Comment by tuetuopay
10 hours ago
Thank you for the clarification!
I do agree that there are three slight between "concentration", "death", and "extermination" camps when speaking about Nazi Germany. In France virtually only "concentration" is used in history classes as an umbrella term for all three. It's only very recently (less than 5 years) that I've seen people start to use the more nuanced term. (as an example, any French will tell you that Auschwitz is a concentration camp while it was, in fact, a death camp).
Yet I stand behind what I said about the word "concentration camp" be a strong and heavy word, since those were integral part in the final solution.
I'm not denying that the US has detainment camps akin to the "gentlest" camps from Nazi Germany, far from it. However, I fail to see the difference between e.g. the East Montana one and a large-scale 5k inmate prison, other than it's less regulated than a federal/regular prison thus with more abuse, and filled with regular people instead of criminals. According to the linked Wikipedia articles, the camp has been dubbed after the Alcatraz prison (known for all sorts of violations).
I may be wrong, and they may be indeed set up by ICE and the government to torture and kill the immigrants. I have a hard time to believe it though, as making a detainment camp to frighten and push immigrants to "go back" would me much more effective and less controversial. My guess would be the intent is the latter form of facility, but ends up being the former due to being staffed with ICE and not professional prison crew.
At any rate, even having detainment camps for non-convicted civilians is already too much. We're quick to point fingers at China and their labor camps for Uyghurs, but this is on the way. (as with the Nazi discussion, this is still far from what china does: ad-vitam detainment, children born in captivity, forced sterilization of people, forced religion, etc).
>even having detainment camps for non-convicted civilians is already too much.
How do you suggest enforcing immigration law when millions have entered your country illegally? (If you believe in enforcing it all.)
Well, you could build centers that are not prisons. Not resorts or holiday camps, but start with not crushing the balls of the people in there.
How we handle it in Europe is not perfect either, as immigrants tend to be put in hotels and costly amenities, but at least it's a humane way to do it. Plus, be better at sending them back if they are a problem (I won't use the term "deportation" because it's a word heavy with meaning since WW2).
Legally. With due regard to the rights of those involved, and when detention is necessary, with humane treatment. In particular honoring due process, where people have the right to to at least be seen by a judge. The right to communicate with their families, and when deportation is necessary, send them to their country of origin instead of another continent entirely or paying some prison somewhere to detain them indefinitely. That when people are detained at all it on the orders of the a judge, expressed in a warrant. That while under detention they should have access to legal services, and have an avenue to complain about their treatment if necessary.
This was all very well understood and hashed out through law and precedent over many decades.
I basically agree, but even Obama built detention centers, no? I don't think anything you advocate is incompatible with detention centers or detainment camps.
1 reply →