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