[golergka]

The difference is the reason to be in the camps. Breaking country's laws is generally viewed as legitimate reason to send someone to prison or camp, while being of a certain ethnicity is not.

Of course, there's an issue of laws that are by themselves are morally reprehensible, like the Nuremberg laws in Nazi Germany. However, immigration laws are clearly moral and expected to exist in some form or another in any modern country.

I have to say, this distinction is so obvious I'm very surprised that somebody asks this kind of question at all.

[ceejayoz]

> However, immigration laws are clearly moral...

This is not, in fact, universally agreed upon.

[jariel]

It's a question of civics - entering the country is illegal, migrants do that knowingly. FYI they can leave anytime they want, there is a 72 hour clearing process. They are detained due to a transgression of the law, much like anything else. Where we can disagree mostly is the nature of the incarceration etc. - but this is besides the point - China's detention of citizens, arbitrarily, due to their ethnicity or because they simply want to 'move them into another job' is not remotely comparable to the detention of citizens who have broken very clear and stated laws, and of course can leave said detention as they chose.

It's reasonable that some degree of moral relativism can be made WRT China, but on these threads, there is no such thing.

China's arbitrary incarceration of citizens based on their ethnicity is beyond pale, the President should be bringing it up at every occasion, and it should be a pillar of our relations with China, including trade.

[bobbyz]

You're not addressing the point about immigration laws not being universally recognized as moral and just.

What about child migrants? You're meaning to tell me that its morally just to intern preteens because they broke your immigration law? To force children to appear before a judge that are so young that they have to draw a cross as their signature? What's grosser here?

[jariel]

These moral equivalence arguments are futile.

I addressed the issue, not only that, the concern about the 'moral universality' of the border laws isn't very relevant.

We put people in prison for 10 years for stealing cars, and there is no 'universal moral agreement' on the issue.

Migrants are not even being held against their will - they can leave in about 72 hours by filing paperwork. They have knowingly entered the country illegally, and are detained. They can go home essentially when they please.

If families were required to 'wait the Holiday Inn' until their hearing (which I think should be the case, no need to hold them in detention), I suggest few would be concerned, so what matters is not so much the issue of detention, but the conditions. I think that most people would probably agree that conditions should be reasonable but that's an operational issue.

But it's besides the point: the US has borders, and just like any for other nation, those borders have to be respected legally by some means.

But this is a giant distraction from the fact that:

China is arbitrarily putting it's own citizens in totalitarian concentration camp conditions due to their ethnicity.

The 'corollary' would be Trump putting 100 000 Latino American citizens in concentration camps purely due to their ethnicity, with no legal recourse, removed from any communication with their families, their every move, thought, action suppressed as they go through intense 'indoctrination training' daily, for years at a time.

It's unthinkable.

But it doesn't stop there:

China spies and censors each and every citizen, kidnapping students, academics - anyone - who speaks out too vociferously against the regime. They rigorously control all established media to enforce propagandistic measures, and censor or suppress anyone who acts against that system. China does not allow citizens to access information outside the country. They've created a giant, dystopian suppression machine.

The corollary would be Trump closing down CNN, NBC, CBS, then taking governmental control of Fox news, and legally requiring Fox to tout his agenda every day. Trump would then mandate Facebook to censor anyone who speaks out against Trump or the GOP / Government. Trump would insert a team of 'GOP agents' within Facebook to ensure absolute compliance. Any FB user who 'talks funny' would be flagged for future reference (i.e. maybe just a little visit from the local cops will suffice to get them to shut up).

Protests would be met with bullets, all media completely suppressed, no legal action or recourse would be possible. To merely mention the issue could land you in jail.

Of course in this scenario, Trump also has absolute power, does not need to be elected, directly controls the Fed/Monetary System, directly controls all major financial institutions, can amend the constitution essentially at will, has no need for any kind of judicial system which would of course be politically controlled, so he could put his enemies (or whoever) in jail whenever he wants, for whatever reason.

Of course he could direct Verizon, Google, AT&T, Stripe, Amazon to provide him with transactional data for anyone, anywhere on earth at anytime, for any reason.

And all of that is only scratching the surface!

So start justifying that list of transgressions, and when we get down to things like 'North Koreans fleeing to Chine held in less than optimal conditions' ... then we're having a discussion.

[_4jlx]

First of all, you're looking for the word 'equivalent', not corollary. Secondly, a talented lawyer could make a convincing legal argument for anything. The holocaust was legal. So really, the morality of the act is everything. Sure in practice, children are supposed to be held for 72 hours, but in reality it can be much longer. I'm not sure if I'm addressing your claims because you're using a bunch of big words, and I'm not sure if you're trying to say what they actually mean, so thats what I got.

[ceejayoz]

> It's a question of civics - entering the country is illegal, migrants do that knowingly.

So was rescuing Jews from the Holocaust, and China's acts against Tibetans and Uighurs. Let's not mistake what's moral with what's legal; they often overlap in a decent society, but that's by no means guaranteed. You can make a case for "immigration laws are moral", but "they're moral because they're the law" isn't that case.

[jariel]

Morality and legality are deeply intertwined.

Conflating the fact that some people face basic detainment (which they can leave quickly at any time by merely choosing to return home) for breaking clear laws ... with 'Putting millions of Jews in Gas Chambers' is not helping the cause.

If we are so deeply concerned about 'legality vs. morality' then I'd imagine the very first issue coming to mind would be the issue of Uyghurs being put in concentration camps by the 100's of thousands, possibly millions, for no reason at all, other than the fact they are Uyghur.

Especially those dying, having their organs harvested and sent to Chinese elite. [1] [2] [3]

Their arbitrary detention due to ethnicity, and the conditions imposed upon them, I think make a very good corollary to the Nazi / Jewish holocaust, worthy of intellectual consideration.

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/china-harvesting-organs-of-u...

[2] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-religiou...

[3] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-is-harvesting-tho...