Japanese internment by the U.S. during WW2 was justified

The debate needs to be brought back on track. Con is obfuscating some things because she realizes she lost and needs to throw a Hail Mary. I have been sucked in a bit, but it's human nature to follow red herrings. Let's retrain our focus on what the debate is actually about. Resolution:Japanese internment by the U.S. during WW2 was justified. JAPANESE- People of Japanese ancestry who are up to 1/16 Japanese. The MAGIC decrypts specifically mention recruiting spies who are 2nd and 3rd generation Japanese. 1/16 Japanese blood means one grand parent was Japanese. It also means 3rd generation. This is not a dropped point, it does not prove that the internment was racist, maybe if it was greater than 1/16, but since the decrypts specifically mention 3rd generation (AKA 1/16) Japanese were recruited in heavy numbers to spy for Japan, and we knew from the Niihau incident that a large number of non recruited ones would side with the Japanese in an invasion. 1/16 is a good number to make sure that the 3rd generation Japanese in the Magic decrypts were taken into account, and it accounted for 3rd generation Japanese that were arguably an exception to the rule of 1/8 0r less. In practice most people asked to relocate and put into shelters when they couldn't were atleast 50% Japanese. Though 1/16 was written down as something that could be enforced, anything over 1/2 was extremely rare. I don't even think a recorded case of somebody who was oly 1/16 Japanese being asked to relocate exists. I couldn't find a case of it, and I don't think Danielle or any historian can either. In practice it just did not happen.Internment- For the purposes of this debate we have also discussed relocation centers as well as internment camps, and though the resolution conflates the internment with the relocation centers for the Japanese, the arguments themselves should not, though my opponent needs the judges to be dumb enough to conflate the two to win. Unfortunately for her, most the people reading this are smarter than she gives them credit for. internment and relocation centers are different an justifiably so. Comparing the 2 is like comparing my times in a Hurricane shelter, and my times in prison. A lot of my opponent's arguments are not only weak and irrelevant because they conflate the conditions in internment and relocation centers, but because the debate is not about whether these places could have operated better. It is about whether the actual internment and relocation of Japanese was justified, not whether or not the government did a horrible job of implementing it.By The U.S.- This portion of the resolution was already explained in round 1. Here is what I said in R1:"U.S. refers to the United States Federal government. The United States has various local governments whose decisions sometimes override the decisions of the federal government. The decision to put the Japanese in internment camps is one that was made by the federal government" Danielle may think that the racist unjust actions of State governments has some bearing on this debate, but other than using it to explain why certain actions were taken by the federal government, it has no weight.The rest of the title will not be taken piece by piece, because it has been settled or is being settled.I am going to spend a lot of time quoting and responding to the rest of Danielle's arguments last round, because it is my best shot of being thorough because of extreme tiredness, a short time remaining to post my round and just a general brain fogginess that has overcome me for some reason. Luckily for me this debate is all but won, so that is unlikely to matter. If that isn't clear by the end of this round, it certainly will by the end of next round. RacismI mean my opponent's resonse is so inadequate that there really is no reason to even respond to it, judges should know who won that battle without me needing to physically put the nail in the coffin, but so be it.Con: "This analogy is obviously flawed as he specifically presents a reason other than race for blowing out the Amish person's brains." My analogy is not flawed. There was a reason given other than race to relocate Japanese people away from the sensitive West Coast. The reason was mainly the Magic decrypts that showed the Japanese had a large network of spies (2nd and 3rd generation) people of Japanese descent another reason is because a Japanese land invasion was feasible and the events on Niihau showed that a certain number of Japanese were willing to pick up arms and help their cultural ancestors. Hell even if only 5% wanted to pick up arms, that is still incredibly dangerous, and that is without accounting for the fact they can offer support to the Japanese military in non combative more passive ways.I presented a reason other than race for relocation. Hell my opponent even offered a counterplan in R2 for relocating the Japanese. A counterplan that is really no different than executive order 9066, the one that FDR released that caused the internment to start with. The fact my opponent's counter plan is in fact the exact same as executive order 9066 which I am defending in this debate, should be enough for her to lose.Internment CampsCon says:"The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, even illegal immigrants. So an immigrant, legal or illegal, prosecuted under the criminal code has the right to due process, a speedy and public trial, and other rights protected by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments that were all completely violated" When I say aliens, I do not mean illegal immigrants or legal immigrants in the United States. I mean aliens, Canadian citizens, Mexican citizens and Central American citizens who were suspected of spying. Each of those countries sent a tiny portion of their Japanese immigrants they suspected of spying to the United States, so they could be detained in a secure environment. http://www.bbc.com... No, contrary to popular belief aliens do not have the same rights as citizens. We can't waterboard American citizens, we can't send drones to take out targets in America whether a person immigrated their illegally or not. We can only do that to aliens who do not reside in the United States. This was done to aliens not immigrants. They were detained in internment camps. Now days that may be illegal, and we would send them to Guantanamo bay, but at the time we were allowed to detain aliens by bringing them to the United States and putting them into detainment facilities.Concerning the conditions of the camps, it is outside the scope of the debate as well, though I am happy to talk about it. The debate is about whether it was appropriate to put Japanese spies in internment camps or to accomodate citizens with housing when they could not relocate away from sensitive areas. It is not about whether the government did a bad job at that. The condition of relocation camps are exxagerated, none of the reports coming from the WRA agree with what Smeltzer says, besides he sounds like a baby. Obviously living in a relocation facility is not the most comfortable thing in the world, but it is not as bad as he says. While the government struggled to accomodate 100,000 people, it did make an honest effort to create good living conditions. Sure sometimes things went wrong. Occasionally a plumbing problem would occur like my opponent mentioned, and snce so many people were at war, it was hard to get a plumber out their to fix things. Hell maybe there was a thunderstorm and they would lose power from time to time as a result of that, maybe sometimes somebody farted in some crowded room and the smell was pure hell, but it wasn't prison. It was more like a shelter. Like a shelter the government set for people when a hurricane hit Florida and a relocation program was implemented for the local populace. The food in that shelter sucked, I had to obey the rules of the shelter, I was not allowed to leave once I agreed to enter. Certainly my freedoms were restricted, but not my rights. My rights were not restricted. Neither were the rights of the Japanese in internment facilities. My opponent does post some quote about inmates in the end of her section by the same title. Inmates is the key word in that quote. That is a referance to the internment camps which actually held inmates, while the quote I provided was the one about relocation facilities.MAGICCon:"MAGIC did not provide any information that was sufficient" It's sufficient. Maybe con doesn't think decryptians of internal communications of Japan are not a sufficient to take action against a credible threat, but I don't believe it. Communications between high level Japanese officials should clearly be taken serious. Especially since the Japanese thought they were private and had no reason to lie to each other. I ask the voters this. Maybe Danielle does not think decrypts are a reason to force the relocation of people, but if the U.S. decrypts North Korea communications tomorrow that shows they intend to nuke the West coast in less than 24 hours should the government start evacuating the area? according to my opponent the answer is no, decrypts are not trustworthy and we should not decrypt at all, but do the judges think it is enough information to attempt to forcibly relocate people (remember some innocent children are in this group). I suspect the judges in a position of power would not wait around for more evidence before restricting some rights. The internment is no different. If the invasion happened, millions of lives would potentially be saved. The point about children. There were some situations where men went to internment camps, but women and children were not required to. They could and did choose to go, to be closer to family. My opponent saying any children or mentally ill were ever forced to go to internment facilities is false. They resided their voluntarily, which if anything, shows how nice the conditions were inside of them.