[Politics] Trump and Concentration Camps

[Saelune]

I find you often do not argue in good faith.

You know I argue in good faith. Prior to this specific topic, you've disagreed with me on other things without ever questioning the authenticity of my positions. But here I'm arguing that the immigration policies of a nation of immigrants aren't built around the purposeful denial of human rights, and for some reason you can't imagine anyone arguing that in good faith.

You're arguing in defense of concentration camps.

 

[Shadowstar38]

You're arguing with a socialist, ie someone who thinks on an ideological level that we all need to get over our selfish greed and help each other, from top to bottom, from the government level to the individual level.

That explains a lot.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I find you often do not argue in good faith.

You know I argue in good faith. Prior to this specific topic, you've disagreed with me on other things without ever questioning the authenticity of my positions. But here I'm arguing that the immigration policies of a nation of immigrants aren't built around the purposeful denial of human rights, and for some reason you can't imagine anyone arguing that in good faith.

Dude, dude. You once provided evidence that completely disproved your own argument then still tried to insist you were in the right and I was just blind. You do not argue in good faith

 

[tstorm823]

Dude, dude. You once provided evidence that completely disproved your own argument then still tried to insist you were in the right and I was just blind. You do not argue in good faith

As far as I know, that never happened. If I had evidence that completely disproved my argument, I wouldn't make that argument. And if I was arguing in bad faith, I wouldn't provide evidence that disagrees with me. As a matter of fact, I prefer using sources that disagree with me politically. I did it in this thread. I used an anti detention websites stats to show the detention in largely voluntary.

We're how many pages past that and nobody has provided a single thing to contradict that. I've gotten one op-ed piece almost entirely about historical concentration camps. Precisely zero sources contradicting me here. 0.

 

[Saelune]

You're arguing with a socialist, ie someone who thinks on an ideological level that we all need to get over our selfish greed and help each other, from top to bottom, from the government level to the individual level.

That explains a lot.

Does it? Cause I do not know what -you think- socialism is. Plenty of people hate on it, but I have found that people who hate it are either really greedy and selfish, or just have no idea what socialism is at all.

I mean I really honestly dont know what your opinion is on this, so I am asking.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

So rather this just continue be anti-trump nonsense spins it's wheels....Let's get the core of the matter.

Saelune, what would you like to see happen to people who come here Illegally? If you were given power change policy to whatever you wanted...what would it be? Instead of just crying Trump is bad, what's a real answer to this situation? I mean are you expecting people just be free roam the country if they come to the border with kids? There's tons of people waiting to legally immigrant into this country. So why should they do that when they can just take matters into their own hands and come right in? It spits in the face of everyone who actually decides wait their turn. I don't feel having kids giving you immunity to the law nor should it. Laws need to be enforced or they don't exist.

It has nothing do with racism to want people who enter are country to do so through legal channels. That's a perfectly reasonable stance. There's millions of people who legally come to this country every year. It's good for the country infact. If someone demanded they wanted live in your house because they are homeless and have kids, you still have right say no. You are no evil for not wanting to take that burden if you can't handle it. America has the right prioritize it's own first over noncitizens. America doesn't need be the world's doormatt to prove it's decent or trying be anyways.

Could the process of becoming a citizen stand be faster and easier? Sure. Could there be a better set up than the one that's been in place since the Obama administration? (which he had more people deported on his watch than Trump has.) Sure, but I don't think we need give them 5 star hotels either. But to go these policy inplace are somehow leading us to nazi germany because Trump is president is pure fiction, because this same methods we've been doing since the 90s when Clinton was in office. None of this is new, and it's suddenly an issue because Trump is at the helm. These places are hardly death camps, and the people in them are either waiting for their hearing or crossed the border illegally. I don't think this situation is beyond criticism but let's have realistic expectations and facts instead just throwing a fit because the media says so. I also don't think it's okay for groups to attack detention centers. How about people denounce these terrorists?

Ok. So, Hi, I don't think we've met. I haven't seen you around posting that much. You might have seen me if you lurk. I'm Obsidian Jones, a pleasure.

I warn you, I normally truck with people Like Saelune because that's my ************. Our opinions are normally in sync. So take that as you will.

But what you've said in Bold is what makes me wonder if we're arguing in good faith.

In fact. If you're a fan of Trump... you should love Obama. Because he's done one of Trump's Promises light-years before Trump did [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-bad-hombres-us/story?id=42926041]. And as everyone wants to point out, in Record Numbers.

Trump said one of his "first acts" as president would be to "get all of the drug lords" out of the country.

"We have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out," Trump said.

Ok. So he looked at Obama and liked what he saw, I guess.

Over the course of the Obama administration there was a pronounced shift in focus to the removal of recent border crossers and criminals rather than ordinary status violators apprehended in the U.S. interior. The underlying reasoning was to deter illegal border crossing and remove unauthorized immigrants before they become integrated into U.S. communities. As shown in Figure 1, interior removals decreased sharply from 181,798 in FY 2009 to 65,332 in FY 2016, while border removals stayed high and increased, from 207,525 to 279,022 over the same period.

The combined number of individuals removed and returned decreased significantly between the first and second Obama terms: from 3.2 million to 2.1 million. This decline was driven nearly entirely, as described above, by the decrease in the number of individuals voluntarily returned, rather than formally removed. From the first to second term, returns decreased significantly, from 1,609,249 to 593,104, while removals fell only slightly, from 1,575,423 to 1,518,785.

Also, removal priorities were increasingly focused on removing noncitizens convicted of crimes. In 2009, 51 percent of interior removals were of individuals convicted of what DHS described as serious crimes. In 2016, DHS reported that more than 90 percent of interior removals were of noncitizens convicted of serious crimes.

In November 2014, President Obama announced a number of further changes in immigration enforcement, including agencywide policy guidance on which categories of removable noncitizens should be the highest priority for enforcement. Three levels were detailed:

-Priority 1: National security threats, noncitizens apprehended immediately at the border, gang members, and noncitizens convicted of felonies or aggravated felonies as defined in immigration law.
-Priority 2: Noncitizens convicted of three or more misdemeanors or one serious misdemeanor, those who entered or re-entered the United States unlawfully after January 1, 2014, and those who have significantly abused visa or visa waiver programs.
-Priority 3: Noncitizens subject to a final order of removal issued on or after January 1, 2014.

Once announced in 2014, the DHS enforcement priorities became even more sharply focused on criminals and recent arrivals. In a statement, DHS reported that in FY 2015 and FY 2016, more than 99 percent of all removals and returns fell within the three priorities. In FY 2015, 92 percent of removals and returns occurred within Priority 1, a rate that rose to 94 percent in FY 2016. Some analysts attribute the sharper focus on the top priorities to the fact that the 2014 guidelines, unlike ones issued in 2010 and 2011, applied to all DHS immigration agencies, while the earlier ones were issued by and applied only to ICE.

Obama?s Mixed Legacy and Looking Ahead to Enforcement under the Trump Administration

While the Obama administration record is characterized by much higher removals than preceding administrations, it also shows less focus on increasing absolute numbers of overall deportations and a higher priority on targeting the removals of recently arrived unauthorized immigrants and criminals. The administration also placed a much lower priority on removing those who had established roots in U.S. communities and had no criminal records. This prioritization was achieved by a slowly evolving but deliberate policy, highlighted by the administration?s November 2014 executive actions on immigration.

Meanwhile, At the Trump Administration [https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736362986/trump-wants-to-withdraw-deportation-protections-for-families-of-active-troops], Trump is trying to break apart the protections for those people who are literally putting their lives on the line to give their family a better chance in America.

Is this really the talking point you want to stress? Obama enforcing Recent illegal border acts and deporting illegal alien criminals? Why doesn't that make him the Conservatives' best friend? It's literally all they ever talk about.

You want to talk about 'Suddenly becomes a problem when X does it', I've heard Anti-Obama and/or Pro-Trump people use this "OBAMA DEPORTED MORE THAN ANYONE" talking point, and yet no one ever breaks down WHO was deported. Criminals and recent crossers vs Established Families who have given a family member to the service of this country and Children who know nothing but the United States.

Yeah. I'm cool with the first group being deported.

 

[Shadowstar38]

Does it? Cause I do not know what -you think- socialism is. Plenty of people hate on it, but I have found that people who hate it are either really greedy and selfish, or just have no idea what socialism is at all.

I mean I really honestly dont know what your opinion is on this, so I am asking.

From the little I've read of it, it simply didn't look like an ideal model to run a country on. Don't know enough atm to call it either way.

I just meant it makes sense as far as it seems to reflect how you personally prioritize how policies should operate, if that makes any sense.

 

[Saelune]

Does it? Cause I do not know what -you think- socialism is. Plenty of people hate on it, but I have found that people who hate it are either really greedy and selfish, or just have no idea what socialism is at all.

I mean I really honestly dont know what your opinion is on this, so I am asking.

From the little I've read of it, it simply didn't look like an ideal model to run a country on. Don't know enough atm to call it either way.

I just meant it makes sense as far as it seems to reflect how you personally prioritize how policies should operate, if that makes any sense.

Ok, sorry. Just a bit defensive, because a lot of people have this totally warped idea of what socialism is.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

Dude, dude. You once provided evidence that completely disproved your own argument then still tried to insist you were in the right and I was just blind. You do not argue in good faith

As far as I know, that never happened. If I had evidence that completely disproved my argument, I wouldn't make that argument. And if I was arguing in bad faith, I wouldn't provide evidence that disagrees with me. As a matter of fact, I prefer using sources that disagree with me politically. I did it in this thread. I used an anti detention websites stats to show the detention in largely voluntary.

We're how many pages past that and nobody has provided a single thing to contradict that. I've gotten one op-ed piece almost entirely about historical concentration camps. Precisely zero sources contradicting me here. 0.

You made an argument, tried to defend that argument by grabbing info from places you hoped made you looked non-biased as opposed to places that were reliable, and proved you hadn't actually understood that info by point blank refusing to accept it proved you wrong. In a single stroke demonstrating you don't really know how to collate or understand data like that. I'd hazard a guess thats why no-one is bothering to show you hard evidence this time around; you'd just ignore or argue against it anyway so why go to the effort?

 

[tstorm823]

You made an argument, tried to defend that argument by grabbing info from places you hoped made you looked non-biased as opposed to places that were reliable, and proved you hadn't actually understood that info by point blank refusing to accept it proved you wrong. In a single stroke demonstrating you don't really know how to collate or understand data like that. I'd hazard a guess thats why no-one is bothering to show you hard evidence this time around; you'd just ignore or argue against it anyway so why go to the effort?

I've had more than that source here. I've also had perfectly reasonable comments. Nobody is proving me wrong because you can't because I'm right. Detention centers aren't concentration camps and suggesting they are is downright irresponsible.

Imagine if there were food banks but they only had unhealthy junk food. That doesn't mean the food bank is worse than having nothing, there is just a reasonable discussion to be had about how to improve what the food bank provides. If instead, someone declares that food banks are just for Donald Trump to poison people with the implication that we should tear it all down, that's an absurd response. The US asylum system has pulled millions out of imminent danger while border patrol has turned back the violence they are fleeing. To characterize this process as systematically imprisoning people for their identity is to suggest its immoral and shouldn't exist, and that's wrong. Are there issues, sure. Could we use reform, absolutely. Is Donald Trump helping towards that, absolutely not. But fixing problems in something good won't happen from painting the entire thing as evil.

And we've done this before, with mental asylums. There were serious problems with mental hospitals, but they also helped people. A cultural shift painted all those institutions as One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, and we disassembled the system wholesale. Now those people who should be involuntarily institutionalized are largely homeless, slipping through the safety net because they lack the capacity to accept help for themselves, and the level of crime and abuse they experience is an even greater tragedy. It's obviously not a perfect comparison, but tearing apart our border security practices would be allowing poor, desperate people to disappear anonymously into the country, and that just creates a new unaccounted for underclass subject to abuse and victimization with little to no protection.

 

[Baffle]

Detention centers aren't concentration camps and suggesting they are is downright irresponsible.

I'd say pretending a concentration camp is a detention centre is significantly more irresponsible. So stop it.

 

[tstorm823]

Detention centers aren't concentration camps and suggesting they are is downright irresponsible.

I'd say pretending a concentration camp is a detention centre is significantly more irresponsible. So stop it.

Detention centers exist to let asylum seekers remain in the US to state their case in immigration court. Child detention centers exist to better care for children than throwing them in with adults. These things were made for the benefit of the people you think are being tortured.

 

[tstorm823]

Phone glitch double post

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Detention centers aren't concentration camps and suggesting they are is downright irresponsible.

I'd say pretending a concentration camp is a detention centre is significantly more irresponsible. So stop it.

Detention centers exist to let asylum seekers remain in the US to state their case in immigration court. Child detention centers exist to better care for children than throwing them in with adults. These things were made for the benefit of the people you think are being tortured.

Ok, this will be definition heavy.

First off, Detention Centers [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detention%20center].

detention center noun
Definition of detention center
1 : a place where people who have entered a country illegally are kept for a period of time
2 : a place where people who have committed crimes are kept as punishment
She spent several months in a detention center for women.
a juvenile detention center

Secondly, Concentration Camps [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concentration%20camp]

concentration camp noun
Definition of concentration camp
: a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard ?used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisoners

So, at best, what we have here is a Concentration Center. Why? Because even if it was intended as a Detention Center, the tactics used are bordering on Child Abuse. And not just the sexual crimes being committed there wholesale. But just the abject neglect [https://www.apnews.com/46da2dbe04f54adbb875cfbc06bbc615].

EL PASO, Texas (AP) ? A 2-year-old boy locked in detention wants to be held all the time. A few girls, ages 10 to 15, say they've been doing their best to feed and soothe the clingy toddler who was handed to them by a guard days ago. Lawyers warn that kids are taking care of kids, and there?s inadequate food, water and sanitation for the 250 infants, children and teens at the Border Patrol station.

The bleak portrait emerged Thursday after a legal team interviewed 60 children at the facility near El Paso that has become the latest place where attorneys say young migrants are describing neglect and mistreatment at the hands of the U.S. government.

Data obtained by The Associated Press showed that on Wednesday there were three infants in the station, all with their teen mothers, along with a 1-year-old, two 2-year-olds and a 3-year-old. There are dozens more under 12. Fifteen have the flu, and 10 more are quarantined.

Three girls told attorneys they were trying to take care of the 2-year-old boy, who had wet his pants and had no diaper and was wearing a mucus-smeared shirt when the legal team encountered him.

"A Border Patrol agent came in our room with a 2-year-old boy and asked us, 'Who wants to take care of this little boy?' Another girl said she would take care of him, but she lost interest after a few hours and so I started taking care of him yesterday," one of the girls said in an interview with attorneys.

Lawyers who interviewed migrant children at a US Customs and Border Protection facility near El Paso, Texas say the children are dirty, don't have enough food or water, and that some were separated from parents or siblings.

Law professor Warren Binford, who is helping interview the children, said she couldn't learn anything about the toddler, not even where he's from or who his family is. He is not speaking.

Binford described that during interviews with children in a conference room at the facility, "little kids are so tired they have been falling asleep on chairs and at the conference table."

She said an 8-year-old taking care of a very small 4-year-old with matted hair couldn't convince the little one to take a shower.

"In my 22 years of doing visits with children in detention, I have never heard of this level of inhumanity," said Holly Cooper, who co-directs University of California, Davis' Immigration Law Clinic and represents detained youth.

The lawyers inspected the facilities because they are involved in the Flores settlement, a Clinton-era legal agreement that governs detention conditions for migrant children and families. The lawyers negotiated access to the facility with officials, and say Border Patrol knew the dates of their visit three weeks in advance.

Many children interviewed had arrived alone at the U.S.-Mexico border, but some had been separated from their parents or other adult caregivers including aunts and uncles, the attorneys said.

Government rules call for the children to be held by the Border Patrol for no longer than 72 hours before they are transferred to the custody of Health and Human Services, which houses migrant youth in facilities around the country.

Government facilities are overcrowded and five immigrant children have died since late last year after being detained by Customs and Border Protection. A teenage mother with a premature baby was found last week in a Texas Border Patrol processing center after being held for nine days by the government.

In an interview this week with the AP, acting Customs and Border Protection Commissioner John Sanders acknowledged that children need better medical care and a place to recover from their illnesses. He urged Congress to pass a $4.6 billion emergency funding package includes nearly $3 billion to care for unaccompanied migrant children.

He said that the Border Patrol is holding 15,000 people, and the agency considers 4,000 to be at capacity.

"The death of a child is always a terrible thing, but here is a situation where, because there is not enough funding ... they can?t move the people out of our custody," Sanders said.

The arrival of thousands of families and children at the border each month has not only strained resources but thrust Border Patrol agents into the role of caregivers, especially for the many migrant youth who are coming without parents.

But children at the facility in Clint, which sits amid the desert scrubland some 25 miles (40 kilometers) southeast of El Paso, say they have had to pick up some of the duties in watching over the younger kids.

A 14-year-old girl from Guatemala said she had been holding two little girls in her lap.

"I need comfort, too. I am bigger than they are, but I am a child, too," she said.

Children told lawyers that they were fed oatmeal, a cookie and a sweetened drink in the morning, instant noodles for lunch and a burrito and cookie for dinner. There are no fruits or vegetables. They said they'd gone weeks without bathing or a clean change of clothes.

A migrant father, speaking on condition of anonymity because of his immigration status, told AP Thursday that authorities separated his daughter from her aunt when they entered the country. The girl would be a second grader in a U.S. school.

He had no idea where she was until Monday, when one of the attorney team members visiting Clint found his phone number written in permanent marker on a bracelet she was wearing. It said "U.S. parent."

"She's suffering very much because she?s never been alone. She doesn?t know these other children," said her father.

Republican Congressman Will Hurd, whose district includes Clint, said "tragic conditions" playing out on the southern border were pushing government agencies, nonprofits and Texas communities to the limit.

"This latest development just further demonstrates the immediate need to reform asylum laws and provide supplemental funding to address the humanitarian crisis at our border," he said.

Dr. Julie Linton, who co-chairs the American Academy of Pediatrics Immigrant Health Special Interest Group, said CBP stations are not an appropriate place to hold children.

"Those facilities are anything but child friendly," said Dr. Julie Linton. "That type of environment is not only unhealthy for children but also unsafe."

The Trump administration has been scrambling to find new space to hold immigrants as it faces criticism that it?s violating the human rights of migrant children by keeping so many of them detained.

San Francisco psychoanalyst Gilbert Kliman, who has evaluated about 50 children and parents seeking asylum, says the trauma is causing lasting damage.

"The care of children by children constitutes a betrayal of adult responsibility, governmental responsibility," he said.

Through the administration's own actions, they are violating law. That 72 hour law? Routinely Broken [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/25/18715725/children-border-detention-kids-cages-immigration].

Listen, Political beliefs aside, you have to stop denying fact that has been discovered and reported. This is a Bipartisan Horrific Tragedy done by Americans on American soil. Politics will not fix this, only Humanity. Blind acceptance because you like the guy who made this situation happen (or really for any reason) robs you of humanity. We're talking about children.

Please. Not the concept of Children... Actual Children are having to suffer this. If you can't appreciate that, Bow Out. Just let it drop and move on. This is really not the hill you want to die on, nor should anyone want to.

 

[tstorm823]

Ok, this will be definition heavy.

First off, Detention Centers [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/detention%20center].

detention center noun
Definition of detention center
1 : a place where people who have entered a country illegally are kept for a period of time
2 : a place where people who have committed crimes are kept as punishment
She spent several months in a detention center for women.
a juvenile detention center

Secondly, Concentration Camps [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concentration%20camp]

concentration camp noun
Definition of concentration camp
: a place where large numbers of people (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, refugees, or the members of an ethnic or religious minority) are detained or confined under armed guard ?used especially in reference to camps created by the Nazis in World War II for the internment and persecution of Jews and other prisoners

Right, so the first definition is unquestionably what we are talking about. That definition of detention center exists for this specific purpose, to refer to a place temporarily holding those caught crossing illegally.

I know that definition of concentration camp specifically mentions refugees, but that's a different thing. The reason that is there is because certain countries have at times accepted refugees to fulfill treaty obligations and then effectively mprisoned them until the conflict they fled settled down. That is different than US policy. That is atrocious, to acknowledge people as refugees and imprison them. Once you are granted refugee status, you are free to go as you wish in the US. I know it seems pedantic, but the government here does not detain accepted refugees.

The people being detained in the US are not refugees in the US, at least not yet. They are people who broke immigration law and jumped the border. As a nation, we have the right to toss them back. But we don't. We choose to be better than that, and have written our laws to guarantee them the opportunity to apply for asylum. They aren't refugees until they show credible fear of the home they are fleeing, but we also want to provide them the opportunity to make that case without throwing them out of the country. So we made a middle ground, a limited access to US soil in the meantime. That's what the detention centers are made to be. A temporary safe space to wait for an asylum hearing.

They may currently be falling short of that intention, but the intention is still good, not torture.

[Quote
So, at best, what we have here is a Concentration Center. Why? Because even if it was intended as a Detention Center, the tactics used are bordering on Child Abuse. And not just the sexual crimes being committed there wholesale. But just the abject neglect [https://www.apnews.com/46da2dbe04f54adbb875cfbc06bbc615].
[/quote]

Brief point, the sexual crimes you refer to are perpetrated almost entirely by other migrant youth, at a lesser rate than before they crossed. The idea that children would be safer from sexual assault outside of border patrol custody is a questionable assumption at best.

Through the administration's own actions, they are violating law. That 72 hour law? Routinely Broken [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/25/18715725/children-border-detention-kids-cages-immigration].

Listen, Political beliefs aside, you have to stop denying fact that has been discovered and reported. This is a Bipartisan Horrific Tragedy done by Americans on American soil. Politics will not fix this, only Humanity. Blind acceptance because you like the guy who made this situation happen robs you of humanity. We're talking about children.

Please. Not the concept of Children... Actual Children are having to suffer this. If you can't appreciate that, Bow Out. Just let it drop and move on. This is really not the hill you want to die on, nor should anyone want to.

It's difficult for me to believe we just read the same thing. That article describes people who say a child's death is a tragedy. People who are desperately overburdened trying their best to stay afloat. Who wish to meet regulations but can't keep up. Who are desperate enough to enlist the help of children in custody because they lack the manpower to provide proper care themselves. An administration scramblng to find safe homes for mostly unaccompanied minors without parents in the us and falling behind.

That article does not describe facilities made to imprison and torture, but rather facilities designed to help and failing. I don't disagree that its tragic what is happening. But it's not a tragedy caused by the US government, just a tragedy we are failing to help alleviate. And that distinction is important. If you call them concentration camps, you imply the US is hurting people and the solution is to stop. If you recognize that the US is helping people but falling short of the goal, the solution is to try harder. That's why it matters to not treat them as something they aren't.

And to be clear: I don't like Trump, nor was this situation created by him, or by anyone with bad intentions. This situation is because the US has opened itself to those escaping tragedy, built a system to support them, and then overwhelmed the system. What we need is system reform, not revolution.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I thought you valued access to healthcare and keeping us out of war with Iran more than you cared about gun control that will never happen regardless of who is president

I guess we won't know either way, because there's no possible way to set up a counterfactual about this, now is there?

This is an issue democrats handle poorly, in my opinion, and they just keep doubling down on it in terms of rhetoric. They've made it quite clear they don't want my vote.

snip

CM, as a supporter of stopping immigrants from entering the US freely, do you think these camps are a good solution? Or adequate or bad?

How long should they stay in these camps?

If it becomes like Australia and it's 7 years they've been in camps, is that too long?

Should Trump deport them immediately and save all this hassle?

Do you think this will have any impact on illegal immigration?

I honestly don't know. I would like better conditions, but I also believe in rapid repatriation of these people to their countries of origin.

We can also stop pretending that this country wasnt founded on illegal immigration. It is the utmost hypocrisy to decry immigrants in the US, period.

What immigration laws did the 17th and 18th century colonists break? Because you quite distinctly said "illegal" which necessitates that there is a law they were acting against.

 

[Trunkage]

snip

CM, as a supporter of stopping immigrants from entering the US freely, do you think these camps are a good solution? Or adequate or bad?

How long should they stay in these camps?

If it becomes like Australia and it's 7 years they've been in camps, is that too long?

Should Trump deport them immediately and save all this hassle?

Do you think this will have any impact on illegal immigration?

I honestly don't know. I would like better conditions, but I also believe in rapid repatriation of these people to their countries of origin..

what happens if repatriation is impossible?

As stated, Australia has detention centres. The people inside have been there for 7 years. Getting them to go back seems impossible. We've actually relied on the US to take a bunch, which seems weird to me. And it made Trump unhappy. We paid Cambodia a million a piece to take 3 refugees. The public is slowly turning against them because they were meant to be temporary but are turning out to be rather permanent

What happens if these camps are still overflowing at the end of Trump's second term? What do you do?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

snip

CM, as a supporter of stopping immigrants from entering the US freely, do you think these camps are a good solution? Or adequate or bad?

How long should they stay in these camps?

If it becomes like Australia and it's 7 years they've been in camps, is that too long?

Should Trump deport them immediately and save all this hassle?

Do you think this will have any impact on illegal immigration?

I honestly don't know. I would like better conditions, but I also believe in rapid repatriation of these people to their countries of origin..

what happens if repatriation is impossible?

As stated, Australia has detention centres. The people inside have been there for 7 years. Getting them to go back seems impossible. We've actually relied on the US to take a bunch, which seems weird to me. And it made Trump unhappy. We paid Cambodia a million a piece to take 3 refugees. The public is slowly turning against them because they were meant to be temporary but are turning out to be rather permanent

What happens if these camps are still overflowing at the end of Trump's second term? What do you do?

I'm not sure what my opinion would be in this hypothetical "what if" scenario.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Right, so the first definition is unquestionably what we are talking about. That definition of detention center exists for this specific purpose, to refer to a place temporarily holding those caught crossing illegally.

I know that definition of concentration camp specifically mentions refugees, but that's a different thing. The reason that is there is because certain countries have at times accepted refugees to fulfill treaty obligations and then effectively mprisoned them until the conflict they fled settled down. That is different than US policy. That is atrocious, to acknowledge people as refugees and imprison them. Once you are granted refugee status, you are free to go as you wish in the US. I know it seems pedantic, but the government here does not detain accepted refugees.

The people being detained in the US are not refugees in the US, at least not yet. They are people who broke immigration law and jumped the border. As a nation, we have the right to toss them back. But we don't. We choose to be better than that, and have written our laws to guarantee them the opportunity to apply for asylum. They aren't refugees until they show credible fear of the home they are fleeing, but we also want to provide them the opportunity to make that case without throwing them out of the country. So we made a middle ground, a limited access to US soil in the meantime. That's what the detention centers are made to be. A temporary safe space to wait for an asylum hearing.

They may currently be falling short of that intention, but the intention is still good, not torture.

This government deports Vets of this Military [https://www.salon.com/2019/06/13/clumsiness-or-cruelty-trump-now-deporting-military-veterans-in-violation-of-federal-rules/]. And instead of fixing the situation, and doing everything possible to make sure it doesn't happen again, Trump is doing everything he can to speed up the process to get more people out as soon as possible [https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-trump-admins-plan-to-reduce-the-immigration-court-backlog-will-add-to-it]. This Administration's bold new move is to kick people out without giving them a reason.

As I pointed out before, Trump is actively seeking to erode protections of those family members of Active Service Members [https://www.npr.org/2019/06/27/736362986/trump-wants-to-withdraw-deportation-protections-for-families-of-active-troops]. That is horrific and it flies in the face of a measure of gratitude for the ultimate sacrifice that these people are willing to give just to make sure their families have a better life.

Brief point, the sexual crimes you refer to are perpetrated almost entirely by other migrant youth, at a lesser rate than before they crossed. The idea that children would be safer from sexual assault outside of border patrol custody is a questionable assumption at best.

Sexual Assault Allegations of US Border Patrol with Investigations ongoing [https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/10/politics/migrant-child-abuse-allegations-yuma-sector/index.html].

The Sexual Crimes I'm referring to also has to do with Border Patrol Agents. I put it aside even though it's one of the things that makes me lose it most of all in the world, they need evidence to substantiate it.

But speaking as someone who went through it? If it happened I will celebrate the day that these vile bastards are thrown in jail so they can know what it is like to live powerless.

It's difficult for me to believe we just read the same thing. That article describes people who say a child's death is a tragedy. People who are desperately overburdened trying their best to stay afloat. Who wish to meet regulations but can't keep up. Who are desperate enough to enlist the help of children in custody because they lack the manpower to provide proper care themselves. An administration scramblng to find safe homes for mostly unaccompanied minors without parents in the us and falling behind.

That article does not describe facilities made to imprison and torture, but rather facilities designed to help and failing. I don't disagree that its tragic what is happening. But it's not a tragedy caused by the US government, just a tragedy we are failing to help alleviate. And that distinction is important. If you call them concentration camps, you imply the US is hurting people and the solution is to stop. If you recognize that the US is helping people but falling short of the goal, the solution is to try harder. That's why it matters to not treat them as something they aren't.

And to be clear: I don't like Trump, nor was this situation created by him, or by anyone with bad intentions. This situation is because the US has opened itself to those escaping tragedy, built a system to support them, and then overwhelmed the system. What we need is system reform, not revolution.

Nor did I say that the facilities were made to torture. But they are being used that way anyway. A hairbrush is made to keep your hair organized. But anyone with a particular cruel parent can tell you it's a fantastic weapon in a pinch.

Why are these people Overburdened? Trump's mandate. It seems like every independent voice who's gone there to see it has decried it as the worst conditions they have ever seen. Trump is refusing to let the U.N. see it, for good reason.

This is strictly done by the US Government. They have less Border Patrol Agents than Obama, so less people to actually help facilitate any real humane treatment. There is no room, but Trump still looks for ways to throw more people into the grinder. There is limited food, water, people aren't bathing, and the answer to this is to wait and deal with what you have at the moment.

And nope. Just continue. Do more. This isn't a horrible hurricane that there was no way to plan for. A man signed an act, ignored people who said it was unwise and that they didn't have the capability, ignored law and precedent, tries to pressure judges to make the process go faster, and just doesn't care that people are suffering under his order.

This is all done by his order.

 

[tstorm823]

Why are these people Overburdened? Trump's mandate. It seems like every independent voice who's gone there to see it has decried it as the worst conditions they have ever seen. Trump is refusing to let the U.N. see it, for good reason.

This is strictly done by the US Government. They have less Border Patrol Agents than Obama, so less people to actually help facilitate any real humane treatment. There is no room, but Trump still looks for ways to throw more people into the grinder. There is limited food, water, people aren't bathing, and the answer to this is to wait and deal with what you have at the moment.

And nope. Just continue. Do more. This isn't a horrible hurricane that there was no way to plan for. A man signed an act, ignored people who said it was unwise and that they didn't have the capability, ignored law and precedent, tries to pressure judges to make the process go faster, and just doesn't care that people are suffering under his order.

This is all done by his order.

Trump isn't against more resources for border security, Democrats are the people actively trying to defund CBP and ICE. Also, it's not disregarding law to detain everyone caught, it's disregarding law not to detain them all, so in a grand sense, it's Congress's fault for ignoring immigration laws for decades while knowing the issues.

But even disregarding that, I'm not disagreeing that there's people in tragic positions at the border. I'm not disagreeing with the idea that Trump's plans aren't helping. What I'm disagreeing with is the characterization of detention centers as concentration camps.

Like, you're acknowledging that if the burden was lower, the centers would be good. That if they had room and resources, there'd be acceptable conditions for people to stay for valid reasons. And we'd be right back to them not being "concentration camps". Like, if Trump took funding from a hospital, and people died as a result, go ahead and be mad at Trump, but people shouldn't start calling all hospitals Trump's gas chambers, cause that suggests the hospitals are evil tools made for evil purposes.

Detention centers are not concentration camps. That's the point I care about, because claiming that they are leads to the wrong solution.