7 ms·

With today's political climate I can't help but think that something like this could happen again.

evan_ 10y ago
It kind of already is happening in the US right now in the form of "Family detention centers" intended to detain non-citizens slated for deportation. If Trump's administration seriously plans on "rounding up" millions of people for deportation, they'll have to be lodged somewhere while they are tried (assuming they're granted trials, who knows anymore) and travel arrangements are made. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/magazine/the-shame-of-americas-family-detention-camps.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/magazine/the-shame-of-amer...
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  There's a big difference between detention and deportation of illegal immigrants and detention of legal immigrants and American citizens.
  - thiagoharry 10y ago
    How easy is to repeat the same mistakes from the past! Add some new terminology, change some laws, add more layers ofcomplexity to definitions. And it's done: we can repeat the evils from past and nobody will notice in the present.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - coldpie 10y ago
    I don't find the difference to be all that big.
    - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
      ...until they come for you
      - coldpie 10y ago
        Who, the immigrants? I think you may have misread this conversation thread.
        krapp 10y ago
        Republicans have suggested that the US repeal the Constitutional right of birthright citizenship specifically to allow people born in the US to illegal immigrants to be rounded up and "deported" to their parents' or grandparents' countries of origin. The entire scope of this discussion involves more that simply arresting and deporting people who sneak into the US illegally - it also includes a movement to redefine American citizenship in terms of generational purity.
  - turar 10y ago
    Because former are inhuman and latter a human? The most jarring part, of course, is that most of "illegal aliens" are rural Mexicans of Native American heritage, being detained in states like Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, on land belonging to their country not too long ago, and to their ancestors for centuries.
    - superbaconman 10y ago
      I'm not sure that's a completely accurate view. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of relocating to within Mexico's new boundaries or receiving American citizenship with full civil rights. Over 90% chose to become U.S. citizens.
      - turar 10y ago
        Ukrainians who lived in Crimea got full Russian citizenship too, but I'm not sure if that makes it fair and a done deal for the rest of the Ukrainians. But I thought my other point was more important. Most Americans are newcomers to the Americas, a few generations tops. Most Mexicans are not, and nobody really asked them before erecting new borders on their lands.
- DarkKomunalec 10y ago
  Strange how enforcing borders began to be seen as controversial. The explanation that makes the most sense to me is, some people see free movement across borders as a human right, while others view a country as their home, and so should have the right to decide who to let in.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    As a practice it is about 100 years old (border enforcement went bigly with WWI). Maybe the whole idea of national borders is the strange thing.
  - Domenic_S 10y ago
    I am surprised by the same thing. We have a legal process for crossing those borders, and if you circumvent that process you are a criminal. How is that controversial? Separately, if you believe the process is bad, or borders should be open, or whatever -- by all means, fight for that using the frameworks we have.
    - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
      “If you [break the law] you are a criminal. How is that controversial?” What is legal is not necessarily moral or ethical.
      - gaius 10y ago
        Sure, but a situation in which every individual picks and chooses the laws they agree with doesn't scale.
        turar 10y ago
        I wonder what America would have been like if slavery abolitionists, women's suffrage leaders, and Civil Rights leaders took your advice.
        10y ago
- turar 10y ago
  Or just google "icebox detention" to see what's happening now, not in the 1940s. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/photos-show-conditions-in-arizona-border-detention-centers.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/photos-show-conditions-...
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  "...intended to detain non-citizens slated for deportation." Your statement raises two distinct questions: Q1) Why are these individuals being detained? Are they visitors to the United States, with a valid visa, merely subject to detention by a bigoted law enforcement agency...or are have they broken one or more existing U.S. laws by overstaying their visa or illegally entering the country? If the former, then yes, it is shameful and should be addressed immediately. If the latter, then they are being detained as any anyone would be if they had been accused of a crime and considered a flight risk. Q2) How are they being detained? Are the conditions considered acceptable by third-party organizations such as the ICRC? Are detainees being provided with adequate food, water, shelter, and medical care? Is there an official timetable for the resolution of their detention? Are the reason(s) for their detention documented and available to advocates? If any of the above questions have a "no" answer, then again it is shameful and should be corrected immediately. Beyond that, the United States is not conducting itself in a manner inconsistent with most other nations in the world. As for Trump and the mythical "rounding up" plans: just stop it. Seriously. This kind of hysterical fearmongering is just as absurd as Glenn Beck's "Obama's gonna round up conservatives and put them into FEMA camps" bullshit from a couple of years ago. It is just as unsubstantiated, just as inflammatory, and just as likely to be fought tooth and nail by average Americans. Any social advocate will tell you that this ain't the 1940s.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  How preposterous. We have rules as a country for who is allowed to enter and stay. There is no country in the world that will allow you to stay illegally.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
yincrash 10y ago
Trump himself defended his Muslim banning proposal by citing FDR's tactics with the Japanese. "What I'm doing is no different than FDR"[1] The head of one of his SuperPACs (Great America PAC) also mentioned specifically the internment of Japanese as valid _precedent_ for what Trump wants to do. [2] [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-cites-fdr-policies-defend-muslim-ban/story?id=35648128 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-cites-fdr-polici... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-inter...
yincrash 10y ago
OT: I believe my reply was modded for the same reason https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13139991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13139991 was flagged? However, I provided citations (which I thought made the bar for substantiveness) and believed I was civil. Was I inciting flames by backing up the parent's comment?

evan_ 10y ago

It kind of already is happening in the US right now in the form of "Family detention centers" intended to detain non-citizens slated for deportation. If Trump's administration seriously plans on "rounding up" millions of people for deportation, they'll have to be lodged somewhere while they are tried (assuming they're granted trials, who knows anymore) and travel arrangements are made. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/magazine/the-shame-of-americas-family-detention-camps.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/08/magazine/the-shame-of-amer...

dsfyu404ed 10y ago
There's a big difference between detention and deportation of illegal immigrants and detention of legal immigrants and American citizens.
- thiagoharry 10y ago
  How easy is to repeat the same mistakes from the past! Add some new terminology, change some laws, add more layers ofcomplexity to definitions. And it's done: we can repeat the evils from past and nobody will notice in the present.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- coldpie 10y ago
  I don't find the difference to be all that big.
  - JoeAltmaier 10y ago
    ...until they come for you
    - coldpie 10y ago
      Who, the immigrants? I think you may have misread this conversation thread.
      - krapp 10y ago
        Republicans have suggested that the US repeal the Constitutional right of birthright citizenship specifically to allow people born in the US to illegal immigrants to be rounded up and "deported" to their parents' or grandparents' countries of origin. The entire scope of this discussion involves more that simply arresting and deporting people who sneak into the US illegally - it also includes a movement to redefine American citizenship in terms of generational purity.
- turar 10y ago
  Because former are inhuman and latter a human? The most jarring part, of course, is that most of "illegal aliens" are rural Mexicans of Native American heritage, being detained in states like Arizona, Texas, and New Mexico, on land belonging to their country not too long ago, and to their ancestors for centuries.
  - superbaconman 10y ago
    I'm not sure that's a completely accurate view. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe_Hidalgo Mexicans in those annexed areas had the choice of relocating to within Mexico's new boundaries or receiving American citizenship with full civil rights. Over 90% chose to become U.S. citizens.
    - turar 10y ago
      Ukrainians who lived in Crimea got full Russian citizenship too, but I'm not sure if that makes it fair and a done deal for the rest of the Ukrainians. But I thought my other point was more important. Most Americans are newcomers to the Americas, a few generations tops. Most Mexicans are not, and nobody really asked them before erecting new borders on their lands.
DarkKomunalec 10y ago
Strange how enforcing borders began to be seen as controversial. The explanation that makes the most sense to me is, some people see free movement across borders as a human right, while others view a country as their home, and so should have the right to decide who to let in.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  As a practice it is about 100 years old (border enforcement went bigly with WWI). Maybe the whole idea of national borders is the strange thing.
- Domenic_S 10y ago
  I am surprised by the same thing. We have a legal process for crossing those borders, and if you circumvent that process you are a criminal. How is that controversial? Separately, if you believe the process is bad, or borders should be open, or whatever -- by all means, fight for that using the frameworks we have.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 10y ago
    “If you [break the law] you are a criminal. How is that controversial?” What is legal is not necessarily moral or ethical.
    - gaius 10y ago
      Sure, but a situation in which every individual picks and chooses the laws they agree with doesn't scale.
      - turar 10y ago
        I wonder what America would have been like if slavery abolitionists, women's suffrage leaders, and Civil Rights leaders took your advice.
        10y ago
turar 10y ago
Or just google "icebox detention" to see what's happening now, not in the 1940s. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/photos-show-conditions-in-arizona-border-detention-centers.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/us/photos-show-conditions-...
MrZongle2 10y ago
"...intended to detain non-citizens slated for deportation." Your statement raises two distinct questions: Q1) Why are these individuals being detained? Are they visitors to the United States, with a valid visa, merely subject to detention by a bigoted law enforcement agency...or are have they broken one or more existing U.S. laws by overstaying their visa or illegally entering the country? If the former, then yes, it is shameful and should be addressed immediately. If the latter, then they are being detained as any anyone would be if they had been accused of a crime and considered a flight risk. Q2) How are they being detained? Are the conditions considered acceptable by third-party organizations such as the ICRC? Are detainees being provided with adequate food, water, shelter, and medical care? Is there an official timetable for the resolution of their detention? Are the reason(s) for their detention documented and available to advocates? If any of the above questions have a "no" answer, then again it is shameful and should be corrected immediately. Beyond that, the United States is not conducting itself in a manner inconsistent with most other nations in the world. As for Trump and the mythical "rounding up" plans: just stop it. Seriously. This kind of hysterical fearmongering is just as absurd as Glenn Beck's "Obama's gonna round up conservatives and put them into FEMA camps" bullshit from a couple of years ago. It is just as unsubstantiated, just as inflammatory, and just as likely to be fought tooth and nail by average Americans. Any social advocate will tell you that this ain't the 1940s.
marcoperaza 10y ago
How preposterous. We have rules as a country for who is allowed to enter and stay. There is no country in the world that will allow you to stay illegally.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

yincrash 10y ago

Trump himself defended his Muslim banning proposal by citing FDR's tactics with the Japanese. "What I'm doing is no different than FDR"[1] The head of one of his SuperPACs (Great America PAC) also mentioned specifically the internment of Japanese as valid _precedent_ for what Trump wants to do. [2] [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-cites-fdr-policies-defend-muslim-ban/story?id=35648128 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-cites-fdr-polici... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-internment-muslim-registry.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/us/politics/japanese-inter...

yincrash 10y ago

OT: I believe my reply was modded for the same reason https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13139991 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13139991 was flagged? However, I provided citations (which I thought made the bar for substantiveness) and believed I was civil. Was I inciting flames by backing up the parent's comment?