[0] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2019/07/01/an-open-letter-to-t...
“...unequivocally rejecting efforts to create analogies between the Holocaust and other events, whether historical or contemporary...”
[0] https://nypost.com/2019/06/24/us-holocaust-museum-denounces-...
[1] https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-holocaust-museum-rejects-na...
[2] https://www.jta.org/quick-reads/us-holocaust-museum-reiterat...
You are claiming that this letter says something that it, quite literally, does not.
You seem to be confusing concentration camp - you know, any holding facility whatsoever - with death camps. They are not synonymous.
The conditions and provisions those children are getting in those buildings are better than what they would be getting in the desert and with the adults they came with.
1/3 girls dragged across the border are raped.
You can't be mad at the building but be complacent with the root of the problem.
> 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.
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.
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.
Does that happen automatically when someone just asks for asylum? Or does asylum have to actually be granted first?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
(Also, ninth circuit court holdings are only applicable in the ninth circuit.)
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.
"[...] 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"
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.