Lawmakers in Florida are raising alarm over documents suggesting immigrant children and pregnant women could be detained at ‘Alligator Alcatraz.’
A draft operational plan obtained by the Miami Herald suggests minors could indeed be transported to the controversial site in the Everglades. The 35-page undated document details protocols to “separate minors from unrelated adults” and to provide “snacks and water” to minors, pregnant women and detainees with medical conditions during transport.
“The State of Florida is planning to send pregnant women and children to the ‘Alligator Alcatraz’ detention camp,” wrote State Senator Carlos Guillermo Smith on social media. “This is totally un-American. We cannot be silent.”
Things can be immoral without only affecting women and children.
I’m surprised pregnant women arent getting guantanimo to ensure they dont give birth on US soil
They got rid of birthright citizenship so it doesn’t matter
snacks and water not guaranteed
just call it Alligator Auschwitz.
Of course they’re going to send children and pregnant women. Do they think the Nazi Germans were all “you know what? the jew kids and pregnant jew women are too much for this. lets leave them alone.” no. You don’t gear up for a genocide by picking and choosing those within the group you plan on genociding.
Nobody should be subjected to this
So the alligators will have bite sized snacks in addition to full size meals… sorry, my dark humor. It’s the only way I cope with these atrocities.
Call it what it is: a concentration camp, a death camp, or perhaps Alligator Auschwitz.
Alcatraz housed convicted felons. This place is housing non-criminals. Immigration is a civil infraction, like a parking ticket. If you ever stole something from the store or got in a fight, you’re more of a criminal than these folks.
When trump dies the world will celebrate
No one mourns the wicked
Call it what it is: Alligator Auschwitz
Dont put Ausschwitz so lightly. Thanks
You think Auschwitz started out openly with a plan to kill every detainee? German concentration camps were no different than this at the start. Mass cells for a designated group of “outsiders”. It was only later that the gas chambers were erected to cull the contained population to make room for more detainees. We are moments away from Auschwitz in America. If you can’t see that, you are deluded.
Ausschwitz was from the beginning a destruction camp
Concentration camps were not all for killing. Dachau was for political prisoners and only late 1944s got a gas chamber.
The nazis didnt kill the “undesireable races” right away. They used them as slaves. Only near the end they fully began the killing on industrial scale.
Hi. Greetings from germany. Exactly 20 minutes from Dachau KZ.
Lege dich nicht mit mir in einer Debatte über die Pläne und vorhergehensweise der Nazis an.
Interesting, so you’re telling me that everything I ever learned about Nazi occupied Poland is wrong then? The first gassings at Auschwitz were in 1941, 2 years after the first camp was established there. There were several camps but they started with one camp and worked their way up to gas chambers. If you’re going to tell me I’m wrong, your source ought to be better than “I’m a German millennial.” Because even the first 3 paragraphs on Wikipedia provide better sources than that.
Try me, I’ll argue all day about Nazi plans, because the only way to stomp out a flame is to know why it’s burning.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auschwitz_concentration_camp
Lol im not even a millenial.
Yes Ausschwitz-Birkenau was a destruction camp. Yes the end goal of the nazis was always to kill the “undesierables”. But not every camp was a destruction camp. Im every camp they killed, but difference is on how and what scale.
It was the nazis plan from the beginning to kill, homosexuals, jews, sinti and roma, slavic people, homeless, and more. That was their end goal from the beginning yes. But to compare the thing going on in the USA, to a concentration camp like Ausschwitz-Birkenau, is negligent.
To elaborate on the nazi camps:
There were different types though. Work camps and destruction camps being the big two categories.
Destruction camps were to just kill. Work camps used the inmates as slaves for the industrie. They were still inhumane, cruel and barbaric, and didnt care about the lifes of the inmates. Though the goal here was not right away killing, but working the inmates to death threw exhaustion.
Putting these camp types on the same step deminishes the horrors of destruction camps. And comparing those things to what ever is going on in the USA (of which i dont have the full picture) deminishes the horrors of all the concentration camps.
Further elaboration:
There werent just camps in poland, but all over nazi occupied europe. France, Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Ukraine, Belerus, Poland, Lithuania aso.
The first one was build in 1933: Dachau. The model camp. It was a work camp with many outer camps like Augsburg-Pferrsee. In Augsburg-Pferrsee the inmates were forced to work in the Messerschmidt Factories for example.
The destruction camps were erected from spring 1942, with Ausschwitz-Birkenau being the first one, and began their industrial killing with the polish, jews and others. These are the once you think of when thinking concentration camps. Massive industrial killing with gas chambers.
Ausschwitz 1 was erected 1940. Death was massive, yes, but not threw gas chambers but threw starvation, lacking hygeen, and exhaustion from slave labor. It was a work camp. The work camps didnt do it on massive scale and only late into the war. In Dachau there was no gas chamber until 1943 as example.
What trump is building in florida can be categoriesed as a concentration camp, I dont disagree you there, but putting it as an equal to Ausschwitz-Birkenau, again, deminishes the true horrors of the holocaust.
Arguing against the comparison diminishes the harm that can come from a modern day convention camp. If you want the Holocaust to stay in the history books and not find their way back into the news, you’d compare the two without hesitation. If you’re so familiar with the process, then you’d be screaming at every turn about what is obviously happening. If we can’t make the comparison between this camp and Auschwitz until we are gassing Latinos in America, then it is too late to stop it.
All they have to do is fill it up and wait, hurricane season will take care of the rest of the plan.
It’s concentration camp. Why is anyone surprised?
Honestly, how is it any better to send young men there? I’m not wild about sending pregnant women and children there obviously, but…are we indicating that men don’t matter?
Honestly, did you look at any of the pictures? You think people with delicate health conditions should be sent there? Really?
Also, I’m assuming you’re genuine, but there are many people who post similar comments, things like “All lives matter.” And yes, human life is worth respect, but at the same time, you don’t want to be confused with a bigoted troll.
Don’t lock people out of making valid arguments because they sound vaguely like arguments used by other people for negative means
Yes, it’s a hard needle to thread. My point is that it’s pretty fucked up in my view that it’s considered unfortunate, but maybe “okay”, with some if it’s younger men being sent to such a place and held under such conditions, because, well, it’s men. And that the only thing that might wake up some portion of the people is if women and children go there, and then some glimmer of humanity sparks in them…SMH.
It’s not as if some men might have some preconditions that make them vulnerable under such conditions. Something tells me the monsters running this are not prescreening for any of that, because they are dangerous brown men…
It said pregnant women and children. Which are both vulnerable populations that are more at risk for death from severe heat stress and malnutrition and stress .
A lot of our culture accepts and promotes the idea that men are inherently dangerous.
It is a depressing reality that to most people men (as a social class) are less important than others.
That’s what I guess gets me. Of course we want to protect those that are even more at risk, but why does it take it going that far to talk about the fact that there is risk for anyone being held under such conditions?
I think it’s nice actually that we can recognize that pregnant women and children are more vulnerable groups of people that sometimes require more protection than men. I say that as a man.
Human rights protections for men can also protect pregnant women and children.
Indeed, protecting human rights universally makes them harder to chip away at.
The more loopholes we, as a society, allow in our morality the weaker it is.
Sure, but there are some protections that apply to pregnant women and children that don’t apply to men. Ignoring that in the name of “equality” or dismissing that as “loopholes in morality” seems off base to me.
Why? All people should be spared inhuman behaviour.
I’m sorry but “i don’t like equality” feels like nonsense to me. Men should have every potection afforded to others.we should protect all people to the best of our ability.
You’re either misunderstanding me or I’m not being clear enough, but I didn’t say any of that lol. I’m gonna go step by step here and try to be really clear, but if I’m misunderstanding anything please let me know.
All people should be spared inhuman behaviour.
Yeah, I agree with you, and I don’t think I’ve suggested anything to the contrary. I’ve just said that certain vulnerable groups sometimes require more protection than men. Because they’re more vulnerable than men.
I’m sorry but “i don’t like equality” feels like nonsense to me.
It feels like nonsense to me too, probably because I didn’t say that either. But what it seems like you’re suggesting is to ignore the circumstantial differences between groups, even when one group is more vulnerable than another, in the name of treating everyone the same, i.e, “equality”. But I take issue with that, because that sort of thinking leads to inequal outcomes. As in, if a vulnerable group is treated exactly the same as their less-vulnerable counterparts, the vulnerable group will experience more negative outcomes on average, thus experiencing inequality.
Men should have every potection afforded to others.
In general, yeah, absolutely, except in cases where a particular protection only applies to a group that excludes men. The same logic applies to every group. Maybe this is just semantics at this point, but I don’t see the point of affording a protection to a group that it doesn’t apply to. All that is sort of beside the point though, because at no point have I suggested that any one group have protections taken away, just that some vulnerable groups require more protection than others in order to experience equality.
we should protect all people to the best of our ability.
One hundred percent agree. In my view, we do that by trying to figure out what everyone needs as a baseline, identifying the more vulnerable groups by figuring out who that baseline doesn’t satisfy, and then figuring out what extra things those vulnerable groups need. That’s all I’m advocating for - protecting vulnerable groups by figuring out what extra protections they need, not taking protections away from less vulnerable groups.
I wouldn’t consider “not being sent to a death camp” to be an extra protection that only applies to specific groups of people, though
I for one am glad that at least some on the right are still reachable on this matter.
But if they were okay with subjecting men they deem less than to this, it’s still rather alarming, since it’s not that much of a leap to then pushing pregnant women and children into the same conditions, if they are considered part of the same group.
I second this. I am nowhere near as vulnerable as a pregnant woman or a child. I choose to put myself below them, as they are in the position of such vulnerability. I’m personally okay with that.
Yep, there is not a big cabal of pregnant women having concentration caps built to hold white men. Not all men are dangerous, but more are than pregnant women.
So based on that statistic, we should treat them differently? This line of thinking leads to some very bad places.
Recognising that some portions of the population are at higher risk leads to better outcomes for them if we follow where that thinking leads. The idea that all men are persecuted as men are more likely to take others rights, in a patriarchy where women have less rights, pay and justice is ridiculous.
Men should not be assumed guilty. Most aren’t and never will be. However, we should recognise those who are at risk and place protections for them. Lack of protections for those that are higher risk is not the same as selectively prosecuting them, which is your implication.
But we’re talking about a situation in which the protections are against unjust persecution. Selective lack of protections in this case is quite literally the same as selective persecution.
I guess this is what I’m trying to convey - remember that even the Nazis did not go full Nazi immediately. It was incremental.
Let’s say these camps end up killing some fraction of men, “accidentally”, and possibly ramp up to more intentional things, like working people to death and even worse. At some point, the monsters are going to look around and still see “undesirables” in the remaining family members…meaning pregnant women and children.
They can inch things along as far as the circle of concern goes. The minute someone does the, “well, but it’s men, and of course we wouldn’t do this to pregnant women and children!” I cannot help but wonder where this is going…especially once all the men are “deported” or put into these camps. Where does the rest of their family go, anyway? Who is providing for them? If their provider was kidnapped and imprisoned, it’s not like these vulnerable people are going to have their lives enriched even if they are not being put in concentration camps…
Alligator Auswitz
Based on their laws, if the adverse setting they’ve placed a pregnant woman in causes a miscarriage, all of the employees are partially responsible for a homicide right? Since life begins at conception right?
The problem in your logic here is that immigrant children aren’t people in their eyes, so fetus or not they can’t be murdered.
Its a concentration camp. Don’t call it alligatoralcatraz.
Exactly. Call it Alligator Auschwitz.
I think Trump is liking the middle east a bit too much, starting to sound like a Pharao
