Father and daughter drown at US border

Blueshoe

MrFresh wrote: »

What do you think separates them from being a concentration camp?

Are they being starved, worker to death or funnelled into sealed rooms to be gassed?
Any mass graves out the back?

Lefty Populist CNN sh1te

BloodBath

The Japanese camps in the US during WW2 were called internment camps. These people were legal US citizens so they had more rights than these refugees.

Concentration camps were mainly forced labour camps farming food for the Nazi war effort. The prisoners had hard manual labour with minimal food which resulted in death through starvation for many. The death camps were a smaller part of some of the camps.

MrFresh

Blueshoe wrote: »

Are they being starved, worker to death or funnelled into sealed rooms to be gassed?
Any mass graves out the back?

Lefty Populist CNN sh1te

You're limiting the meaning of definition of concentration camps to those run by the Nazis. And if you read the testimony of the children you would see they are not getting enough food, clothing or an opportunity to wash.

volchitsa

BloodBath wrote: »

The Japanese camps in the US during WW2 were called internment camps. These people were legal US citizens so they had more rights than these refugees.

Concentration camps were mainly forced labour camps farming food for the Nazi war effort. The prisoners had hard manual labour with minimal food which resulted in death through starvation for many. The death camps were a smaller part of some of the camps.

Nope, the term concentration camp came into common usage during the Boer War, when the British gathered "enemy" women and children as a way of emptying the countryside to prevent them providing help to the Boers.

It's not just Nazis, and it wasn't intended to kill them. Although the conditions were so bad that many did die, but then that's the allegation that's being made about Trump's camps too.

Professor Moriarty

By Britannica's definition, these camps are refugee camps:

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.

MrFresh

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

By Britannica's definition, these camps are refugee camps:

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.

If they were temporary.

ILoveYourVibes

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

By Britannica's definition, these camps are refugee camps:

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.

The emotional experience from the person's point of view is similar though.

Professor Moriarty

MrFresh wrote: »

If they were temporary.

I think the word temporary refers to the refugees rather than the camps themselves.

ILoveYourVibes

MrFresh wrote: »

If they were temporary.

They can't seem to reunite children with parents.

BloodBath

Whatever the definition we can agree the condition these kids are being kept in is wrong but it's been going on longer than Trump.

Professor Moriarty

BloodBath wrote: »

Whatever the definition we can agree the condition these kids are being kept in is wrong but it's been going on longer than Trump.

It might be going on longer than Trump but he could stop it tomorrow.

BloodBath

Why didn't the mighty Obama stop it?

It's hard to distinguish between those who genuinely care and those just looking for another stick to beat Trump with these days.

volchitsa

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

By Britannica's definition, these camps are refugee camps:

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.

Of course Trump says it is a matter of state security.

Moreover these people, still less their children, haven't been convicted of anything.

And your own source (which I notice you don't link to) goes on to mention the British incarceration of Boer civilians as an example of concentration camps, as does Merriam Webster, which also mentioned the incarceration of Japanese Americans.

So it seems like calling them concentration camps is perfectly reasonable.

Professor Moriarty

volchitsa wrote: »

Of course Trump says it is a matter of state security.

Moreover these people, still less their children, haven't been convicted of anything.

And your own source (which I notice you don't link to) goes on to mention the British incarceration of Boer civilians as an example of concentration camps, as does Merriam Webster, which also mentioned the incarceration of Japanese Americans.

So it seems like calling them concentration camps is perfectly reasonable.

Dunno what your point about the link is. Anyway, it's obviously open to interpretation. My view is that they are not concentration camps as is usually understood by the description. The camps are inhumane but I see them as refugee camps.

BattleCorp

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

. Is there any solution to the constant stream of desperate immigrants?

A great big fcuking wall.

volchitsa

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunno what your point about the link is. Anyway, it's obviously open to interpretation. My view is that they are not concentration camps as is usually understood by the description. The camps are inhumane but I see them as refugee camps.

The point is that you quoted a dictionary definition to back up your interpretation, and yet that same article goes on to mention examples that contradict your point.

Professor Moriarty

volchitsa wrote: »

The point is that you quoted a dictionary definition to back up your interpretation, and yet that same article goes on to mention examples that contradict your point.

Well if we're going down that road...

1. Britannica is an encyclopedia not a dictionary.
2. I hadn't made any interpretation when I quoted Britannica.
3. I quoted the definition in its entirety.

If you're going to cast aspersions, get your facts right.

MrFresh

BloodBath wrote: »

Why didn't the mighty Obama stop it?

It's hard to distinguish between those who genuinely care and those just looking for another stick to beat Trump with these days.

Stop what? There was no zero tolerance policy when Obama was president. It's that policy that filled up the facilities. And let's not forget these facilities are privately run and get a fairly hefty sum for each prisoner every day they are imprisoned yet they won't even provide them with enough food or facilities to wash. It's actually incorrect to call them prisoners because prisoners are treated better. Hell, the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay have better facilities.

BattleCorp

MrFresh wrote: »

Stop what? There was no zero tolerance policy when Obama was president. It's that policy that filled up the facilities. And let's not forget these facilities are privately run and get a fairly hefty sum for each prisoner every day they are imprisoned yet they won't even provide them with enough food or facilities to wash. It's actually incorrect to call them prisoners because prisoners are treated better. Hell, the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay have better facilities.

What are America supposed to do though, realistically?

Are they supposed to open their borders and allow the rest of the world in?

weldoninhio

BattleCorp wrote: »

What are America supposed to do though, realistically?

Are they supposed to open their borders and allow the rest of the world in?

Fingerprint and deport them home. Enact a law that anyone found re-entering illegally is liable for 10 years hard labour then deportation. Anyone caught re-entering with a child goes straight to jail, child is deported home to the care of an orphan charity. A very hard line is needed. Kids aren’t a get out of jail free card.

Blueshoe

BattleCorp wrote: »

What are America supposed to do though, realistically?

Are they supposed to open their borders and allow the rest of the world in?

They need to build the border wall that Trump proposed and police it too.

Blueshoe

MrFresh wrote: »

Stop what? There was no zero tolerance policy when Obama was president. It's that policy that filled up the facilities. And let's not forget these facilities are privately run and get a fairly hefty sum for each prisoner every day they are imprisoned yet they won't even provide them with enough food or facilities to wash. It's actually incorrect to call them prisoners because prisoners are treated better. Hell, the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay have better facilities.

I have figured out a way they can avoid going to this "prison".

Don't try cross the border illegally

rossie1977

Blueshoe wrote: »

They need to build the border wall that Trump proposed and police it too.

Border wall is complete waste of time and money, even Republican dominated House and Senate knew that because they denied Trump financing for it between 2017-18.

If the UK an island can have serious illegal immigration issues a wall isn't going to solve your problem.

Blueshoe

rossie1977 wrote: »

Border wall is complete waste of time and money, even Republican dominated House and Senate knew that because they denied Trump financing for it between 2017-18.

If the UK an island can have serious illegal immigration issues a wall isn't going to solve your problem.

The us has millions of landmines sitting in storage. They should line the length of the border except the entry points . Problem solved

James Brown

Nermal wrote: »

Build a wall, stop obstructing the efforts of ICE and frustrating deportations, and no cages will be necessary.

I hope they build a wall and stay within it. Can do without Trump's fat head and shyte talk.

notobtuse

Blueshoe wrote: »

They need to build the border wall that Trump proposed and police it too.

It's rather simple. Nothing any president has done has stopped the tide of illegal immigration. A southern wall is as good, if not better, than anyone else's ideas that have been tried. Congress should give Trump the money to build the wall and see what happens. Maybe it will work, maybe not. What have we got to lose? No worse than anything else that's been attempted before. I think what Democrats fear most is that a wall would work.

James Brown

notobtuse wrote: »

It's rather simple. Nothing any president has done has stopped the tide of illegal immigration. A southern wall is as good, if not better, than anyone else's ideas that have been tried. Congress should give Trump the money to build the wall and see what happens. Maybe it will work, maybe not. What have we got to lose? No worse than anything else that's been attempted before. I think what Democrats fear most is that a wall would work.

the Department of Homeland Security estimated the cost of the wall to be much higher at about $21.6 billion, and even that could be an underestimation, according to the Brookings Institution.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/real-cost-trump-border-wall-195830968.html

And that said;

various agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration and Homeland Security have reported — since Trump took office — most drugs that cross the border come through existing ports of entry.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/02/01/want-know-where-most-drugs-cross-border-look-border-patrols-press-releases/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.dd883f3d15aa

If I were an american tax payer I'd be looking at medical and the like.

batgoat

BloodBath wrote: »

The Japanese camps in the US during WW2 were called internment camps. These people were legal US citizens so they had more rights than these refugees.

Concentration camps were mainly forced labour camps farming food for the Nazi war effort. The prisoners had hard manual labour with minimal food which resulted in death through starvation for many. The death camps were a smaller part of some of the camps.

The Japanese internment camps are recognised as concentration camps...

MrFresh

BattleCorp wrote: »

What are America supposed to do though, realistically?

Are they supposed to open their borders and allow the rest of the world in?

They're supposed to stop abusing children. You're acting like this is some resource issue. It's intentional mistreatment. If I gave you over $500 per day to mind a child do you think you could provide them with proper meals, care and washing facilities? You could give that child a fairly good living arrangement I reckon. These kids get drinking water, not enough to eat, no washing facilities for themselves or their clothes and no carers. They don't even know who or where they got some of the kids from. How anyone can find this acceptable is beyond me.



So again, to reiterate, this has nothing to do with resources. The resources are there. It's intentional.

Blueshoe wrote: »

I have figured out a way they can avoid going to this "prison".

Don't try cross the border illegally

They're children.

Blueshoe

MrFresh wrote: »

They're supposed to stop abusing children. You're acting like this is some resource issue. It's intentional mistreatment. If I gave you over $500 per day to mind a child do you think you could provide them with proper meals, care and washing facilities? You could give that child a fairly good living arrangement I reckon. These kids get drinking water, not enough to eat, no washing facilities for themselves or their clothes and no carers. They don't even know who or where they got some of the kids from. How anyone can find this acceptable is beyond me.



So again, to reiterate, this has nothing to do with resources. The resources are there. It's intentional.





They're children.

Load them into trucks and bring them back over the border. Their parents are a disgrace

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

weldoninhio wrote: »

Fingerprint and deport them home. Enact a law that anyone found re-entering illegally is liable for 10 years hard labour then deportation. Anyone caught re-entering with a child goes straight to jail, child is deported home to the care of an orphan charity. A very hard line is needed. Kids aren’t a get out of jail free card.

How does that help at all? It's certainly not going to deter people. Breaking up a family is certainly not the answer, that's going to do more damage than anything.

Blueshoe wrote: »

They need to build the border wall that Trump proposed and police it too.

Great soundbite, I mean, idea. "build the wall, hur dur". It's one thing to build a 2,000 mile wall, but to police it as well? The wall is not a very smart idea. It's a political stunt and Agent Orange himself is surprised with the amount of support it gets. Even he knows it's a dumb idea, and that's saying something.

Blueshoe wrote: »

I have figured out a way they can avoid going to this "prison".

Don't try cross the border illegally

Oh, so much wisdom in one post. :rolleyes:

Blueshoe wrote: »

The us has millions of landmines sitting in storage. They should line the length of the border except the entry points . Problem solved

Ah, now your true colors are shining, as if your posts weren't already bottom of the barrel stuff. So your answer is to maim and kill people, including children. Most civilized countries support the Ottawa Treaty. The states don't, but then again, it's not exactly a civilized country, is it? It's also against the Geneva Convention, but that doesn't matter to you, does it?

They are crossing the border, it doesn't make them fair game for slaughtering. Such a simplistic view.

Galwayguy35

Australia has the right policy, they are making it crystal clear and any boats arriving on their shores will be safely escorted back into international waters regardless of who is on these boats.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Dunno what your point about the link is. Anyway, it's obviously open to interpretation. My view is that they are not concentration camps as is usually understood by the description. The camps are inhumane but I see them as refugee camps.

A definition is not open to interpretation. It's pretty clear what a concentration camp and what a refugee camp is. You can call it a 5 star holiday resort if you wish, but you would still be wrong. You don't need to stock zyklon b or a pick ax to be considered a concentration camp, which is exactly what these camps are.

volchitsa

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Well if we're going down that road...

1. Britannica is an encyclopedia not a dictionary.
2. I hadn't made any interpretation when I quoted Britannica.
3. I quoted the definition in its entirety.

If you're going to cast aspersions, get your facts right.

Since it's an encyclopaedia, the dictionary definition is only a part of the source, which was my point.

The poster who rubbished the use of the word concentration camp claimed that only the Nazis had these, and you seemed to be agreeing with that.

If you're not, then I'm not sure what point you're making, but in any case, you didn't quote the link in its entirety, you picked the bit that suited you, and went on to claim that it showed that these border camps can't be compared to concentration camps. That's cherry picking out of context, as I pointed out. Because that same article goes on to make those sorts of comparisons, so clearly it's not just reserved to Nazi camps.

dudara

Blueshoe wrote: »

The us has millions of landmines sitting in storage. They should line the length of the border except the entry points . Problem solved

@Blueshoe - that’s enough from you. Do not post in this thread again.

dudara

notobtuse

Matt Barrett wrote: »

And that said;



If I were an american tax payer I'd be looking at medical and the like.

I think we should cut off aid to countries that do not stop their citizens from coming to the US illegally, except for humanitarian aid as long as the money gets into the right hands. Also tax all money transfers sent by individuals to those problem countries. Use that money to help build the wall. There are ways to pay for it.

And we can do many things at once. But the medical problem here will never be fixed as long as the two parties refuse to compromise on anything in this regard.

Gimme A Pound

MrFresh wrote: »

They're supposed to stop abusing children. You're acting like this is some resource issue. It's intentional mistreatment. If I gave you over $500 per day to mind a child do you think you could provide them with proper meals, care and washing facilities? You could give that child a fairly good living arrangement I reckon. These kids get drinking water, not enough to eat, no washing facilities for themselves or their clothes and no carers. They don't even know who or where they got some of the kids from. How anyone can find this acceptable is beyond me.



So again, to reiterate, this has nothing to do with resources. The resources are there. It's intentional.





They're children.

Nobody finds it acceptable. How on earth do you know what resources they have? How can you know what they can and can't do? The guards have children themselves - they don't want children abused. Some people seem to want this to be the case though.

Professor Moriarty

volchitsa wrote: »

Since it's an encyclopaedia, the dictionary definition is only a part of the source, which was my point.

The poster who rubbished the use of the word concentration camp claimed that only the Nazis had these, and you seemed to be agreeing with that.

If you're not, then I'm not sure what point you're making, but in any case, you didn't quote the link in its entirety, you picked the bit that suited you, and went on to claim that it showed that these border camps can't be compared to concentration camps. That's cherry picking out of context, as I pointed out. Because that same article goes on to make those sorts of comparisons, so clearly it's not just reserved to Nazi camps.

Nah. I simply put forward a definition and you misconstrued. That's okay. Heat of the battle. I don't know which post or poster you think I'm agreeing with but I'm not agreeing with anyone - I'm making my own point.

I do agree that comparing these camps with concentration camps is wrong simply because what happened in the holocaust was of a different magnitude and so it could be disrespectful to millions who were executed in those camps. Nothing can compare to that. However, that doesn't mean that I would defend how people in the border camps are being treated today. It's inhumane and the US should be deeply ashamed.

techdiver

Blueshoe wrote: »

Load them into trucks and bring them back over the border. Their parents are a disgrace

You're a special knuckle dragging **** aren't you?

**** it I'll take the ban for that!

techdiver

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nah. I simply put forward a definition and you misconstrued. That's okay. Heat of the battle. I don't know which post or poster you think I'm agreeing with but I'm not agreeing with anyone - I'm making my own point.

I do agree that comparing these camps with concentration camps is wrong simply because what happened in the holocaust was of a different magnitude and so it could be disrespectful to millions who were executed in those camps. Nothing can compare to that. However, that doesn't mean that I would defend how people in the border camps are being treated today. It's inhumane and the US should be deeply ashamed.

You don't understand the definition of "concentration camp" so!

Professor Moriarty

techdiver wrote: »

You don't understand the definition of "concentration camp" so!

Obviously not.

volchitsa

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nah. I simply put forward a definition and you misconstrued. That's okay. Heat of the battle. I don't know which post or poster you think I'm agreeing with but I'm not agreeing with anyone - I'm making my own point.

I do agree that comparing these camps with concentration camps is wrong simply because what happened in the holocaust was of a different magnitude and so it could be disrespectful to millions who were executed in those camps. Nothing can compare to that. However, that doesn't mean that I would defend how people in the border camps are being treated today. It's inhumane and the US should be deeply ashamed.

Who has said it was like the Holocaust? Now that's misconstruing! That's not what happened.

Someone used the word "concentration camps", someone else said "Really? Where was the Zyklon B" OWTTE, several of us pointed out that "concentration camp" doesn't mean only Nazi concentration camps, and you joined in with "By Britannica's definition, these camps are refugee camps not concentration camps" - but in fact Britannica didn't make that clear at all, so then you tried to backtrack by saying it was a matter of interpretation.

So yes, you joined in to back up the view that they couldn't be called concentration camps, even though your source was actually more in line with those of us saying "concentration camp" doesn't equal "Nazi".

Now you may have joined in without having read the whole discussion, but that was the context. Basically the original comment was perfectly reasonable, and your link doesn't prove otherwise. And there was no other ambiguity about whether it was a concentration camp or a refugee camp or other. And nobody has said the Americans are as bad as the Nazis or anything vaguely similar.

Manic Moran

Adele Aggressive Ibex wrote: »

Great soundbite, I mean, idea. "build the wall, hur dur". It's one thing to build a 2,000 mile wall, but to police it as well? The wall is not a very smart idea.

Turkey managed to build a 500 mile wall with Syria in a couple of years, complete with electronic surveillance and sensors to help direct response forces to breaches. If Turkey can manage it, I would submit that four times the length is more a matter of will than of capability for the US.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Nah. I simply put forward a definition and you misconstrued. That's okay. Heat of the battle. I don't know which post or poster you think I'm agreeing with but I'm not agreeing with anyone - I'm making my own point.

I do agree that comparing these camps with concentration camps is wrong simply because what happened in the holocaust was of a different magnitude and so it could be disrespectful to millions who were executed in those camps. Nothing can compare to that. However, that doesn't mean that I would defend how people in the border camps are being treated today. It's inhumane and the US should be deeply ashamed.

I don't understand how you don't get it. Concentration camps are around a lot longer than WWII and the Nazis. It's not a comparison, it's a concentration camp, it's as clear as night and day. The phrase "concentration camp" is not reserved for the camps run by Nazi Germany and their ilk. The definition is not up for discussion.

Outlaw Pete

Border patrol saved there being another young life lost on Tuesday.


https://twitter.com/USBPChief/status/1144327052377698304

weldoninhio

MrFresh wrote: »

They're supposed to stop abusing children. You're acting like this is some resource issue. It's intentional mistreatment. If I gave you over $500 per day to mind a child do you think you could provide them with proper meals, care and washing facilities? You could give that child a fairly good living arrangement I reckon. These kids get drinking water, not enough to eat, no washing facilities for themselves or their clothes and no carers. They don't even know who or where they got some of the kids from. How anyone can find this acceptable is beyond me.



So again, to reiterate, this has nothing to do with resources. The resources are there. It's intentional.





They're children.

So make it more comfortable for them, and encourage people to attempt dangerous border crossings with their kids?? Good plan.

weldoninhio

volchitsa wrote: »

Who has said it was like the Holocaust? Now that's misconstruing! That's not what happened.

Someone used the word "concentration camps", someone else said "Really? Where was the Zyklon B" OWTTE, several of us pointed out that "concentration camp" doesn't mean only Nazi concentration camps, and you joined in with "By Britannica's definition, these camps are refugee camps not concentration camps" - but in fact Britannica didn't make that clear at all, so then you tried to backtrack by saying it was a matter of interpretation.

So yes, you joined in to back up the view that they couldn't be called concentration camps, even though your source was actually more in line with those of us saying "concentration camp" doesn't equal "Nazi".

Now you may have joined in without having read the whole discussion, but that was the context. Basically the original comment was perfectly reasonable, and your link doesn't prove otherwise. And there was no other ambiguity about whether it was a concentration camp or a refugee camp or other. And nobody has said the Americans are as bad as the Nazis or anything vaguely similar.

AOC knew exactly what she was evoking when she mentioned concentration camps. That’s all the left have now, catchphrases designed to play on the heart strings, with zero substance.

splinter65

MrFresh wrote: »

They're supposed to stop abusing children. You're acting like this is some resource issue. It's intentional mistreatment. If I gave you over $500 per day to mind a child do you think you could provide them with proper meals, care and washing facilities? You could give that child a fairly good living arrangement I reckon. These kids get drinking water, not enough to eat, no washing facilities for themselves or their clothes and no carers. They don't even know who or where they got some of the kids from. How anyone can find this acceptable is beyond me.



So again, to reiterate, this has nothing to do with resources. The resources are there. It's intentional.





They're children.

Unaccompanied children entering a country illegally need to be returned to a children’s homeless charity in the country of origin immediately.

batgoat

weldoninhio wrote: »

AOC knew exactly what she was evoking when she mentioned concentration camps. That’s all the left have now, catchphrases designed to play on the heart strings, with zero substance.

America has had concentration camps in the 20th century, they were a pretty shameful part of their history. So I would say it evokes images of those camps more than anything. The conditions are atrocious, basic human rights are ignored. People are dying as a result of this but you're choosing to be outraged at Cortex for bluntness about it?

Professor Moriarty

volchitsa wrote: »

Who has said it was like the Holocaust? Now that's misconstruing! That's not what happened.

Someone used the word "concentration camps", someone else said "Really? Where was the Zyklon B" OWTTE, several of us pointed out that "concentration camp" doesn't mean only Nazi concentration camps, and you joined in with "By Britannica's definition, these camps are refugee camps not concentration camps" - but in fact Britannica didn't make that clear at all, so then you tried to backtrack by saying it was a matter of interpretation.

So yes, you joined in to back up the view that they couldn't be called concentration camps, even though your source was actually more in line with those of us saying "concentration camp" doesn't equal "Nazi".

Now you may have joined in without having read the whole discussion, but that was the context. Basically the original comment was perfectly reasonable, and your link doesn't prove otherwise. And there was no other ambiguity about whether it was a concentration camp or a refugee camp or other. And nobody has said the Americans are as bad as the Nazis or anything vaguely similar.

I'm afraid this argument you're having with me is based on stuff you're making up in your head. So I'll leave it with you.