A Global Perspective
Last night, after my daughter and I spent the day working on a timeline of WWII so she can understand how this all happened last time, we watched The Sound of Music. We watched footage of our first three concentration camps yesterday, and she needed something lighter, easier, with joy mixed in.
I hadn’t seen it in decades probably, and somehow it had never occurred to me that Maria was AuDHD, but it was SO easy to see. It was so heartwarming to remember that there are some people who just aren’t capable of being NaZ1$.
I thought I was reasonably well versed in WWII history, but after our little foray into the forbidden truths behind the NaZ1 Concentration Camps I was stirring with questions.
So before I went to bed, I decided to ask Copilot. I think these are actually pretty important questions. I wish more people were asking them. Maybe we just don’t know how. I’m hoping that’s it, so I’m sharing here.
As you read these questions, I encourage you to pause and think of what you expect each answer to be. Please take note of the things that surprise you.
Questions:
- What is the global perspective on current events in America?
- Are other countries aware that we have concentration camps?
- Are any countries talking about intervening?
- How long has the United States had Concentration Camps?
- How many American Concentration Camps are there, and were are they? Also, how many more are coming?
- What are conditions like inside American Concentration Camps?
- Which populations are in American Concentration Camps?
- How many people are being placed in American Concentration Camps daily? How many die there daily?
- You talked about migrant indigenous populations. How many Native Americans are in the camps?
- Are there any non immigrant populations being taken to the camps?
- Have they started rounding up the homeless?
- Were are they taking the homeless people in Washington DC?
- What’s happening with the Autistic Registry?
- How many states already have Autism Registries?
- Are the Indian Boarding Schools included in the historical account of concentration camps?
- Are any concentration camps in Colorado?
- How does this information fit into America’s eugenics history? Are we still performing forced sterilizations?
- What happened to Colorado’s sanctuary status?
- Why has Jared Polis been kowtowing during Trump’s second term?
What is the global perspective on current events in America?
🌍 Here’s a snapshot of how the world is viewing current events in America, especially in light of President Trump’s return to office:
🔄 Disruption and Realignment
Many global observers see the U.S. entering a period of intensified disruption. Trump’s first 100 days have already reshaped diplomatic norms, with allies and adversaries recalibrating their strategies:
- EU, Germany, Canada, Japan, South Korea are actively cultivating new alliances to buffer against strained U.S. ties.
- China, Brazil, South Africa are leveraging the moment to expand influence and promote a more multipolar global order.
- Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, India appear to be doubling down on transactional relationships with Washington, seeing strategic opportunity in Trump’s approach.
🧭 Erosion of Traditional Influence
There’s growing concern about the weakening of long-standing U.S. foreign policy institutions and the decline of trust in expertise. This has led to:
- A more fragmented global landscape, with countries hedging bets rather than relying on U.S. leadership.
- Increased unpredictability in international negotiations, especially around defense, trade, and climate policy.
🗣️ Global Reactions to Domestic Shifts
Domestically, controversial moves—like renaming the Department of Defense to the Department of War and proposing extreme crime policies—are drawing sharp international scrutiny. These actions are seen by many as symbolic of a broader militarization of domestic governance and a shift toward authoritarian rhetoric.
U.S. Political Landscape: Global Reactions
- Trump’s Second Term: President Donald Trump’s return to office has reignited global debate. Allies like Germany, Canada, and Japan are recalibrating their diplomatic strategies, while others—such as Russia, Saudi Arabia, and India—see potential for strategic alignment.
- Foreign Policy Shifts: The administration’s early moves have disrupted traditional alliances. Countries are responding by either negotiating directly with Washington or diversifying their global partnerships to reduce reliance on the U.S..
- Military and Law Enforcement: Proposals like renaming the Defense Department to the “Department of War” and treating drug smugglers as wartime combatants have raised eyebrows internationally, with concerns about militarization of domestic policy.
🌐 Broader Global Sentiment
- Fragmentation of U.S. Influence: Analysts suggest we’re entering a “de-Americanized” world order, where U.S. dominance is waning and regional powers are stepping up to fill the vacuum.
- Trust and Expertise: There’s growing concern abroad about the erosion of trust in U.S. institutions and expertise, which affects global confidence in American leadership.
🧭 Strategic Realignments
- EU and Asia-Pacific: Nations in these regions are actively forging new coalitions and trade agreements to buffer against U.S. unpredictability.
- China’s Opportunism: China is leveraging the moment to strengthen its regional influence and present itself as a stabilizing force.
Are other countries aware that we have concentration camps?
Yes—many countries and international observers are aware, though the framing and depth of that awareness vary widely.
🌐 Global Awareness and Framing
- Terminology Matters: The term “concentration camp” has been used by U.S. lawmakers and historians to describe facilities detaining undocumented migrants, especially under harsh and dehumanizing conditions. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez notably used the term in 2019, sparking global debate and media coverage.
- Historical Parallels: International media often draw comparisons to past U.S. practices—like Japanese-American internment during WWII or Indigenous “emigration depots” during forced removals—to contextualize current detention policies.
- Human Rights Watchdogs: Organizations like Amnesty International and the UN Human Rights Council have criticized U.S. immigration detention centers for violating international human rights standards. These critiques are widely reported in Europe, Latin America, and parts of Asia.
🧭 International Reactions
- Latin America: Countries like Mexico and Guatemala have condemned U.S. border policies, especially family separations and prolonged detentions.
- Europe: While some European governments remain diplomatically cautious, human rights groups and media outlets have been vocal in their criticism.
- Global South: Activists in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East often cite U.S. detention practices as evidence of Western hypocrisy on human rights.
📚 Educational Gaps and Advocacy
- Despite widespread reporting, many people globally—especially younger generations—lack historical context or awareness of systemic detention practices. This parallels findings in Holocaust education surveys, where knowledge gaps persist even in countries with strong educational systems.
Are any countries talking about intervening?
🌐 No country is currently planning direct intervention in U.S. immigration detention practices, but there is mounting international pressure and legal critique that could lay groundwork for future diplomatic or legal action.
🧭 Legal and Diplomatic Pressure
- Human Rights Bodies: Organizations like Human Rights Watch and the Center for Victims of Torture have published detailed reports arguing that U.S. immigration detention violates international law—including the Convention Against Torture and the prohibition on arbitrary detention.
- Treaty Obligations: The U.S. is bound by multiple human rights treaties, and legal scholars argue that current detention practices breach these obligations. While this doesn’t trigger automatic intervention, it opens the door for international bodies to issue formal condemnations or initiate reviews.
🌍 Global Responses and Alternatives
- Comparative Models: Countries like Canada, Spain, and the UK are promoting alternatives to detention—such as community-based case management—as more humane and rights-respecting approaches. These models are being cited in global forums as counterpoints to U.S. practices.
- Pandemic-Era Releases: During COVID-19, some U.S. judges ordered detainee releases due to unsafe conditions. This was noted internationally as a precedent for rights-based intervention, though it was domestic and temporary.
🚫 Why No Direct Intervention Yet?
- Sovereignty Norms: Most countries avoid direct interference in U.S. domestic policy due to diplomatic norms and the geopolitical weight of the U.S.
- Strategic Caution: Allies may fear retaliation or disruption of trade and security agreements if they push too hard.
How long has the United States had Concentration Camps?
The United States has operated concentration camps—defined as sites of mass detention under inhumane conditions—for over two centuries, though the terminology and public recognition have shifted over time.
📜 Historical Timeline of U.S. Concentration Camps
| Period | Targeted Group | Camp Type / Policy | Details |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1830s–1850s | Indigenous Peoples | Emigration Depots | During the Trail of Tears, thousands of Cherokee, Muscogee, and other tribes were held in prison-like camps in Alabama and Tennessee before forced relocation. |
| 1890s–1910s | Native Americans | Fort Sill & Others | Fort Sill, later used for Japanese internment, originally detained Apache prisoners of war and Indigenous families. |
| 1942–1946 | Japanese Americans | Internment Camps | Over 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry were forcibly relocated and imprisoned under Executive Order 9066. |
| 2000s–Present | Migrants & Asylum Seekers | ICE Detention Centers | Facilities detaining undocumented immigrants have been criticized for overcrowding, abuse, and family separation. Some lawmakers and historians have labeled them “concentration camps”. |
🧠 Why the Term Matters
- The Oxford English Dictionary defines a concentration camp as a place where persecuted groups are imprisoned under inadequate conditions, often without trial.
- Scholars and advocates argue that U.S. facilities meet this definition across multiple eras, even if the term remains politically and emotionally charged.
How many American Concentration Camps are there, and were are they? Also, how many more are coming?
The United States currently operates over 200 active immigration detention centers, many of which meet the criteria for concentration camps: mass detention of marginalized groups under inhumane conditions, often without trial or due process. These facilities are spread across nearly every state, with major clusters in:
📍 Current Detention Hotspots
- Texas: Dilley, Karnes City, Pearsall, and El Paso host some of the largest ICE facilities.
- California: Adelanto, Otay Mesa, and Mesa Verde are notorious for overcrowding and abuse.
- Louisiana & Mississippi: Rapid expansion in rural areas, often through private prison contracts.
- Arizona & New Mexico: Florence and Cibola County centers are key sites for asylum-seeker detention.
- Florida, Georgia, and Pennsylvania: Host transitional centers and long-term ICE jails.
You can explore a full interactive map via Freedom for Immigrants, which tracks facility locations, capacity, and conditions.
🚨 What’s Coming: The Largest Expansion in U.S. History
Under the Trump administration’s 2024–2025 immigration overhaul:
- 60 new detention centers are being added nationwide.
- Guantanamo Bay is now being used to detain up to 30,000 migrants, with 500 already held there.
- Family detention—previously scaled back—is being revived and expanded, with facilities like Dilley, TX now holding up to 2,400 people.
- Private prison corporations (Geo Group, CoreCivic) are reopening and expanding facilities in at least 10 states, including Michigan, Kansas, Nevada, and New Jersey.
The goal is to reach 116,000 daily detainees, backed by a $45 billion budget—a 265% increase from previous years.
What are conditions like inside American Concentration Camps?
Conditions inside U.S. immigration detention centers—what many advocates and historians refer to as concentration camps—are consistently described as inhumane, unsafe, and psychologically damaging, with systemic patterns of abuse and neglect.
🚨 Core Conditions Reported
- Overcrowding & Filth: Detainees are often packed into cells beyond capacity, with limited access to clean water, sanitation, or bedding. Some have been forced to sleep on concrete floors or share space with dozens of others.
- Extreme Temperatures: Facilities are frequently kept at freezing temperatures, with lights on 24/7. Detainees have reported being denied blankets or warm clothing, contributing to illness and trauma.
- Medical Neglect: A 2024 report found that 95% of deaths in ICE custody between 2017–2021 could likely have been prevented with basic medical care. Chronic understaffing and delayed treatment are common.
- Solitary Confinement: Use of solitary confinement has surged—especially for vulnerable populations like LGBTQ+ individuals, those on suicide watch, or hunger strikers. Isolation can last weeks or months, with devastating psychological effects.
- Family Separation & Child Detention: Children have been held in cages, denied adequate food and hygiene, and subjected to prolonged trauma. Some were told to drink from toilet bowls due to lack of running water.
- Legal Obstruction: Many detainees are denied access to legal counsel or bond hearings. Over 60% are held under mandatory detention, meaning they cannot argue for release—even if they pose no threat.
🧠 Systemic Patterns
- Privatization: Many camps are run by private prison corporations like CoreCivic and Geo Group, incentivizing prolonged detention for profit.
- Racial Disparities: Black immigrants face harsher conditions, higher bond rates, and lower chances of release.
- Remote Isolation: Most facilities are located far from cities, making legal visits, family contact, and oversight extremely difficult.
These conditions aren’t isolated—they reflect a systemic architecture of dehumanization, rooted in historical precedents and amplified by policy shifts. If you’re building survivor-centered resources or advocacy toolkits, I can help map these conditions against international law, historical analogs, and rhetorical framing. Want to layer in survivor testimony or legal precedent next?
Which populations are in American Concentration Camps?
The populations detained in U.S. immigration detention centers—what many advocates and historians refer to as concentration camps—are overwhelmingly composed of marginalized, racialized, and legally vulnerable groups, often targeted by systemic enforcement patterns.
🧭 Primary Populations Detained
- Undocumented Migrants: Individuals who entered the U.S. without authorization or overstayed visas. Many are asylum seekers fleeing violence, poverty, or persecution.
- Black Immigrants: Though they make up a small percentage of the immigrant population, Black migrants are disproportionately detained and face harsher conditions, longer sentences, and lower rates of release.
- Indigenous Migrants: Especially from Central America, including Maya, Garífuna, and other Indigenous groups. Language barriers and cultural erasure compound their vulnerability.
- LGBTQ+ Individuals: Often placed in solitary confinement “for their protection,” yet face elevated risks of abuse, medical neglect, and psychological harm.
- Children and Families: Family detention has surged again, with thousands of children held in facilities like Dilley, TX. Many are separated from caregivers or detained for prolonged periods.
- Disabled and Chronically Ill People: Detained despite medical conditions that make incarceration life-threatening. Reports show widespread medical neglect and preventable deaths.
- International Fugitives and Visa Violators: Includes individuals flagged by ICE for reentry after deportation, visa overstays, or pending charges abroad.
📊 Scope and Scale
- As of January 2025, ICE detained 39,703 adults across more than 100 facilities, marking the highest level of detention in recent years.
- Over 90% of detainees are held in privately-run prisons, incentivizing prolonged incarceration for profit.
- Top states for detention include Texas, Louisiana, California, Georgia, and Arizona, with facilities like Natchez (MS) and Pearsall (TX) holding thousands daily.
This system disproportionately targets Black, brown, Indigenous, and queer bodies, often criminalizing survival and migration itself. If you’re building survivor-centered resources, I can help map these demographics against historical patterns, legal frameworks, and advocacy strategies. Want to layer in historical parallels or policy breakdowns next?
How many people are being placed in American Concentration Camps daily? How many die there daily?
As of mid-2025, the U.S. immigration detention system—what many advocates and historians refer to as concentration camps—is processing and detaining people at an unprecedented scale.
📈 Daily Detention Numbers
- Over 59,000 people are currently held in ICE custody.
- In July 2025 alone, ICE booked 31,281 new detainees, averaging ~1,009 new people per day.
- These include:
- 27,483 ICE arrests
- 3,798 CBP transfers (from border enforcement)
This marks the highest daily intake in U.S. immigration detention history, driven by aggressive enforcement policies and expanded facility capacity.
⚰️ Daily Deaths in Detention
- In the current fiscal year (Oct 2024–Sep 2025), 12 people have died in ICE custody as of early July.
- That averages to ~1.7 deaths per month, or roughly one death every 18 days.
- However, this number is likely underreported:
- ICE has admitted to releasing detainees just before death to avoid accountability.
- Investigations reveal systemic medical neglect, destroyed evidence, and omitted facts in official reports.
The mortality rate in ICE detention is estimated at 21.3 deaths per 100,000 detainees, which is lower than the general prison system but far more volatile due to rapid turnover and lack of oversight.
If you’re building survivor-centered resources or advocacy modules, I can help you chart these numbers against historical patterns, legal frameworks, and international human rights standards. Want to map this into a visual timeline or policy impact brief next?
You talked about migrant indigenous populations. How many Native Americans are in the camps?
🧭 Native Americans are not legally subject to immigration detention, as they are U.S. citizens by birth and sovereign tribal members. However, recent reports show that ICE has detained Native American citizens, particularly Navajo Nation residents, in what appear to be racially motivated or mistaken identity raids.
🚨 What’s Actually Happening
- Navajo citizens living off-reservation in Arizona and New Mexico have reported being stopped, questioned, and in some cases detained for hours during immigration sweeps.
- ICE agents have demanded documentation like Certificates of Indian Blood, tribal IDs, or passports—despite these individuals being U.S. citizens.
- Tribal leaders, including Navajo Nation President Buu Nygren, have publicly condemned these actions as traumatizing and unlawful, urging members to carry identification at all times.
📊 Numbers and Scope
- There is no official count of how many Native Americans have been detained in immigration facilities, because ICE does not disaggregate data by tribal affiliation.
- However, at least 15 Indigenous individuals were reported detained or questioned in a single week in January 2025 alone.
- These incidents are part of a broader pattern of racial profiling, where ICE raids have swept up U.S. citizens, including Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, and Black residents.
This raises urgent questions about sovereignty violations, civil rights abuses, and the erasure of Indigenous identity within federal enforcement systems. If you’re building survivor-centered materials, I can help map these incidents against treaty law, racial profiling precedents, and historical parallels. Want to sketch out a legal or rhetorical framework next?
Are there any non immigrant populations being taken to the camps?
Yes—non-immigrant U.S. citizens have been detained in immigration detention centers, often due to racial profiling, mistaken identity, or systemic failures in verification. While these facilities are legally designated for noncitizens, the reality is more disturbing.
🚨 Documented Cases of U.S. Citizens Detained
- Black and Latino Citizens: Numerous reports show that U.S. citizens—especially those who are Black or Latinx—have been detained by ICE under suspicion of being undocumented. In some cases, individuals were held for weeks or months before proving their citizenship.
- Puerto Ricans and Native Americans: Despite being U.S. citizens, both groups have faced detention due to ignorance or disregard of their legal status. Some Navajo Nation members were asked for tribal IDs or passports during ICE raids, and Puerto Ricans have been detained at airports and border checkpoints.
- Mentally Ill and Disabled Individuals: People with cognitive disabilities have been swept into detention after being unable to assert their citizenship. In one case, a U.S. citizen with schizophrenia was held for over three years before being released.
📊 Scope of the Problem
- A 2020 study by the ACLU found that at least 1,500 U.S. citizens had been wrongfully detained by ICE between 2008 and 2018.
- The number is likely higher now, given expanded enforcement and reduced oversight under recent policy shifts.
🧠 Systemic Drivers
- 287(g) Agreements: These allow local law enforcement to act as immigration agents, often without proper training—leading to racial profiling and wrongful arrests.
- Private Prisons: Facilities run by corporations like CoreCivic and GEO Group have financial incentives to detain as many people as possible, regardless of legal status.
- Lack of Due Process: Detainees often lack access to legal counsel, and ICE has no obligation to verify citizenship before initiating detention.
This pattern reveals a deeper architecture of racialized surveillance and carceral expansion, where citizenship status does not guarantee protection. If you’re building survivor-centered resources, I can help map these cases against constitutional violations, historical parallels, and advocacy strategies. Want to chart this into a legal framework or policy brief next?
Have they started rounding up the homeless?
Yes—there is growing evidence that homeless individuals are being targeted and detained, especially under expanded immigration enforcement and urban policing strategies. While not officially labeled as a “roundup,” the pattern is unmistakable: poverty, visibility, and racialized vulnerability are being criminalized in ways that funnel unhoused people into detention systems.
🚨 What’s Happening on the Ground
- ICE Raids in Urban Encampments: In cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix, and El Paso, immigration officers have been seen conducting sweeps near homeless shelters and encampments. Some individuals—especially Latinx and Black migrants—have been detained without clear cause or documentation checks.
- Dual Enforcement Tactics: Local police departments are collaborating with ICE under 287(g) agreements, allowing officers to act as immigration agents. This has led to racial profiling and arrests of unhoused people during routine sweeps, especially in areas with high migrant populations.
- Detention in Nontraditional Sites: ICE has used hotels, hospitals, and even military bases to detain people outside the formal detention network. Some of these sites have held unhoused individuals swept up in mass enforcement actions.
📊 Who’s Being Targeted
- Undocumented Homeless Migrants: Many are asylum seekers or visa overstayers living in shelters or on the streets. They’re especially vulnerable to detention due to lack of ID or legal representation.
- U.S. Citizens Mistaken for Migrants: There are documented cases of homeless U.S. citizens—especially those with mental illness or no documentation—being detained by ICE. Some were held for weeks before proving their citizenship.
- Disabled and Elderly Individuals: People with chronic illnesses or disabilities have been detained despite clear humanitarian risks. Some were released only after public outcry or legal intervention.
🧠 Why It Matters
This isn’t just about immigration—it’s about criminalizing poverty and survival. The architecture of detention is expanding to absorb anyone who lacks visibility, documentation, or protection. If you’re building survivor-centered resources, we could map this into a framework that links housing insecurity, racialized enforcement, and carceral expansion. Want to sketch that out next?
Were are they taking the homeless people in Washington DC?
In Washington, D.C., unhoused individuals are being displaced from public spaces under an aggressive federal crackdown that has cleared over 50 encampments since July 2025. These clearings are happening in high-visibility areas like:
- Washington Circle
- New York Avenue Presbyterian Church
- Kennedy Center
- Lincoln Memorial
🧭 Where Are People Being Taken?
- Shelters: About 80 people have accepted shelter placements since the crackdown began. The city reports over 1,200 beds still available, with more expected from new housing developments.
- Jail or Fines: Individuals who refuse shelter or services may face fines or incarceration, according to White House officials.
- Unclear Destinations: Many displaced individuals are now listed as having “unsure status,” meaning their whereabouts are unknown after encampment removal.
🚨 Conditions and Concerns
- Belongings have been confiscated or destroyed, often thrown into garbage trucks during sweeps.
- Outreach teams report widespread fear and confusion, with many unhoused residents unsure where to go or how to access services.
- The crackdown is framed by federal officials as part of a “beautification” effort, but advocates warn it’s criminalizing poverty and pushing vulnerable people further into invisibility.
What’s happening with the Autistic Registry?
The proposed Autistic Registry—which sparked intense backlash in April 2025—has officially been walked back by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Here’s what unfolded:
🧠 What Was Proposed
- NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya announced plans for a “national disease registry” that would include autism, as part of a broader data initiative.
- The registry was described as a way to collect federal and private health data to support autism research—but lacked clarity on privacy protections, data use, and community input.
🚨 Community Response
- Autistic advocates, privacy experts, and disability rights organizations immediately raised alarms:
- Concerns about surveillance, forced data collection, and weaponization of diagnosis.
- Fears that such a registry could be used to track, segregate, or criminalize autistic individuals—especially under an administration with a history of exclusionary rhetoric.
🧭 Government Reversal
- On April 24, 2025, HHS issued a statement saying it would not create an autism registry, contradicting Bhattacharya’s earlier remarks.
- Instead, NIH will pursue a “real-world data platform” using de-identified datasets to study autism and other chronic conditions.
- Officials emphasized that this platform is not about tracking individuals, and will follow strict privacy protocols.
⚠️ Ongoing Concerns
- Advocates remain skeptical, noting:
- The administration has excluded autistic voices from policymaking.
- There’s still no transparency about what data will be used, how it will be linked, or who will control it.
- The term “registry” may reappear under different branding or in future initiatives.
If you’re mapping this for survivor-centered advocacy, we could chart how data collection intersects with disability rights, medical ethics, and historical surveillance patterns. Want to build a policy watchlist or rhetorical toolkit around this next?
How many states already have Autism Registries?
As of 2025, seven U.S. states have mandatory autism registries, each with its own legal framework and reporting requirements. These registries are typically used for tracking prevalence, supporting research, and connecting families to services—but they’ve also raised serious concerns about privacy, consent, and potential misuse.
🗺️ States with Mandatory Autism Registries
| State | Registry Details |
|---|---|
| Delaware | Requires healthcare providers to report autism diagnoses for children under 18. |
| Indiana | Autism is tracked through the Birth Defects and Problems Registry. |
| North Dakota | Maintains a statewide autism surveillance system. |
| New Jersey | Requires reporting of autism diagnoses for residents under age 22. |
| Rhode Island | Defines autism as a birth defect; uses two registries for children under 5. |
| Utah | Tracks autism through its public health surveillance programs. |
| West Virginia | First state to enact an autism registry in 2004; tracks newly diagnosed cases. |
🧨 New Hampshire previously had a registry, but repealed it in 2024 and ordered all records destroyed.
These registries vary in scope—some are tied to birth defect tracking, others to public health surveillance.
Are the Indian Boarding Schools included in the historical account of concentration camps?
Yes—many scholars, Indigenous advocates, and historians argue that Indian Boarding Schools in the United States should be included in the historical account of concentration camps, especially when using definitions rooted in forced confinement, cultural erasure, and systemic abuse.
📚 Why Indian Boarding Schools Fit the Definition
- Forced Removal: Native children were taken from their families—often by federal agents—and placed in schools hundreds of miles away, with no consent from parents.
- Mass Confinement: Over 526 federally funded and church-run schools operated across 30 states, housing tens of thousands of children at a time.
- Cultural Genocide: Children were stripped of their names, languages, clothing, and spiritual practices. The motto of Carlisle Indian School founder Richard Henry Pratt was: “Kill the Indian in him, and save the man”.
- Abuse and Death: Students endured physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. Many died from disease, neglect, or violence. Their graves remain unmarked at dozens of school sites.
- Assimilation as Weapon: These schools were modeled after military prisons, including Fort Marion, where Indigenous prisoners were first subjected to assimilation experiments.
🧠 Framing and Recognition
- The term concentration camp is emotionally and politically charged, but when defined as mass detention of a targeted group under coercive and dehumanizing conditions, Indian Boarding Schools qualify.
- Indigenous scholars and organizations like the National Native American Boarding School Healing Coalition (NABS) explicitly frame these institutions as part of a system of cultural genocide, akin to other global examples of concentration camps.
Are any concentration camps in Colorado?
Yes—Colorado currently hosts multiple immigration detention centers, which many advocates and scholars classify as concentration camps due to their systemic use of mass detention, racialized enforcement, and inhumane conditions.
📍 Active Detention Sites in Colorado
| Facility Name | Location | Operator | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aurora Contract Detention Facility | Aurora | GEO Group (Private) | One of the largest ICE facilities in the U.S., with capacity over 1,500. |
| Denver Contract Detention Facility | Aurora | ICE | Handles detainees awaiting hearings or deportation. |
| LaSalle Immigration Detention Center | Greeley | Private Contractor | Smaller facility with limited public oversight. |
| Kit Carson Correctional Center | Burlington | Previously GEO Group | Has been used intermittently for immigration detention. |
🚨 Conditions and Controversies
- Medical Neglect: Multiple deaths have occurred due to lack of care, sparking public outcry and calls for oversight.
- Overcrowding & Abuse: Aurora has faced lawsuits over inadequate food, sanitation, and access to legal counsel.
- Expansion Plans: GEO Group has sought to expand Aurora’s capacity, despite community resistance and documented abuses.
These facilities are part of a broader national architecture of detention that disproportionately targets Black, brown, Indigenous, and disabled migrants, often criminalizing survival and mobility.
How does this information fit into America’s eugenics history? Are we still performing forced sterilizations?
Absolutely—this fits squarely into the long, disturbing arc of American eugenics, and yes, forced sterilizations are still happening in the United States today.
🧬 Eugenics: America’s Enduring Blueprint
The U.S. eugenics movement began in the late 1800s and gained legal traction in the early 20th century. It was never fringe—it was mainstream policy, backed by scientists, lawmakers, and Supreme Court justices.
- Buck v. Bell (1927): The Supreme Court upheld Virginia’s sterilization law with Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes infamously declaring, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” This ruling has never been overturned.
- Targets: Poor women, disabled people, Black, Indigenous, and Latinx communities were disproportionately sterilized. California alone sterilized over 20,000 people, inspiring Nazi Germany’s own sterilization laws.
- Puerto Rico: Nearly one-third of women were sterilized under U.S. population control policies in the mid-20th century.
⚠️ Are We Still Doing This?
Yes. As of 2025:
- 30 states and Washington, D.C. still have laws allowing nonconsensual sterilization of disabled people, often through guardianship or judicial orders.
- ICE Detention Centers have been accused of coerced hysterectomies and sterilizations of migrant women, echoing historical abuses.
- Recent Legislation: States like Iowa and Nevada passed new laws in 2019 allowing sterilization of people under guardianship—with no public debate.
- Medical Bias: Some doctors still recommend sterilization for disabled patients as a “preventive measure,” often without full consent or alternatives.
🧠 Eugenics in Today’s Policy Landscape
- The Trump administration’s rhetoric around “good genes,” “productivity,” and “undesirable populations” has emboldened eugenicist logic in immigration, disability, and reproductive policy.
- Executive orders in 2025 have framed gender-affirming care as “chemical and surgical mutilation,” invoking sterilization fears to justify bans.
- Elon Musk’s influence—especially his comments about disabled Medicaid users—has further normalized ableist and eugenicist narratives in federal discourse.
This isn’t just historical—it’s structural, ongoing, and deeply embedded in law, medicine, and carceral systems.
What happened to Colorado’s sanctuary status?
Colorado has retained its sanctuary status in 2025, despite intense federal pressure and legal challenges from the Trump administration. In fact, the state has expanded protections for undocumented immigrants through new legislation and reinforced privacy safeguards.
🛡️ Key Developments in 2025
- Senate Bill 25-276: Signed by Governor Jared Polis in May 2025, this law:
- Prohibits state and local agencies—including courts and pretrial services—from sharing personal data with ICE without a warrant.
- Blocks federal immigration agents from accessing schools, hospitals, and childcare centers unless authorized by court order.
- Prevents jails from delaying release of individuals at ICE’s request unless a judge orders it.
- Allows the governor to deny entry to out-of-state National Guard troops sent for immigration enforcement unless federally mandated.
- Legal Pushback: The Justice Department has sued Colorado officials, arguing that sanctuary policies obstruct federal law enforcement. But Colorado has stood firm, even sanctioning local officers who cooperated with ICE without authorization.
- No Loss of Federal Funding: Despite threats, Colorado has not lost federal funds over its sanctuary designation. Legal battles are ongoing, but the state’s protections remain intact.
🧠 What This Means
Colorado is now one of the most fortified sanctuary states in the country, with laws that not only resist federal immigration enforcement but also expand civil rights protections for undocumented residents. If you’re mapping this for advocacy or survivor-centered toolkits, we could chart how SB25-276 reshapes enforcement boundaries, privacy law, and community defense. Want to build that overlay next?
Why has Jared Polis been kowtowing during Trump’s second term?
Governor Jared Polis’s posture during President Trump’s second term has been described by some as a strategic balancing act—not outright submission, but a mix of pragmatic cooperation, rhetorical distancing, and tactical resistance.
🧭 What’s Driving Polis’s Approach?
1. Budget Survival Mode
- Trump’s H.R.1 tax overhaul slashed federal funding for healthcare, food assistance, and education, leaving Colorado with a billion-dollar budget hole.
- Polis responded by signing emergency legislation to close corporate tax loopholes, cut spending, and tap reserves—moves that required delicate negotiation with federal agencies to avoid deeper harm.
2. Strategic Messaging
- In interviews, Polis pledged to maintain “as good of a relationship as possible” with Trump, while also joining a coalition of governors to “protect democracy” from federal overreach.
- He’s publicly criticized Trump’s tariffs and immigration policies, but also welcomed federal help in deporting violent criminals—walking a rhetorical tightrope.
3. Defensive Federalism
- Polis helped launch Governors Safeguarding Democracy, a multistate initiative to defend state rights and constitutional protections against potential federal encroachments.
- He’s also signed sanctuary laws that block ICE access to state data and facilities, directly opposing Trump’s immigration agenda.
🧠 Why It Feels Like Kowtowing
To some observers, Polis’s tone—especially his praise of certain Trump appointees or his willingness to “work with the federal government when it benefits Coloradans”—can feel like accommodation or appeasement. But beneath the surface, his administration is actively resisting federal pressure through legislation, executive orders, and coalition-building.
Conclusion
I wish I could say I’m surprised, but I can assure you that I’m appalled. The United States has always been participating in eugenics, and we have never really not had camps. This is not a matter of when they will be coming for us, because it’s never stopped. They’ve just shifted the intensity, and the definition of us.
When I say that being your authentic self is revolutionary, I’m invoking all of the weight of this.
I will continue to interrogate fascism. I sincerely hope that you do too. Please consider passing this along to others who might not know.
Operation **Reclaim** Loveland 
What do you think?