> Also they are concentration camps by any reasonable definition of the term
Here's a reasonable definition [0]:
A camp where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners, prisoners of war, refugees etc., are detained for the purpose of confining them in one place, typically with inadequate or inhumane facilities. [from 19th c.]
Yes, large numbers of people are being detained, but no, the purpose of the detention is not to confine them.
The camps are a confinement only for the impracticality of detaining large numbers of people in small buildings, in the same way as jails.
And again like jails, the people are being detained because they (or their only companion, in the case of dependents) were caught in the commission of a crime.
They are jails at most, and as far as I can tell, you can leave at basically any time.
We're detaining asylum seekers in these concentration camps, which by definition are people who don't really have a place where they're welcome. How does your argument apply to those seeking asylum?
Innocent people are not being dragged out of their homes and thrown into camps for their political beliefs or nationality.
Illegal immigrants seeking asylum are willingly coming here and are provided with shelter, provisions and aid while their cases are processed. They have to stay somewhere, but since their specific crime is that they cannot be in the country legally, they are detained in government facilities.
They are also free to leave at any time if they choose to no longer pursue their asylum claim. There is also legal entry (like obtaining a visa) which does not incur detainment.
"His client, a Brazilian national who had been ordered deported before she married a U.S. citizen, understood the risks as well, but ultimately decided that she wanted to keep the appointment"
This is not close to anything other than enforcement of the law. They are in the country illegally.
There is a legal process to immigration. I've been through it. Nowhere are you allowed to just come into the country without permission because you might eventually apply for a green card.
In an earlier argument in this same thread, you complained about people fussing over terminology. Now you're doing the exact same thing you complained about, which is fussing over people calling these camps concentration camps, which fits the historical and dictionary definition to a tee.
Yes, they can choose to no longer pursue their asylum claim, but what you're arguing for is for them to commit suicide. They would be deported back to regimes which would likely kill them. Just because they have that 'option' does not mean the squalid conditions they are held in is somehow a good or just thing.
I'm using official and accurate language like detainment centers. My complaint is against changing the terms for sensationalism.
How is voluntary ingress into aid shelters the same as a concentration camp? Do you consider every refugee camp the same thing then? More importantly I fail to see how this helps when it actually causes more delays in aid and funding due to political infighting and media hysterics. It's yet another case of terminology being a trivial distraction from the actual issue, and in this case hurting the people involved.
Not seeking asylum is not the same as committing suicide. That's a completely disingenuous and emotional argument. Asylum is when you are not safe anywhere in your country, which is not the reality for most of these migrants who are fleeing poor economic and government conditions. This is reflected in number of asylum cases that are actually accepted.
What regimes are you talking specifically? Do you mean the socialist governments? The failure of those is always inevitable and can only be fixed by new leadership, not by importing the populace into another country.
