today

Memories of Internment

Much like the Japanese Americans of World War II, Muslim Americans are being treated cruelly because of their ethnicity and religion. Thus, increased law enforcement powers to fight terrorism are provoking a debate among the Bush administration about whether American courts would repeat the kinds of restrictions towards Muslim Americans as the government did to Japanese Americans during the second World War.

After Sept. 11, officials have taken at least 75 immigrants into investigation of being involved with the attacks. Experts say the debate will probably determine how far courts are willing to go in giving the government authority. Another controversy that started was if Bush's proposal would limit the chances for immigrants to have their cases heard in court.

Japanese Americans arriving at internment camp

The Justice Department insisted that the proposal does uphold the civil rights of immigrants, but many critics say there is the danger of internment like that the Japanese. Jeanne A. Butterfield from the American Immigration Lawyers Association says," Under the provisions, there is a much bigger danger than we have ever seen in our history of innocent people being rounded up and being held on suspicion that they did something and never having their day in court."

The most expansive of W.W.II rulings for many years, a 1944 Supreme Court decision that approved the internment of Japanese Americans, was publicly discredited. this 1944 case was caused by a Japanese American man named Fred T. Korematsu, who refused to go to a relocation camp, even though ordered by the government. He was convicted and jailed. "Some people say we've learned a lesson from Korematsu and we would never do that again, I'm much more skeptical; I think there's a chance we might do that again." says Jerry Kang from the University of California. Though the government apologized to the Japanese Americans for relocating them, the courts never overruled the decision.

Fred Korematsu

Again, the problem comes up about limiting the civil rights of Arabs. The government means no harm, but they are arresting more innocent people. yet, the government may approve of some of the limits if immigrants cause officials concern. The government was strict about relocation. "In wartime more latitude is given to the military judgments." Mr. Douglas Kmiec of the Catholic University of America says. Yet, the Supreme Court agrees that immigrants do have constitutional rights like the Fifth Amendment. This applies to all people within the country, including ones that are not citizens.

In June of 2001, there was a case of whether or not the government should imprison immigrants until they can return to their own country. Immigration officials said it was unconstitutional to jail innocent people, even if they seem dangerous.

Overall, both times, now and the 1940's, were times of hardship an war. But history shouldn't repeat it's mistakes, even though those mistakes seem like help.

Resource

Press Center:
http://www.brennancenter.org/presscenter/oped_2001_1218.html