants are ipso facto criminals because they are here illegally. They also depress wages and take jobs from unskilled Americans and legal immigrants. Illegals pay little or no taxes and yet are more likely than citizens to be on some form of welfare paid by citizens and legal immigrants. Illegals are also more likely to commit crimes such as identity theft, driving without a license and leaving the scene of an accident.

    But reporting these facts, or suggesting that immigration and traffic laws be enforced is racist or xenophobic or un-American. It is also a fact that Law Enforcement would rather pull over a middle-class citizen for going 70 in a 60 or talking on the phone while driving, than mess with an illegal, because the illegal won’t show up in court, won’t pay a fine, and if you arrest too many the Department of Justice (at least under Obama) will claim your law enforcement efforts are racist.

    Solution: Enforce current immigration laws to the maximum, but start by closing the borders and shipping back felons – particularly those guilty of identity theft. Prosecute anyone that hires an illegal. Shut down all social services for illegals. Set up a legal immigration system that is based on only letting in people that are going to be net contributors to society and the government coffers – i.e. people with marketable skills and cultural compatibility with US values.

    • 0 avatar
      Drzhivago138

      [Citation needed] on your whole first paragraph. And the second paragraph. Not because I necessarily think you’re wrong, but because it never hurts to back up assertions with verifiable facts.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Here you go:

        Illegal immigration costs to low skill Americans:
        http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=briggstestimonies
        http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/06/illegal_immigration_and_the_wage_gap.html

        Illegal costs to taxpayers:
        http://www.fairus.org/issues/publications/state-cost-studies

        Illegal crime rate – difficult to calculate because government doesn’t want the public to know the size of the problem:
        http://www.dailywire.com/news/10155/9-things-you-need-know-about-illegal-immigration-aaron-bandler

        DOJ going after “racist” cops:
        https://www.city-journal.org/html/statistical-evidence-not-required-14968.html

        Ferguson Effect:
        http://www.nationalreview.com/article/437548/ferguson-effect-real-heather-mac-donald-crime-stats-prove-it

        • 0 avatar
          Drzhivago138

          Here’s the part where I say thank you and mean it sincerely, and then also ask if besides the Cornell study, you’ve got anything not from a conservative think tank.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            Unfortunately, the liberal side doesn’t want to keep statistics on illegal immigration, because it gets in the way of their open-border narrative. I’d welcome a left-right debate based on statistical evidence, but the left’s arguments tend to be based almost entirely on emotions and name-calling. As Milton Friedman said: Immigration is incompatible with a welfare state, which is something the left doesn’t want to admit – see the videos from the man himself.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSgdSE

          • 0 avatar
            Drzhivago138

            I didn’t ask for sources from a liberal perspective, just for something besides a solidly conservative perspective. It’s not an either/or situation.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “It is also a fact that Law Enforcement would rather pull over a middle-class citizen for going 70 in a 60 or talking on the phone while driving, than mess with an illegal, because the illegal won’t show up in court, won’t pay a fine, and if you arrest too many the Department of Justice (at least under Obama) will claim your law enforcement efforts are racist.”

      Perhaps. But if I were a cop, I’d take the tack that every minute I spend dealing with some suspected illegal alien you pulled over while he was driving illegally to his crummy, menial job is a minute I couldn’t spend busting murderers, gang-bangers, rapists, wife-beaters, and a myriad of other far more present threats to public safety. How many folks are blowing through stoplights, driving drunk, or speeding while you’re busy dealing with some guy who you think might be an illegal immigrant?

      This isn’t about racism, or PC, or what-not – it’s about how citizens want the cops spending their finite time, bought with our finite tax dollars. Now, if you want to pay a lot more for your local police, perhaps that’d free up enough manpower to be regular cops AND immigration cops. But you have to be prepared to pay higher local taxes to do that. Are you OK with that?

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        Cops shouldn’t be pulling over illegal immigrants, because there shouldn’t be illegal immigrants – enforce the laws at the border, harbors, and airports. The preference for pulling over middle-class 70 in a 60 violators is also due to the fact that they are much less likely to shoot the cop, argue with the cop, and pay the fine without going to court – thus they are more profitable for law enforcement. As for paying cops more, well that would not be an issue if cop pensions weren’t crazy expensive, and if more cops were on the beat instead of pushing paper or retired at age 50.

        http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dallas-police-and-fire-pension-plan-saga-is-a-cautionary-tale-for-others-2017-01-25

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Far as I’m concerned, cops, firefighters and teachers are true public servants and I don’t begrudge any of them so much as a penny of their well deserved pensions…and that goes double for cops and firefighters.

          What I’m seeing here is silly, diffused anger…first it’s being angry about illegal immigrants, then it’s being angry about cops making too much in pension…

          Unfortunately, that’s where this issue inevitably leads – lots of heat, no solutions.

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            We know what solutions would work – enforcement of labor and employment laws for example. We don’t elect people who will push for this… in fact, we now elect people who demand it not be done. See sanctuary cities.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            The whole “sanctuary city” business has as much to do with cities’ inability to fund enough cops to do double duty as “regular” cops and “immigration cops” as it does with a particular political stance. Many cities simply leave this to the feds because they don’t have the manpower to deal with it themselves.

            Take Chicago, for example. With everything that’s going on there, would it be wise to tell the city’s police force, which clearly has its’ hands more than full, to divert one iota of energy to rousing suspected illegal immigrants?

            That’s a great idea…if you want the already ridiculous murder rate to go up.

            Again, in theory I have no problem with cops doing double duty. Just tell me where the money’s coming from to make it happen.

        • 0 avatar
          Arthur Dailey

          At least in Toronto it has been proven by numerous studies that you are more likely to be pulled over if you are a member of a visible minority.

          https://ccla.org/a-recent-history-of-racial-profiling-and-policing/

          https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2015/07/15/lets-face-it-toronto-police-have-a-racism-problem.html

          http://news.nationalpost.com/toronto/toronto-police-services-deny-ontario-human-rights-commissions-request-to-attend-disciplinary-tribunal

          http://www.torontoforall.ca/systemic-racism-by-the-numbers

  • avatar
    tylanner

    The inability or unwillingness of traffic enforcement officers to issue warnings and citations for minor moving traffic offenses (other than speeding) eventually leads to wildly undisciplined drivers who base their traffic decisions on their own perception of their personal safety and the “will I fit?” test. You can’t ignore the profit margins here…parking/towing/speeding/red light cameras are nothing more than money making machines….if traffic and public safety was valued we’d see a lot more enforcement…. at least on par with the drivers license road exams…

    Bad driving simply isn’t punished in this system…Mindless incompetence or willful disregard of basic etiquette is rampant…

  • avatar
    dangit56

    This site has its ups and downs, today has to be a big UP.

    Were that I could write with Jack’s clarity and wit, though perhaps with a little less “humble-brag”, but this a great thread to peruse, and has made my day better. Thanks all.

    Speaking of wit, is there anyone else who thinks CoreyDL’s one-liners are hilarious? More Corey!

  • avatar
    slap

    Neighbor was on his motorcycle, waiting to turn left into our neighborhood. He was rear ended by an uninsured motorist. Parts of his limbs are now more metal than bone, but couldn’t get a cent out of the driver to pay his extensive medical bills.

  • avatar
    jkross22

    To Jack’s point, drivers are just ATM’s with legs to many police departments/politicians/government. Easier said than done, but it’s ultimately a lot less hassle and cost to not break traffic laws if possible and when you do, fight the tickets.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Uninsured motorists — regardless of national origin or ethnicity — are a big problem. Which is why you buy “uninsured motorists” coverage. There’s an obvious disconnect between Jack, who lives in “flyover country” and a seeming majority of the posters who appear to be either “coasties” or Canadians (love you guys, really!).

    Maybe some of the difference in attitudes can be explained by the differing personal incidence of the benefits and burdens of illegal immigration. If you’re a “coastie” most of the personal incidence of illegal immigration is good: cheap yard crews, house cleaners, baby sitters, pool guys, construction workers. Or, there’s no personal incidence at all, and the discussion gives you a chance to “virtue signal” that you’re an enlightened, generous person. Hooray.

    However, if the personal incidence of illegal immigration is negative: you were a victim of an illegal immigrant’s crime or traffic violation (not that legal immigrants and citizens don’t also commit crimes), your kid’s public school system is a Babel of different languages and you can’t afford to send your kid to a private school, your public services — especially medical services — are overwhelmed by a large immigrant population, then your attitude is different.

    But Jack’s piece also highlights a perverse system of incentives. If you’re in that segment of the population (legal or otherwise) who is allowed to “get away with s**t” what happens when you transition into the “respectable” part of the population who can’t “get away with s***t”? All of a sudden, you can’t do the things you used to be able to do freely. Does this encourage people to remain in the group that gets by living on the edge? There’s a sense that it does; and there’s a sense that “living on the edge” isn’t as miserable as it sometimes is made out to be, especially if you abandon what are derisively called “middle class values.”

    Looping back to automobiles, there is certainly a frustration with a repeat drunk driver, or an unlicensed driver, or a campesino from Central America who not only shouldn’t be here and lacks a license, but really has only a vague idea of how to safely operate a vehicle at 65 mph who eventually injures or kills someone and the rest of us who sweat getting a citation from a speed or red light camera based on a photoshopped image (my experience in DC) or an incorrect speed limit (also my experience in DC).

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “Uninsured motorists — regardless of national origin or ethnicity — are a big problem.”

      I agree that is a big problem.

      I do not like the fact that there are those that lump illegal immigration in with uninsured motorists or criminality. They are separate issues with their own enforcement problems.
      There is overlap but if one wants to talk about illegals then lets talk about illegals……… oh, sorry, forgot, this is a car site so one must weave that one in under the guise of automobiles.

      “Does this encourage people to remain in the group that gets by living on the edge?”

      That is a great question and has to do with paradigms.
      If all of your life is spent in a demographic “that is living on the edge”, you don’t know of any other way to live. Many join gangs or terror groups for the same reason. They seek structure and a sense of belonging. It is often seen as the only way to bring oneself out of the situation one finds themselves in. If you see drug dealers as the ones at the high end of your social structure, then you will tend to want to go in that direction.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        “oh, sorry, forgot, this is a car site so one must weave that one in under the guise of automobiles.”

        Nods.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Lou,
        There is a simple way to ensure all are insured on the road.

        Remove the current insurance model and add a dollar or two per gallon of gas as an “insurance” levy to insure, licence, etc all road users. EVs hybrids will require a different system. You could add the cost of insurance to the purchase price on purchase.

        This levy could also cover road infrastructure cost and should be levied against the national average FE. So as FE improves the levy increases to cover costs.

  • avatar
    dal20402

    Jack, I’m sorry, but this is just ridiculous bullsh!t, and is the worst thing I can remember you writing since I’ve been following your stuff.

    You’re wrong about cell phone drivers at lights (who love to start moving without looking up, and are by far the most frequent hazard I face while legally in crosswalks).

    You’re wrong about differential law enforcement. Immigrants (and native-born people of color) have more interactions with law enforcement, not fewer.

    You’re wrong about the trend with respect to unlicensed drivers. The numbers are way too high, but they’re not “soaring” or changing much at all.

    You’re conflating a law in the UK, a place with a considerably more strict culture of rules adherence, with trends in the US that are in your head as far as I can tell.

    What was the purpose of this piece other than to spew bile at immigrants? I honestly can’t figure it out. You can do way better.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      “What was the purpose of this piece?”

      230 comments as of 11:30 MST? Page traffic may be good too. I keep clicking just to keep track of the soap opera drama unfolding in the comments section.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      Dal20242 – I’m sorry but your criticisms of Jack’s piece are all not backed by statistics:

      Crime and Policing:
      http://www.dailywire.com/news/7347/7-statistics-show-systemic-racism-doesnt-exist-aaron-bandler

      Phone use and accidents is not clear cut – everyone does it but fatality rates have been dropping:
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4001674/

      “spew bile at immigrants?” – nice try, but I think Jack was referring to only illegal immigrants – you know the ones that aren’t supposed to be in the country.

      • 0 avatar
        gtemnykh

        ““spew bile at immigrants?” – nice try, but I think Jack was referring to only illegal immigrants – you know the ones that aren’t supposed to be in the country.”

        I’ve noticed this trend from certain media outlets and various organizations that have energized with Trump’s election:

        The conflation of policies related to constricting/hampering illegal immigration, with a supposed attack on “immigrants” in general. Both downplaying the ILLEGAL aspect (calling people ‘undocumented’ immigrants is similar), and trying to coalesce support from legal immigrants by confusing/scare-mongering that the current administration is against all non-native born people. A rather clever trick, but one that falls flat on its face with this legal first-generation immigrant that went through the full process to gain permanent residence and then citizenship.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          “Papers please” laws like those in Arizona and Alabama, and like this administration would clearly like to have nationally if it weren’t for that pesky Fourth Amendment, arguably have worse effects on legal immigrants than illegal ones, if the legal immigrants happen to be brown.

          The driver is not so much conflation of illegal and legal immigrants as conflation of illegal immigrants and all people who are brown and/or speak Spanish.

          I work with a lawyer who is a second-generation Mexican immigrant. He is a U.S. citizen. His English is good enough to allow him to practice law in English (i.e., flawless), but is lightly accented. There is not the slightest thing suspicious about him. But he still regularly gets hostile questions and looks, including from the police.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            We had an interesting run-in with Border Patrol up near Fair Haven NY (Lake Ontario). We were taking a back road that gets you to a decent free beach without paying the park entrance fee, and saw a Border Patrol Tahoe sitting right there. To go our of our way and not be suspicious, my dad drove right up and asked the guy if it was okay to come through. As soon as he heard my dad’s heavy Russian accent, he got very suspicious and pretty unpleasant to deal with (asking where we’er from, etc(. My dad, who’s not the most diplomatic person in the world and comes across as a bit gruff gave the guy a bit of lip. Things were diffused when I told the agent we were all US citizens and he lost all interest.

            So I guess it’s possible for non-Brown people to get hassled too, albeit nowhere as commonly if I had to guess.

          • 0 avatar
            Jack Baruth

            “There is not the slightest thing suspicious about him. But he still regularly gets hostile questions and looks, including from the police.”

            Imagine a world where we had effective control of the southern border and most “brown people” were here legally.

            Your co-worker would benefit from that.

            The South American BMX riders I used to train hated Mexicans more than any redneck or “Trump-ian” out there. They’d spend $10,000 in US currency to come here and ride for six months on a visa — which was equivalent to $100k in Bolivia or Colombia, more money than most people see in a lifetime — and then they’d have to deal with cops, sullen sales people, and suspicious anti-shoplifting personnel in stores.

            “It is so funny,” they’d say, “that you Americans confuse us with the cholos, there is no similarity, how can you not see that? Those people are trash.”

          • 0 avatar
            jkross22

            Dal,

            Papers please laws? You mean like not getting on a plane without papers, cashing a check at a bank, buying Sudafed at Target, entering a courthouse, buying a car, opening a bank account and probably a number of other instances where identification is required?

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            You do not have to present ID to board a plane or enter a courthouse, although you will be subject to extra questioning if you don’t.

            Your other examples are private businesses, not government.

            The Supreme Court says that requiring people to present ID without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment. A district court immediately enjoined part of Arizona’s law based on that holding, and the Supreme Court subsequently struck that part of the law down.

          • 0 avatar
            silentsod

            You 100% need ID to get onto a plane, and you should know that if you’ve ever been through airport security theater. There is no reasonable suspicion that I am up to no good at the airport but I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t make a flight without an ID.

            I have to show an ID for different medicines (even off the shelf stuff) and it’s not because the private businesses and pharmacies don’t want my business, but because the .gov has decided it is worth imposing themselves on everyone for purchasing cold or sinus medication in some sisyphean fight against kids abusing drugs one inconvenience for people who want symptom relief at a time.

          • 0 avatar
            dal20402

            No, you don’t need ID to get on a plane. You can refuse to show it, and you will be taken to a room for extra questioning. Up to you to allow enough time for that questioning, but the TSA process would have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago without that option.

            You don’t have a constitutional right to buy medication.

    • 0 avatar
      Jack Baruth

      “You’re wrong about differential law enforcement. Immigrants (and native-born people of color) have more interactions with law enforcement, not fewer.”

      Is that before or after you adjust for their actual percentage of arrest and conviction?

      We both know it’s before.

      • 0 avatar
        dal20402

        That just opens up another whole can of worms about differential arrest and conviction rates.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          The whole damn illegal immigration “debate” is a can of worms. Lots of anger, lots of BS…but very few people actually willing to talk about what to do about it and how to pay for it. They’d rather be angry, and snarky, and toss anti-liberal / anti-conservative epithets at each other to prove how angry and snarky they are.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Jack as are most Americans you are confusing race with ‘class’.
        Racism has been used for centuries in the USA to keep the working class from identifying their true oppressors.

        ‘It’s not the white politician who negotiated free trade or the white executive who outsourced/offshored your job who is to blame. It is that darn dark skinned kid who is working for cash. He is keeping you down.’

        Europeans who have been schooled in the ‘class’ system can instantly identify this.

        As for blaming immigrants for your problems, you might as well be blaming ‘The Okies’. Time to re-read yourself some Steinbeck.

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          ‘It’s not the white politician who negotiated free trade or the white executive who outsourced/offshored your job who is to blame. It is that darn dark skinned kid who is working for cash. He is keeping you down.’

          I made this exact same point to Jack last week and it appeared to bounce right off the outside of his ears, but I’m glad you’re trying again.

  • avatar
    don1967

    Can we just agree that cell phone laws are, at best, an unnecessary duplication of existing “driving with due care and attention” laws?

    At worst they give the police additional powers of harassment that nobody ever asked for.

    • 0 avatar
      RobbieAZ

      I can’t agree to that. I’m generally not in favor of more laws, but something has to be done about idiots paying more attention to their phones than they do to their driving.

  • avatar
    Boxerman

    Whether its illegals, white trash, poverty etc the point still remains that the “system” is motivated to collect revenue and maintan a crop of domestic cattle to collect it from.

    If you really want to stop unlicensed drivers there have to be severe consequences, ads apprently happens in the Uk with texting.
    Or say here with DUI.

    Seems the larger poiunt was DUI is an indsutry from which vast sums can be collected, whereas unlicensed drivers maybe comit more harm but there is no income stream so there is no real enforcement.

    going firtehr in out future hippy dippy everybodies a good “monitored” citizen(if you have done nothing wrong nothing to hide) robo cars it will be that much easier to cleect for every minor infraction.

    A place where everyone follows the rules has no need for extensive gov oversight. in relaity the solution from gov is to make enough rules that no good citizen can follow them all the time, that way revenue can be enhanced or retained.

    A simple example is shorter yellows for red light cameras so you can keep catching people who dont necessarily blow red lights, a bigger example is the tax code which even the IRS no longer knows whats in it.

    All you need is a ksotly comp0liant population, workign their asses off to keep up on payments, afraid that if they dont pay a fine and run like good little hamsters at work they will loose it all. True if youre outside the system it may be worse, hence the hamsters running faster.

    i think the piece points to the hypocracy of the whole system, which most of you serve so well by being goods citizens afraid to fall off the wheel. The only wnay to avoid being harvested is to either be part of the system, ie a gov worker or an outlaw, and being an outlaw is fraught with peril.

    No people wont rise up, because the system offers enough treats(video games, vacations, cheap flights and illusion of maybe making it) to keep the hamseters running, dosent mean its not inquitious.

    What you dont see is what you culd have if the sysetem was not incessantly feeding off you, and you dont see how much worse the future data driven and monitoring system will feed off you.

    Just remember a good parasite does not kill its host. What percentage of what the system feeds off you delivers actual needed services and percentage is parasitical to your and our collective economic weell being.

    If Gov was run efficiently and on a budget like a corp, do you think they could deliver more on say 50%?

    Whats the cost for a space x rocket launch compared to nasa?

    Point of the piece to me is that gov ignore safety if there is no money to be made from it, and creates more rules where there is money to be made. In the future car tech will make this even easier.

    Of course with robo cars gov speeding and insurance scams are going to loose out, what will they do what will they do, to replace that revenue stream.

  • avatar
    bullnuke

    Geez, I should be an orthopedic surgeon and offer my services to many of the members of the B&B today. For a fee, of course. As a specialist in the field of “jerked-knee”. And also maybe an optometrist to check the eyes of the B&B for the ability to clearly read the written word. Also for a fee. Also a “reading comprehension” instructor. Again for a fee. This is not a populist or nativist screed, not at all. It points out that our various government agencies pass laws based on current popular outrages (iPhoning while driving) and anything remotely connected to ETOH (alcohol). The various government agencies place enforcement efforts toward easy to catch violations of the current public outrages and, as always on slow days, speed limits. Our various government agencies work to place law-abiding or mostly law-abiding citizens into the “system” where these folks may be drained of their funds to fill various connected rice bowls pretty much at will for months/years by attorneys, governments, insurance companies, the government-rehabilitation complex. It is very easy to police the law-abiding / mostly law-abiding citizenry – they have the most to lose and the most to fear. These same government agencies ignore many of the law-breaking / mostly law breaking citizenry/non-citizenry as there is no profit to be made from them at the levels from the law-abiding / mostly law-abiding. Social service agencies have already been funded from elsewhere for these folks. These folks mostly have nothing to lose and no fear of consequences which never really land on ’em. These folks are consequently not a high priority. As for tarnishing the illegal immigrants, nothing Jack said was untrue and to selectively pick out illegals from the article is nuts; illegals are not the point being made. I lived closely with the illegal alien community personally for more that 30 years in San Diego, Albuquerque, and St. Louis. My ex-wife’s family members (7 of 9 brothers and sisters) were/are in this country illegally and several of them fit the “profile” in Jack’s article. These former in-laws of mine don’t deserve to be denigrated but, by the same token, they don’t deserve praise or accolades. They are lawbreakers and they know it and they don’t care – part of the law-breaking / mostly law-breaking cohort.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      How did someone with such common-sense slip into the discussion?

    • 0 avatar

      Plus, let’s not forget the real reason the issue hasn’t been dealt with yet: no one has wanted to tick off a potentially consequential voting block that has emerged in several key states.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “No consequences” for illegal immigrants?

      That’s nonsense. Of course there are consequences. We kick hundreds of thousands of them out every year. Families get broken up. I’d say that’s consequential.

      You’re confusing “no consequences” with “insufficient resources to deal with a problem of this magnitude, and therefore, the overwhelming majority of offenders can’t possibly be dealt with.”

      • 0 avatar
        bullnuke

        FreedMike – True. Three of my former brother-in-laws suffered the consequences and were deported – one was deported six times; the other two 2 to 3 times. None was below the line more that 10 days before “re-importing” themselves into San Diego County. They each used the easy-to-traverse “soccer field route” back north to the San Francisco area.

      • 0 avatar
        stingray65

        FreedMike “No consequences” for illegal immigrants?
        That’s nonsense. Of course there are consequences. We kick hundreds of thousands of them out every year. Families get broken up. I’d say that’s consequential.”

        If they hadn’t broken the law there would be no negative consequences because they would either be back home or they would be in the US legally. The US lets in about 1 million LEGAL immigrants every year (more than any other country on earth), and very few people have any problems with these people because they went through the legal process.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          …none of which disproves my point.

          These folks break the law. The consequences are simple: they get kicked out of the country. That’s a consequence, is it not?

          Therefore, the problem isn’t “no consequences”; it’s “insufficient resources to ensure that the consequences aren’t meted out to every lawbreaker.”

          Thanks for proving my point.

          Now, if you’d like to see more “consequences,” then your task is simple: figure out how much it will cost. Are you willing to pay more in taxes to make that happen?

      • 0 avatar
        jkross22

        I’m not sure what you mean when you say families get broken up. What prevented the other family members from returning to the country of origin with their family members being deported? Did ICE agents prevent relatives from leaving?

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          Often, the family members are US citizens who could not legally emigrate to the country to which their relatives would be deported.

          There’s also a smaller subset of immigrants who were brought here as young children who are stateless.

          • 0 avatar
            stingray65

            daly20402 – “Often, the family members are US citizens who could not legally emigrate to the country to which their relatives would be deported.”

            Interesting how it is only the US and Europe that are expected to let in anyone and everyone from the developing world and give them all the rights of a citizen. Try crossing the border illegally into Mexico or Honduras and see how hospitable they are. Try applying for legal immigration to Japan and see how easy it is. The US and Europe are not responsible for the failed states and cultures of much of the rest of the world, and letting in the best and brightest from the world’s hellholes might help us, but doesn’t help the hundreds of millions that remain in those hellholes.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Try crossing the border illegally into Mexico or Honduras and see how hospitable they are.”

            In this country, everyone’s entitled to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Reference: Zadvydas v. Davis (2001). Mexico and Honduras have their laws. We have ours. One might make an observation that in general, the United States is far more successful and stable than either Mexico or Honduras, and one might safely assume that our insistence on things like due process is one major reason why. But I’m a dumb liberal. What would I know about this?

            Therefore, in that spirit, I’d suggest you take up your beef with the governments of Mexico and Honduras.

            Otherwise, try sticking to the current conversation before erecting more straw men.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @FreedMike – agreed. Laws and or human rights apply to everyone equally when one is in a just society. You can’t have separate sets of laws.

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Here are the traffic fatality statistics for the OPP’s jurisdictional area in 2014:

    Deaths in collisions where alcohol or drugs were a factor decreased from 52 in 2014 to 45 in 2015; distracted driving caused 69 deaths in 2015, down from 82 deaths in 2014; speed was a factor in 61 deaths last year, compared to 64 in 2014; and not wearing a seat-belt caused the death of 51 people in 2015, down from 53 in 2014.

    Additional causes of fatal motor vehicle collisions last year included five deaths due to animal-related collisions, up from two in 2014; fail to share/yield deaths went down last year to 60 from 61 in 2014 and pedestrian fatalities went up to 15 in 2015 from 12 in 2014.

    If you wish, you can read the full reports going back nearly a decade:
    http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/ontario-road-safety-annual-report.shtml

  • avatar

    Jack’s core point is that those playing within the rules are going to take it on the chin more and more while both the state and the criminal element, respectively, will be some of the last subsets of truly free people in the United States. His point is being proven even now.

    That so many jump into absolutely apoplectic stances at the mere mention of folks who are actively breaking the law simply by their mere presence does not instantly discount his points; rather it proves them. The mindset is there to enable the abuse of the law-abiding middle class, and it’s being demonstrated, actively, by many of you posting.

    Yes, he’s not touching on all facets of the issue–he can’t in a blog post. His broader point stands: the guy playing by the rules is a member of the loser class. And any time said guy points to others and asks why they think they shouldn’t have to play by the same rules, the holy defenders of the state will be there to tell him why he’s wrong for even posing the question.

    The burden should not be on Jack, who has raised an irrefutable fact–that there are two groups operating outside the law–to come up with some kind of all-encompassing phone book of a post to elaborate and explain every last facet of this issue. The burden is on him, having identified a valid issue, to simply explain why that frustrates him, not to undo the Pavlovian conditioning exhibited by those who equate every person expressing said concerns with the Alt Right or the Third Reich or Ted Cruz.

    I love immigrants. I hate our immigration system. Being here illegally doesn’t instantly mean you’re scum–most folks are just desperate–but we can’t pretend the issue can be swept under the rug because there’s “worse problems” out there. Unless we’re going to argue all other issues facing our nation are not worth wasting energy on as long as we aren’t dealing with whatever we think issue #1 is.

    Good job, Internet.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Point taken, but take a second and read this paragraph.

      “Having said all that, here’s what I propose – first, let’s talk about what to do to make insurance more affordable. And then, let’s talk about this: transportation back and forth to work for poor people (and that includes illegal immigrants) is a real problem. Often their only option is a car due to insufficient public transit, but they can’t afford the insurance on the car. This is a real problem for them and everyone else on the road. Wouldn’t more public transit for these folks be a good idea? What do you all think?”

      See, I’m not even half as smart as Jack believes himself to be, and I wrote that in three minutes and twenty-six seconds flat. And that’d have been a good jumping off point for a real discussion.

      Instead, he wrote snark. Jack’s smart enough to know that throw out snark, you get it back. It’s like tossing food at someone and yelling “food fight!” What happens next? Food gets tossed back at you.

      That’s exactly what happened. And I don’t think that was accidental.

    • 0 avatar

      I get your point, though I didn’t see the actual exchange in question. What I would ask you to consider is that the guy’s being beaten-up over what’s essentially a known fact. People are in here splitting hairs with him and using that to argue against a core point he’s essentially correct about: things are unfair and even sometimes lethal for law-abiding folks, because our corrupt state has only paid lip-service to a a great law enforcement issue for years, while going after low-hanging revenue. I’d have less patience, too, if I were in his shoes. It’s absurd.

      A question I’d have for you as a Starfleet Officer, to your point regarding light rail, is: Why? Why should it be on you and I as taxpayer, burdened with working within the system, to swallow yet more cost associated with illegal immigration? What about the folks who are waiting for admission and working through our byzantine and broken system in a legal capacity–how would they feel if they knew a concern of ours was making greater accommodations to those who cut in line in front of them?

      I know the pragmatic reasons why we’d do it; I can pretty much guess what you’ll tell me, so it’s more of a rhetorical question. And you wouldn’t be incorrect. Rather, I recognize the philosophical and moral issues in play, and that’s why I don’t fault anyone expressing frustration with the system, nor do I excuse people launching into Jack when he’s legitimately frustrated, for legitimate reasons.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “A question I’d have for you as a Starfleet Officer, to your point regarding light rail, is: Why? Why should it be on you and I as taxpayer, burdened with working within the system, to swallow yet more cost associated with illegal immigration? What about the folks who are waiting for admission and working through our byzantine and broken system in a legal capacity–how would they feel if they knew a concern of ours was making greater accommodations to those who cut in line in front of them?”

        Good question, to which I, as a Starfleet Officer would answer: following the law is its’ own reward for those who do it.

        Seriously, to “get rid” of all the illegal folks, you’re talking about evicting tens of millions of people in a country with the Fourteenth Amendment, where illegal aliens are covered by due process – that’s settled law. That gives you two options if you want to get rid of them: 1) ignore your laws and start acting like the Gestapo, or 2) put them all through our legal process. The second option is how we’ve approached it. And it’s failed, because there’s no possible way to process tens of millions of people through our legal system. It’s tilting at windmills.

        That’s why the third option – “legalizing” as many of them as possible – is the only one that really works.

        Now, if I were someone who wanted to become an American, would that make me mad? Possibly. But as a Starfleet Officer, I’d also appreciate the alternative would be something that would give me second thoughts about becoming a citizen of this country in the first place. In the end, the respect for our institutions, even for criminals, speaks to our decency and humanity. Make it so!

    • 0 avatar
      Whittaker

      Excellent MazdaThreeve. Just excellent.
      bullnuke also had a topnotch comment.

      This tendency of some of the B&B to see everything through an extreme partisan lens has coarsened the comment section.
      Jack’s writing is very good. It challenges us to examine our beliefs, fears and aspirations. That is fine writing, worthy of thoughtful responses. Everything doesn’t have to be a partisan battle.

      Instead, many comments are “fight or flee” responses.
      “Fire Jack”
      “I’m leaving”
      “Fascist!”

      Read the damn article twice if necessary. Understand the point being made before going off. Get a grip.
      The election was in November.
      December’s whining was understandable. January’s was irritating. February’s was pathetic.

      “I am going to try to pay attention to the spring.
      I am going to look around at all the flowers, and look up at the hectic trees.
      I am going to close my eyes and listen.”
      ___Anne Lamott

  • avatar

    Bob Dylan sang, “To live outside the law you must be honest,” but crime and sin have a tendency to drag one into other less than nobel behaviors. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that people who are going to break the law in one area may be predisposed to break the law in other areas.

    There’s a term that I learned from James Craig, Detroit’s Chief of Police: Ghetto Getter. It refers to a completely illegal car that never leaves the city limits of Detroit. No registration, stolen plates, no insurance.

    Craig wears a uniform and drives a cruiser. A reporter from one of the Detroit papers was doing a ride-along with him when he pulled over a car that fit the above description. He asked the driver if he’d drive a car like that in the suburbs and the guy said, “Hell no, they’ll confiscate it if I get pulled over.”

  • avatar
    carlisimo

    “— and some major percentage of those people are illegal/undocumented/dreamer/beings-of-light/Daryl-Hannah-replicant immigrants. There’s a fellow out there who is trying to track that, because his son was run over twice by an unlicensed driver who was also not a citizen.”

    That second sentence is the sort of thing that leads to harassment of legal immigrants. There are about as many legal-but-not-yet-naturalized immigrants as there are illegal immigrants here (11-12 million each, and about 20 million naturalized citizens). It takes 10-20 years to obtain citizenship.

    We have a lot of illegal immigrant drivers around here and they drive me nuts because they tend to drive exactly at the speed limit. I suppose I don’t notice the more reckless onces because they drive like everybody else.

    But that’s why there are movements to let illegal immigrants get drivers’ licenses – it makes life easier for the rest of us when we get into accidents with them. It means they’ve passed the DMV’s tests and (sometimes) have insurance. No, passing the license exams doesn’t make you a good driver, but we’re talking about a low bar vs. no bar…

  • avatar
    zamoti

    I used to come here to read interesting insights about the auto industry, reviews, and opinion pieces relevant to the previous three topics. Articles like this don’t fit and while I used to like reading Jack’s pieces I think I’ll skip them from now on.

  • avatar
    pbx

    Maybe the whole illegal immigration story is overstated. Some figures:

    1 There were 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2014, a total unchanged from 2009 and accounting for 3.5% of the nation’s population.

    2 The U.S. civilian workforce included 8 million unauthorized immigrants in 2014, accounting for 5% of those who were working or were unemployed and looking for work

    3 Mexicans made up 52% of all unauthorized immigrants in 2014, though their numbers had been declining in recent years. There were 5.8 million Mexican unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. that year, down from 6.4 million in 2009

    4 Six states accounted for 59% of unauthorized immigrants in 2014: California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois

    The above was courtesy of pewresearch dot org

  • avatar
    Arthur Dailey

    Part of Jack’s screed appears to combine his libertarian mistrust of ‘big government’ including police services and the problems created by the ‘militarization’ of police services in the USA.

    Contrast this with the historical approaches to policing in the UK and Canada. Are these related to how firearms are viewed in each society? Below is a ‘cut and paste’ regarding how the the group of Indigenous people were treated when they came to Canada after defeating the US Cavalry at the Little Bighorn.(Sorry for the length of the posting.)

    ‘ Following the Battle of the Little Bighorn in Montana, a number of Sioux fled into Canada. In Saskatchewan, North-West Mounted Police (NWMP) Superintendent James Walsh visited the Sioux refugees at Wood Mountain. He estimated that the group had 2,900 people (500 men, 1,000 women, and 1,400 children), along with about 3,500 horses and 30 U.S. government mules.

    In 1877, Four Horns, a civil and spiritual chief, led his Sioux band of 57 lodges across the border from the United States seeking refuge in Canada. Traveling with them was a band of Yanktonai under Medicine Bear from the Fort Peck Agency in Montana. James Walsh met with them and explained the conditions under which they might remain in Canada.

    That same year, Sioux leader Sitting Bull brought 135 lodges of his people north from the United States to find refuge in Canada. Travelling with Sitting Bull was a small band of Sans Arc Sioux under Spotted Eagle and Minneconjou Sioux under Swift Bird.

    Sitting Bull agreed to the terms offered by Major James Walsh Major Walsh genuinely felt that the Sioux had been badly treated by the United States.

    The American government sent General Terry to negotiate with Sitting Bull, who refused to talk to him at a colourful conference attended by a group of nervous American newspaper men. Who wouldn’t be nervous watching a handful of Mounties guard 4,000 armed Indians?

    The explosive situation continued for four years. On one occasion Sitting Bull pulled a knife on Major Walsh, who grabbed him by the shoulders and the seat of his pants and threw him out of the tent.’

    Yes that is correct a total of approximately 300 officers and men of the NWMP patrolled the entire Canadian Plains and kept the peace.

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      I’m afraid I don’t understand your point about Indians in 1876. You do realize that they went and desired to stay in Canada because they knew they would be wiped out by the very angry US Cavalry? The NWMP were/are armed with guns, if you are implying only US police/military use guns? And contrary to revisionist Westerns such as “Dances with Wolves”, the various Indian tribes were frequently at war with each other to gain territory. The Sioux tribe originated in Northern Minnesota/Wisconsin/Canada but were pushed out by tribes that got guns, and the Sioux in turn pushed out the agricultural tribes that originally inhabited the Dakotas. If you are inferring that White Canadians of the plains are more peaceful than White Americans of the plains, I suspect you have watched too many US Westerns on TV from the 1950s-60s, because the reality was there were very few gunfights in the old west, especially the plains that were settled almost entirely by Northern Europeans. Most of the settlers and the relatively few lawmen were also not very good shots because bullets were too expensive to practice with. As far as I know, Canadians haven’t done much better than Americans in integrating the Indian (native American) populations into society.

      Any comparison of immigration issues of the 19th Century are irrelevant to the issues Jack brought up, because there was no welfare state in the 19th century (except for the Bureau of Indian Affairs administration of Indian Reservations). Thus European immigrants either had to earn a living or starve, which was not usually a problem because there were lots of low skilled jobs available on farms and factories of the day. Today’s Canada with its welfare state has a much less open door immigration policy than the US, as the vast majority need to bring substantial assets to buy themselves into Canada (and hence not be a burden to Canadian taxpayers), which is a system the US should also adopt.

      • 0 avatar
        Arthur Dailey

        Stingray: Two points. Canada over the past decade has accepted between 145,000 and 175,000 refugees per year. The USA around 75,000. Despite the population of the USA being 10x that of Canada.

        Yet Canada still has a much lower murder and crime rate.

        The NWMP rarely resorted to the use of firearms in enforcing the law. The only violent uprsing of record in the Canadian West involved the Metis.

        In comparison the United States, despite acquiring less territory, engaged in a number of ‘Indian Wars’ and used their military to police their western territories.

        This record may reflect the differences in attitudes towards firearms in both nations.

  • avatar
    heycarp

    What defines a country ? Any country ? At any time in history ?
    I’m thinkin 1- language 2- customs 3 – borders Any others ?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @heycarp –
      1- language – no.Many countries have multiple languages.

      2- customs – yes but more importantly how a culture integrates customs.

      3 – borders – at least on a map.

      “Any others ?”
      The consistent application of law that ensures a free and just society with respect for differences in belief.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      “What defines a country?”

      Whatever its law says defines it.

      In the US today, that’s two things: 1) borders — specifically, the borders of the 50 states and our various non-state territories, and 2) a system of government that follows and has its authority defined by the Constitution. We don’t have an official language defined by law and we are very resistant to putting most of our customs in law.

  • avatar
    Big Al From 'Murica

    What would Bertel Schmitt say about all this?

  • avatar
    Paragon

    Let me point out that while I live and work in the Columbus, Ohio area, that I don’t personally know Jack and have never met him. I do have a personal anecdote to share. Within the past 10 years, a co-worker was involved in a minor accident with a brown person. It was the other persons fault, but they took off before the cops showed up. Just pointing out that this is rather far from the border, but is still somewhat of an issue even here in The Buckeye State. The Latino population isn’t as large as in the border states, but people here are aware of the areas of town in which they live. Not going to make any assumptions as to how many are here legally or illegally.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “I don’t personally know Jack and have never met him.”

      But you’ve seen the wanted posters, right?

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @Paragon – any proof indicating that the fellow who caused that accident was an illegal alien?
      Hit and runs aren’t the exclusive domain of illegals.

      • 0 avatar
        Paragon

        I hope that you noticed that I made it a point to NOT make any assumptions. And, your reply appears to show you made an assumption about what I was saying. If the person didn’t have insurance, then the issue isn’t about whether or not he was a legal immigrant or not. The issue mostly involves that one might suspect he simply didn’t have insurance.

        If that person was a rather recent immigrant, there is the possibility that he might not speak or fully understand our language. Thus the police would likely do nothing as it was a rather minor accident.

  • avatar
    OldWingGuy

    Full disclosure here – I’m a Canadian, from Saskatchewan.

    Uninsured vehicles here are a rarity. If a vehicle is uninsured, its likely just because the person forgot to insure when the year was up. Very rare.
    Vehicles are insured to a minimum liability level, collision, theft via the plates. You have plates, you have insurance (in all but very rare cases).
    This basic level is provided via the governments – Saskatchewan Government Insurance. It is also a no fault insurance, so even a pedestrian is covered with a stolen vehicle, etc.
    (as an interesting aside, since we went to no fault and stopped the big insurance payouts, I haven’t seen a single person wearing one of those silly padded neck collars. There’s no money in it anymore).
    Very socialist and not perfect, but overall pretty good arrangement.
    Jack : as to your 5 billion trying to get in – Canada-US has a 4000 mile undefended border. Canadians are not clamoring to get into the States. The USA is a nice place to visit, but I’m happy to stay here. We do, however, accept your draft dodgers and elderly looking for cheap, high quality prescription drugs.
    As to your illegal alien problem, the answer is the same as solving the prostitution problem. Take away the Johns, the prostitutes disappear (along with the pimps). So take away the jobs. Instead of rounding up the illegals, round up the employers. Take away someones house who employs an illegal alien housekeeper, nanny or pool boy. The jobs would disappear quickly.
    Plus many manufacturing jobs in the rust belt would appear – there will be a lot of lawn mowers, hedge trimmers and robotic vacuum cleaners needing manufacture. Cause the rust belt folks aren’t moving to Phoenix to mow lawns in 100F temp for ten bucks an hour. Its OK, people can use a bit of exercise anyway.

  • avatar
    ziggy082

    Hi all. First comment ever on this site, though I read it daily. I quite enjoy Jack’s writings here and in Road & Track where I feel he picks up the mantle of Peter Egan quite nicely.
    Through this entire discussion I don’t believe the root cause of illegal immigration is ever brought to the fore front. If the people that hired illegals were held responsible for their actions would there be illegals to begin with.
    What would happen if for every illegal the Department of Immigration found on a worksite the owner of the hiring business was given a year in prison? Would there be less illegal immigration or more?

  • avatar
    Lorenzo

    All these comments! You really know how to push buttons, Jack.

  • avatar
    DirtRoads

    I liked it Jack. The article I mean. You got balls, man.

    I don’t think many will read 400-odd comments down this list but hey I get to throw my two cents in anyway, right?

    There are some comments I like here as well. Other than the whacked-out, clueless, liberal/socialists and bleeding hearts who think it’s up to “us” to fix all the world’s problems, there’s some pretty decent discourse here. So if that was, indeed, your aim, then you have hit the bullseye.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • SCE to AUX: We’ll see how many 75-year-old hippies want this vehicle in 2022 when they see it costs $60-100k...
  • Inside Looking Out: It might be about Galaxy 8 phones I think. But still badge confuses me, may it be iPhones?
  • Inside Looking Out: What can get wrong with VW built BEV? I am not a prophet but sometimes I have a vision of...
  • DenverMike: Yes…but…we tend to only know about the criminals that were *caught*. More than likely these...
  • Inside Looking Out: Ford was the most profitable company in the world before 2001 tyre fiasco. It took 7 years after...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff