Quote from: JollyGood on March 04, 2020, 08:47:11 PM

Whether the number of Japanese Americans imprisoned during that period was larger or small than 80,000 does not and cannot negate the fact that they were forced in to concentration camps in which many were mistreated and many died either because of medical negligence and worse.

History shows they were target because a racist administration was unable to control the narrative after the hostile atmosphere created in the aftermath of the Pearl Harbour attack. It has been stated instead of trying to act in a positive manner leading to protect all its citizens, the administration of the day decided to give in to bigotry and hatred and without any legal proof of wrong-doing against them sent its own citizens to concentration camps because they had Japanese ancestry. This is behaviour as shown by the then US administration was just wrong and cannot be condoned by anybody.

Quote from: Spendulus on March 04, 2020, 08:12:34 PM

Makes sense to me, then. We had 80,000 "Japanese citizens by being born here" to Japenese citizen parents.

Of those some were dual citizenship and some were only US.

This may be of interest.

https://archive.org/stream/nationaldefensem29unit/nationaldefensem29unit_djvu.txt

I have not read the documents in their entirety. There may be some evidence that supports your claims, but the overall tone is logical and focused on military necessity. In the context of fighting a war, there is no such thing as seeking "legal proof of wrongdoing."

Here is an example of the way people were thinking and making decisions at that time. Note the military logic in the third paragraph.

Notwithstanding the fact that the county maps showing the location of Japanese
lands have omitted most coastal defenses and war industries, still it is plain from
them that in our coastal counties, from Point Reyes south, virtually every feasible
landing beach, air field, railroad, highway, powerhouse, power line, gas storage
tank, gas pipe line, oil field, water reservoir or pumping plant, water conduit,
telephone transmission line, radio station, and other points of strategic importance
have several and usually a considerable number of Japanese in their immediate
vicinity. The same situation prevails in all of the interior counties that have any
considerable Japanese population.

I do not mean to suggest that it should be thought that all of these Japanese
who are adjacent to strategic points are knowing parties to some vast conspiracy
to destroy our State by sudden and mass sabotage. Undoubtedly, the presence
of many of these persons in their present locations is mere coincidence, but it
would seem equally beyond doubt that the presence of others is not coincidence.
It would seem difficult, for example, to explain the situation in Santa Barbara
County by coincidence alone.

In the northern end of that county is Camp Cook where, I am informed, the
only armored division on the Pacific coast will be located. The only practical
entrance to Camp Cook is on the secondary road through the town of Lompoc.
The maps show this entrance is flanked with Japanese property, and it is impossible
to move a single man or a piece of equipment in or out of Camp Cook without
having it pass under the scrutiny of numerous Japanese. I have been informed
that the destruction of the bridges along the road to Camp Cook would effectually
bottle up that establishment for an indefinite time, exit to the south being im-
possible because of extremely high mountains and to the north because of a num-
ber of washes with vertical banks 50 to 60 feet deep. There are numerous
Japanese close to these bridges.

Given the time line of the Japanese emigration to the US (closed in I believe 1924, those in the country remained Japanese not US citizens) it is likely that much of the land in question actually was owned by Japanese citizens.

Regarding your concern about those Japanese who were second generation or third and thus US citizens, would you have separated parents from children? And if so or if no, who would be judged a security risk?

May I give you an example? Japanese parents, age 45 and 51, four children, grandmother age 72. All children are American citizen by birth, the others are Japanese citizen only by law. Instead of just virtue signaling, explain what you would have done with this family unit that's morally and ethically superior to what we did. Assume wartime conditions, of course.