USA Today - Dodge City/Immigrants

[357 mag]

Originally Posted by Tee

They don't have those stats because they don't want to know and don't/can't really find out with the current system. Just because you use a legal name, doesn't mean it's really you. There is no system that connects a person to a birth database in Mexico. There is no system that reveals how many people are using the same SSN, that I know of. If Juan Gonzales gets arrested and a police agency associates a name with his fingerprints from a prior incident then yes, he's tied to that name. But the question is...does the DCPD check fingerprint files on all crimes to make sure the person is really the person their documents say they are? And do they then cross reference the database to make sure nobody else is using the same SSN? ...or using a SSN of a deceased person? NO, NO, NO- too much trouble/resources.

Wow DCPD is not like CSI, they do not have the tools necessary to check all that, every print card is sent to KBI, they have the database the prints are stored in. Then if they want it compared it has to be sent to the KBI office and analyzed there. No they do not have the time or enough staff to compare prints on every single person they come in contact with to see if their prints come back to a different name. I'm sure it's not that they don't care, they don't have the resources to do it. Maybe you could start a fund and buy them the resources needed to do all that and the staff to keep up with it and they could catch all the illegals. Oh wait, then there wouldn't be anything to complain about.

[Tee]

Originally Posted by 357 mag

Wow DCPD is not like CSI, they do not have the tools necessary to check all that, every print card is sent to KBI, they have the database the prints are stored in. Then if they want it compared it has to be sent to the KBI office and analyzed there. No they do not have the time or enough staff to compare prints on every single person they come in contact with to see if their prints come back to a different name. I'm sure it's not that they don't care, they don't have the resources to do it. Maybe you could start a fund and buy them the resources needed to do all that and the staff to keep up with it and they could catch all the illegals. Oh wait, then there wouldn't be anything to complain about.

That's pretty much what I said.

Is it really about money, or is it about "will"....? You tell me why the technology has been available for years, yet nobody uses it.

No, I don't agree that we'd rather complain and keep the status quo, than have compliance. That's ludicrous.

[gadwall]

Originally Posted by 357 mag

Besides at 1 time I'm sure unless you are 100% Indian your ancestors were illegal too, as were mine, people just didn't make as big of a deal about it as it is now.

It wasn't until the 20th century that we started putting quotas on immigrants so you can't compare former immigrants to those here illegally now. There were no laws making immigrants from europe and other countries at the time illegal. Almost all of those earlier immigrants were processed through Ellis Island and given legal papers and statis to be here in the US. It's a of a lot easier to swim the Rio Grande than swim the Atlantic.

[Detector]

Besides at 1 time I'm sure unless you are 100% Indian your ancestors were illegal too, as were mine, people just didn't make as big of a deal about it as it is now.

Actually, by far the vast majority of our ancestors were not here illegally. They *cough* moved in and began to occupy unsettled land. Now I'm sure the Indians felt the land was already owned by them, but that just isn't how things worked back then. You "owned" what you could defend, and even that was up for grabs by a stronger force.

We didn't really start having citizenship issues that needed laws until the 1850's. Once America started filling up, and available land started to disappear, the laws started regulating how you become and American.

People compare todays mass Hispanic migration to our ancestors move to American, when they are apples to oranges. The ONLY similarities are that thru numbers we took America from the Indians. The same is happening to us today. And like the Indians, it will be too late before anything is done to stop it.

[gadwall]

Detector, you said it better. actually the indians didn't feel they owned the land, maybe if they did they would have had a better immigration policy

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by 357 mag

I didn't say they were all legal if there was no hold, I said they were probably legal.

Really?

In Dodge?


More likley they have better documents or at least spent more money on them.

[357 mag]

Ok so maybe that analogy wasn't the best to use, and aparantly it didn't get the point I was trying to make across. Yes I understand we have a vast majority of hispanic people, and yes I understand a large portion of the crime rate is of hispanic decent. What I don't understand is how everyone can automatically assume they are illegal. Also why is it ok to say that because Dodge is made up of 70% hispanic that he crime rate should be at least 70% from the hispanic population? Not all hispanic people are criminals. That would be like me saying that because the white population is only 30% that the other 30% of the crime rate is from white people. That would make every person living in Dodge a criminal. Everyone know's that's not true. It just doesn't make sense. Take it as you want, but I'm done trying to explain myself.

[wordsmythe]

Originally Posted by gadwall

actually the indians didn't feel they owned the land, maybe if they did they would have had a better immigration policy

That has got to be one of the most interesting rationalizations I've ever read.

[Detector]

I think what he's trying to point out is that say you had a population of 50% White and 50% Hispanic. If all things were equal, meaning Whites committed as much crime as Hispanics, than statistically it should show in crimes committed. 50% by Whites, 50% by Hispanics. If the stats showed that 70% of crimes were committed by Whites, then you have no choice but to except that Whites commit more crimes.

If the Hispanic population of dodge is 70% then we should see no more than their share of crimes. I hate using the term Hispanic because it seem to generalized. My guess is that most of the crimes committed by Hispanics are from immigrants and not American Hispanics. It's for this reason the term illegal is often associated with a Hispanic that commits a crime. Chances are they are not Americans.

It wouldn't matter if they were White. If they are here illegally, they are more likely to commit crimes. Besides being illegal.

[jeezeweeze]

A great many treasures of art and oral literature have been passed down from prehistory. Indian cultures and religions were enmeshed with nature, for they felt themselves entwined with the universe. Mother Earth and Father Sky were more than mere expressions; they represented the Indians' very being. Land, a part of the universe, belonged to all, particularly the tribe. Individual land ownership did not exist, since all were entitled to the fruits of nature. Users' rights were protected and specified in various traditions, but there was no such things as land "ownership". Generally, individuals could clear as much land as needed for farming; this land would remain in a family's possession as long as they continued to use it. Once it was abandoned, anyone else could cultivate it.

Indian Land Ownership



"When a white army battles Indians and wins it is called a great
victory, but if they lose it is called a massacre and bigger armies are
raised. If the Indian flees before the advance of such armies, when he
tries to return he finds that white men are living where he lived. If
he tries to fight off such armies, he is killed and the land is taken
away."

- Chiksika, elder brother of Techumseh, 1779
Supplied by peace07@sprynet.com