-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Now the concentration camps!!
- Thread starter Lyndon
- Start date
One of our biggest national tragedies of modern American history was the detainment of Japanese citizens if they did not 'completely renounce Japan' during the war, and were placed into concentration camps. We blamed them for the ****ty thing we were doing to them to ease our conscience.
They're leaving to protect their families from bigger problems than the journey. And they're not staying in Mexico because of numerous dangers that entails as well (less protection against Venezuelan gang violence heading up, issues of human rights abuses with asylum seekers, lack of protection for LGBT, and economic instabilities in Mexico making it especially hard for upward motility from poverty.)
This posited tent city is a prison camp with 'no release.' We don't imprison asylum seekers.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't see how the example even compares as to what happened with Japanese -Americans During World War II , in light we are talking about a group of Ilegals and not full US citizens. They are foreigners, bottom line, so all the comparative talk comparing Japanese-American citizens and the encroachment of foreigners across the border is completely unrelated, aside from the detainment itself.
Nobody asked illegals to come here and when they did arrive, they were essentially storming across the border, and were justifiably stopped by authorities who made sure they did not go any further.
That's breaking United States law , which is something some people simply don't or refuse to understand.
My guess is they'll be offered a chance to apply and go through US channels or be deported after the in- processing and screening. Things like that take time, so it should be pretty obvious that nobody's going anywhere until its sorted out.
They were still offered asylum by Mexico regardless of what people may think of the country. Either way, I'm sure Mexico is a considerably lot better situation than Honduras was. I would think the interior of the country is calm and peaceful enough, as most of the drug problems, crime, and murders we hear about happen primarily along US and Mexican borders. It's not like the illegals don't have an alternate home to go to since Mexico seems willing and gracious enough to accommodate every one of them as their own and as far as I'm concerned it's still a step up from where they come from.
It would stand to reason alternatively they might go on to Canada as the preferential country of "milk and honey" which is what a number are already doing by going through Quebec , although unsurprisingly it's looking like Canada doesn't want them any more than US does. Surprise! Canada is a country of laws as well.
From my understanding, Canadians have already sent their representatives down there warning the flow of illegals by advising them to not try to enter Canada the same way they're trying to enter the US.
The bottom line is, these people clearly created their own situation by their actions and now they have to deal with it. They already have a home offered to them and they should take it, considering Mexico was gracious enough to be willing to take them on board as one of their own.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What's heartless is not protecting and thinking about the impact on our own born and naturalized citizens.
It's also heartless and hideously irresponsible to just let foreigners cross over International borders unabated that can pose serious health and safety risks to the citizenery.
All one has to do is take a look at the virtual utopia of illegals that California made itself into already!
On second thought, maybe a compromise can be made after all. Let's get Cali's elected officials to make a proposal that they can all swarm en'mass into California. No health screening, no security screening. Just cross the border. I'm sure the residents of California will just love it, bake cakes, and welcome everybody with open arms like they are doing now.
Problem solved. 700000 + illegal foreigners can just plow themselves into California's borders and settle down wherever they please. I'm sure it'll be a wonderful and thriving prosperous state in no time to show the rest of the country what doofuses we are for wanting to keep illegals out.
But those tents aren’t for asylum seekers, they are for militant invaders. There’s a difference. Any of those in that truly want asylum have path to do so. Apply at one of the many U.S. consulates and apply for legal asylum status. Anyone seeking to come into the U.S. without authorization should be prevented from doing so.
And calling them “concentration camps” is flat out inaccurate and a mockery of those that have suffered in true concentration camps.
If you personally had to spend any amount of time living in one of these camps you might understand how it compares. Yes, I understand your point, the Japanese Americans were American citizens and immigrants aren’t. But the experience of human suffering is the same. And it is not necessary. People are going to be made to suffer to score political points. And thai, in a word, is evil,
I suppose "deciding to run from extreme violence, poverty, or dictatorship" is a sort of choosing, but not an entirely free choice.
A concentration camp is not necessarily a death camp. These are concentration camps in the same sense as how the word has been used historically, e.g. by the British in the Boer War or by the Spanish in Cuba.
Concentration Camps Existed Long Before Auschwitz | History | Smithsonian
The example is meant to illustrate how easily tribalism makes an 'other' and then blame them for our mistreatment. 'They are forigners, therefore their detainment is justified' is quintessential xenophobia.
No we aren't. They aren't illegal. Nothing about what they are doing is illegal. That is simply being projected on them in the tribalistic search of 'other.'
Wirey
Fartist
I assume that as well.
You literally cannot apply for asylum at a consulate, you must go to the border. How to Obtain Protection from a U.S. Embassy or Consulate
It's literally the definition of concentration camp. "a camp where persons (such as prisoners of war, political prisoners, or refugees) are detained or confined." Trump is talking about arresting asylum seekers legally at the border and placing them in concentrated camps.
Your definition is overly broad and makes no distinction between concentration camps, internment camps, detainment camps, psychiatric wards and criminal prisons. In other words, your definition is useless.
A concentration camp is a particular form of incarceration facility. It includes use of those held as forced or slave labor and purposes of killing and extermination. There is zero evidence that the detention facilities Trump proposes would have anything like that.
Well, then obviously this so-called 'concentration camp' must be considered an upgrade.
Not to mention probably a couple billion people live in those crappy countries in Central and South America, Africa, Asia, Middle East, etc.. Just get the word out that if you just make it into the US by hook or crook you are welcomed as a new citizen as perhaps the immigration liberals would like.
I am pro legal immigration but against illegal immigration.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
Actually, those seeking "asylum" are legally required to accept the asylum from the first free country they enter, then they can apply for entry into another country. Mexico offered such asylum and it was refused. These people are not seeking "asylum", they're looking for the freebies found in the US.
BSM1, you seem more knowledgeable than I about the rules and procedures. If an asylum process takes months or years do the people just live in refugee camps the whole time supported by the host country? Are they allowed to come and go?
Not quite. The conventions that the US has agreed to - and have the force of law in the US because of this - prohibit punishment of a refugee who enters the country illegally and presents himself to the authorities. This is still the case even with a safe third country agreement, i.e. the arrangement you're talking about.
If countries A and B have a safe third country agreement, a refugee who arrives in country B via country A can be returned to country A (or vice versa). Canada and the US have one of these agreements, for instance.
Mexico and the US, OTOH, do not have a safe third country agreement. This means that any refugees who arrive in the US via Mexico are still the US's responsibility and are entitled to all normal rights of refugees.
BSM1
What? Me worry?
In reasonable countries, after a short initial screening period, refugee claimants are free to come and go.
I can remember the 80s and early 90s when we had a lot of Sri Lankan refugees in my area who had fled the civil war. They mostly stayed in motels that the federal government had rented out while they waited for their hearings. Some of the kids went to my school.
The worst part of the experience was that the refugee claimants were frustrated that they couldn't work to support themselves instead of living off the government (since they couldn't get work permits until after their hearing).
It's not "my definition." It's quoted word for word from Miriam Webster. If you dont like it, take it up with them. They obviously disagree with your assessment of how concentration camp should be defined.