GOPer Pushes Detention Camps for Illegal Immigrants

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.


In a summer of fear-mongering, race-baiting, and conspiracy-spawning, conservative hysteria about illegal immigrants appears to have reached new extremes. Last night, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.) unloaded on CNN about an alleged plot to send pregnant women across the border to give birth to “terror babies.” But the GOP fringe isn’t just talking about the problems borne by immigrants. They’re also talking solutions. Like the proposal by Florida GOP state rep. candidate Marg Baker to round up illegal immigrants and put them in detention camps before deporting them.

Via Matt Yglesias, here’s a clip of Baker explaining her proposal, in which she advises that the state “follow what happened back in the 40s or 50s” and “buil[d] camps for the people that snuck into the country”:

As Yglesias points out, it’s unclear exactly what Baker’s talking about in terms of her historical analogy. The closest thing that really comes to mind are the Japanese internment camps during World War II, which was perhaps the last time that the US government rounded up the suspicious foreigners among us en masse.

Regardless, the Republican hopeful has plenty more to say about why the government “collect[ing] enough illegal aliens until you have enough to ship them back.” Illegal immigrants “should not mingle among the people,” Baker told the St. Petersberg Times. “Who knows what diseases they are carrying or if they are criminals? They snuck in here and are walking among us.”

The national GOP has certainly been fanning the flames of such nativist extremism by putting “anchor babies” in the spotlight. But the reactionary surge has also been enabled by the Obama administration’s own immigration hawkishness, as Adam Serwer argues. By focusing almost exclusively on measures like the border security bill—which the president is set to sign today—Obama has tried to appease the anti-immigration crowd. Instead, such an approach has merely encouraged such sentiments to flourish.

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

From the desk of Mother Jones CEO, Monika Bauerlein...

Newsrooms can be funded in many ways. One of the most controversial (and volatile) ways is by a for-profit corporation or a billionaire owner. We see it across the headlines on a weekly basis: the claw backs in public media, the gutting of The Washington Post, the bending over backwards to appeal to Trump and his allies.

But not here.

When Mother Jones first started publishing 50 years ago, our founders made a critical decision: to be a reader-supported nonprofit. They knew that no corporate owner would be interested in a muckraking newsroom; they also knew that no muckraking newsroom would be interested in following the agenda of a corporate owner.

And so, we’ve been reader-funded for half a century. We rely on contributions from our readers—readers like you—whether it’s $50, or $15 a month, or whatever fits your budget. People give what they can, and every donation makes a difference for our newsroom, which has grown tremendously—in size and reach and renown—since its inception in 1976.

You may be wondering: What does it take to publish an investigation? And what does my donation actually fund? The answers are one and the same: It takes people, resources, and time. And that’s what your donation funds directly.

Every donation Mother Jones receives from readers fortifies our newsroom, whether we’re covering underreported scandals out of Washington, DC, or the most important news of the day. And right now, each donation will be doubled because of our $50,000 match. So when you make a donation—$5, $50, any amount—it’ll go twice as far.

Your support keeps us going. If you’re able, donate today.

Thanks for reading.

—Monika

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

INDEPENDENT. BECAUSE OF YOU.

Mother Jones has no billionaires calling the shots—just readers like you making fearless reporting possible

Donate