By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Associated Press, established in 1846, stands as a leading global news organization committed to unbiased and factual reporting. AP is the most trusted source for fast and accurate news across all formats, serving as a vital provider of technology and services for the news industry. The organization’s journalism reaches over half of the world’s population daily.
Read the original article here
US government is building a 5,000-person immigrant concentration camp in west Texas. The news itself is a lot to process. It’s something that feels both incredibly shocking and, in a strange way, not surprising at all. You hear that the government is constructing a large-scale facility to house immigrants, and your initial reaction might be a mix of disbelief and a growing sense of unease.
They have money for a project like this, a massive undertaking with a 5,000-person capacity. Yet, we’re constantly told there isn’t enough funding for essential things like affordable healthcare, education, and housing. It’s a common sentiment that surfaces when you see where the priorities lie. The question keeps popping up, “How can they find the funds for this, but not for things that directly benefit the population?”
And let’s not forget the language used to describe these facilities. “Detention camp” is a phrase that’s often used, but when you’re talking about confining a large group of people, in this case 5,000 immigrants, the more accurate and unsettling term is “concentration camp.” It’s a term with a heavy history and meaning, and it’s impossible to ignore its implications.
It’s also worth considering the economics of this. We know that New York City, for instance, processed a substantial number of asylum seekers through a network of shelters and facilities. The cost for that in one year was a significant amount, but a lot of that money stayed in the local economy. Conversely, a large-scale camp like this in West Texas, costing hundreds of millions annually, seems to benefit a private contractor, creating a system that is less about solving issues and more about profits and, frankly, cruelty.
When you look at the bigger picture, a troubling pattern emerges. It seems that Congress is failing to address the underlying problems that drive immigration. We see failed attempts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and these failures result in private companies profiting from the detention of immigrants. It’s a cycle that seems designed to perpetuate the problem. It’s about the border, but it’s also not about the border. It’s about the business of immigration, and who stands to benefit from it.
Let’s look at some details. The facility will be completed in 2027. These types of projects tend to become long-term investments. The implication is that we are heading for a future where the incarceration of immigrants is not a temporary measure but a permanent feature of the system.
Now, consider the conditions and the locations. Imagine summer in West Texas, where temperatures regularly soar. This is a serious health concern. There’s also the labor. Detainees are often put to work, sometimes for little to no wages. There are already lawsuits related to these practices.
We’re on the cusp of a period with economic volatility. There is already a shortage of skilled workers. So who is going to fill those positions when the people already here are deported? You’re looking at higher prices and potential shortages, impacting every citizen.
And the beneficiaries? Well, it appears to be private contractors and, potentially, political donors. This whole situation is a way to extract money from the system, funneling it into the pockets of people who are already wealthy. It’s not about solving a crisis; it’s about profiting from it.
Ultimately, it’s a story about what we choose to value as a society. It’s about whether we prioritize basic human rights or whether we allow a system of profit to take precedence over compassion.