UPDATE:

In an alarming news item, Trump is now reported as demanding that the author of the NY Times op-ed described below be investigated by the DOJ for criminal prosecution for criticizing Trump, on "national security" grounds!


http://www.ktuu.com/content/news/Pres-Trump-Justice-Dept-should-investigate-NY-Times-op-ed-492701621.html

That is what dictators do, not democratically elected leaders. This is also an additional indication of the danger to the freedom of Americans that Trump's totalitarian immigration agenda is leading to.

My original comment follows:



Trump Plans Concentration Camps for Immigrant Children. Will Americans be Next? (And No, Facial Recognition Does Not Resemble Muslim Ban Religious "Animus".)

The Trump administration has released plans for a new assault on the rights, safety and welfare of immigrant children which shows that its infamous child separation program, which had to be cancelled in the face of nationwide outrage, was not an aberration but was at the very heart of Trump's anti-immigrant agenda. This agenda could well be described as reducing or eliminating all forms of immigration, legal as well as unauthorized, from non-white parts for the world through the use of cruelty and fear against the most vulnerable and defenseless immigrants, including, especially, young children.

Specifically, the Trump administration now plans to withdraw from a federal court agreement known as the Flores settlement in which the government had agreed to avoid prolonged detention of immigrant children, and to maintain certain standards of safety and protection from abuse. The administration is now claiming the right to detain immigrant children indefinitely, and it wants to scuttle safely protections and oversight of detention centers, in effect turning them into American-style concentration camps.

Details are in a vox.com report:

https://www.vox.com/2018/9/6/1782691...ump-regulation

Will America's concentration camps be meant to torment (and, inevitably, cut off the lives of more than a few through abuse and neglect) young, helpless, brown immigrant children in order to terrorize and retaliate against their unwanted parents only? Or will they one day soon also hold American citizens who oppose Trump, just as Buchenwald and Dachau put not only Jews and other so called Untermenschen - "racial inferiors" behind the barbed wire, but also incarcerated and tortured anyone who opposed the Nazi regime?

Based on Trump's constant and escalating attacks on anyone who disagrees with him, in which the word "treason" appears with increasing frequency, and on his open praise for using violence against opposing journalists, most recently at a Montana rally, it is not hard to contemplate such a result.

I will conclude with a brief comment about a September 6 Immigration Daily article by my distinguished colleague Nolan Rappaport Esq. who has a well deserved reputation as one of America's top immigration law experts. In his article:

Will Trump's biometric entry-exit system be as controversial as his travel ban?

Nolan discusses the pros and cons of using facial recognition technology to screen immigrants. While I agree with most of his points, including the need to improve this technology to make it more effective and prevent abuse, I respectfully disagree with his implication that this technology somehow deserves comparison with Trump's Muslim ban orders (which most commentators euphemistically choose to call a "travel ban" instead). Based on Nolan's description, there is nothing inherently discriminatory about facial recognition technology. There is no evidence that it would be adopted for the purpose of targeting any specific class of immigrants based on race or religion.

The same cannot be said about the Muslim ban orders, which, despite the national security fig leaf that the Supreme Court majority was all too eager to accept, were directed almost entirely against almost 100 percent Muslim countries, with North Korea and Venezuela thrown in as an obvious afterthought only as window dressing, The ban orders were preceded by a dismal and irrefutable history of what the 4th Circuit accurately called "animus" on Trump's part against Muslims and their religion, to which the High Court decided to rem
ain blind.