You're viewing a single thread.
From the article (thanks @ditty@lemm.ee) it's completely clear that:
a. This is just a temporary holding camp until the illegal migrants can be repatriated back to their original countries
b. This isn't even a US camp - it's a Panamanian camp - so if you want to be mad about the unconfirmed conditions of the camp, you should be mad at Panama
c. This is in no way a concentration camp, and divisive, intentionally inflammatory one-liners like this from talking heads on Twitter-likes continue to be the bane of public discourse.
Nothing is more permanent than temporary.
If they were motivated to do permanent well, they wouldn't have bothered with temporary.
Panama all but made it clear that they don't even want these migrants in the first place - why on earth would they then imprison them permanently on their soil at significant cost and potential political backlash now that they're out of the US's jurisdiction?
Like, it's obviously possible that's the case, but I can't see a reason to do so that makes any sense.
Do they have a choice? Are alternatives mired in bureaucracy? Can we JAQ all day?
I'm commenting on specifically on your point of being "just a temporary" camp somehow excusing poor conditions. If I only put my dick in your ass temporarily, does that not infringe on your dignity as a person?
The conditions don't seem all that poor for a temporary holding camp in Panama for people who will be leaving the country shortly, so as long as this doesn't become a more permanent situation, I don't think it's infringing on anyone's dignity, and I have no problem with it whatsoever.
Alright, I'm putting my dick in your ass. It's not that bad for a temporary situation.
I'm gentle, I don't think it would infringe on your dignity, and I have no problem with it whatsoever.
Please go shower.
You would do well as a talking head on a Twitter-like.
You're just jealous, I'm an analrapist and people like me better than you
Time for ANUSTART
Why is panama taking them in the first place if there was somewhere else for them to go?
The article doesn't address that, so I'd be speculating, but if I had to guess, I'd say either:
- 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:
- Trump forced Panama specifically to take them as a show of power related to his threat to steal the Panama Canal.
That's kind of tangential to the point I'm making. I'm trying to say that I don't think these people can be legitimately returned. Making them another state's problem is a way to make it out of sight, out of mind, and make it hard for people to protest. Last time, under Trump 1, there was a lot of (rightful) fuss about the detainment camps and how the Trump administration argued that they shouldn't be required to provide blankets, soap, and lights that turn off at night. No need to be too concerned with any of those details if it's happening half a world away, see?
I'm not sure what you mean by "legitimately returned"? Do you mean that Panama can't be sure of their place of origin?
I fully agree that the detainment camps that Trump inherited from Obama were inhumane, but in my opinion a lot of that was due to the unreasonably long amount of time people were forced to spend in them. Most of those conditions (obviously not refusing to provide soap, turn the lights off, etc. - that was just intentional cruelty) are reasonable for a few weeks or so, as a temporary stop-gap, but after months of detainment it definitely becomes inhumane.
We don't have any evidence that the Panamanian camps are doing any of those things though, or why Panama would want to treat them like that.
If anything, this seems like an improvement.
I mean that:
-
These kinds of operations always end up scooping up actual US citizens. That's what happens when you break a few eggs to make an omelette.
-
The countries of origin might either not be known (in the case of someone in the country since they were a small child) or might not recognize them as a citizen for a variety of reasons, including paperwork cock-ups.
-
The country of origin might refuse to repatriate the person, because you can't just dump a shitload of people on a poor country all at once and expect no consequences. It takes time to ramp up supply chains in response to demand. And before you say "Ah Ha! So you ARE against immigration!" No, immigration has largely been at a pace that the US could easily absorb, especially if we had sensible policies around how we build cities. If we actually do deport 11 million people in the first year, there's going to be consequences for that. You don't just take 11 million people worth of demand and economic production out of an economy virtually overnight and not have consequences. This whole thing is honestly like when a cartoon character sticks a shotgun in a hole and ends up blowing their own ass off. That's us right now.
As for the camps being an improvement, I'm sure it's more convenient for the Trump administration, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You should always, always have a healthy doubt of the government.
These kinds of operations always end up scooping up actual US citizens. That’s what happens when you break a few eggs to make an omelette.
Sure, but again, that's a US problem and not really a Panamanian one that I can tell. Also, as I mentioned in my other comment, it's a false dichotomy to argue that the way US enforces immigration is bad, so therefore no immigration enforcement can be allowed at all.
The countries of origin might either not be known (in the case of someone in the country since they were a small child) or might not recognize them as a citizen for a variety of reasons, including paperwork cock-ups.
If that proves to be the case, then yes, Panama will have the responsibility to find a humane resolution to the situation. That has very little bearing on the immediate situation described by the article though.
It seems that in your responses here you're often conflating a lot of your opinions about immigration policy in general with the specifics of the situation at hand, which is what I'm specifically talking about. I'm happy to discuss immigration more generally, as I did in my other comment, but again, I don't think many of the points you've made so far are very relevant.
The country of origin might refuse to repatriate the person, because you can’t just dump a shitload of people on a poor country all at once and expect no consequences.
The country has responsibility for their citizens anyway though. Refusal to repatriate is then on that country, not on Panama or the US. If that country is so concerned about its ability to repatriate its citizens, it should do a better job of making sure they're not placed in that position.
This whole thing is honestly like when a cartoon character sticks a shotgun in a hole and ends up blowing their own ass off. That’s us right now.
Maybe so, but it's the US's right to make that determination, and it's a right that (with all of the specific caveats of we're doing a horrible job of it and most people are interested in it for the cruelty, etc.) I fundamentally support.
You should always, always have a healthy doubt of the government.
This is always a true and refreshing statement to hear, and trust me, I have no inherent faith in the Panamanian government in general. I just see no reason to assume all of these horrible things when a) there's no evidence that that's the case and b) just because some idiotic talking head is trying to emotionally manipulate me into doing so.
Okay, now, let's pull back and frame everything you just said in the context of what I asked earlier:
If they CAN go anywhere else, why are they being held in Panama? Those people were here, they're our problem, we're the ones detaining them under our laws, so it's our responsibility to treat them humanely. It's decidedly not Panama's problem, and I somehow doubt Panama is doing this without some arm twisting on our part. So, even if Panama decides "ah, well, fuck it, just kill em I guess", that's still on us.
So, even Panama decides “ah, well, fuck it, just kill em I guess”, that’s still on us.
I do agree with this. We do have some culpability in the way they are treated until they reach their home countries.
I think I'm still missing your point about "if they CAN go anywhere else, why are they being held in Panama?" though. I think it's a show of force on Trump's part, exercising his leverage over Panama from the threat of stealing the canal. I don't think Trump cares about what happens to the migrants once they're in Panama, so I don't really see a reason for Panama to purposefully mistreat them, when they don't seem to have the incentives to do so that the US does.
If I'm still missing something (other than your healthy inherent distrust of governments, including Panama's), definitely do let me know.
-
Hehe, permanently.
There's an easy way to reduce the number of prisoners and make it temporary once the camp becomes too expensive.
I'm pretty sure it's also lined with inflammatory rhetoric, so I think I'll just keep reading original sources and waiting for facts that are supported by evidence.
If the past 8 years aren't enough for you to see where things are headed, I'm guessing you are in the "it's not happening until it affects me personally" camp.
Not quite sure what the past 8 years have to do with the Panamanian government, but I am certainly in the "I'm not going to assume that Panama of all places is running a concentration camp until I see some actual evidence of it" camp, especially when they probably don't want these migrants anyway, and don't seem to have a reason to vindictively mistreat them like the US does.
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?"
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:
- 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:
- 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.
Sure, if we’re disingenuously ignoring the meanings and implications of words today for some reason.
Except there are examples of "temporary" not meaning temporary in similar cases, and we didn't even have to leave the post-cold war United States to find one.
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.
You have a difficult time of grasping their points. Bye.
Uh, bye, I guess?
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?
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.
Outsourcing the concentration camps doesn't make it any better.
Source that the Panamanian location is a concentration camp? Random Twit-heads don't count.
How is this not a concentration camp? Idk what your definition of a concentration camp is but rounding people up in a camp with poor conditions sounds like a concentration camp to me.
This is just a temporary holding camp
@remindme@mstdn.social 3 months
@Rozauhtuno Ok, I will remind you on Tuesday May 20, 2025 at 6:02 PM UTC.
@remindme@mstdn.social 3 months
@octopus_ink Ok, I will remind you on Tuesday May 20, 2025 at 8:14 PM UTC.
@Rozauhtuno Here is your reminder!
That's fair. I guess we'll see. Just because the camp remains open doesn't mean that people aren't being repatriated in a timely manner though.
Wow you dodge the entire issue of the US Constitution and legal Asylum so well. I'd like to see you in a Dodgeball game.
The US allows legal asylum. Whether the US is correctly following their own laws with regard to legal asylum is a completely separate issue from whether or not this Panamanian site is a concentration camp, as the talking head is asserting in an incredibly emotionally manipulative manner.
As I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, people here seem really intent on conflating their own thoughts on immigration in general with the actual situation being described in the article.
I've always kinda sucked at dodgeball. Good at throwing, good at catching, reeeally bad at dodging.
It's not a separate issue at all, these people would not be in Panama at all if the US had followed its own laws, and these camps would not exist.
The US is calling the shots, you admitted they might not be following the law, and yet you expect the US to follow the rules they create and break? That's a very niave outlook on global politics.
Whether the US is following its laws or not has literally nothing to do with whether this Panamanian location is a concentration camp, which is the talking head's claim and the entire point of this comment chain.
The US is calling the shots, you admitted they might not be following the law, and yet you expect the US to follow the rules they create and break? That’s a very niave outlook on global politics.
It would be, if, once again, the specific day-to-day operation of these camps had anything whatsoever to do with the US, which it doesn't seem to.
Please read carefully this time:
This is not a US camp. This location is constructed and operated entirely by the sovereign government of Panama, and we have no evidence that the Panamanian government is doing anything that could be construed as being a concentration camp. If anything, Panama is likely being forced by the US to detain these people against their will, giving them even less incentive to mistreat them, especially since these camps are now international news.
cope and seethe. shove your concern trolling somewhere else
??
Are you a mouthpiece for the Panamanian government? Are you in Panama inspecting these camps? Why are you so defensive for this administration?
Nope - I just don't see any reason to assume the worst of a government when I have no evidence that they deserve that assumption. If this were about a camp actually in the US, I'd be a lot more prepared to believe that the conditions were inhumane.
They sent people to the jungle without shelter. Do you really think they plan to meet all of their needs? And if they are just doing their best to cope with the migrants, then the US is responsible for sending them to a place that could not handle them.
They sent people to the jungle without shelter.
I suppose that's possible, but Imma need a source for that claim, because it's definitely not in the article I read. That seems more like the sort of blind, knee-jerk reaction the twit-head in the pic is intending to elicit with their inflammatory one-liner.
Do you really think they plan to meet all of their needs?
All of the needs required of a brief detainment before repatriation? Yeah, I see no reason why Panama wouldn't do that, especially since they probably want these people out of Panama as soon as possible.
And if they are just doing their best to cope with the migrants, then the US is responsible for sending them to a place that could not handle them.
They seem to be handling them just fine. I agree that the US sending them there was a dick move, and probably an attempt at strongarm tactics on Trump's part, but Trump being a dick doesn't suddenly mean that Panama is running a concentration camp, as the talking head is asserting to make people angry enough to engage en masse with their "content".
Panama requested/offered this arrangement a few weeks ago.
They* too, are bootlickers
*the current Panamanian regime