Validity of the Two Official U.S. Government

¶ … validity of the two official U.S. government reasons: 1) military necessity and 2) protection of the Japanese-Americans, for the imprisonment of Japanese-American and Japanese Issei during World War II. Be specific in your reasoning and examples.

One of the most shocking decisions in the history of American injustices is the official, legalized internment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese Issei during World War II. While Americans fought a war abroad for democracy, against the racist tyrant Adolph Hitler of Germany, back home Japanese-Americans and legal Japanese resident aliens were deprived of their liberty and property, simply because of their racial and ethnic heritage. The official reasons given for the internment were military necessity and the protection of the Japanese-Americans. The first statement of 'military necessity,' or national security, as a justification for internment, implied that Japanese-American and Japanese Issei was more 'suspect' than other Americans. It was assumed these Asian-Americans had divided loyalties because of their racial, ethnic, and national heritage -- despite the fact that other Americans with ancestors from the Axis nations, such as German and Italian-Americans were not similarly interned without cause. The second justification, of protection of the persons of Japanese-Americans, was also dubious, given that German and Italian-Americans of identifiable heritage were not incarcerated, and the internments of the Japanese-American and Japanese Issei were enforced, rather than willingly sought by the individuals in question.

The internment of Japanese-Americans happened quite quickly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. In December 7, 1941 Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. In 1942, FDR signed Executive Order 9066, putting 111,000 Japanese in ten internment camps. Although some were not citizens, the majority of the individuals in the camps were U.S. citizens, who were thus deprived of their legal and constitutional rights to live where they chose to live, and move freely. They had committed no crime, yet they were put in jail. Even if some may have feared for their safety beforehand, there is no record that most of the interned citizens would choose incarceration over liberty. This action was immediately responsible for removing and imprisoning 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast. Ironically, the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, predominantly made up of second-generation Japanese-Americans and led by a Korean-American, Colonel Young Oak Kim, becomes the most decorated military unit for its size and length of service in U.S. history. (Jones, et.al., Chapter 23, 2005)

In flagrant defiance of the idea that somehow Japanese loyalty was more suspect than the loyalty of Americans of other national or racial heritages, in February of 1942 eighteen Caucasians were charged with spying for Japan. Ten were convicted. But no person of Japanese ancestry was ever charged with espionage -- yet the internment continued. In fact, the Supreme Court, the supposed protector of all American rights and liberties validated the specific restrictions placed upon Japanese-Americans much as its antebellum Supreme Court "Dred Scott" decision validated the enslavement of African-Americans in bondage. In June 1943, "Hirabayashi v. U.S." declared the curfew law imposed upon persons of Japanese ancestry constitutional. On December 18, 1944 "Korematsu v. U.S." ruled that the Japanese-American evacuation order (Executive Order 9066) was constitutional. Only in December 17, 1944 was the exclusion order against Japanese-Americans revoked. This executive order was not made legally effective until January 2, 1945. (Jones, et.al., Chapter 23, 2005)

By 1946, all American internment camps incarcerating Japanese persons were closed, the last of which was Tule Lake in San Francisco. America soon realized, or began to realize the 'error' of its ways after V-J, or "Victory Japan" day. In 1948 California repealed its laws banning interracial marriage, including those between Asian and Caucasian persons and the Evacuation Claims Act authorized the payment of settlements to people of Japanese ancestry who suffered economic losses from internment. Many lost homes, connections to local communities, and treasured family businesses, losses that were never fully repaid in financial or emotional terms.

The War Brides Act of 1946, which admitted the alien wives and children of U.S. servicemen on a non-quota basis was thought to be something of a reparation of the racism that had been perpetuated against Asian-Americans during the war. But the racism inflicted upon Japanese-Americans was not a momentary historical 'blip' on America's legal radar. As noted by historian Robert Takaki (1998), Chinese immigrants to the U.S. was early 19th century were transformed into outsiders by racism and economic exploitation and ultimately prohibited from immigrating in numbers comparable to Caucasian, European immigrants. Even after showing notable service to the United States during the Second World War, other Asian immigrant groups such Filipinos experienced discrimination and social hostility on the part of whites. The racism perpetuated against Japanese-Americans was thus part of a larger historical pattern.