The article, “Don’t call it ‘Alligator Alcatraz.’ Call it a concentration camp,” draws a comparison that is so historically misguided that it hinders essential discussions about immigration policy that we must engage in within this country.

The Fundamental Difference That Matters

What the author either fails to grasp or intentionally overlooks is the crucial legal and ethical difference between detaining individuals who have crossed the border illegally and forcibly incarcerating lawful citizens and residents who have committed no crimes whatsoever.

Nazi concentration camps held German citizens whose sole “offense” was their ethnicity or religious beliefs. During World War II, Japanese American citizens and legal residents were interned without having committed any crimes or presenting any legitimate security risks. Such actions represented severe breaches of constitutional rights and human dignity.

Even going back further, comparing “Alligator Alcatraz” to the forced removal of Native Americans to reservations isn’t a valid comparison, because the U.S. policy at that time, however flawed, was based on the idea of integrating them into American life while achieving the strategic goal of Manifest Destiny. That in no way compares to what’s happening today.

The Everglades facility, whatever its flaws, is designed to detain people who are in the United States in violation of federal immigration law. That’s not persecution based on ethnicity—it’s enforcement of established legal procedures for people who don’t have legal status to remain in the country.

These include not just those who violated immigration law, but also have committed serious crimes either before or during their time in the country.

READ MORE:

Why This Comparison Is Dangerous

When commentators throw around terms like “concentration camp” to describe immigration enforcement, they’re not just being historically irresponsible. They’re purposefully poisoning the well for serious policy discussions.

You want to criticize the conditions at detention facilities? Fine. You want to argue about the scale and speed of enforcement operations? That’s a legitimate debate. You want to question whether mass detention is the most effective approach to immigration enforcement? Have at it. I’m fine with those questions and have even raised some of them myself.

But when you start comparing lawful immigration enforcement to the systematic persecution of legal citizens and residents, you’ve abandoned serious policy analysis in favor of inflammatory rhetoric designed to generate clicks and outrage while continuing to further compare Donald Trump to Hitler, which is a favorite pastime of the Democrats.

The Real Policy Questions We Should Be Discussing

Instead of resorting to historically inappropriate comparisons, we should be having honest conversations about immigration enforcement that acknowledge both the complexity of the issue and the legitimate concerns on all sides.

Are detention facilities operating under appropriate conditions? Are enforcement operations being conducted professionally and legally? Are there more effective ways to process immigration cases and ensure people show up for their hearings?

These are the questions that matter for actual policy-making. There have been plenty of reports (yes, some inflated by the media, but some also legitimately worrisome) of arrests and deportations that should not have been made. But you can’t have those conversations when one side is comparing immigration detention to the Holocaust.

Historical Context Matters

The author of this piece claims to have written “a global history of concentration camps,” but somehow missed the most important distinction in that history: the difference between detaining people who violated immigration law and systematically persecuting legal citizens and residents based on their ethnicity or religion.

Japanese American internment was wrong precisely because it targeted American citizens and legal residents who had committed no crimes. Nazi concentration camps were horrific because they systematically imprisoned, tortured, and murdered people based on their ethnicity, religion, and political beliefs, not their legal status.

Drawing equivalencies between these historical atrocities and current immigration enforcement is morally offensive to the memory of those who suffered and died in actual concentration camps.

What This Rhetoric Actually Accomplishes

Here’s what happens when political commentators use inflammatory language like “concentration camp” to describe immigration enforcement: they make it harder for reasonable people to discuss real solutions to immigration challenges.

They also trivialize genuine historical atrocities by comparing them to contemporary policy disagreements. When everything becomes a “concentration camp” or “fascism,” those terms lose their meaning and their power to describe actual authoritarian behavior when it occurs.

History matters, and words have meaning. The progressive compulsion to call everything “fascist” or compare everything a Republican president, regardless of who it is, does to Hitler demeans the words and the history behind those claims. It’s simply gross and inappropriate.

The Path Forward

We can have serious debates about immigration policy without resorting to historically inappropriate comparisons. We can criticize enforcement operations without comparing them to the Holocaust. We can advocate for the humane treatment of detainees without trivializing the experiences of concentration camp victims.

But that requires commentators to approach these issues with intellectual honesty rather than inflammatory rhetoric designed to generate outrage and social media engagement.

The immigration debate deserves better than MSNBC’s latest contribution to the discourse. And so do the memories of those who actually suffered in concentration camps.