5 ms·
That makes sense since those same people are now labeling detention centers "concentration camps". It's tautological.
by malvosenior 7y ago
That makes sense since those same people are now labeling detention centers "concentration camps". It's tautological.
- shadowgovt 7y agoInteresting claim, but I don't think it's true. Source?
- malvosenior 7y agoI’m referring in part to your own comments. You said people would be debating the definition of concentration camps then you called a detention center for illegal immigrants a “concentration camp”. It is you who is trying to change the definition and fit it where it’s convenient to your politics.
- shadowgovt 7y agoI'm not changing definition; I'm going by definition used by others. https://www.thedailybeast.com/holocaust-survivor-yes-the-border-detention-centers-are-like-concentration-camps https://www.thedailybeast.com/holocaust-survivor-yes-the-bor...
- malvosenior 7y agoYou’re one person trying to change the definition, but you’re correct there are others trying to do the same.
- shadowgovt 7y agoI mean, if anyone should have some stake in the definition, it should probably be Holocaust survivors. Which is one of the reasons (to pop context back to the up-thread post) I find the claim the comparison cheapens the memory of the Holocaust somewhat worthy of skepticism.
- malvosenior 7y agoThat's not how language works. People can't just redefine things to suit their political needs (even if something terrible has happened to them in the past). It's 100% expected that people who break the law will be imprisoned if caught. A prison is not a "concentration camp", a detention center for illegal aliens is not a "concentration camp". People end up in those places because they broke the law, not because people rounded them up out of their homes and shipped them there.
- shadowgovt 7y agoWhat law have the people in the camps in the southern border broken? Think carefully on this, and ask yourself when they had their day in court. We have due process, and that applies to everyone beholden to our laws, whether or not they are citizens.
- malvosenior 7y agoThis law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325
- shadowgovt 7y agoAnd what judicial ruling from the day in court of the people you claim are breaking that law justifies their internment in mass camps in conditions substandard to people who have been found guilty of breaking a law? You're forgetting that law enforcement officers aren't judge and jury; they may arrest, but a person has presumption of innocence until their day in court (even if border patrol physically observed them clambering through a hole in a fence). You may also note that the penalties for breaking the law you've cited include limits on the term of incarceration. So while we hold these people on suspicion of breaking these laws, are we letting them out after 6 months or 2 years? The answer is no. They have not had their day in court; the US is holding people indefinitely under suspicion of having committed crimes, on purpose, in probable violation of habeas corpus, to maximize people's fear of crossing the US border. It's industrial-scale terror and the US can and should do better.