Talk:List of concentration and internment camps/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Requested move 6 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 11:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

List of concentration and internment camps → List of internment camps – The term "concentration" is redundant in the title, since "concentration camp" is just a synonym for "internment camp". The proposed title "List of internment camps" is also more neutral, the term "concentration camp" has develped a negative connotation since WW2, demonstrated by the fact that US politicians like Rep. Ocasio-Cortez use that term to bash the Trump administration over the internment of illegal immigrants, despite the fact that these internment camps also existed under Obama, making the term partisan. It is also clear from the fact that this article is subject to discretionary sanctions and a 1RR that including the term "concentration" makes the article a magnet for disruption. Nug (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as nominator, obviously. --Nug (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
"Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line." Aikclaes (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per the article internment, "concentration camp" is often conflated with "death camp" by the general public, so both terms are used. There is a clear need to use both names to prevent confusion, and it is not some partisan idea to make illegal immigrant camps seem as bad as death camps. Anyone who writes a news article as such is, IMO, engaging in clickbait journalism.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ZXC guy 👀 ——SerialNumber54129 08:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is a peculiar argument. Concentration camps and internment camps are different things, as the RS show. Whether they should be grouped together is another thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • For the record, I think they should definitely be grouped together; both fall under things that violate human rights. It can easily be a slippery slope from one to the other, so there is no need to treat with kid gloves.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: - they are in fact the same. See for instance Britannica where "internment camp" is the alt title for "Concentration camp". The concentration camp form underwent stigmatization prior to WWII and more so given the events of WWII - however they are the same. Icewhiz (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose The two classifications appear for the most part to be two different levels of a similar type of authoritarian maltreatment, with some overlap in definition, so the current title is not broken. Havradim (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you cite to a reliable source that claims an "concentration camp" is different from a "internment camp"? --Nug (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This piece is advocating for the usage of the term concentration camp in regards to the Japanese-American camps because the word internment is too mild. It also acknowledges that the Nazi camps (death camps) and Stalin's gulags are worse than what we call concentration camps, so we have at least 3 levels. Havradim (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there an example of an actual "internment camp", if it's not synonymous with "concentration camp"? -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Both need to be retained given the usage. MaskedSinger (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ZXCVBNM, Peacemaker67, and MaskedSinger's arguments. --Pinchme123 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Havradim. PublicWorld (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator. -BaronGrackle (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per all those who have written in opposition. The term "Internment camp" generally has pretty negative associations, like negative associations with the term "concentration camp." Those negative associations exist because of shared purposes and abuses. Hence, they belong together here. The suggestion to separate them from each other seems a rather transparent attempt to whitewash a specific, ongoing predicament and its related transgressions, as much as can be achieved, and to do so for purely partisan reasons. Hambb (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hambb (talk • contribs) 02:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above, but I think a case could be made for splitting out one aspect of the list into a separate article and linking the two. Gleeanon409 (talk) 03:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Any removal of U.S. Concentration Camps at U.S.-Mexico border subject to the Discretionary Sanctions stated on the edit page

One editor has repeatedly removed content under the United States section. This content is subject to an arbitration agreement, and as such is subject to the 1RR rule regarding reversion of edits and to a requirement for consensus prior to reinstating challenged edits.

So far multiple editors have agreed that this content, regarding concentration camps at the U.S.-Mexico border, has been appropriately included. So, to the editor who keep removing this content, please come discuss your reasons here on the talk page and try to find consensus with us other editors. In the mean-time, I think the content should remain as it was before the dispute began, which is with it being present.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

And yet you have no issue with Obama having these detention centers? [1] To call these concentration camps is wrong and AOC can take her dogwhistling and shove it. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to do with your "whataboutism." Are you suggesting this article should also include content related to detention centers under previous administrations? If so, do you have sources identifying those centers specifically as concentration camps, or otherwise discuss their existence in a way that supports the label?
--Pinchme123 (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Firstly, you violated DS by reverting, I suggest you self-revert or you might be reported. Secondly, these are the same camps that Obama had. The same camps that had more children in detention under the Obama administration than under the Trump administration. Thirdly, it is POV to call it a concentration camp, when it's not. I also would like to know if you've ever edited Wikipedia before. I find it hard to believe that someone with less than 60 edits is so familiar with all Wikipedia policies. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
In addition, the header clearly states "Certain types of camps are excluded from this list, particularly refugee camps set up to house refugees who have fled across the border from another country in fear of persecution, or have been set up by an international non-governmental organization. Prisoner-of-war camps are treated under a separate category." So these camps are not to be included at all. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
@El C: You protected this page originally, can you please comment on this? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Don't really have a comment right now as I am not familiar enough with the edit history to tell which edit is longstanding: the addition or the removal. What I can tell you is that you should avoid such exclamations as "fuck off with that Holocaust revisionism" — that is definitely not okay. El_C 00:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
That's what it is though. Calling what is going on at the Southern Border a concentration camp is revisionism. See the statement of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum: [2] or here: [3] Regardless, the paragraph he put in is extremely biased, it completely ignores Obama and is just full of NPOV, besides ignoring the lead that states that camps at the borders are not to be included in this article. I understand the need to make Trump or the US look bad, but we have policies to follow. The article says that border camps are not to be included, so it shouldn't be included. I will not back down from calling out this Holocaust revisionism because this is what it is. And we don't have to AGF, because where were all these people until now? It's hypocritical and just politics. And I will not stand for it. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
As I have noted on Sir Joseph's message on my talk page, I do not think I have violated DS; I have challenged their edit with my one allowed revert. This discussion section is here specifically to give editors who do not want this specific content on this page to argue for its deletion. Given that Sir Joseph is the first to engage here, it seems like this discussion might finally happen.
I still support this content's inclusion on the page. In response to the argument pointing to the introduction statement, I object to that being a reason to remove this content for a few reasons.
  1. These camps are not described anywhere as "refugee camps," but rather, most charitably as detention facilities that house immigrants, including refugees.
  2. The statement clearly states that the camps to be excluded must be for "camps set up to house refugees who have fled across the border from another country in fear of persecution." No sources have been provided claiming the people held in these concentration camps have fled due to fear of persecution specifically. Most sources used in the section discuss violence in individuals' respective countries.
  3. There are several concentration camps discussed in this article that specifically describe internees/inhabitants as "refugees." See List of concentration and internment camps#Australia, Canada: Internment of Jewish Refugees, Denmark: After World War II, Finland: WWII, France: Spanish Republicans, India: World War II, Netherlands.
Until someone can provide a more adequate reason for deleting this content, I think it should remain.
Finally, it is not "revisionism" to include an example in this article when that example has specific support by experts relevant to the subject. That expert determination is visible at a number of the references used in the content under discussion. Further, those experts in those links specifically note that the label "concentration camp" is broader than the very specific example of death camps run by Nazis during World War II.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I thought you said there's consensus to include, but it's just you on the talk page. As for "experts" I note that the United States Holocaust Museum, and Yad Vashem are not on your side, so your experts might be part of the Twiteerati, but they are not the ones respected for Holocaust studies, and yes, it is 100% Holocaust revisionism to call the camps on the border a concentration camp, and those doing it are horrible people. Not sure where you are getting death camp from, I didn't mention death camp, and that is exactly why it's so wrong to call it a concentration camp. People are already ignorant of the Holocaust, we don't need to water it down even more by calling a detention center for illegal immigrants who will be temporarily housed there as a concentration camp. Here's more on the evils of AOC and what she is doing to America, [4] Sir Joseph (talk) 00:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
It's just not a civil way to engage with other editors. Anyway, that does not really answer my question about which version constitutes longstanding text. I didn't know which it was when I protected the article, and I still don't know now. /investigating El_C 00:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I think that if you want to add something like that, you need a strong consensus, not someone with 60 edits and some Twitter experts going against the USHMM and Yad Vashem among others, besides the sheer bias of those paragraphs. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:01, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

As I understand it, Wikipedia:Consensus was achieved when the majority of editors established via edits that the content should remain. As that link explains, consensus should be reached organically, via editing. Usually it's when persistent disputes arise - such as this one on whether or not to delete already-included content - that consensus is found through a discussion on the talk page. If a neutral party would like to correct me, I'd be happy to hear an alternative explanation.

As for the experts I am citing, they are the historians and other scholars who are quoted. These include historian Andrea Spitzer, author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, historian Waitman Wade Beorn at the University of Virginia, and sociologist Jonathan Hyslop at Colgate University, to name a few in just one article already used as a reference. Certainly not the supposedly anonymous "Twitter experts" Sir Joseph seems to be characterizing them as.

--Pinchme123 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Preliminary findings regarding consensus for inlcuding US camps

While inclusion does appear to be, overall, the longstanding text, it is difficult to tell that there is clear consensus for it, since a proper RfC was inexplicably never launched and properly closed. Obviously, the addition of the US camps saw strong opposition from the beginning and that has not changed. Perhaps it's time to set up an RfC on the matter so as to settle that question once and for all. Sorry, but that discussion in the archive is just a bit difficult to parse. Again, it really ought to have been structured in an RfC format so that a proper closing would be able to sum up the consensus or lack thereof in a concise manner. Anyway, such an RfC should ask the question of whether there is consensus to remove (i.e. remove or include?) mention of the US camps as, again, inclusion does appear to be the longstanding text, even though clear consensus is not that clear, at least not to me. El_C 01:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Considering that the text in the article is extremely biased, I'd considered TNT to that if it needs to go in. Forgetting the Holocaust revisionism and antisemitic dogwhistling of calling it a concentration camp, the paragraphs itself are just so biased. One reading it would come to the conclusion that the camps just came into being in 2018, when they were clearly in existence before, and not just that, the camps used were used before. The "Japanese internment camp" link that they used was also used during Obama's administration. I'm not going to start an RFC to have this removed, that is preposterous. This should not be here at all. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
What you do is your prerogative — I'm just reporting on the finding of my brief investigation regarding this dispute. El_C 01:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

New discussion about removal

In follow-up to my earlier post, every single citation listed for the Immigration Detention Centers relies on one single author: Andrea Pitzer. She does not appear to have a PhD or even Masters Degree. I can find no basis to qualify her as an expert on this matter. She is not more credible than multiple Holocaust museums who have many experts with PhDs studying the field, Holocaust Survivors, and multiple journalists that Support not having it classified as a concentration camp. Hurledhandbook (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

One can believe that the actions are deeply immoral including the family seperation, but the concentration camp categorization and comparison is not appropriate. Yad Vashem , the US Holocaust Museum , and Aushwitz Museum have cautioned against comparisons with Concentration Camps that killed 6 million Jews and with the atrocities of the Holocaust. Most people associate concentration camps with the systematic extermination of the Jews. Language and categorization that echoes this comparison is inappropriate. I think the American detention camps should not be included. There has been no evidence provided that the detained individuals will not receive trials for their asylum claims. On the contrary, the law requires they will, which i cited. Further, there has been an extensive Humanitarian aid package of 4.6 billion of dollars passed and on its way to the detained individuals. [19] This shows there is no punitive intent to inflict harm or a design for harm, but the country is merely being overwhelmed by the number of immigrants. The Japanese were American Citizens and were put in camps because of their immutable traits. The European Jews (should have been citizens) and were rightful inhabitants of their land, they were put in camps (and killed) for immutable traits. The same can be said about the African Boers in South Africa. The undocumented migrants are coming of their own free will, unlike every other example, and are not being targeted due to immutable traits, but immigration status. Hurledhandbook (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond here, as these two comments from Hurledhandbook are copy/pasted from Talk:Internment from previously-unregistered editors, and where I have already responded (twice), and this editor chose to begin a new discussion here, rather than contribute to the ongoing RfC below. To quote my response on Talk:Internment, "Multiple RS are used to justify their inclusion, with voices from multiple experts included in those examples (one source alone quotes from three separate experts). Further, arguments to exclude because of comparisons to Holocaust camps fail, given that multiple examples here come from other time periods and locations and are meant to exemplify the broadness of the category."
--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I’m copy/pasting then because you are not responding to them. You just avoid what I’m saying by saying “arguments to exclude because of comparisons to Holocaust camps fail”. That’s not dealing with it. You are just avoiding the question. The definition of a concentration camp is “Concentration camp, internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals and without benefit either of indictment or fair trial. Concentration camps are to be distinguished from prisons interning persons lawfully convicted of civil crimes and from prisoner-of-war camps in which captured military personnel are held under the laws of war. They are also to be distinguished from refugee camps or detention and relocation centres for the temporary accommodation of large numbers of displaced persons”
As you can see in the definition, they are different from detention camps and different from camps interning people because of civil crimes which is what is happening at the border. They are getting a fair trial. The border is just overwhelming by the large influx of people. They are not being put in the camps because of race, religion or anything besides that they have committed an illegal activity which is crossing the border. The illegal immigrants are not being mass executed nor forced to work. With all of the information it is clear it’s not a concentration camp nor an internment camp.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/concentration-camp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not avoiding dealing with the argument that calling the U.S. facilities "concentration camps" is somehow inappropriate because of the Holocaust, because this matter has been discussed extensively on this very talk page, by myself and other editors. Feel free to read those discussions and then thoughtfully contribute to them in their respective locations.
A single encyclopedic definition does not discount the conclusions of hundreds of experts.
It is arguable whether or not asylum seekers have broken a law when presenting themselves to border patrol agents, and the law which they have supposedly broken is a misdemeanor. Further, I can find no supporting evidence that children locked up in these concentration camps are never charged with a crime. If anyone can find support for such a claim, please provide it, otherwise I argue it is safe to conclude the children are being held without being charged or without trial, since it is longstanding precedent to refrain from charging children who are brought along during the alleged criminal activities of those adults who have brought them.
I cannot think of any other misdemeanor charges that lead to someone in the U.S. being detained for weeks or months on end, without at least one hearing in front of a judge to determine the appropriateness of that detainment first. Given this, it seems the supposed misdemeanors individuals are being charged with in order to justify their detainment in these concentration camps are merely a pretext.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
“Unlike most large American magazines, Newsweek has not used fact-checkers since 1996.“
Your source the Newsweek is not reliable at all. It over exaggerates the number of people signed to the document and it also exaggerated the credentials of these people. I doubt besides maybe a handful of “experts” signed it and these “experts” are not experts at all.
Also “For the first improper entry offense, the person can be fined (as a criminal penalty), or imprisoned for up to six months, or both.” So yes illegal entry is punishable by up to 6 months in prison. These children are held for their safety as their parents are also being detained. Are they just supposed to let child out on there own? Currently the government doesn’t have the resources to have enough to judges to hear the cases of illegal immigrants so it leads to the long delays. Also these people are free to leave to go back to Mexico or their home country. It has been proven catch and release of illegal immigrants is ineffective and detaining them is the best method.
While you might not think it isn’t appropriate to call them concentration camps because of the holocaust, many survivors do and because it offends them we can not use it if we use liberal guidelines. But of course since you disagree you won’t follow the guideline liberals like you have set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 22:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Regarding Newsweek, I am not going to respond to your unsourced quotation. You are more than welcome to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and ague with editors ther for recognizing Newsweek as a reliable source though, should you decide you don't want Newsweek to be considered one.
Regarding your unsourced quotation for the supposed criminal penalty that may not even apply, this does not in any way address why people who have not yet been convicted of a crime are being locked up for extended periods of time in these concentration camps. It does not explain why children are being locked up without being charged at all (because there is a key difference between providing housing for vulnerable children and locking them in a concentration camp). No, "these people" are not "free to leave" to go anywhere. They must first meet the stringent demands placed upon them by those who have put them in these concentration camps to begin with.
Regarding your assertion "[i]t has been proven catch and release of illegal immigrants is ineffective and detaining them is the best method," this is the "best method" to what? And when you've decided what this is supposedly "the best method" to do, please provide relevant reliable sources to support this assertion.
Regarding your final paragraph, the entire point of the article that this talk page is a discussion for is to note examples of concentration and internment camps, where dozens of examples that are not from Nazi Germany are found. The U.S. concentration camps at the border are fully in line with these other examples. I'm not quite sure what you are referring to as "liberal guidelines," so if you would like to provide a source for this as well, that would be useful.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh sorry the source that shows Newsweek is not a reliable source is from Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsweek

Yes illegal immigrants in detention centers leave and return if they want to.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/05/08/more-detained-immigrants-are-giving-up-court-fights-and-leaving-the-u-s

Detention before removal is by far the most effective means to ensure that illegal immigrants comply with lawful deportation instead of catch and release.

https://www.heritage.org/immigration/commentary/trump-administration-reverting-catch-and-release-congress-blame

Sorry but the US detention centers are no where near concentration camps. Apparently you can’t read anything Because the definition of concentration camps has been given to you by me multiple times and the detention centers are not even close to the definition.

Maybe some more definitions will help you.

The holocaust museums definition. P.S. these guys are experts in concentration camps and they also say the US detention centers are not concentration camps. “The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy.”

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/concentration-camps-1933-39

Also to address this comment “this does not in any way address why people who have not yet been convicted of a crime are being locked up for extended periods of time”. You know what happens to people who are accused of crimes but are not convicted yet? They sit in a jail cell unless they can meet bail if that’s an option.

Your comment on child is weird. What else are they supposed to do with the children of illegal immigrants? Release them on there own? Of course not you put them in the detention center.

Here is the source that says illegal immigrant ion can be up to 6 months in jail.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

Hurledhandbook (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

  1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source
  2. Per the Snopes article "Are Migrants ‘Free to Leave Detention Centers Any Time’?" which rates this statement as "Mostly False" (Snopes is also listed as reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources), "Migrants in detention facilities are in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and attempting to leave a facility without authorization is a criminal offense. The option of 'voluntary departure' is blocked off to many by significant legal and financial barriers, and the entire process is subject to the authority and discretion of immigration officials and courts. Migrants cannot simply 'leave at any time.'" Further supporting this interpretation is this immigration attorney's article, stating "voluntary departure before immigration proceedings are filed is not available for alien nationals stopped at the US border." So even if someone held in one of these concentration camps knew enough about their legal options to file a Voluntary Departure application, they could not until after their first hearing, which is a pretty big hurdle for something that can supposedly be done at any time.
  3. Your heritage.org source is an opinion article - marked "Commentary" - and so not a reliable source because its author is not an expert in the subject. Please provide something that ins't an opinion article.
  4. The definition you've cited perfectly describes the concentration camps we are discussing here, because
  5. it is not at all appropriate under the U.S.'s constitutional democracy to hold people for extended periods of time without providing an initial hearing for filing charges and determining release or bail. Thus, these concentration camps are where individuals "are detained or confined... under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy."
  6. It is not normal for children to be locked up when their parents are accused of crimes. Even in extreme cases where children are taken from their parents because of their parents' legal troubles, these children aren't put into a jail of their own.
  7. You have yet to provide a reliable source that states that the people being placed in the U.S. concentration camps are subject to 8 U.S. Code § 1325. In fact, the Justice department itself states an amendment to 8 U.S. Code § 1325, "an alien apprehended while entering or attempting to enter the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers shall be subject to a civil penalty," which is distinctly different from a criminal punishment and cannot include imprisonment.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
1. Here is a different source that shows Newsweek isn’t reliable https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2012/the-story-of-when-newsweek-ditched-its-fact-checkers-then-made-a-major-error/
2. The author of the heritage article is an expert actual. Maybe if you looked him up you would. He has a PhD. Based on your claims in an argument earlier on this page, if you are a professor or have a PhD then you are an expert on the holocaust.
3.show me on the constitution where it says it’s unconstitutional to “hold people for extended periods of time without providing an initial hearing for filing charges and determining release or bail. “


4. You haven’t provided a source that says the illegal immigrants are not subjected to the law that literally says illegal immigrants who are caught go to prison for up to 6 months. Maybe you should stop being so dumb.
5.actually you are wrong about only facing civil penalties. They face criminal and civil penalties. “Aliens who enter the United States illegally between ports of entry face two types of penalties. They face civil penalties for illegal presence in the United States, and they face criminal penalties for having entered the country illegally“ you can be on bail. There is a procedure for bonding out and release of individuals on their own recognizance
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R45266.pdf
8. They are not held without being charged so it isn’t unconstitutional. ICE can hold an individual arrested without a warrant for 48 hours. the deportation officer will serve you and the immigration court with a Notice to Appear (NTA). If you are a US Citizen you can be held without a charge for 72 hours. This all has been decided by the courts so it’s constitutional. There is a procedure for bonding out and release of individuals on their own recognizance
http://www.apsanlaw.com/mlaw-272.Procedures-Followed-by-ICE-for-The-Arrest-and-Detention-of-Non-Criminal-Aliens.html
9. You have yet to say or provide a source to where these children will go if they are caught illegally crossing the border. Just releasing them to be by themselves is very dangerous and the safest place is to stay with their family.these children have no where to go so the government takes custody of them until their parents are deported. Children who’s parents are arrest go to family unless they don’t have any like the illegal immigrants so they both enter government custody.
10. Sorry but you can voluntarily depart from the US if you are an illegal immigrant. You don’t need to be heard by a judge. “The departure may or may not have been preceded by a hearing before an immigration judge”
https://www.justia.com/immigration/deportation-removal/voluntary-departure/
https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/voluntary-departure
11. Nothing you have provided says it’s a concentration camps.
Hurledhandbook (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs)
  1. Take up your complaints about reliability with the editors who maintain Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. I don't think your one source pointing out an issue from seven years ago should change Newsweek's current status being recognized as reliable.
  2. Don't put words in my mouth. I looked up the so-called "expert." His lack of expertise has to do with the lack of relationship between his areas of study for his degrees (military strategy and military defense) and the conversation at hand. He is also a single voice. Feel free to provide multiple expert opinions to back up your claim, otherwise it remains effectively unsupported.
  3. Sixth Amendment, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial"
  4. I already provided a link to the Justice Department's own description of their interpretation. Take up your complaints with them. Please refrain from personal attacks when discussing content.
  5. See previous.
  6. (your #8, because 6 and 7 are absent) Your link describes procedure, it does not describe practice. It also specifically notes that it is referring to "Non-Criminal Aliens." So, are they accused of a crime or not?
  7. (your #9) Multiple reliable sources provided in support of the content under discussion mention how children are being jailed alongside their parents, or jailed as unaccompanied minors. If you have not familiarized yourself with the sources used in the already-existing text that we're discussing, then I'm not sure what to do.
  8. (your #10) I have already highlighted the appropriate language in my source stating the the "voluntary departure" applications are not available for those who have been detained at the border. Neither source you have provided speaks to this.
  9. Every source where I have claimed an expert describes these as "concentration camps" does indeed contain experts claiming these are concentration camps.
You have now resorted to name-calling. I'm not sure it is productive to continue to respond here, because you seem to have a personal vendetta and are unwilling to acknowledge the sheer number of experts who call these concentration camps. I don't know what to do now.
--Pinchme123 (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

1.literally in an argument above you said people who Signed a document condemning the detention centers were experts even if they didn’t have a degree in the holocaust. So by your definition he is a expert. Also previously I have linked you many experts who say they are not concentration camps such as the holocaust museum, newspaper articles and etc.

2. “The presumptive speedy trial time limit for persons held in pretrial detention should be [90] days from the date of the defendant’s first appearance in court after the filing of a charging instrument. The presumptive limit for persons who are on pretrial release should be [180] days from the date of the defendant’s first appearance in court“ “ the average length of stay at any one immigrant prison or jail was 34 days”

The right to speedy trial is being met by the detention centers.

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/publications/criminal_justice_section_archive/crimjust_standards_speedytrial_blk/

https://www.freedomforimmigrants.org/detention-statistics

3. Literally provided facts that say you are punished by civil and criminal charges, but you chose to ignore them because they don’t fit your agenda.

4. Literally one a handful of sources you have provided back up your claim and one to none have an “expert”. Stop making up false information and stop trying to mislead people. Everything I have provided has backed up my claims but you chose to ignore them. The sheer number of fake articles and false “experts” you have provided is substantial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurledhandbook (talk • contribs) 23:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

American "concentration camps" on the border?

The US migrant camp system, which began under Democrat Bill Clinton, is a network of detainment centers designed to hold migrants coming over the Mexican border illegally. These "camps" which were in use under President Barrack Obama also separate families, this is due to the alarming number of female migrants that are sexually assaulted by the traffickers and the need to make sure these minors are actually with there parents. AOC and other far-left activists in congress have used this child protection policy and decade-old camps as proof of the USA's "fascism" calling the centres "concentration camps", this has been parroted by the mainstream media and recently led to the death of an ice officer attacked by an Antifa terrorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke boylan (talk • contribs) 09:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RfC about this above.Adoring nanny (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_concentration_and_internment_camps/Archive_4&oldid=921318588"