Talk:List of concentration and internment camps/Archive 3

"Forced separation of illegal immigrant children"
This article should be locked/protected from further edits to prevent vandalism. The original edit which has repeatedly been restored and then removed is valid and should remain as part of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.249.151 (talk • contribs)

My request for protection was denied; suggested alternative dispute resolution methods, so we'll try that.

If you review the other items in this article, you'll notice that they are effectively imprisonment. Take Japanese internment as an example. That was a round-up of Japanese-Americans and imprisonment to keep them from conspiring with an enemy, allegedly. While one may disagree with the practice of the current administration (and it's easy to do), what is happening with the children is not imprisonment. There is a legal standing for it. People crossing the border ports of entry are doing so against US law, and their imprisonment is legal, though morally and ethically bankrupt. Our laws also say that children cannot be imprisoned. Therefore, the children must be held somewhere for processing and release to a guardian.

The administration is saying several things at once, all while using these people as political pawns. But this not a concentration camp and should not be in this list. The existing article on Trump administration family separation policy sufficient covers this situation without further politicizing it by associating them with Nazism.heat_fan1 (talk) 13:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * No comparison with extermination camps or the Holocaust is being made here. But this is a list of concentration and internment camps, and these are very clearly internment camps. For children. In America. In 2018. For shame. -- The Anome (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with heat fan 1 on this. These are not either of those things are. To compare them downplays the horrors of the others. If the anome would take some time to do some googling they would find they are infact in a place where they are given healthcare, education, freedom to practice their religion and more. The fact so many wikis have been locked with false information is horrifing to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.153.214 (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The Japanese were also given all of those things when they were held prisoner in their camps during the Second World War. Internment is defined as "the state of being confined as a prisoner, especially for political or military reasons." The definition is clear, beyond anything and everything else, these camps are by the very definition internment camps and thus should remain on this list. 24.229.33.69 (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the accommodations are relevant, but the purpose is. According to Internment, it is "the imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, without trial." That's not what this is. These children are being held for processing because their parents have been arrested. This is no different than the processing of children whose American parents have been arrested for other reasons. The only difference is the volume in one location.
 * I also don't like this practice. I don't like the policy. But Wikipedia is not a place for emotion.heat_fan1 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with The Anome, the US camps seem to meet the definition of Internment. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with heat_fan1. These children are not being held without trial.  Moreover, they weren't taken from their parents from their homes and then imprisoned(ex: nazi, japanese situations).  They are held, just like any other asylum applicant, until the hearing can be heard.  If the listing stays, then you will need to justify a change of definition for internment and concentration wiki's.   Moreover, a movement or a news article about a movement is not an expert (source: 187) on what concentration or internment camps are.  The other two sources make no mention of concentration or internment.  There is no source from an expert or historian to quantify this addition. I disagree with Absolutelypuremilk, for reason that both the children and parents are given trial on a first come first serve basis, completely countering the definition of internment which is " Internment is the imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, -without trial-. " Flamous7 (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutelypuremilk and The Anome, can you please explain why you think this policy meets the definition of internment and deserves a listing in this article? heat_fan1 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Quote: "Internment is the imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, without trial." I rest my case. -- The Anome (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * But they're not being "imprisoned or confined," they're being processed for release to a guardian. The alternative is to not transfer them to a guardian and to merely let them go into the country alone. That's obviously not the right answer. Some of these shelters certainly look like prisons. There are chainlink "cages" in some of them, the kids aren't allowed a whole lot of free time, and they're obviously not free to go. But they are, purportedly, being processed for release. Unless someone can demonstrate that these kids will never be released (and, again, we're talking about children, not adults), it's hard to call them imprisoned. heat_fan1 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "But they're not being "imprisoned or confined,"
 * Can they leave?
 * "they're being processed for release to a guardian."
 * Can you name one who has been released to a guardian? Frankly, I doubt they are even able.  If you're actually pulling a 3-year-old out of the arms of its mother, I doubt you've taken the trouble to process paperwork, which would require actually identifying people in the first place.  Do they even know which children belong with which parents?  The Homeland Security Secretary was asked where the girls were being held, and did not know.Carlo (talk) 19:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The qualifer is without trial. That is what makes the difference between jail, juvenile center/detention center and a concentration/internment camp.  Jail/juvenile center/detention center get hearings and/or trials, and concentration/internment camps do not.   I rest my case. Flamous7 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed, while it may make readers uncomfortable, the rhetoric coming out of the Administration makes it pretty clear that these children are being separated and incarcerated for expressly political purposes without trial or clear charges. This pretty plainly meets the definition of a concentration/internment camp, and thus deserves inclusion on this list. ThirdDolphin (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Flamous7 & heat_fan1. Should we include Ron Perlman retweeting a Gizmodo article about how Wikipedia now says these camps are on par with the Holocaust as a reason for them being on this list? This is some strange meta ladder of wikipedia not being a newspaper. -- Loyalocolypse (talk) 19:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @ThirdDolphin by that definition we can add many modern camps/detention centers to this page. For example, several European countries detain migrants coming to Europe without trial. What happened with concentration camps cannot be compared to what is happening currently in America, sure seperation of children from parents is not something I personally support, however, that is not the issue here. Wikipedia is not a political forum where anyone can just edit pages and add things that are not factually correct but which support their personal/political view. We should try instead to be unbiased and try our utmost best to provide neutral but factually correct information on a subject. Sentionalized journalism and opinions are not something which should be used as source in this wiki article (since it can easily lead to heated political debates and such), but the kind of sources used in this article are exactly that. Thus I agree with heat_fan1, Flamous7 and Loyalocolypse that the section should be removed and the issue should be part of Trump administration family separation policy  Dragnadh (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That is ABSOLUTELY the intent, and the ONLY intent, this doesn’t reek of neutrality failure, this absolutely OOZES of it. You might as well have called it a death camp, especially with weasel words like you used. This is a disgusting and UTTERLY dishonest piece of outright terrorist propaganda; Might as well post that stupid porn video “This is what happens in American prisons” (al Qaeda in Iraq used a porn video to try to discredit US forces over there around 2004, until literally EVERYONE realized it was in fact a porn video- a total of about 2 weeks, but it lead to the death of 38 Americans and over 200 Iraqi civilians). Calling this action shameful is an insult to shameful actions. (You can delete this all you like you squadristi, but I ASSURE you it WILL come up again- And much sooner than you think.

They are not being held for trial (even though their parents are), that's the difference. And the temporary nature isn't really relevant here, American internment camps for the Japanese ran until the war ended not permanently. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 19:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Their legal guardian would be their parents. They are held until their parents go to trial. After the trial they are released to their parents. If you want to call the temporary hold of their children a concentration camp until their parents have their trial, you will have to add the locations where CFS holds children until their parents go to a hearing or trial.  Children are not legally responsible therefore not charged, only their parents are being charged.Flamous7 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you saying CFS keeps children in wire cages? -- The Anome (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm failing to find indications that Child Family Services has camps that imprison children while a child's parents await processing and trial. But it is entirely possible I simply did not use the right search terms. If there is such a situation, then it *may* be appropriate to add that as well. As far as I am able to determine, CFS allows children in such a situation to travel as they please, and works to set children up with foster families as soon as possible. -Verdatum (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We're Wikipedia; we don't define what we think is or is not an internment or concentration camp, we only repeat what reliable sources say. There are a number of such sources already given in the article which are describing these institutions explicitly as concentration camps. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:31, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what CFS does. I've met a mother who got her child back, her daughter was horrified from the experience because all the other kids only spoke Spanish. This was in Connecticut. - Loyalocolypse (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely agree with Loyalocolypse. There is no qualifer as to the state of where they are held. So unless it can be proven that they are held there indefinitely, or if the definition changes for internment camp, immigration detention centers don't fall under the definition of internment. Flamous7 (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You say that. Most other posters to this thread, however, disagree with you. I note that User:Loyalocolypse's account was set up very recently, and their edits here are their first substantive edits. -- The Anome (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok the definition calls for political or military reasons. Past examples show internment camps were forcefully imposed onto the population (nazi/japanese) Please cite the source where it states they are held for political or military reasons and not legal ones such as breaking the law or in lieu of parental trial.  Please cite the source where they were forced. Flamous7 (talk) 20:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A very quick Google search for "children detention political reasons" finds this straight away: and, a bit later,  -- The Anome (talk) 20:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One of the challenges with finding reliable sources is that this has become a HIGHLY politicized situation, and all of the typical "reporters" are giving opinions. The two articles you just provided are editorials, not facts. Everyone calling them "concentration camps" or "internment camps" is doing so as an opinion. And it's difficult to separate the facts from the opinions.
 * The facts are thus: People are crossing the border illegally. The administration has adopted a zero-tolerance policy and is, therefore, arresting and prosecuting all individuals who cross illegally. This is different than past administrations have done. The law says that children cannot be incarcerated since they have not been charged with crimes. Therefore, the children must be separated from their parents, who have been charged. The government either cannot or has chosen not to release the children into the US without supervision. Therefore, until they can be turned over to the parents after trial or to another guardian within the US, they must be held. Approximately 2000 children have been separated from their parents since April. These are all indisputable facts. Much beyond that is speculation or opinion. heat_fan1 (talk) 20:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * President Trump himself has said that the detention is politically motivated, stating that it he is only enforcing the policy because the Democrats refuse to make concessions on immigration law.  Laurel Wreath of Victors ‖ Speak 💬 ‖  07:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @The Anome This isn't about disagreement. CFS holds children against their will for months on end while their parents are being processed, going through rehab etc. Of course then were going to have to go through every child service institution in the world and add them to this list. I personally do not think it is appropriate. - Loyalocolypse (talk) 20:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)~
 * And the CFS like the Government do this because (wait for it) the parents are suspected of breaking the law. It's a deterrent for parents whom break the law. Nobody is forcing parents to break the law. Internment camps are non-voluntary. Currently non-citizens have the voluntary choice of not breaking the law and staying with their children or breaking the law and possibly being separated given that detentions centers are over capacity SOURCE/Flamous7 (talk) 20:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Loyalocolypse, I've been searching, and I'm still completely failing to find evidence that Child Family Services (Or Child Protective Services, or any other local, state or federal government agency) holds children against their will. Again, the sources I do find indicate that they just try to find a place for them to safely live. The children in that situation are not treated as criminals; they are not detained. example source. Do you have anything discussing your concern beyond your Connecticut anecdote? -Verdatum (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Source We are speaking in the context of removing children from parents and CFS does that all the time. That's the subtitle of the post you guys are trying to keep. Whether they are together or apart they will be detained no matter what since they broke the law and will await the asylum hearing/trial.Flamous7 (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The arguments against political internment are specious. First, it's policy to separate all families crossing the border, even those seeking asylum. Entering the country for the purposes of seeking asylum is legal. Second, the claim is that they aren't detained. The children aren't free to go, so they are indeed incarcerated. Third, according to that same article, the policy and internment is intended to deter immigration, a political goal.  Bones NL (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @Bones NL, 1 It was legal to enter the country seeking asylum but as you said the new policy does not permit that anymore. Therefore it is no longer legal. 2 The children are being held because their guardian is being processed. They are not incarcerated in internationally agreed upon legal terms. 3 controlling immigration has been considered a national security issue on both sides of the isle since America's inception. (talk) Loyalocolypse (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Your first point makes very little sense in regards to it not being considered an internment camp. Policy changes are very often enacted for political reasons, especially when they impact a highly politicized issue. Your second point isn't relevant at all to the discussion, as it is the children being discussed, and not their parents. For your third point, this policy is not supported by both sides of the isle, and the left side of the argument does not consider those seeking asylum to be a national security risk in most cases. Either way however, the discussion is not about whether both sides support immigration security, but about if the policy is politically-driven and ultimately whether these are considered interment camps. TheUnlocked (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @Loyalocolypse, 1 The policy does not make it illegal to seek asylum, it is simply to treat asylum seekers the same way as illegal immigrants. But that doesn't change the fact that these are internment camps, as no charges will be levied against the kids, and therefore there will be no trial. 2 They are detained and not free to go. That's detainment. (as an aside, many concentration camps in history involved extra-legal detention.) 3 The Administration has made two claims. One, that they'd change the policy in exchange for political capitulation on immigration reform by Democrats . Two, that they instituted this policy to deter immigration . Political reasons, not national security. I realize this is abhorrent, but it's not untrue. Bones NL (talk) 06:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1. The children are being held while their guardian is being processed. This is no different than Legal American's who commit crimes. We'd have to add every orphanage and CFS building to this list with that precedent. 2. Their parents are detained and they are being held until their legal guardian is released from custody. Same goes for legal citizens/minors. 3. That article has a political bias, using tactics to deter illegal immigration is not political. The administration has stated their immigration policies are because of National Security reasons. I can understand the confusion. -- (talk) Loyalocolypse (talk) 13:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Flamous7, which definition calls for political or military reasons? It could also be argued that being a deterrent to immigration is a political reason. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Military could be argued because the immigrants are considered a National Security threat. I don't think that is appropriate for this list, though. Then we'd have to add a whole bunch of other humanitarian camps in Europe and the Middle East among other places. Loyalocolypse (talk) 20:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)~

I think an aspect nobody is considering is that Japanese internment camps were forced internment of US Citizens. Concentration camps and internment camps were forced internment of citizens and immigrants for the crime of nothing but existing in that location. Nobody is forcing anyone to cross the border illegally. The US is not rounding up immigrants and putting them in camps. If people seek asylum at ports of entry, they are not separated from their children. These people make the choice the cross the border illegally rather than seeking asylum through the designated pathway. I think that is a huge difference between an internment camp and what is currently happening at the border. The US processes these cases as quickly as possible. Children are kept with HHS at shelters for an average of 51 days, and then 85% are sent to the other parent or close family, and 15% are put in foster homes. This only occurs for people who seek asylum after being caught illegally crossing. BurrShotFirst1 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You can only seek asylum from within a country, so yes, they are forced to enter the country, and from the fact that they're seeking asylum, you've got to assume they were forced to leave their own country. The US is not rounding up asylum seekers, because that's how seeking asylum works, you have to report somewhere and claim asylum. They've admitted that hundreds of children will probably never find a family member, so no, they're not processing as quickly as possible, separating children from their families is the exact opposite of that. It's a concentration camp, any attempt to say otherwise is politically motivated, and not NPOV, when the media's calling them concentration camps. No-genius (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This is an immediately new account, so take this with a grain of salt. But I don't think that even if these "detention centers" are not "processing as quickly as possible," that makes them "concentration camps." They are fulfilling the same role as mass, overpopulated orphanages.


 * And personally, I haven't seen a non-opinion article from a reliable source use the terminology "concentration camp." Abstract objects (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The parents are traveling to the border at their own expense and requesting asylum or attempting illegal entry of their own free will. How is this like Auschwitz? – Lionel(talk) 02:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/does-law-family-separation-detention-minors/ Untrustedlife (talk)
 * No one is saying its like auschwitz, there are far more then just nazi concentration camps here, for example the US Japanese internment camps are in this list, if it fits the definition of internment camp, then it should be on this list, also Lionel, i see you mostly create conservative content, would you agree if i said you were likely politically biased. Also this isn't about the parents (who are being prosecuted) these children are NOT being prosecuted and are still put in these camps, also yes the Obama administration took children from parents too, however they only did it very rarely (Snopes has done an article on this claim)


 * This should be a pretty simple issue to deal with. Rightly or wrongly, the immigrants are being detained for breaking the law, that is entering the United States illegally. The detention camps are prisons, nothing more. The "looks like concentration camp", etc. is all sensationalism by the media, Laura Bush and others. Just because something looks like something else, does mean it is the same thing.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The left is using this issue to further their agenda. A concentration camp in Nazi Germany was a place they put Jews who had not broken any laws, so they could murder them. Today, illegal aliens who have broken border laws, are imprisoned, with no intention of murdering them. We also spend billions a year on maintaining their welfare throughout this process, while the Reich was feeding Jews sawdust and gassing them because food and bullets were too expensive. I think Trump being elected has warped the lefts sense of propriety. Or an extremely clever troll is behind this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.93.55.53 (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There appears to be a dispute over factors such as the relation of those imprisoned (I am using this term for simplicity) to the nation imprisoning them - this reverts back to the argument of legality (the illegal act of crossing the border entitling the nation to legally imprison them). The legality of the action of imprisonment and the grounds for doing so are also not a determining factor of a program's labeling as an internment camp since both legal and illegal programs can qualify. In addition, the degrees of confinement are not requirements for imprisonment which negates the amenities available within the US border camps. As for the references to Japanese Internment Camps and Nazi Concentration Camps, it is essential to be careful as not to derive the meaning of the terms directly from these two specific and famous examples, there must be a more objective means for qualifying a detention camp as an internment/concentration camp. The Novac (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2018
The entire section of "Forced separation of immigrant children" under the "United States" section should be removed. These areas that the children are kept in are not anywhere close to being what is defined as a "concentration camp" or "internment camp". Just because someone wants to call these "concentration camps" to prove a point does not mean they meet the definition of a concentration camp, and including them in this article is pure hearsay. Their clear lack of difference to what is defined as a concentration or internment camp should be the deciding factor and not some sort of political bias that skews the facts behind what is going on. If Wikipedia cares about presenting factual data, then the only choice is to remove this section as it is not factual at all. I mean look at the sources, they are references to articles reporting on people WANTING to call them concentration camps. Westurner89 (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: we are using the references here to describe just what you said: that some people want to call them concentration camps. For the rest, see the section where this is already being discussed a few threads above. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

There's absolutely zero consensus here as to the definition of these shelters being "concentration/internment" camps. This article is clearly being abused for political purposes. I would request that the addition regarding the immigrant shelters be removed until such consensus without political bias is reached. Brenae wafato (talk) 07:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The article concerning the List of World Interment Camps is no longer open for editing. Isn't it strange that a change was made today only to be deleted immediately and the article locked for editing? How very Orwellian! How very Stalinist! Strange because the US internment camps added today do indeed belong in this article. Who might have brought pressure to bear on Jimmy Wales to delete this change? I can't think of who ...

It's hardly as though the change was very controversial.Further changes were made, but all were deleted.

I have given $50-100 a year to Wikipedia for many years now. I will be reviewing this contribution depending on what happens in the near future.

Remember, this is not just an opinion: it's just as in the 1930s, when decent people couldn't just say they liked Hitler or they like Stalin. The US now is roughly where Germany was in 1934. And things could escalate very quickly. Decide for yourselves which side of history you want to be on and make a stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eckhardt862 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I take it you don't know much about wikipedia to begin with. Good riddance. Brenae wafato (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ಠ_ಠ
 * Not "good riddance", but not how Wikipedia works either. Wikipedia does not "take a stand" or otherwise get in front of mainstream reliable sources. If those sources have labeled this as such, then we should too, but if not, then we will have to wait until they do. If individuals want to take action on the issue, they should do so by writing or calling their senators and representatives in the US, or donating to relevant organizations whether within or without, but not by editing Wikipedia, because that's not what Wikipedia is for.  G M G  talk  21:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

What do reliable sources say?
Can someone please provide reliable sources that explicitly refers to these detention centers as "internment camps"? Neither of the two sources provided call them that way. The first source, provided by a Rolling Stones article, "likens" the camps to "prisons" but does not call them "internment camps." The second source, provided by a Houston Chronicle article, merely reports that there is a movement online swelling to call them "concentration camps" but the source itself does not refer to them as such. I understand that we as editors may not like what's going on, but we only care about what reliable sources say and so far this article does not link to any source that refers to them as "concentration camps" nor as "internment camps." If someone can provide several reliable sources that refer to them as such then this section must stay. &mdash;Ahnoneemoos (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a great point, I honestly can't find a single reliable source that states that their view is that the detention centers are "concentration camps". If someone could prove me wrong, then by all means do so, but I can't find anything. Jdcomix (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a good point, but there are indeed numerous sources that either state their view that these are concentration camps quite clearly, or imply it in such a bitter manner that they may as well be labelling these centres as 'concentration camps'. There's Gizmodo, Vice, Quartz, and Paste Magazine. Even those that are not calling them concentration camps outright make it clear that these prisons violate human rights, at the very least. Cappuccino4242 (talk) 02:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I personally would be inclined to disregard the former two, seeing how they only exist because of the section presently being discussed. Abstract objects (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the first two can be disregarded because they are about what we are discussing here. According to the third source "“a place for mass detention of civilians without trial, usually on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political affiliation.”" These camps do not fit that definition because the people eventually do get a trial and the children are held for a maximum of 21 days. The fourth source is clearly an opinion piece.--Rusf10 (talk) 11:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * These people will not get a trial because they haven't committed a criminal offense. Many are seeking asylum, which is legal. Most will get denied and be deported, but that is neither punishment nor penalty. The children are detained en masse, without trial. From the Internment article, a concentration camp is "“A camp where persons are confined, usually without hearings and typically under harsh conditions, often as a result of their membership in a group the government has identified as a suspect.”" It meets that definition too. The children are being detained after being forcibly separated from their parents, and the publicly stated reason is that there are violent gang members among the people seeking asylum. The discussion seems to center on whether folks agree with the policy. It should focus on reality. Bones NL (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, even if they are applying for asylum, they still committed a crime, they illegally crossed the border. The correct place to apply for asylum is at a legal border crossing. They are not being held indefinitely, they will get a hearing for asylum and the children cannot under any circumstances be held for more than 21 days due to a court ruling. And I do not believe that anyone has made the claim that all these people are violent gang members.--Rusf10 (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources themselves are not required to call them "interment camps" or "concentration camps" authoritatively. What is necessary is for reliable sources to report that this characterization of these detention centers is common enough in public discourse, and there are enough sources that satisfy this. Here are a few others from the Washington Post, Vanity Fair, these two articles from the New York Times, and this Reuters article. I JethroBT drop me a line 09:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * These families are given a choice to cross illegally or turn around and head back. These kids are only being held while they prosecute the parents or guardians. Just because they used cheap temporary walls (chain-link fence) in their detention centers doesn't mean they're in a internment camp. I disagree having this here under the list of concentration/internment camps. Adding this would expand the definition of internment camp, we should keep it how it was. Amwisdx (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:NOR! This section is not whether some random person on the Internet does or does not think the camps are internment camps. This section is about whether reliable sources call these "internment camps" or "concentration camps".  And, guess what, they do. This article has the following quite:
 * Today’s US detention centers, she says, fit the original concept of a concentration camp: Children are being detained not because they are guilty of a crime, but as a strategy to terrify immigrant parents considering crossing the US-Mexico border illegally.
 * Here’s another reliable source on the matter:
 * These are concentration camps.
 * We call them concentration camps here in the Wikipedia because reliable sources call them that. Samboy (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This isn't about what we think constitutes an internment camp, it's about what reliable sources are saying constitutes one. As much as I disagree with its inclusion, if reliable sources say they are internment camps, then the section should be here. Jdcomix (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not remotely true. 1 these sources have a bias, 2 Wikipedia is not a newspaper. (talk) Loyalocolypse (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * so we accept editorials as fact now? These are just people stating opinions. 1 is extremely biased against Trump and would be almost guaranteed he wouldn't say this if this was under Obama's watch. I'm not trying to get political here but we're just grabbing what a few leftist media editors are thinking about Trump's policies and accepting it as fact. That is wrong. Amwisdx (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence why I said **reliable** sources, these don't include editorials or far left outlets. Jdcomix (talk) 14:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

arbitrary break

 * As a point of order, per WP:LABEL and WP:SOURCELIST, we don't just need sources that describe this in subjective terms in a way that fits the general definition as editors see it, because "concentration camp" or "internment camp" is nearly the definition of a value-laden label. The standard to satisfy NPOV is therefore widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject. If it is widely used by reliable secondary sources, then it should be included. If it is not, then it should be removed. That's the standard. Any part that this discussion that addresses any issue other than whether it is a term widely used by reliable sources is irrelevant.  G M G  talk  14:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. If the RS, and more than one, at that, say these facilities are "internment camps" or "concentration camps", then they are, by our standards. But if not, then it is not our place to make a judgment as to whether or not they are. (And, so far, if this editor might opine, the sources provided invite comparisons, certainly, but the journalists writing the articles do not explicitly call the detention centers "internment camps" or "concentration camps".) &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 15:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That does not meet Wikipedia is not a newspaper standards. The sources posted are not reliable or unbiased. The recent comparison of these facilities to 'Concentration camps' & 'Internment camps' are just that, Recentism. We need to wait for more facts to come out about this. Wikipedia does not expose the truth, and there are no verifiable facts that these institutions have done anything on par with the camps on this list. How do I know the Journalist that wrote this article didn't make this unwarranted & premature addition to this wikipedia page. Also re-reading the article it appears its been updated and they are giving updates about the debate on this talk page... Should we include that on the official page? How do I know MATT NOVAK from Gizmodo isn't manipulating this talk page? Again with this meta ladder of wikipedia not being a newspaper. -- (talk) Loyalocolypse (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're saying the same thing. The sources most certainly are too recent, and, moreover, no journalist explicitly has compared concentration camps/internment to this, and I agree that it would be an issue to expressly bring about such a comparison without reliable sources saying so. (On another note, I'm also a bit uncomfortable with Matt Novak reporting on our discussions; then again, I'm always uncomfortable around news media.) &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 15:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree with GMG here. We clearly don't have ample sourcing to state that these detention centers "are concentration camps" in an undisputably factual sense. However, there is ample sourcing to support the fact that many disparate commentators and publications (e.g. CNN, The Week, BBC, Daily Kos, FP, New York Post) are comparing Trump America's immigrant detention centers to examples of concentration and internment camps, so much so that it would be inappropriate and non-neutral for Wikipedia not to note the comparisons. Whether or not that comparison belongs in this list or elsewhere is what we should be discussing, not whether or not the detention centers meet our local definition. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

An Update, The author of "One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps" Andrea Pitzer is calling them concentration camps https://twitter.com/andreapitzer/status/1008329672080412672?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw They specifically said they aren't "nazi death camps" but that they do meet the definition of internment camps. Is tat a reliable secondary source? By the way, i know this is the second time ive posted on wikipedia but ive had my account for quite awhile Also the author of the gizomodo article mentioned it (which is how i saw it). Untrustedlife (talk) 15:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw that too, but Pitzer's tweet is probably not a sufficiently reliable source. We do accept statements like this from recognized experts in a field, but except for the claims of those who are retweeting her comments, I can find no evidence that she is a recognized expert on the subject of concentration camps, notwithstanding the fact she wrote a book about them. She does not have a Wikipedia article, for example. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Alright, well, here's every descriptor used to refer to the "places" children are "at" in the first page of google news results for child separation, no quotes, logged out, no filters.

The first mention of concentration camps is on the third page of results in this piece from Fast Company (magazine). Sessions also lashed out at critics who compared the detention centers to their obvious analog: concentration camps. So that's what we find when we're not looking for it. When we look for it, here are the first 10 results for child separation "concentration camp", and the context in which they first mention it:

So make of that what you will. G M G talk  16:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the main article is for confirmed and undisputed concentration and internment camps. Since there is a dispute on this topic (both from editors and news organizations), it shouldn't be on the page, otherwise, we will have to start posting "disputable" concentration/internment camps here.  It's the equivalent of listing Hillary as president within the wiki List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States during election season. The section in question should be moved to Immigration detention  Flamous7 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that there's a minority of users suppressing this from being posted. Washington Post has said "We can call today’s U.S. border detention centers “concentration camps” and be within the realm of historical accuracy." Even after reading this talk page, I'm not sure why this isn't added. The definition of concentration camp is pretty straight forward, and what's happening in America falls under these definitions. Your presidential example is flawed. I'd argue that complete consensus isn't required as obviously people out there believe in a Modern_flat_Earth_societies over a Spherical_Earth, I don't see why it'd need to be for listing definition camps. Bluefirecorp (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, a rare time I can use my NYT subscription. Anyway, an evaluation of the NYT articles provided shows the following: the latter does not describe the facilities at all, instead referring to the "practice of separating children from their parents" and the "separation issue"; the former also refers to the "practice of breaking up families", but lacks anything descriptive about the facilities. In other articles, though, the Times's journalists refer to "cage-like detention facilities", "detention centers", and "shelters for migrant children". Not sure if any of these can be used in our context. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 17:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It definitely can be used as sources for a post in Immigration detention. Flamous7 (talk) 17:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say it's been challenged enough at this point to well get into DS issues. Which, just FYI Soc88, consensus is required to reinstate the content, and not the other way round. If the proponents want to include the material, an RfC is probably the next step, because it doesn't look like an unstructured discussion is going to reach any strong consensus either way, and whatever this is currently, it's not a consensus.  G M G  talk  18:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry for that. I independently realized that the edit was not in line with 1RR, but before I could undo it, CaptainLeslieHero had already reinstated his edit titled "Not concentration camps, fake news". Soc88 (talk) 19:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. I mean, FAKENEWS is not a terribly convincing argument, but the content probably should never have been restored earlier today when it was removed on DS grounds alone. I was just waiting to see where the discussion went. But yeah, anyone who wants to say this is a consensus is just misreading the situation, although I've read through this three times, and without a structured RfC, I couldn't tell you who is in the numerical majority, although I can tell you that there are argument on both sides that are not really based in policy at all.  G M G  talk  19:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

If the key question is whether the children will at some point be reunited with their parents, it has now become apparent that some of the children will likely never be returned to their parents due to the parents being deported without the children, and thereafter unable to be found, or due to the government refusing to provide the parents with the whereabouts of the children. See Jonathan Blitzer, "The Government Has No Plan for Reuniting the Immigrant Families It Is Tearing Apart", The New Yorker (June 18, 2018). bd2412 T 19:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't say that "due to the government refusing to provide the parents with the whereabouts of the children". In fact the only Government quote said, "‘Oh, my God, yes!’ The case manager had a kid whose parents she couldn’t find. She was trying to help, but she’d had nothing to go on.” It seems the government is willing to help, as much as that article tries to say otherwise. At the end of the article it also mentions they have found the location of their daughter? How? I know it is a developing story but it is a big piece of information to leave out. (talk) Loyalocolypse (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: It appears Matt Novak from Gizmodo has pulled his article about this addition to the wikipedia page & his updates about our discussion on this talk page after I and Javert2113 mentioned him. Did anybody archive it? talk Loyalocolypse (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's still up here for me, but I've archived it here, too. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 22:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that is embarrassing. I apologize for my egregious error and thank you for going ahead & archiving the article. (talk) Loyalocolypse (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

These detention centers absolutely meet the standard set out in the description of the article. There is no legitimate reason why they should be excluded. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Should an additional search be done with the exact words "Internment" or "Internment Camp"? Some people may be reluctant to say "Concentration Camp" but would describe it using the aforementioned words instead; as the page title suggests, the practice need only be described as one or the other to be accurate to this page. 198.119.59.10 (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Expert opinion on the use of the term
Here's an opinion by a Holocaust scholar:


 * Forcibly detained because of who they are Forcibly detained because they committed a crime. --Exzachary (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, you can call the border centers ‘concentration camps,’ but apply the history with care, Washington Post, by Waitman Wade Beorn, author of Marching into Darkness: The Wehrmacht and the Holocaust in Belarus.

--K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many Editors disagree. For 1, they do receive hearings or trials so to speak in relation to their immigration case. Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States 2) Most are released in less than 90 days unless they are deemed a threat (which children are not) Immigration_detention_in_the_United_States


 * So unless the Internment definition changed (Internment is the imprisonment or confinement[1] of people, commonly in large groups, without trial. ), it can't be added to this article per Facts_precede_opinions. Flamous7 (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note:
 * These detention facilities for refugee children can rightly be labeled “concentration camps.” (emphasis mine).
 * The immigrant children are not charged with any crime and they are not tried. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) What is your source, the wiki posted says they are given hearings or trials, it does mention they are placed in foster care, but there is no line that specifically states that they are not charged. 2) If you what you say is true, you will have to classify any location where CFS takes children as a concentration camp. They are held against their will and are not charged either. You will have to add group homes as well.  All 3 have one thing in common: they get hearings.  Internment camp prisoners don't get trials or hearings and are held for an indefinite amount of time.  Flamous7 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's possible that they get hearings (?) I.e. children taken from their parents are classified as Unaccompanied Alien Children.
 * Anyway, I would take an opinion of a Holocaust scholar on whether or not the use of the term is appropriate, vs the opinion of an anonymous person on the internet. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And that's your personal prerogative, however, wikipedia posts facts, specifically those around lists. And per Facts_precede_opinions and Neutral_point_of_view ' First bullet point: "Avoid stating opinions as facts", the wikipedia listing for internment overrules my opinion as well as yours. Flamous7 (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. The word "trial" appears in the article once, in the very first sentence, and there's no citation:
 * ''Internment is the imprisonment or confinement of people, commonly in large groups, without trial. The term is especially used for the confinement "of enemy citizens in wartime or of terrorism suspects".
 * It's more likely than not that the words "without trial" should be removed from Internment unless sources to this effect are provided. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You are correct. Accordingly, I have added a valid source: "The essence of internment lies in incarceration without charge or trial." Source "A formal arrest usually comes with a charge, but many regimes employed internment (that is, detention without intent to file charges)," Source 2 Flamous7 (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Deciding that, in our opinion, the subject meets the common definition, when that definition relates to a contentious label, is original research, because the difference between a terrorist and a revolutionary, a cult and a religion, or a detention center and a concentration camp, is a subjective value laden judgement. You therefore need to demonstrate not that sources exist which use this label, but that the preponderance of sources use the label, and do so as a factual description, and not an analogy or as descriptive commentary. If, the subject did not meet the common definition, and the preponderance of sources still referred to it as such, we would still be correct to add it, because that would mean that the sources just expanded the definition. If the preponderance of sources do not use the label, even though it clearly seems to fit in our opinion, we would still be correct to remove it, because the sources just narrowed the definition beyond our personal opinions.  G M G  talk  21:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * our opinions aren't the issue here; the opinions of reliable, published sources are. The term doesn't need to be overwhelmingly used by such sources, if a significant minority do use the term. It's part of Wikipedia's purpose to describe such disputes accurately. Note also that published expert opinion outweighs the literal dictionary definition here; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * our opinions aren't the issue here; the opinions of reliable, published sources are. The term doesn't need to be overwhelmingly used by such sources, if a significant minority do use the term. It's part of Wikipedia's purpose to describe such disputes accurately. Note also that published expert opinion outweighs the literal dictionary definition here; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Another expert opinion
Emphasis mine. This one comes from Andrea Pitzer, the author of One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps, "Is it fair to call the US’s migrant child detention centers “concentration camps”?"

K.e.coffman (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Source: NewWorldEncyclopedia.org


 * Flamous7 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed: Inmates are selected according to some specific criteria... compare with Pitzer's "Children are being detained not because they are guilty of a crime" but as a deterrent. That's the same thing as what newworldencyclopedia.org is saying. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * rather than individuals who are incarcerated after due process of law fairly applied by a judiciary

So those who are incarcerated after due process of law fairly applied by a judiciary are not in a concentration camp. Flamous7 (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * that's your opinion. Remember "don't state opinions as facts"? Wikpedia's content is based on reliable, published sources, not the opinions of its editors. If actual expert opinion, published in reliable sources, is for the label concentration camp, then we should make that clear in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Completely irrelevant; They are not charged with a crime, their parents are, as you yourself pointed out. They can not be released until their custodial situation is resolved, and with mom and dad in custody themselves there’s nothing else TO be done.

Regardless of any opinion, this will not be posted unless there is consensus: and there isn't. Flamous7 (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just because editors can't democratically come to a consensus (come all, grow up - you're acting like the UN), it doesn't mean a thing isn't a thing. Going by our own definition: "The term concentration camp was first used by the British military during the Boer War (1899–1902). Facing attack by Boer guerrillas, British forces rounded up the Boer women and children as well as black people living on Boer land, and sent them to 34 tented camps scattered around South Africa."

Concentration camps are simply camps where certain populaces, regardless of sex, age or crimes committed, are rounded up and placed. These are flagrantly Concentration camps. Abattoir666 (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, a consensus is required due to wikipedia guidelines/rules. Historic and law references state that an internment camp is a camp where there is no due process/charges/trial. This doesn't match that definition. There is due process/charges/trial for immigration camps/facilities. Flamous7 (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I recommend you resist the urge to attack the methodology for discussing disputed content on Wikipedia. The current system works well for an open, editor-based service. The Novac (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Figures
''Eventually only 2,000 of the remainder were interned. Initially they were shipped overseas, but that was halted when a German U boat sank the SS Arandora Star in July 1940 with the loss of 800 internees, though this was not the first loss that had occurred. The last internees were released late in 1945, though many were released in 1942''

This make it sound as if almost all (800 + "other losses") of the 2000 remainder were drowned. Anyone with detailed knowledge that can write this better/clear it up? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC).

Reserves in Canada
The case for considering reserves upon which the Indigenous people were confined to by the Canadian government, as concentration or internment camps, is that up until a certain time(*), the First Nations were not permitted to leave without written authorization from an 'Indian Agent' in charge of the community. This was what the 'Pass System' (a recent documentary film) documents.

The Indigenous population was, at the same time, experiencing genocide, as easily documented in the Residential School system: the definition of genocide, as per the UN, has five parts, any of which on its own constitutes genocide, and one of those aspects is the forced removal of children from the targeted population.

There is more that could be provided in support of considering reserves in the category of internment/concentration camp.

Who is it who would decide whether this does or does not constitute internment or concentration camp?

Notes:
 * The pass system ended in the __?__ (guessing the 50s or 60s, and perhaps varies by reserve).
 * Reservations in the United States have similarities and differences, which are worth looking at.

67.230.128.81 (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

UK and the Republic of Ireland
From the article: ""

I suggest that the entry for "Ireland" is changed to "Republic of Ireland" or the Irish Free State (as is done with "British-India" to remove ambiguity) and that the entry for HMS Argenta, is move out into the "UK->Northern Ireland"

From the article: ""
 * UK
 * Bermuda,
 * AFAIK those were POW camps.(Anglo Boere Oorlog/Boer War (1899-1902) POW Bermuda)

"" imprisonment is not internment. The imprisoned IRA and INLA considered themselves POWs (dirty protest and all that). Internment in Northern Ireland ended on 1 March 1976 with the end of "Special Category Status".
 * Northern Ireland

Presumably many of those held had been captured in arms during or at the end of the Easter Rebellion in which case this is a very iffy case of internment as they could been seen as POWs.
 * Wales

-- PBS (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Scope
What is the historical scope of this article. There comes a point back in time were the differences between imprisonment/internment and POW becomes meaningless. Any suggestions for a start date? It would help if such a date could be from some sort of international treaty on the issue, otherwise I think a useful start date would be 1900. -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Too myopic and politically charged
Specifically, the practice of separating children from their parents after illegal felonious crossing of the border (under US law, illegitimately being within the US territory; e.g. due to visa overstays is a civil misdemeanor punishable by deportation; while illegitimate crossing of the border itself is a felony), has been previously practised during the Bush and Obama presidential terms; and has coincidentally seem to have come to light during the Trump presidency.

I live in Slovakia and don't have any relations to the US political machinery. For the sake of the general trustworthiness and objectivity of the Wikipedia itself; and to further its truly neutral, encyclopedic, non-political pro-facts stance; I plead to you all that you remove the paragraph about 2018 United States migrant "concentration camps" unless stark and reilable knowledge comes to verifiable light. Remember that refugee camps are a world-wide fixture; and shouldn't be selectively cherrypicked.

I deeply thank every single person reading this; and wish you the best.

Only thing I want is to see wikipedia academically and philosophically neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.167.254.130 (talk) 19:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * "while illegitimate crossing of the border itself is a felony" - that's incorrect. REPEATED illegitimate crossing is a felony. First time, or if your first time was treated as a civil case, is a misdemeanor.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Most of the victims did not cross the border at all: they showed up at the proper border stations and requested asylum. It was the USA Border Patrol that carried most of the refugees into the USA. The majority of victims are refugees who were told by the USA that they may come here: they are not "illegal." Desertphile (talk) 21:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

It's frankly horrifying to me that despite literally all evidence that they fit the precise definition of not just internment but actual concentration camps, wikipedia still refuses to re-add the current migrant camps. Also this random "slovakian" was either mistaken or lying on multiple counts. In addition to the aforementioned point about it only being a felony to illegitimately cross the border multiple times, and the fact that people are being essentially kidnapped from requesting asylum via the appropriate procedure at the border, it is also simply false that it was an Obama-era policy to separate parents and children long-term. Once very basic routine processing was completed, such as an interview with the child to attempt to determine that they were not victims of trafficking, the parents and children were always reunited. --2001:4878:8000:50:DA9E:F3FF:FE2A:2191 (talk) 15:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * These people are seeking asylum in the United States. This article's lead section currently states that internment camps for refugees go in Refugee camp, not in this article. Feel free to add sourced material there. --Damian Yerrick (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

US-Mexico Border: Reinstate note about internal ICE document describing deaths as "preventable"
Because of this article's discretionary sanctions and my lack of familiarity with the editing community's terminology (I do not know if my edit would violate the sanction), I am opening this section here to address recently-deleted content.

Someone removed language quoted from an internal ICE document that was obtained via an FOIA request, simply because the entity that made the request is a supposedly-biased source: The Young Turks. The document itself is the source of the content of the article, not the analysis provided by the FOIA-filing entity. Originally, the reference to the document was through the tweet from author of the article on tyt.com; this tweet included a link to the tyt.com article as well as image scans of the document itself.

To sidestep the cries of bias and improper sourcing (despite the fact that the ICE document itself is the source, not the tweet or tyt.com article), I propose linking to the tyt.com article as the public location of the document, as well as an nbcnews.com article reiterating the content of the ICE document. Without objection, I will revise and insert the following revised text back into the appropriate location in this article:

"Following the death of Mexican national Efrain De La Rosa in ICE custody, Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed that De La Rosa passed away due to self-inflicted strangulation. . An internal ICE document, later written by an unknown agency staffer and received via a FOIA request, describes the ICE Health Services Corps as "dysfunctional" and notes that "preventable harm and death of detainees has occurred"."

--Pinchme123 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 June 2019
Serious formatting issues in the Mexico border section. While anons have repeatedly vandalized it, I as a registered user for several years can't touch it. First, small caps in headers. Second, format the refs like this: Ribbet32 (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. This is literally the part of the article that is currently in dispute! No changes will be made without consensus from multiple editors. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:42, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is where I'd put a comment in support of this edit, so feel free to move this as needed.
 * The way I see it, Ribbet32 (talk) is making an edit request for more or less 'housekeeping' kinds of cleanup. It doesn't appear to alter any of the article content or even alter or remove any references, but rather put things more in-line with normal WP conventions for section heading capitalizations and reference popovers. I definitely support this mild cleanup and understand why they might use the template straight-away, since the requested changes aren't affecting what is included in article's content, but instead how the content looks.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I fixed the caps in the header, which is basic editing and definitely should not require consensus, and ran ReFill to fix bare links on the page. It's not quite identical to what was proposed, but it eliminates the embarrassment of bare links. bd2412  T 04:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure where this stands, but considering the detention centers have been in existence for years and more children have been detained under Obama than Trump and there are videos of Obama telling people not to come with their children, and there are pictures of Obama admin officials visiting the centers it is extremely NPOV to call these Trump camps and to start the timeline at 2018. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Undocumented migrants at the Mexico–United States border
In May of 2018, under the direction of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, US officials began forcibly separating children and parents arriving at the US border. This included those seeking asylum from violence in their home countries. Under this policy thousands of minors, taken from their parents, were placed in concentration camps or "detention centers" which now hold some 12,000 children  at places like Fort Sill, a former site of the Internment of Japanese Americans. Historians have acknowledged this designation particularly given that the centers, previously cited by Texas officials for more than 150 health violations and reported deaths in custody reflect a record typical of the history of deliberate substandard healthcare and nutrition in concentration camps.

Following the 2018 death of Mexican national Efrain De La Rosa in ICE custody at another immigration detention facility, Immigration and Customs Enforcement claimed that De La Rosa passed away due to self-inflicted strangulation. An internal ICE document, later written by an unknown agency staffer and made public via a FOIA request, describes the ICE Health Services Corps as "dysfunctional" and notes that "preventable harm and death of detainees has occurred" at numerous camps nationwide. The document specifically notes multiple camps near the U.S.-Mexico border as having had preventable deaths.

US concentration camps – Arpaio
"The "Tent City" at the Maricopa County jail near Phoenix, Arizona was described by then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio in a 2010 speech as a concentration camp. The jail was controversial for over twenty years due to perceived excessive force and brutality; over a span of three years in the mid-200s, Arpaio was the subject of over two thousand lawsuits. In 2013, Arpaio was sanctioned for racially profiling Latinos, and was later convicted of contempt of court for violating court orders with regards to the 2013 ruling."

Pace the current controversy with regards to the ICE camps, I think it should be relatively uncontroversial to include the precursor in Arizona run by Joe Arpaio, given that he openly admitted that it was a concentration camp. Sceptre (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Also I recommend the following edit for historical views
 * Mandatory detention was officially authorized by President Bill Clinton in 1996, with the enactment of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility acts. From 1996 to 1998, the number of immigrants in detention increased from 8,500 to 16,000 and by 2008 this number increased to more than 30,000. According to the Global Detention Project, the United States possesses the largest immigration detention system in the world. In 2003, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) was created under the Department of Homeland Security. ICE enforces the United States' immigration and customs laws, uses investigative techniques to apprehend and detain those suspected of violating them, and then deports many of these individuals. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D10:4A8E:DA11:71D8 (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Given the sources provided describing these in the exact terms, inclusion of the "Arpaio" camps seems appropriate.
 * The sources provided for including U.S. immigration system from 1996 up to ICE operations in 2003 and later do not however describe any detention facilities as internment or concentration camps, nor do any of the sources describe conditions and contexts that would indicate that they are in fact internment or concentration camps. If sources can be provided that show experts labeling facilities during this time in the U.S. as such, then this could be revisited.
 * --Pinchme123 (talk) 19:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 21:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The Maricopa County Tent City is now listed under Migrants at the Mexico–United States border. This seems misleading as the tent city was for inmates, not migrants. "Many of the people targeted were American citizens or legal residents." // Liftarn (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)