La Fayette Grover of Oregon, pointed out that the founding fathers’ treatment of Native Americans “must be construed as fixing a limit to the meaning of their public declarations upon the rights of man. In the 1882 debate over the Chinese Exclusion Act, Sen. The explanation, instead, was a supposedly fundamental connection between European racial heritage and suitability for American citizenship. Implemented in peacetime, none of these policies could be justified by the need to win a war. California, among others, prohibited Chinese and Japanese and other Asians from owning land and marrying whites. States piggybacked on federal restrictions targeting Asians. provide frighteningly solid reasons to fear that our government has the power to trample the basic rights of immigrants and citizens all over again. Korematsu and other cases upholding other discriminatory laws designed to suppress Asian participation in the U.S. Hostility to Asians and suspicion that they are not quite fully American has never entirely disappeared. It would be comforting to conclude that discriminatory exclusion or incarceration could never happen again. It would be nice to think the roundup of Japanese Americans was a special case, limited to the desperate days of World War II. Yet the court has never overruled Korematsu, and in the words of dissenting Justice Robert Jackson, its underlying principle “lies about like a loaded weapon.” Korematsu’s conviction for flouting the incarceration order, and four years later, Congress authorized reparations - a $20,000 payment to each survivor of the internment. District Court in San Francisco set aside Fred T. To some, the decision belongs to a closed chapter of the past. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a wartime order sending Americans of Japanese racial ancestry to internment camps.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |