• Obinice@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    a. Temporarily concentrating a group of people together in a camp is still a concentration camp.

    b. Then why are the US getting involved and sending their own undesirables there? At best, this is a bad thing Panama are doing, and the US said “hey cool we wanna remove people from society too but don’t want to build our own concentration camps because that’d look bad, can we send them to yours pls?”

    • hakase@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      a. Sure, if we’re disingenuously ignoring the meanings and implications of words today for some reason.

      b. For the first part of this question, here’s a response I made elsewhere that addresses it:

      "The article doesn’t address that, so I’d be speculating, but if I had to guess, I’d say either:

      1. US authorities determined that Panama had some sort of culpability for the migrants entering the US - maybe they were lax in their policing of the Darien Gap, for example

      or, also quite likely given how much of a petty dick Trump is:

      1. Trump forced Panama specifically to take them as a show of power related to his threat to steal the Panama Canal."

      For the second part of your b. point, I don’t see a reason that this is a bad thing for Panama to do, even if it sucks that they’re the ones having to do it. This isn’t a concentration camp - it’s a temporary camp until the migrants can be repatriated.

        • hakase@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          And what does that have to do with the Panama camps mentioned in the article? People in this thread seem to have a really, really difficult time staying on topic.

          • tjsauce@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            They are both places in which the government keeps people, exposed to the elements, only barely meeting their material needs, with the idea that such an arrangement is temporary.

            Tell me, what differences between these camps and the Panama ones matter in a practical sense? The side of the border the detanees were born on?

            • hakase@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 days ago

              The fact that people will be leaving the Panamanian camp as soon as next week, according to the article, meaning that it really does seem intended to be temporary.

              Also, Imma need a source on your claim that they’re exposed to the elements. Meeting their material needs is perfectly appropriate for the sort of temporary situation being described.