That they’re also rounding up children demonstrates that this is an inaccurate representation of the facts.
When the alternative is death, as it is for many of these folks, then that wouldn’t be much of a demotivator.
I’m reminded of the torture supporters who had to tell themselves that waterboarding wasn’t torture so they didn’t have to admit to supporting torture and being sub-par human beings.
This is a good analogy, IMO.
Do you think a majority of Americans would prefer that migrants crossing the border be given a court date and allowed to freely move about the country until that date?
Probably not, but that’s not the only alternative to concentration camps.
Personally, we’ve been giving money, in the form of prepaid gift cards, to a guy we know who owns a local Mexican restaurant and has ties to people back home. He is in direct contact with people who need help.
I’m surprised it hasn’t been made before.
I mean, given that the calls of “CONCENTRATION CAMP!” are coming first and foremost from journalists. human rights activists, and historians, rather than, say, the DNC or Nancy Pelosi, I think the primary concern is “stop having concentration camps” rather than “cause electoral consequences”. The electoral consequences come later, as a result of one party saying, “Hmm, you know what, maybe those historians are right and what’s going on is a moral atrocity” and the other party saying “It’s a shame we can’t just shoot them at the border”.
This is partially why I’m saying maybe don’t say “it’s not a concentration camp” if you’re not bringing experts in (like, for example, this professor at NYU, or this german historian at the University of Erfurt who specializes in the holocaust). I hesitate to call it a unified front, but I also have yet to see a single actual expert dispute this take.
This is a partisan issue in the same way climate change is a partisan issue: the democrats are saying, “Hmm, maybe we should do something about this,” the republicans are saying “I sense no danger here,” and the experts are screaming, “HOLY SHIT YOU GUYS DO SOMETHING HOLY FUCKING SHIT THIS IS SO FUCKED UP OH GOD WHY AREN’T YOU DOING ANYTHING ABOUT THIS”. Calling these camps what these are will only be a problem for republicans because republicans like the camps.
Also, because I can, here’s someone who, while not in any way a relevant expert, I find refreshingly straightforward:
Been giving it some thought and, you know, if you’re someone who feels very particular about making sure the phrase “concentration camps” isn’t applied ‘inaccurately,’ my advice is is to make sure your country isn’t running anything even somewhat comprable to concentration camps.
I don’t know or care what a majority of my fellow citizens think. That practice has been the norm until the present Administration.
If the Trump Administration, as an alternative, wanted to create some safe, humane facilities to house refugees while their cases were being adjudicated, that would be fine with me. But that’s not what’s happening, is it?
The only thing these people can do to survive is “request asylum in the United States”? There is absolutely nothing else that they can do?
What’s the alternative? Well provisioned Detention Centers?
Not to derail the thread, but what are the opponents of the camps suggesting as the alternative?
Putting the migrants in nicer facilities - maybe many rows of furnished houses, instead of a big camp? OK, that sounds good, but I don’t think that’s what they’re suggesting.
Edit: **CarnalK **beat me to it.
We’ll cross the bridge of whether humane detention is acceptable if we ever get there. Alas, with this (mal)Adminstration, I don’t think we’ll have that “problem” any time soon. :mad:
Grant them all amnesty and welcome them. That would upset the supporters of these concentration camps, but fuck them.
The migrants are probably making the gamble that they can make it to a sanctuary city which seemingly are providing some incentive to break the law. The real problem are the people in the US who want open borders and are willing to tolerate illegal immigration for long ten demographic and political reasons.
To answer the OP, no this won’t hurt Trump anymore than the scandal surrounding Virginia’s governor hurt the governor.
Trump could’ve started with keeping families intact, which the WWII-era Federal Government managed to do when it detained people it (wrongly) considered mortal enemies. He. Did. Not.
In some cases, that’s probably the only reasonably attainable possibility. Maybe “live in a shack in Mexico and slowly die of malnutrition or disease” is another reasonable possibility, but that kind of sounds like death too.
“Thank you for your application, here is your court date, please return at that time, here is a suggested charity-run housing facility in Mexico along with some lawyers’ phone numbers” is one possiblity (suggested up thread); stay with a volunteer host family until your court date (weekly check-ins, or something like that); just two possibilities off the top of my head (and manson1972’s, I think). I’m sure more creative folks can come up with a myriad of others.
We’d be happy to volunteer a spare bedroom for someone or a couple as a place to live while they await their court date.
I don’t know. Uganda, for some inexplicable reason, has been brought up as a place that is doing it correctly. I’m sure they can get a Ugandan style standard of living in almost any place besides the US.
I honestly don’t know why we aren’t doing this. Why go through all the problems with these camps when we don’t have to?