Based on the first paragraph, what can the reader conclude?
Answers
Answer:
can you complete the question
Explanation:
because I didn't understand It.
Answer:it is the main eassy and questions given by this eassy
Justice for All?
Saboteurs?
Prejudice against Asian immigrants had been longstanding on the West Coast. However, it increased when World War II broke out following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Within a few weeks, the demand spread that Japanese Americans, both naturalized citizens and those born in the United States, be removed from the West Coast. The belief was that they might be "saboteurs" or "spies." It made no difference that there was no proof that even one was a threat to the United States.
Relocation Orders
On February 19, 1942, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 authorizing the Secretary of War to designate parts of the country as "military areas." Any and all persons could be excluded, and travel restrictions might be imposed. A few weeks later, General John L. DeWitt, Western Defense Command leader, made the entire Pacific coast a military area
because of its vulnerability to attack.
Curfews were established, and Japanese Americans were at first prohibited from leaving the area. And then they were prohibited from being in the area. The only way Japanese Americans could follow these contradictory orders was to "evacuate" to relocation centers.
In the relocation program, 110,000 men, women, and children were sent to what were in essence prison camps. This program was the most serious invasion of individual rights by the federal government in the nation's history. The entire operation operated on the racist belief that anyone of Japanese ancestry was a traitor.
Court Cases
In wartime, the old saying goes, law is silent. The Supreme Court, which had only recently begun to play a stronger role in protecting minority rights, did not want interfere with what the administration considered necessary. Three cases testing the constitutionality of the evacuation orders were heard by the Court. In the first case, Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), the Court upheld the curfew, but avoided ruling on the wider implications of relocation.
In the second case, Korematsu v. United States, the Court could no longer ignore whether loyal citizens could be relocated to detention camps solely based on their race. A majority of the Court agreed with Justice Black's view that military necessity justified the relocation. However, three members of the Court, Frank Murphy, Owen J. Roberts, and Robert H. Jackson, dissented.
On the same day, the Court unanimously authorized a writ of habeas corpus for Mitsuye Endo, a citizen whose loyalty had been clearly established. The Court's rulings
in Hirabayashi and Korematsu were criticized by many civil libertarians and scholars from the start. There has been a general condemnation of them ever since.
Justice in the 'Court of History'
After the war ended, the internment haunted the nation's conscience. In 1948, Congress took the first step in making amends. It enacted the Japanese American Evacuation Claims Act to provide some compensation to those who had lost homes and businesses. In 1980, Congress again opened the internment issue. This time, witnesses testified, many of them for the first time, of the hardships and trauma they had suffered. The resulting report, which was called Personal Justice Denied (1983), condemned the removal as unjustified. The report also concluded that the Supreme Court decisions had been "overruled in the court of history."