A new analysis by The Marshall Project examines how language is used to describe immigration detention centers in the United States, raising questions about whether some facilities meet the historical definitions of “concentration camps,” and highlighting how terminology shapes public understanding of immigration enforcement.
The report asks, “Are they being held in ‘processing centers’ or ‘concentration camps’?”
The article explains that the government often uses terms like “detention centers” or “processing centers” to describe these facilities. However, critics argue that this language can make conditions sound less serious than they are.
Journalist Andrea Pitzer said that language is often used for different purposes depending on the audience. She explained that one type of wording is meant to “stoke fear among immigrants, while another approach is intended to have a calming effect, to gain the public’s acceptance of the administration’s enforcement practices.”
The debate over terminology has surfaced in major political moments. In 2019, U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez faced criticism after saying, “This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and dying.” Critics argue that this comparison was too extreme, while supporters said it drew attention to serious conditions.
The article notes that while “concentration camps” are often linked to World War II, the concept existed long before that period. According to Pitzer, she defines them as “the mass detention of civilians, without due process or a full trial, based on their identity, rather than something they had done.” She further argues that “the U.S. has crossed that line today,” pointing to current immigration enforcement practices.
The Marshall Project analysis argues that some parts of ICE enforcement match this definition. Immigration authorities have expanded arrests in recent years, detaining not only undocumented immigrants but also people with legal status and, in some cases, U.S. citizens.
Holocaust historian Waitman Beorn said ICE may be operating with “extra legality,” meaning actions that go beyond normal legal oversight. He pointed to reports of limited access to lawyers, weak oversight, and detainees being moved far from support systems. Beorn also said that “the term needs to be demystified,” explaining that “something does not have to be Auschwitz to be a concentration camp.”
Beorn also drew historical comparisons, explaining that detention systems developed over time. He said what U.S. detention centers “resemble is the early period of Nazi concentration camps,” noting that early camps often began in improvised locations such as warehouses and arenas.
The article also highlights concerns about conditions inside detention centers. Reports have documented outbreaks of disease and an increase in deaths in ICE custody. However, the Department of Homeland Security has disputed these claims, stating that “all detainees are provided with proper meals” as well as medical care.
Even with these concerns, many people disagree with using the term “concentration camp.” Some critics, including Jewish organizations and political groups, argue that it compares modern detention to Nazi extermination camps such as Treblinka and Sobibor, which they say is inappropriate.
The article also shows how language has been used in the past to shape public understanding. During World War II, the U.S. government used terms like “relocation centers” when referring to the forced incarceration of Japanese Americans. Critics later said this language hid the reality of what was really happening at the time.
Ultimately, the analysis says the debate is not just about words, but about how immigration detention is understood and whether the language reflects conditions inside these facilities. As enforcement expands, the debate over what to call these centers is likely to continue, with language shaping public opinion and policy discussions.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
