11 ms·

It pretty much follows the definition of a concentration camp. The vast majority of these individuals have not committed a crime (crossing the border to claim a

It pretty much follows the definition of a concentration camp. The vast majority of these individuals have not committed a crime (crossing the border to claim asylum is explicitly legal) and yet they are held indefinitely without bond, in poor conditions > You can't be mad at the building but be complacent with the root of the problem. I am mad at the root of the problem, which is why I'm disappointed that this administration continues to undercut foreign aid efforts to improve the conditions in central American countries.

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
I want you to give me one example of a concentration camp in history where people willingly traveled to it..
LiNeXT 7y ago
> crossing the border to claim asylum is explicitly legal No, it isn't. You can file the application no matter how you entered or what your current status is, but that doesn't post-facto make an illegal entry suddenly legal.
- openasocket 7y ago
  Title 8 Section 1158, in the first sentence: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title." Asylum seekers may be excused for illegal entry into the US. An asylum seeker can even use a fake passport to get through customs to apply for asylum: see Akinmade v. INS as an example.
  - LiNeXT 7y ago
    > Asylum seekers may be excused for illegal entry into the US. An asylum seeker can even use a fake passport to get through customs to apply for asylum: see Akinmade v. INS as an example. This doesn't make the border crossing "explicitly legal," as you claimed, it just means that if you are granted asylum (which, I venture, most applicants are not, since the scope of asylum law is quite narrow), then your illegal entry will be disregarded.
  - Rebelgecko 7y ago
    >Asylum seekers may be excused for illegal entry into the US Does that happen automatically when someone just asks for asylum? Or does asylum have to actually be granted first?
    - LiNeXT 7y ago
      It has to be granted.
    - openasocket 7y ago
      Yes. If you use a fake passport to get past customs and request asylum, and your request is denied, you are simply deported and you do not serve jail time and are not barred from future entry into the united states.
      - throwaway894345 7y ago
        Jail time doesn't determine whether or not an act is legal (consider running a red light or underage drinking). In particular, the law you cited above is pretty clear that entering the US to seek asylum is illegal but may be forgiven if asylum is granted. To be clear, these detainees are held under the pretense that they are going to be deported (however they must first be processed). The valid criticism of ICE is that they are apparently detaining US citizens and the detention conditions are unsatisfactory, but it's not a question that it's illegal to enter the US to seek asylum.
        openasocket 7y ago
        I mean, there's a particular act that the government can't prosecute you for, can't punish you for, and can't take into consideration when making decisions about you, in what sense is that act illegal? That's getting into "if a tree falls in the forest..." territory.
        throwaway894345 7y ago
        "Illegal" is a well defined term. Punishment or lackthereof are irrelevant.
  - zo1 7y ago
    Okay, if they're asylum seekers and have valid reasons for claiming asylum, why are they trying to "hide" after crossing such that we're here discussing ICE, border camps, etc? Most of the crossers aren't "technically" asylum seekers and more like economic migrants trying to look for a better life. They probably know this and so hide from border officials. So one side of this debate wants to "include" economic migrants, and the other doesn't. If we can resolve this particular point, we can cut through all the hyperbole and emotion regarding the topic.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
Goladus 7y ago
> It pretty much follows the definition of a concentration camp. No, it doesn't, and even to the partial extent it does, is HIGHLY disingenuous. Here is the definition of concentration camp: a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–4 By calling it a concentration camp you are implying that migrants engaged in border crossings are political prisoners or persecuted minorities, which is flatly false. Furthermore you are loading the comment with obvious semantic baggage of the Nazi concentration camps and their horrors in order to massively exaggerate the blame and moral culpability of anyone associated with them.
zo1 7y ago
I just looked up the definition: "[...] a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution.[..]" First of all, border crossers are neither a political class nor a persecuted minority (again, another abused nebulous term that means different things to different people). E.g. I'm a white male, and I happen to be a minority where I live. This place even has laws specifically designed to target us, yet here we're supposedly a "ruling minority" or something. Definitely not the same meaning geographically, but even more so politically. Second. They're not forced to provide manual labor. Best I can tell is that it's voluntary, comparable to existing detention centers for citizens and they get some token pay in return. Third. They're not there to await mass execution. At this point, using "concentration camp" in the normal "this is a bad thing to do to people" sense is quite hyperbolic. They're there waiting for court and/or deportation. I mean, what else do you want ICE to do if that is their current legal obligation to do? Must they say "screw it, the humane beds/cells are full, let's let those guys run right past us." I think the above is from the Oxford dictionary according to Google. Here is the definition from Merriam Webster, too: "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"

s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago

I want you to give me one example of a concentration camp in history where people willingly traveled to it..

LiNeXT 7y ago

> crossing the border to claim asylum is explicitly legal No, it isn't. You can file the application no matter how you entered or what your current status is, but that doesn't post-facto make an illegal entry suddenly legal.

openasocket 7y ago
Title 8 Section 1158, in the first sentence: "Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title." Asylum seekers may be excused for illegal entry into the US. An asylum seeker can even use a fake passport to get through customs to apply for asylum: see Akinmade v. INS as an example.
- LiNeXT 7y ago
  > Asylum seekers may be excused for illegal entry into the US. An asylum seeker can even use a fake passport to get through customs to apply for asylum: see Akinmade v. INS as an example. This doesn't make the border crossing "explicitly legal," as you claimed, it just means that if you are granted asylum (which, I venture, most applicants are not, since the scope of asylum law is quite narrow), then your illegal entry will be disregarded.
- Rebelgecko 7y ago
  >Asylum seekers may be excused for illegal entry into the US Does that happen automatically when someone just asks for asylum? Or does asylum have to actually be granted first?
  - LiNeXT 7y ago
    It has to be granted.
  - openasocket 7y ago
    Yes. If you use a fake passport to get past customs and request asylum, and your request is denied, you are simply deported and you do not serve jail time and are not barred from future entry into the united states.
    - throwaway894345 7y ago
      Jail time doesn't determine whether or not an act is legal (consider running a red light or underage drinking). In particular, the law you cited above is pretty clear that entering the US to seek asylum is illegal but may be forgiven if asylum is granted. To be clear, these detainees are held under the pretense that they are going to be deported (however they must first be processed). The valid criticism of ICE is that they are apparently detaining US citizens and the detention conditions are unsatisfactory, but it's not a question that it's illegal to enter the US to seek asylum.
      - openasocket 7y ago
        I mean, there's a particular act that the government can't prosecute you for, can't punish you for, and can't take into consideration when making decisions about you, in what sense is that act illegal? That's getting into "if a tree falls in the forest..." territory.
        throwaway894345 7y ago
        "Illegal" is a well defined term. Punishment or lackthereof are irrelevant.
- zo1 7y ago
  Okay, if they're asylum seekers and have valid reasons for claiming asylum, why are they trying to "hide" after crossing such that we're here discussing ICE, border camps, etc? Most of the crossers aren't "technically" asylum seekers and more like economic migrants trying to look for a better life. They probably know this and so hide from border officials. So one side of this debate wants to "include" economic migrants, and the other doesn't. If we can resolve this particular point, we can cut through all the hyperbole and emotion regarding the topic.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Goladus 7y ago

> It pretty much follows the definition of a concentration camp. No, it doesn't, and even to the partial extent it does, is HIGHLY disingenuous. Here is the definition of concentration camp: a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution. The term is most strongly associated with the several hundred camps established by the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe in 1933–4 By calling it a concentration camp you are implying that migrants engaged in border crossings are political prisoners or persecuted minorities, which is flatly false. Furthermore you are loading the comment with obvious semantic baggage of the Nazi concentration camps and their horrors in order to massively exaggerate the blame and moral culpability of anyone associated with them.

zo1 7y ago

I just looked up the definition: "[...] a place in which large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution.[..]" First of all, border crossers are neither a political class nor a persecuted minority (again, another abused nebulous term that means different things to different people). E.g. I'm a white male, and I happen to be a minority where I live. This place even has laws specifically designed to target us, yet here we're supposedly a "ruling minority" or something. Definitely not the same meaning geographically, but even more so politically. Second. They're not forced to provide manual labor. Best I can tell is that it's voluntary, comparable to existing detention centers for citizens and they get some token pay in return. Third. They're not there to await mass execution. At this point, using "concentration camp" in the normal "this is a bad thing to do to people" sense is quite hyperbolic. They're there waiting for court and/or deportation. I mean, what else do you want ICE to do if that is their current legal obligation to do? Must they say "screw it, the humane beds/cells are full, let's let those guys run right past us." I think the above is from the Oxford dictionary according to Google. Here is the definition from Merriam Webster, too: "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"