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

Thank you Danielle for participating in this debate. The facts are on my side in this debate. The term "Back On Track" in the way I use it, simply means to properly frame the debate. That's what this round is about. It is important that the judges understand the proper way to frame this debate. In that spirit, let's proceed. Resolution AnalysisResolution analysis was discussed at length last round, but is worth bringing up again, partially because the interpretation of the resolution we went through was not challenged. We've determined that The Japanese internment refers to the act of interning the Japanese. The act is what we are focusing on, not the failures of the act to be perfect. The government could have and should have done a better job of internment and relocation. The United States government needed to be willing to spend a ton more money on food and accomodations, but none of that is relevant to whether the act of relocation and internment should have taken place. Yes it should have happened given the available information. FDR did not have access to the information we do. He didn't know a Japanese invasion wasn't going to happen. Reread the resolution, reread the last round. We are debating that the act of internment and relocation was justified, not that it was carried out well. Let that sink in. Let the fact that my opponent didn't challenge that interpretation sink in. The U. S. government refers to the federal government as stated in round 1, and restated in round 4. It is being restated now. FDR wanted to move the Japanese inland. This has been discussed, nothing I bring up is new. The problem is that there was a lot of racism towards the Japanese in the heartland. These states that the Japanese were moving to should have been more accomodating. They should have set up shelters, housing and jobs for these folks. However they acted in a racist fashion. The U. S. having to move the Japanes inland, but the Japanese having nowhere to go forced them to build relocation centers to house them. My opponent's counter plan would have had the same results. She may claim that her plan would've not made practically all of California off limits, but look at the wording of that and executive order 9066. The wording is eerily similar. Even if not all of California was off limits in her C/P, we would still need somewhere for these people to go. If the states in the heartland were not taking them, we would still have to set up relocation facilities. (Not to be confused with the internment camps, though con hopes they're confused). So even with the C/P we are back to the same problem. Earlier we learned that internment camps and relocation facilities are different, but it is worth restating. The internment centers were for suspected spies, many of who were from Canada, Mexico and Central America and needed to be in a secure facility to insure that they did not harm the war efforts. People in relocation facilities could come and go with passes. The passes may be inconvenient, but nothing was forcing these individuals to stay. They practiced their religions, played games, watched TV. It is basically what the hurricane shelters I have been to were like. They sucked to be there no doubt. It sucked worse then a hurricane shelter, but there was an honest effort to make the inhabitants happy, as evidenced from the round 3 arguments. We have the government on one side showing these shelters as a paradise and their opponent's showing it as a living hell, but I think anyone looking into it, knows it was neither. MagicOne question that keeps coming up in the debate is when is it justified to act on decryptions of enemy communications. In round 2 what exactly was said in the Magic cables was clearly stated. Here is a refresher for those who do not feel like scrolling back. A cable from the Tokyo Government to its Washington embassy, dated Jan. 30, 1941, asked the embassy and Japanese consulates to arrange for 'utilization of our 'second generations' and our resident nationals. ' Clearly insinuating that they already had 2 generation and 1st generation Japanese on board to spy. 'We have already established contacts with absolutely reliable Japanese in the San Pedro and San Diego area, who will keep a close watch on all shipments of airplanes and other war materials, and report the amounts and destinations of such shipments,' the message said. 'We shall maintain connection with our second generations who are in the army, to keep us informed of various developments in the army. We also have connections with our second generations working in airplane plants for intelligence purposes. 'Not we hope to make contacts, not we will try to recruit spys, but we "Absolutely, reliably" have Japanese who will keep a close watch on shipments. Not we hope, but "We have" not wish to have but "have" connections with our "second generation. .. .for intelligence purposes" A cable from the Seattle consulate dated May 11 told Tokyo that intelligence would be collected on United States naval ships in the Bremerton, Wash. , Naval shipyard; on mercantile shipping; on aircraft manufacturing, and on troop and ship movements. It added, 'For the future we have made arrangements to collect intelligence from second-generation Japanese draftees on matters dealing with the troops as well as troop speech and behavior. ' Not hope to make in this sentence, but "Have made arrangements to collect intelligence". The cables also bragged about 3rd generation spies. They had no incentive to lie to each other in what they thought were private communications. This type of intelligence should be treated as fact or close to it. I used the atomic bomb example, and my opponent agreed it was enough to move off the information to save lives, though she said Koreans should not be arrested, which is obvious because the hypothetical cables did not mention any Korean nationals being spies, and North Korea will never had the ability to invade. My opponent admits it is okay to mandate the movement of people to save lives, and I agree. The 1/16 argument keeps appearing but I have proven that only the ability to mandate their relocation was granted, we do not find any cases of it actually happening, and honestly the amount of geneologists needed to pull that off would be absurd. It wasn't enforced. Before voting reread the portions on differentiating between war relocation camps and internment camps. Ttreatment of the people residing in both was very different. One was to keep potential spies, the other was to house Japanese that could not easily relocate to the fly over states. Concerning the West coast relocation vs Hawaii. voters should note that the west coast was deemed an invasion threat not Hawaii, and that Hawaii was under martial law. Constitutional AuthorityCon argues that the internment of immigrants was unconstitutional, I pointed out that we were talking mostly about aliens from Central America and Canada which were threats. She responds with some stuff that is just flat out wrong, and this is my first opportunity to respond to the round 4 arguments. A partial summary of the Wong WIng supreme court case is as follows. "The United States can forbid aliens from coming within their borders, and expel them from their territory, and can devolve the power and duty of identifying and arresting such persons upon executive or subordinate officials" . https://supreme.justia.com...The case is very specific to this one instance where the gentleman owned property in the U. S. and was a former resident, but the summary mentioned that the government still has the right to arrest such people without due process. The right of Habeus Corpus is basically what my opponent is referring to. All citizens and non citizens residing in the United States have the right to due process, however exceptions exist. Lincoln suspended Habeus corpus in the civil war, some of his suspensions were upheld by the supreme court, some weren't. It was suspended during the war of 1812, in 1892, in 1914, in 1934, during WW2, and as late as 2005 for Hurricane Katrina. Like I was telling my opponent it was suspended for people in internment camps "aliens" during WW2. I have stated repeatedly it did not apply to them, and have never backed down from it, and the supreme court also agrees it was justified in those circumstances. In Korematsu vs United States the supreme court ruled: "The Court sided with the government and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu's rights. Justice Black argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril. " . https://www.oyez.org...;This case was in direct referance to Japanese internment and has never been overturned. Exceptions for war and other extremes was also mentioned directly in the constitution. Section 3 of the 14th amndment mentions exceptions for espionage, insurrection and rebellion, so we know the right to Habeus Corpus is not an absolute. CONCLUSIONThe Magic cables were reason enough to Relocate japanes. Con agreed with the North Korea scenario showing she supports the forced movement of people if it saves lives. Denying an invading army spies and sympathizers, would no doubt save lives. My opponent estimated that up to 1/5 of the Japanese were a threat, relocation and internment by her numbers prevented the Japanese from being able to use 25,000 extra men on American soil. Con argues that camp conditions were harsh, but as stated and never challenged. The act of internment is what we are debating. Besides that the conditions were being exxagerated by both sides of that. It was neither heaven or hell. The only real argument my opponent has is the constitutional one, but as I have been saying this whole debate, the writ of Habeus Corpus does not get applied the same in times of war or emergency. It doesn't apply to aliens in this instance.