U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

48–322 PDF 2009

TREATMENT OF LATIN AMERICANS OF JAPANESE 

DESCENT, EUROPEAN AMERICANS, AND JEWISH 

REFUGEES DURING WORLD WAR II 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, 

AND INTERNATIONAL LAW 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 19, 2009 

Serial No. 111–13 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

[Vacant] 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

ZOE LOFGREN, California, Chairwoman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

UR MENDOZA JADDOU, Chief Counsel 

GEORGE FISHMAN, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 19, 2009 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 1 

The Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Iowa, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, 

Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ........................................... 4 

WITNESSES 

Mr. Daniel M. Masterson, Professor of Latin American History, U.S. Naval 

Academy 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

Ms. Grace Shimizu, Director, Japanese Peruvian Oral History Project 

(JPOHP) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 12 

Ms. Libia Yamamoto, former Japanese of Latin American Descent Internee 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16 

Mr. John Christgau, author of ‘‘Enemies: World War II Alien Internment’’ 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

Ms. Karen E. Ebel, President, German American Internee Coalition 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 33 

Ms. Heidi Gurcke Donald, Board and Founding Member, German American 

Internee Coalition 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 40 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 42 

Mr. John Fonte, Director of Center for American Common Culture and Senior 

Fellow, Hudson Instutute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 48 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 49 

Mr. David A. Harris, Executive Director, American Jewish Committee (AJC) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 62 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 64 

Mr. Leo Bretholz, author of ‘‘Leap Into Darkness’’ 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 67 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 68 

Mr. Valery Bazarov, Director of Location and Family History Service, Hebrew 

Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS) 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 70 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 72 

Mr. Michael Horowitz, Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 81 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 83 

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Zoe Lofgren, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on 

Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International 

Law ........................................................................................................................ 93 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 93 

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law ....... 94 

Additional Material submitted for the Record ...................................................... 95 

OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD BUT NOT REPRINTED

‘‘Last Man Out: Glenn McDole, USMC, Survivor of the Palawan Massacre in World 

War II,’’ by Bob Wilbanks 

‘‘The Misplaced American,’’ based on the memoirs of Elsie, Karl, Henry, Marta, 

Lisbeth, Armin and Ursula Vogt, by Ursula Vogt Potter 

‘‘We Were Not the Enemy: Remembering the United States’ Latin-American Civilian 

Interment Program of World War II,’’ by Heidi Gurcke Donald 

‘‘From the Heart’s Closet,’’ A Young Girl’s World War II Story, by Anneliese ‘‘Lee’’ 

Krauter 

‘‘Magic: The untold story of U.S. Intelligence and evacuation of Japanese Residents 

from the West Coast During WWII,’’ by David D. Lowman 

‘‘Enemies: World War II Alien Internment,’’ by John Christgau 

(1) 

TREATMENT OF LATIN AMERICANS OF JAPANESE DESCENT, EUROPEAN AMERICANS, 

AND JEWISH REFUGEES DURING WORLD 

WAR II 

THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP,

REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:15 p.m., in 

room 2237, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Zoe 

Lofgren (Chairwoman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lofgren, Sa ́nchez, Waters, King, and 

Lungren. 

Also present: Representative Wexler. 

Staff present: Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Majority Subcommittee Chief 

Counsel; Andre ́s Jimenez, Majority Professional Staff Member; and 

Andrea Loving, Minority Counsel. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The Subcommittee will come to order. This is a 

hearing not on any bills, but on the issues of a part of our U.S. history that many of us are unfamiliar with. Much is known about the 

internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II, 

partly due to the enactment of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians Act in 1980, the commission’s report in 1983, and the subsequent Civil Liberties Act of 1988, that 

provided an official apology. 

What is not as well-known to today is the mistreatment of thousands of Japanese and European Latin Americans, European 

Americans, and Jewish refugees prior to and during World War II. 

The 1980 commission did detail the mistreatment of Japanese, German, and Italian Latin Americans, but only in the appendix of the 

report. It also included one chapter, 13, on the mistreatment of 

German and Italian Americans in the United States. 

Further, no recommendations were made on these populations; 

no apology, as was done for the Japanese internment, pursuant of 

the Civil Liberties Act. And I think it is time for this history to be 

fully heard and considered. 

As I mentioned, although there are two bills that have been referred to the Subcommittee concerning the issues we are examining 

today, this is not a legislative hearing. Before we consider specific 

legislation on an issue that many are very unfamiliar with, it is imVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:22 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031909\48322.000 HJUD1 PsN: 48322
2 

portant that we learn the facts and listen to the history to determine whether legislation is the appropriate response. If it is, we 

will then turn to those referred to this Subcommittee and examine 

whether the specific language in the bills is appropriate or whether 

amendments would be needed. 

I welcome comments in the bills and will consider them if we decide to move legislation in the area. Today, however, I am particularly interested in learning about the issue and whether another 

commission is indeed necessary to review history that has not been 

told in an adequate way. 

Before recognizing the Ranking Member, I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to submit to the record a statement from our 

colleague, Congressman Becerra, and without objection that is 

made a part of the record and I would also like to note the presence 

of our colleague and my fellow Santa Fean, Congressman Mike 

Honda, who is here with us. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Becerra follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE XAVIER BECERRA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Chairwoman Lofgren, Ranking Member King and distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for scheduling today’s hearing. I appreciate your efforts to 

examine the United States government’s treatment of Latin Americans of Japanese 

descent during World War II, an issue and a community whose story been overlooked far too long. 

To ensure that the United States properly examined this issue, I introduced H.R. 

42, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of 

Japanese Descent Act. This legislation establishes a commission to investigate and 

review the facts relating to the abduction and internment of Japanese Latin Americans during World War II by the U.S. government. 

Before I proceed any further, I would like to thank Grace Shimizu, Libia 

Yamamoto, and Professor Daniel Masterson who will be testifying in the first panel 

of today’s hearing. Their extensive knowledge and poignant stories of the Japanese 

Latin American experience will provide valuable insight and a deeper understanding of the tragedy this community endured during World War II. 

I would also like to recognize and honor the wonderful men and women of the 

Campaign for Justice and the Japanese American Citizens League for their constructive advice and indispensable support. These groups can be an invaluable resource to this committee as you continue to study this issue. 

Finally, I want to thank Senator Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World 

War II hero and an exemplary public servant who has been a tireless advocate in 

moving the Japanese Latin American issue forward in the Senate. 

Nearly 70 years ago, nations of the world engaged in a battle that determined if 

the principles of democracy would be the predominant form of government around 

the world. When the Empire of Japan attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941, the United 

States entered World War II and led the battle to topple tyranny and restore liberty. 

However, in the course of this unrelenting and necessary fight, the government took 

extraordinary actions under the mantle of domestic security and sent 120,000 Japanese Americans to internment camps across the country. Even as U.S. servicemen 

fought in the Pacific to liberate Allied soldiers from Imperial Japanese prisons, our 

own government held thousands of people in camps across the country solely on the 

basis of their ethnic background. 

It took another thirty five years for America to come to terms with and acknowledge its egregious actions during the war. In 1980, Congress established the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians and charged it with the 

responsibility of reviewing the facts and circumstances surrounding the internment 

of people of Japanese descent and to recommend appropriate remedies. After twenty 

days of hearings, testimony from 750 witnesses, and review of thousands of government and military records, the Commission concluded that internment of Japanese 

Americans was the result of racism and wartime hysteria. Their findings vindicated 

these loyal Americans and President Ronald Reagan’s signing of the Civil Liberties 

Act of 1988 brought closure for thousands who suffered unspeakable indignities and 

tremendous losses. 

3 

Unfortunately, the Commission did not fully address our government’s treatment 

of Japanese Latin Americans. As a result, Japanese Latin Americans who were unjustly abducted and interned by the U.S. continue to live with the painful memories 

of those lost years. Many remain hopeful they will one day be able to have their 

important accounts included in the official narrative. 

Art Shibayama is one of the few remaining living Japanese Latin American internee and he anxiously waits every day to share his experiences before time runs 

out. Art served this nation as a corporal in the U.S. Army from 1952 to 1954. Like 

many veterans, he was not born in the U.S. He was born in Lima, Peru to Isseis, 

first generation immigrants from Fukuoka, Japan. Despite uncertainty and war ravaging abroad, Art and his family had an idyllic life. His parents had a thriving textile business and he spent leisure time with his two brothers, three sisters and 

grandparents. That life ended when the entire Shibayama family was detained and 

transported to an internment facility in Crystal City, Texas. In addition to losing 

all their material belongings, Art’s grandparents were forcibly sent to Japan shortly 

after the family’s arrival in the United States. Art and his family never saw them 

again. After two and a half years in the internment camp, he and his family were 

released and they moved to Seabrook Farms, New Jersey and then to Chicago in 

1949. After receiving his citizenship in 1970, Art moved to California where he continues to reside today. Art was unable to travel to participate in today’s hearing, 

but I want him to know that he is in our thoughts at this moment. 

Art’s experience is not uncommon. There are hundreds of other internees from 

Latin America who can tell similar stories about the fear endured while being led 

out of their home at gunpoint, about the trauma of a 21-day boat ride from Peru 

to New Orleans and of the humiliation of being forced to strip naked upon arrival 

in the U.S. and sprayed with insecticides. Others can share vivid accounts of living 

in the squalor of an internment camp barrack, the emotions of being a ‘‘stateless’’ 

person facing language barriers and having to traverse the federal bureaucracy to 

obtain legal resident status, and about the heartbreak of being permanently separated from a family member. This is the reality thousands of Japanese Latin Americans faced. 

In fact, approximately 2,300 men, women, and children of Japanese ancestry were 

abducted from 13 Latin American countries and deported to internment camps in 

the United States during the World War II. The U.S. government orchestrated and 

financed this operation with the intention of using these individuals as hostages in 

exchange for Americans held by Japan. Over 800 people, some who were second or 

third generation Latin Americans and had no familial or linguistic ties to Japan, 

were used in two prisoner of war exchanges. This was the ultimate fate of Art 

Shibayama’s grandparents. Some of the remaining detainees were held in U.S. internment camps until after the end of the war. 

The virtue of our nation lies in its ability to reconcile the past and come to terms 

with its mistakes. There is no better way to do so than to complete the historical 

narrative on this part of our nation’s history. In the appendix of the Commission’s 

report to Congress, Personal Justice Denied, the federal government’s role in kidnapping and detaining Japanese Latin Americans was recognized. However, the 

Commission acknowledged it had not researched documents that existed in distant 

archives or received official testimony from government officials or internees. Surviving internees must be given the opportunity to testify so they may have the closure and justice they deserve. 

H.R. 42, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, would establish an official record of this tragic incident in American history. Nine commissioners appointed by the President, the 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the President pro tempore of the Senate would be charged with holding public hearings and submitting a report of their 

findings and recommending appropriate actions to Congress. 

Madam Chair, thank you for examining the issue of our government’s treatment 

of Japanese Latin Americans during World War II. With the advanced age of many 

of the remaining internees, there is an urgent need to act expeditiously. I urge this 

committee to promptly consider and report H.R. 42 so that surviving Japanese Latin 

American internees can finally have their experiences registered in the official account of our nation’s history. I look forward to working with you and my colleagues 

to pass the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Latin Americans 

of Japanese Descent Act. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. King, you are recognized. 

4 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the witnesses in advance. 

Congress and the Executive Branch have addressed the issue of 

World War II internment many times. In fact, a quick perusal of 

the issue finds no fewer than four pieces of legislation passed by 

Congress and enacted into law. Two sets of amendments made to 

some made some of the point that legislation at least two commissions established to report on the issue, at least four occasions 

when the Federal Government financially compensated individuals 

for their relocation, two apologies from the office of the President 

of the United States, and at least $2 billion spent investigating, researching, and providing compensation to individuals affected by 

these policies. 

There is no shortage of the Federal Government’s acknowledgement of the World War II relocation policies. What I might point 

out, however, is that I could find relatively little mention of the 

country’s predicament at the time of the enactment of these policies, and then-President Franklin Roosevelt’s issuing of Executive 

Order 9066, which was on February 19 of 1942. 

The context is that the United States was being attacked in an 

all-out global war that we did not seek. U.S. citizens were being 

killed. The future of civilized society lay in the balance, and the 

President has a responsibility to protect the population from future 

attack and from the theft of military and intelligence secrets and 

acts of sabotage by our enemies. 

There have been a few writings on the issue. For instance, David 

Lowman, former special assistant to the director of the National 

Security Agency, wrote about espionage tactics by the Japanese 

that involved soliciting Japanese Americans to spy on U.S. institutions. I would have liked to have invited Mr. Lowman to testify 

today, but he is deceased; however, he did testify in front of the 

House Judiciary Committee about this same topic in June 1984. 

I also looked at the report of the Commission of Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, thinking it would surely mention 

the intelligence gathered by the Roosevelt administration as a reason for the enacting of the relocation policies, but there didn’t seem 

to be any mention of it in that report either. In fact, Mr. Lowman 

points out in his book, the commission concluded, ‘‘The commission 

concluded that there was no evidence of espionage by west coast 

Japanese residents.’’ 

He does go on to note that the commission overlooked the intelligence on the subject which was charged to—which it was charged 

to investigate and that this same intelligence was the reason Executive Order 9066 was issued by President Roosevelt in the first 

place. Such a rewriting of history is indefensible and does a disservice to good people who had to make tough decisions in trying 

times. 

Maybe what we need is a commission on useful accounting of the 

espionage, sabotage, and pro-Nazi, pro-Hitler agitation that did 

take place on our shores before and during World War II. I understand that there have been some groups of people not included in 

the reports previously issued on the topic of treatment of civilians 

during World War II. But how many more times will we be forced 

to revisit this issue? 

5 

To establish a commission to review how U.S. government treated every person during World War II is ludicrous, yet that is exactly where we are heading each time this issue is raised. There 

is no getting around the fact that the Federal Government must 

take appropriate actions during times of war to protect its citizens. 

In fact, our founding fathers recognized, and they recognized that 

when they enacted the Alien Enemies Act; that was in 1798. Not 

taking necessary action would be abdicating perhaps the foremost 

responsibility of the Federal Government: to protect its population 

from those who would do us harm. 

Let me also discuss, briefly, where I think this is going and what 

kind of a pattern that we are in. We held at least one hearing in 

the last Congress on slavery reparations. We have had a President 

who apologized to an entire continent for slavery—for America’s act 

in slavery. And I will point out that when we judge our predecessors by contemporary values, we always lose something in that 

contextual analysis. 

When a nation is under attack—well, let me just take it back to 

slavery. When you have a—I think that we deserve a lot of credit 

as a Nation and as a civilization for eradicating slavery, and yet 

we are wallowing in a guilt for these generations for sins that were 

committed by previous generations. I think we need to recognize 

the accurate history and do so objectively, but I don’t think that we 

can legitimately atone for those mistakes by rewarding the third 

generation of people who perhaps were disenfranchised for a time. 

And I think we have to take this into the context of, President 

Roosevelt had intelligence; he acted on that intelligence, whether 

or not it was in good faith. We can’t really help the people that had 

their lives altered by that. 

But I would also point out that we are not here talking about 

reparations or compensation for the descendents of those who were 

killed in World War II, that same war where about 450,000 Americans lost their lives—and in fact, there is a missing generation 

there for those children that were never born because their fathers 

were killed defending the freedom that we enjoy. So if we are really 

serious about compensating those who have suffered an injustice, 

it more goes to those who have had their parents lose their lives 

in these previous wars. 

And I want to add, also, that, you know, this pattern of finding 

another victims group and finding a way to reach into the pocket 

of the American taxpayer and eventually, through this process, 

whether it is at not a formal hearing today, but eventually we get 

to this point where there is a request for reparations and a request 

for an appropriation. This is the process, this is the pattern, and 

I don’t think that America has enough to be guilty about that we 

ought to be wallowing in self-guilt here today, under the third and 

fourth generation, and that is biblical. 

And if I could just conclude my statement, Madam Chair, I 

would do so in a sentence, and that is that it has been reported 

that about 645,000 slaves were brought into this country, and I 

would say that there is also a reference to about 1.25 million Christian slaves who were also enslaved in the previous centuries, and 

I hear no mention of that as well. So let us get on with our future 

lives and stop wallowing in this thing that we would propose upon 

6 

our ancestors that would be a request for funding from today’s producers. 

I thank you, and I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time is expired. I am going to introduce the witnesses and ask unanimous consent that your full 

statements be made part of the official record. And we have time 

for 5 minutes of oral testimony; I am going to be strict on the 5 

minutes because we have many witnesses today, and we want to 

make sure they all have a chance to be heard. 

So let me first introduce the first panel. We have Professor Daniel Masterson, who teaches Latin American history at the Naval 

Academy. He has written extensively on militarism, insurgencies, 

immigration, race relations. He has a number of important books 

to his credit, and we are pleased to have him as a witness today. 

We also have Grace Shimizu, who is the director of the Japanese 

Peruvian Oral History Project and the coordinator for the Campaign for Justice: Redress Now for Japanese Latin Americans. She 

is also the project director of a groundbreaking traveling exhibit, 

and we are very pleased that she is here all the way from California to be a witness for us today. 

And finally, I would like to introduce Libia Dideko Mauki 

Yamamoto. Ms. Yamamoto was born is Chiclayo, Peru, at the age 

of seven was interned in the Crystal City Internment Camp in 

Texas. After release from camp, she and her family resettled in 

California. She is the founding member of the Japanese Peruvian 

Oral History Project. She is trilingual, in English, Spanish, and 

Japanese, and lectures often about her internment experiences. 

And she is a resident of Richmond, California, and we are grateful 

to her as well, coming all the way from California. 

We have this little machine, and when the light turns yellow it 

means you only have 1 minute left; and when the light turns red 

it means your 5 minutes are up and I will ask you to cede the testimony to the next witness. 

If we could begin with you, Professor Masterson? 

Could you turn on your microphone? 

TESTIMONY OF DANIEL M. MASTERSON, PROFESSOR OF 

LATIN AMERICAN HISTORY, U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY 

Mr. MASTERSON. Okay. Thank you all for inviting me and giving 

me an opportunity to speak on this issue. I have studied and written on this for about 20 years, but my books don’t exactly reach 

bestseller proportions, so I think it needs a wider audience, to say 

the least. 

I just want to do three things today as quickly as I can: to talk 

about the Japanese relocation and internment issue, to speak about 

the nature about the Japanese in Latin America, and also to look 

at the question of whether or not a commission should go ahead 

and address this issue with wider study. 

The internment issue, I think, is only known to a small number 

of scholars and the participants themselves, despite the fact that 

there are a number of books written on this topic. We obviously 

had a situation between 1942 and 1945 in Latin America where the 

United States felt compelled to, number one—this was one option— 

to have the Latin American governments intern their own JapaVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:22 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031909\48322.000 HJUD1 PsN: 48322
7 

nese, which they did. This was the case in Mexico; this was the 

case in Brazil; this was the case in Paraguay. Those nations chose 

not to participate in the internment and relocation process. 

Twenty-two hundred and sixty or so chose—the representative 

governments chose to send 2,260 to the United States in the relocation process, which was primarily designed not so much for internal security issues, but for a prisoner exchange to Japan. Ultimately, about 1,400 of these ended up in Japan in a prisoner exchange, primarily because they entered the United States as stateless citizens; their passports were taken from them upon their departure from Peru, in most cases, where there were about 1,800 Peruvian nationals who were essentially sent over. 

What this does, basically, is establish a precedent for prisoner exchange, which, in many instances, thefts the credibility of international law, at this point. Many of these people were selected not 

through a systematic process of identification and counter-espionage activity, but rather through dragnets in Lima, Peru, for example, where the Lima police, in most cases, simply selected an individual or someone who was easily available. 

The third secretary of the Peruvian embassy at this point, a man 

named John Emerson, looked upon this situation very carefully 

from 1943 through 1945 and said it was a very haphazard process, 

one in which—it did not involve a systematic detaining of Latin 

American Japanese who were primarily perceived of as a difficult— 

I should say a possibility for espionage threats. These people eventually ended up in war-torn Japan without recourse for the citizenship status, because Peru would not accept them back when the 

United States chose to deport them between 1943 and 1945—actually through 1947. 

Now, were they guilty of espionage? This is a question which has 

to be addressed, perhaps in the pursuit of this commission, but I 

have looked—and a number of other people have looked—at Federal Bureau of Investigation files available at the Franklin Roosevelt Library in New York, and they concluded, as did John Emerson, that there was no evidence of any espionage whatsoever within the realm of the Peruvian Japanese or the Japanese Peruvians 

during World War II. The FBI was given responsibility for counterespionage activities in Latin America, and they pursued this quite 

diligently in Peru, quite diligently in Panama, where the Panamanians in Japan were interned, and their files are available for further perusal, which would be, I think, a very good possibility for 

some future commission to justify this point. 

Who were these Japanese Peruvians? Who were these Japanese 

Latin Americans? They came from the southern prefectures of 

Japan beginning in 1899; they went to Mexico, where they were 

cotton farmers; they went to Mexico and northern Mexico to work 

on the railroads; they worked as miners; in Brazil they worked as 

coffee pickers. They ended up, in many cases, in Brazil upon established colonies in the interior, in San Paulo state, and became some 

of the most productive agriculturalists in all of Brazil. 

In Peru, they came as sugarcane cutters, where almost immediately they found the conditions on the sugarcane fields to be so 

abhorrent that they fled and ended up in large numbers in Lima, 

Peru. About 85 percent of all Japanese Peruvians today live in 

8 

1Taoke Endoh, Exporting Japan: The Politics of Emigration in Latin America (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009). 

Lima. There, they established very profitable commercial enterprises and, in fact, became the commercial backbone of many Lima 

businesses. 

Small numbers of these business memcores were basically just 

trying to survive, and I think I would be instrumental to point out 

one of them. He was the father of Alberto Fujimori, who was—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. Professor, we are going to ask you to wrap up because your time is expired. 

Mr. MASTERSON. Okay. I am wrapping up. 

He was the father of Alberto Fujimori, who later became president of Peru. He, like many thousands of Japanese Peruvians, had 

his property seized during World War II. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Masterson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANIEL M. MASTERSON

It is well known that the great trauma of World War II caused untold suffering 

for tens of millions of people throughout the world. Nearly forgotten in the context 

of this enormous tragedy is the fate of more than two thousand Japanese Latin 

Americans. Their war time experience in many ways mirrors that of the 120,000 

people of Japanese heritage in the United States who were interned for most of the 

duration of the War in camps throughout the Western United States. But in important ways these Japanese Latin Americas were even more vulnerable and their circumstances even more devastating than their U.S. counterparts. These Japanese 

residents of eight different Latin American nations, were arrested often without 

charges, briefly detained and then deported to the United States for internment in 

camps in the Southwest. Most significantly, before entering the United States these 

deportees were compelled to turn over their passports to U.S. officials. They thus 

entered the United States as ‘‘illegal aliens’ making them subject to deportation 

once their internment in the U.S came to an end. When the vast majority of their 

former Latin American nations refused to allow them to return after the War, these 

detainees became ‘‘stateless’’ and unwilling refugees who were powerless to prevent 

their deportation to devastated post war Japan. Over the past two decades a handful of historians, journalists and activists have attempted to shed light on the story 

of these individuals whom one historian called ‘‘Pawns in a Triangle of Hate.’’ This 

committee hearing represents a very important effort to further U.S. government 

awareness of misguided U.S. policy during the World War II years. 

JAPANESE LATIN AMERICANS

Who were these Japanese Latin Americans, why did they emigrate, and what 

prompted some Latin American governments to willing cooperate in their deportation to the U.S. and not others? The first Japanese emigrants arrived in Mexico and 

Peru in the late 1890’s. Within a decade thousands more would settle in Brazil, 

which would become home to nearly 200,000 Japanese-Brazilians by the beginning 

of World War II. These emigrants came mainly from the poorest southern prefectures of Japan and the Ryukyu islands, mainly Okinawa. Seeking relief from increasing agrarian and working class unrest, the Japanese government saw emigration as a ‘‘safety valve’’ that might relieve some of the suffering caused by the nation’s rapid modernization during the Meiji era.1

In Mexico these Japanese emigrants settled in Baja California and successfully 

raised cotton, They also worked in the mines and on the railroads of the Northern 

states of Coahuila, Sonora, and Durango. In Peru, mostly male Japanese emigrants 

were enlisted as contract laborers to work in coastal sugar and cotton plantations. 

Terrible working conditions on these coastal estates drove many of them to flee and 

settle in Lima where they turned to small scale commerce and the building trades 

with good success. By World War II, at least 75 per cent of Peru’s Japanese lived 

in the Lima metropolitan area where they proved vulnerable to government agents 

once the deportation process began. 

Brazil received the largest number of Japan emigrants because it needed laborers 

for its huge coffee estates and because large tracts of land were available in its 

Southern states of Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo. Japan heavily subsidized the esVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:22 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031909\48322.000 HJUD1 PsN: 48322
9 

2Daniel M. Masterson, with Sayaka Funada Classen, The Japanese in Latin America (Urbana, Illinois: 2003), 131 3 Ibid, 156–157. 

4George Marshall to Commanding General Caribbean Defense Command, 11 December 1942, 

National Archives, College Park, Md. Records of World War II, Army file AG 014.311 as quoted 

in Thomas Connell, America’s Japanese Hostages: The World War II Plans for a Japanese Latin 

America (Westport, CT. 2002), 152, and Connell, Japanese Hostages, 100–101. 

tablishment of Japanese colonies in Brazil in the hope that it would become the 

principal haven for its overseas Japanese. This policy succeeded as Brazil today has 

more people of Japanese descent (1.2 million) than any nation outside of Japan. 

Most Japanese who migrated to Latin America did so with a sojourner mentality. 

That is, they firmly intended to return to Japan after their hard earned savings allowed them to live comfortably ‘‘near the bones of their ancestors.’’ But this hope 

was rarely realized. Instead, the vast majority of the Japanese established tightly 

knit and comforting communities within the Latin American nations. Japanese culture flourished within these communities, Japanese schools taught the Japanese 

language and Japanese language newspapers kept the news of Japan and these 

communities available to their readers. The vitality of the Japanese communities 

cultural bonds was both a great strength, and a telling weakness. The insularity of 

the Japanese in Latin America caused them to be accused of being unwilling to assimilate. Of course, this same accusation could have been leveled against other ethnic groups, but it rarely was. In fact, Peru’s most prominent Japanese, Alberto 

Fujimori took pride in being more Peruvian than Japanese. He was educated in non 

Japanese Schools in Peru, France and Milwaukee and distanced himself from the 

Japanese community when he ran for president in 1990. 

The 1930’s saw Latin America’s Japanese face increasing resentment brought on 

by their relative economic success in the midst of the Depression as well as Japan’s 

increasing militarism. Prior to World War II, for example, Japanese-Brazilian farmers were eight times as productive as their Brazilian counterparts.2 Still, the nations with the two largest Japanese populations, Brazil and Peru enacted legislation 

that effectively ended Japanese emigration to their countries. Brazil’s president 

Getulio Vargas issued decrees that severely restricted the Japanese communities’ 

activities. Most importantly, Japanese-Brazilian schools were closed and the use 

Japanese language was prohibited in public. In May 1940, the worst anti-Japanese 

riots to occur in the Western Hemisphere flared in the capital’s Japanese neighborhoods and in the agricultural centers of Chancay and Huaral. Fueled by false rumors Japanese military activities, two days of nearly unrestrained destruction and 

looting of Japanese properties ruined the livelihoods of many Japanese-Peruvians. 

Nearly every Japanese-Peruvian business was either completely destroyed or badly 

damaged. In Lima police stood by while the rioters wrought their havoc. The capital’s major newspapers choose not to report on the riots.3

ARREST, DEPORTATION AND INTERNMENT: 

Washington had plans for the internment of Japanese-Latin Americas a few 

months before Pearl Harbor. These plans called for the round up of Panama small 

group of four hundred Japanese and relocate them on the isthmus. The protection 

of the Canal was indeed the primary reason given for the interment of Japanese 

Latin Americans on the west coast of South America. The other primary reason: the 

exchange of Japanese-Latin Americans for United States citizens caught behind 

Japanese military lines seems to have been suggested by the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, George Marshall and 

Secretary of State Cordell Hull in late 1942. The U.S. citizens in question numbered 7,000 civilians captured in China, the Philippines, Guam and Wake Island.4

Hull advocated the deportation and internment of Japanese Latin Americans for the 

specific 

PLANS FOR INTERNMENT

purposes of exchange. The Secretary of State seemed indifferent to the fact that 

many of these potential deportees were second generation Nisei and had never seen 

Japan. Hull at one point advocated the removal of all Japanese from Latin America 

for security purposes, not seeming to be aware of the enormous logistical, diplomatic 

or legal implications of this policy. Relocating Brazil 200,000 Japanese was never 

even a remote policy, even if the that country’s leadership had that intention. Since 

the Japanese were Brazil’s most productive farmers, that hardly seemed possible. 

President Franklin Roosevelt even weighed in on the issue of internment. Commenting on the supposedly delightful climate of the Galapagos Island, F.D.R. sugVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:22 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031909\48322.000 HJUD1 PsN: 48322
10 

5 Connell, America’s Japanese Hostages, 5 6Office of Strategic Services Memo, 12294, 20 December 1941, RG 226, U.S. National Archives. 

gested that the Japanese from the west coast of South America could be interned 

on one or more of the island off Ecuador.5

Not all Latin American nations allowed their Japanese residents to be deported 

to the United States for reasons of security or possible exchange. Mexico, seeking 

to maintain a nationalist and independent status relocated its Japanese from Baja 

California and it northern states to centers in the Federal District in central Mexico. 

Much of their property was lost as a result but most were able to rebuild their lives 

in Mexico City after the War. Brazil confined its Japanese to their remote agricultural cooperatives in the states of Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro during the war but 

did not technically intern them. Very importantly, families were allowed to remain 

intact and the property of the Japanese-Brazilians remained largely intact. After the 

War, the large Japanese-Brazilian community thrived. 

THE INTERNEES AND THEIR FATE

More than 3 of 4 of the more than 2,000 deportees from Latin American from 

1942 to 1945 were from Peru. The government of President Manuel Prado saw the 

expulsion of the Japanese from his nation as benefit to his political popularity. He 

pursued this process of deportation with vigor. Additionally, some in Peru wanted 

to take advantage of the dilemma of the Japanese-Peruvians for their own financial 

benefit. U.S. officials were fully aware of this. One U.S. intelligence official noted 

in late 1941 that ‘‘for every Japanese owner of a hardware or price goods store or 

barber shop, there are at least three (Peruvian) candidates (waiting) to take over 

their business.’’ 6

How were these Japanese Latin America identified for deportation? In the case 

of most Latin American nations, F.B.I. agents assigned to intelligence work in Latin 

America worked with the U.S. Embassy and Latin American governments to create 

‘‘Black Lists’’ of suspect Japanese for possible deportation. Since none of the F.B.I. 

agents in Peru, for example, spoke or read Japanese, these blacklists were largely 

drawn from membership lists of prominent Japanese associations. Further, when 

many of these suspects went into hiding or bribed Peruvian officials, Prado’s police 

in exasperation arrested the majority of detainees haphazardly to fulfill arrest 

quotas. 

These injustices were compounded when the deportees reached their debarkation 

location at New Orleans. Their passports were taken from them and never returned. 

They were thus declared illegal enemy aliens and were subject to deportation when 

their confinement in the United States came to an end. Taken from their families, 

these early internees were without a family and without a country. A good number 

of these detainees were reunited with their families when their wives and children 

chose to join them in confinement. The vast majority of these nearly 2,000 Japanese-Peruvian never returned to Peru. The Peruvian government refused to readmit 

all but seventy-nine in a policy that remained firm through the 1950’s. Peru has 

not issued a formal apology for its war time deportation, but in the mid 1960’s the 

government of Fernando Belau ́nde Terry donated a sector of land in central Lima 

for the construction of the Japanese Cultural Center. Of the 2,200 Latin American 

deportees only about 15 per cent were able to remain in the United States. The case 

of the ‘‘stateless’’ internees was taken up by the lawyer Wayne Collins who successfully argued for their continued residency in the U.S. The remainder of these unfortunate Japanese Latin Americans were deported to a Japan that lay in ruins. It was 

a country most had never seen and only existed in the images wrought by their parents or in their schoolbooks. The reality of the destruction and death they encountered was a great trauma. Nearly unbelievably, some of these Japanese Latin Americans were ‘‘relocated’’ to Hiroshima! 

The narrative of these Japanese Latin American during World War II has been 

told in books, articles and movies by talented filmmakers. But it is narrative that 

is still not widely known. Almost every U.S. citizens knows the story of the internment of our own 120,000 Japanese American. Congress needs to encourage the discussion of U.S. policy toward the Latin American Japanese during World War II. 

U.S. archivists have diligently collected and declassified the documentation in thousands of pages in material in the Special War Problems Division files of the Department of State. Our full understanding of this injustice in the past, may help the 

prevention of this type of policy in the future. 

11 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Professor. 

We are now going to turn to Ms. Shimizu. 

TESTIMONY OF GRACE SHIMIZU, DIRECTOR, JAPANESE 

PERUVIAN ORAL HISTORY PROJECT (JPOHP) 

Ms. SHIMIZU. My father was born in 1906 in Hiroshima, Japan 

and immigrated to Peru when he was 18 years old to work with 

his brother in a family business. During World War II, our family 

charcoal business was put on La Lista Negra, the blacklist of socalled potentially dangerous enemy aliens, which affected successful businesses and individuals, often with no connection to the Axis 

powers, but who were community leaders like journalists, teachers, 

business owners, priests, or officers of prefectural clubs or cultural 

organizations. My family members and others on this list were 

never charged with a crime; there were no search warrants issued, 

no hearings held. 

When U.S. transport ships came into the harbor of Callao, some 

men on the blacklist went into hiding, my uncle included. The first 

time the Peruvian authorities came looking for my uncle, who 

headed our family business, they took my cousin instead. My cousin was interned in the U.S. and used in the second prisoner exchange. 

In 1944, when my father was 38 years old, the authorities deported him to a U.S. military camp in the Panama Canal Zone for 

detention and hard labor, which was in violation of the Geneva 

Convention. My father never shared his experience in the Panama 

camp, but we do have the statement of another Japanese Peruvian 

who recalled being put to work clearing the jungle around the 

camp. 

One humid day the internees, many of whom were elderly, were 

told to dig a pit. He thought he was digging his own grave. When 

they were told to fill the pit with buckets of human waste from the 

guards’ latrines, then the older men were so tired that they could 

not run fast enough to please the guards, they were poked and 

shoved by guards with bayonets. 

My father was detained in the Panama camp for several months. 

When the next U.S. transport arrived, the prisoners included his 

first wife, his brother, and his brother’s wife and children. They 

were taken to the U.S. for indefinite internment at Crystal City, 

Texas for the purpose of prisoner exchange. My father’s wife died 

in that camp due to the trauma of the imprisonment and lack of 

adequate medical care. 

While interned, my father also learned that seven other members 

of our family who remained in Peru had been killed, and circumstances surrounding their murders were never solved. 

At the end of the war, my uncle and his family were deported 

to Japan and dumped off to find their way to the home of my 

grandmother in Hiroshima. My father was released on parole from 

camp under the sponsorship of Japanese American relatives living 

in northern California. His intention was to return to his home, 

business, and surviving relatives in Peru, but internees were not 

allowed reentry by the Peruvian government, initially. 

He eventually remarried and started a family with my mother in 

Berkeley, California. In the 1950’s, with changes in the immigraVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:22 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031909\48322.000 HJUD1 PsN: 48322
12 

tion laws, he was allowed to change his status from illegal alien 

to legal permanent resident. I have come to understand the significance of my father’s wartime experience through the work of the 

Japanese Peruvian Oral History Project. We are learning that our 

families’ wartime experiences were part of a larger Latin American 

program whereby the U.S. government went outside its borders to 

13 Latin American countries and seized 2,264 men, women, and 

children of Japanese ancestry, both citizen and immigrant residents of those country, forcibly deported them to the U.S. internment camps without legal extradition, without due process, without 

charges, and deprived of legal counsel. 

We are also learning that German and Italian communities in 

the U.S. and Latin America were also swept up in this turmoil. In 

total, over 31,000 so-called enemy aliens of German, Italian, and 

Japanese ancestry in the U.S. and from Latin America were apprehended and detained, and thousands interned in camps, which 

were different from the 10 War Relocation Authority camps where 

Japanese American were incarcerated. 

We are also learning more about the prisoner exchange program, 

where over 4,800 men, women, and children were forcibly thrust 

into the warzones of the Far East and Europe. Of these, over 2,800 

were of Japanese ancestry, about half of whom were Japanese 

Latin Americans. 

What is being uncovered is a shocking picture of how the U.S. 

government initiated and orchestrated a program of massive civil 

rights violations, crimes against humanity, and war crimes spanning two continents before, during, and after World War II. U.S. 

government policies and actions and what our former Japanese 

Latin American and other enemy alien internees endured during 

World War II warrants deeper investigation. 

We are here today to urge your support for passage of H.R. 42. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Shimizu follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRACE SHIMIZU

My name is Grace Shimizu. I am the director of the Japanese Peruvian Oral History Project and the daughter of a Japanese internee from Peru. On behalf of the 

former Japanese Latin American internees and our families, I would like to express 

our appreciation to Chairperson Zoe Lofgren and members of the House Judiciary 

Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security and International Law. It is so heartening to be able to share our wartime experiences. This 

hearing is very significant to us because our experiences have never been part of 

the mainstream historical narrative of this country, nor have our experiences been 

included as part of our own community’s narratives—both Japanese American and 

Latino communities. Our story is a hidden part of our community history and a suppressed part of US wartime history. 

My father was born in 1906 in Hiroshima, Japan and immigrated to Peru when 

he was 18 years old. He joined his brother who had arrived earlier as a contract 

laborer and begun to develop a family business. During World War II, our family 

charcoal business was put on ‘‘La Lista Negra,’’ the blacklist, the informal name for 

what the US called ‘‘The Proclaimed List of Certain Blocked Nationals.’’ This list 

of ‘‘potentially dangerous enemy aliens’’ affected businesses and individuals, often 

with no connection to the Axis powers, like journalists, teachers, business owners, 

priests, or anyone who held a position in the many prefecture clubs or cultural organizations. My family members and others on this list were never charged with a 

crime. There were no search warrants issued, no hearings held. 

When the US transport ships would come into the harbor of Callao, many on the 

blacklist would go into hiding, my uncle included. The first time the Peruvian authorities came looking for my uncle who headed our family business, they took my 

13 

cousin instead. My cousin was interned in the US and used in the second prisoner 

exchange. In 1944, when my father was 38 years old, he was taken by the authorities. He was forcibly deported from his home in Peru to a US military camp in the 

Panama Canal Zone for detention and put to hard labor, which was in violation of 

the Geneva Convention. My father never shared his experience in the Panama camp 

but we do have an interview of another Japanese Peruvian who recalled being put 

to work clearing the jungle around the camp. One humid day, the internees, many 

of whom were elderly, were told to dig a pit. He thought that he was digging his 

own grave. Then they were told to fill the pit with buckets of human waste from 

the guards’ latrines. When the older men were so tired that they could not run fast 

enough to please the guards, they were poked and shoved by the guards with bayonets. After three months at hard labor, the young man was taken to the US for internment. 

My father was detained in the Panama camp for several months. When the next 

US transport arrived, the prisoners included his first wife, his brother and his 

brother’s wife and children. They were taken to the US for indefinite internment 

at Crystal City, Texas for the purpose of hostage exchange. During internment, my 

father’s wife died in that Texas camp due to the trauma of imprisonment and lack 

of adequate medical care. My father also learned that seven other members of our 

family who remained in Peru had been killed and circumstances surrounding their 

murders were never resolved. 

At the end of the war, my uncle and his family were deported to Japan and 

dumped off to find their way to the home of my grandmother in Hiroshima. My father was released on parole from camp under the sponsorship of Japanese American 

relatives living in northern California. His intention was to return to his home, 

business and surviving relatives in Peru, but he along with other Japanese Peruvians were initially not allowed reentry by the Peruvian government. He eventually 

remarried and started a family with my mother in Berkeley, California. In the 

1950s, with changes in the immigration laws, he was allowed to change his status 

from ‘‘illegal alien’’ to legal permanent resident. Despite his decision to live the rest 

of his life in the US, he never became a US citizen. Part of his thinking was, if the 

US were ever to violate the rights of persons of Japanese ancestry again, he and 

his family would not become stateless and would be able to find refuge in the country of his birth. 

I didn’t understand the significance of my father’s wartime experience until I 

began to work with the Japanese Peruvian Oral History Project, which was established in 1991 by six families in the SF Bay Area. Like other Japanese Americans 

of my generation born in the US, I was lucky to have read about the Japanese 

American incarceration in a US history book, even if it was just one sentence. And 

there was never mention about the internment of Japanese Peruvians. Also, my parents and I, like so many other Japanese Americans and Japanese Latin American 

families at that time, didn’t talk much about the war, internment or the traumatic 

impact that experience had on us personally, our families and community. 

Through our work in the Japanese Peruvian Oral History Project, we are learning 

how the WWII internment history of Japanese Americans and Japanese Latin is integrally linked. We share many similarities with Japanese American families, including our immigrant roots. We formed community with Japanese Americans while 

living side by side in Department of Justice internment camps and US Army facilities and being used as human pawns in hostage exchanges. During the resettlement 

years after the war, Japanese American and Japanese Latin American families in 

the US struggled to reestablish our lives, with many Japanese Latin Americans becoming part of Japanese American neighborhoods and marrying into Japanese 

American families. 

Through our work, we are learning that our families’ wartime experiences were 

part of a larger Latin American program whereby the US government went outside 

its borders to 13 Latin American countries and seized 2264 men, women and children of Japanese ancestry (both citizens and immigrant residents), forcibly transported them to US internment camps without legal extradition, without due process, 

without charges and deprived of legal counsel. 

We are also learning that such wartime experience of civil and human rights violations was not limited to persons of Japanese ancestry. German and Italian communities in the US and Latin America were also swept up in this turmoil. Following 

the Japanese military attack on Pearl Harbor, over one million immigrants in the 

German, Italian and Japanese American communities in the US became ‘‘enemy 

aliens’’ overnight. From about 19 Latin American countries, over 200 persons of 

Italian ancestry and over 4,000 persons of German ancestry (including 81 Jewish 

refugees) were seized and deported to the US for internment. In total over 31,000 

enemy aliens of German, Italian and Japanese ancestry in the US and from Latin 

14 

America were apprehended and detained. Many thousands of them were interned 

for reasons of ‘‘national security’’ in over 50 facilities run by the US Department of 

Justice and the US Army, which were different from the ten War Relocation Authority camps where Japanese Americans were incarcerated. 

We are also learning more about the hostage exchange program. In time of war, 

civilians from warring nations should be allowed safe passage to their home countries. But what should have been a humanitarian program became a program of 

human rights violations. Over 4,800 men, women and children were forcibly deported to war zones of the Far East and Europe in the prisoner exchange. These 

included US citizens who were the minor children of permanent resident aliens. For 

persons of German ancestry in the US and from Latin America, there were about 

six separate exchanges with a total of at least 2,000 people. Of them, it is unclear 

how many were German Latin Americans. For persons of Japanese ancestry, there 

were two separate exchanges with over 2,800 civilians, half of whom were Japanese 

Latin Americans. 

It is now widely recognized that the incarceration of 110,000 US citizens and residents of Japanese ancestry during WWII was one of the worst violations of the constitution in our nation’s history based on wartime hysteria, racial prejudice and failure of political leadership. With growing knowledge of the WWII Enemy Alien Program and its Latin American component, that mass imprisonment of the Japanese 

American community is now put into a broader international context of relocation, 

internment and forced deportation of persons of Japanese, German and Italian ancestry What is being uncovered is a shocking picture of how the US government initiated and orchestrated a program of massive civil rights violations, crimes against 

humanity and war crimes spanning two continents before, during and after WWII. 

Later review of records of these so-called ‘‘dangerous’’ enemy aliens shows there 

was often no specific evidence of subversive activities. Rather they lost years of their 

lives on the basis of ‘‘potential’’ danger. The impact of these violations has been long 

lasting in our communities and has current day significance for our democratic institutions and freedoms. 

We, former internees and our families, are here today to register our plea with 

you, members of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. We ask for 

your support of HR 42, the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of 

Latin Americans of Japanese Descent Act, to investigate the treatment of Japanese 

Latin Americans during WWII. 

In 1980, the Congress authorized a similar fact finding study which examined the 

treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII. During the course of that study, information began to be uncovered about the treatment of the Japanese Latin Americans. Such information was found significant enough to be included in the published 

Commission report and warrants deeper investigation. The Japanese Latin American commission bill would extend the initial investigation of the 1980 Commission. 

We ask your support to get this commission bill passed. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very, very much. 

And finally you, Ms. Yamamoto. Thank you so much for being 

with us today. 

TESTIMONY OF LIBIA YAMAMOTO, FORMER JAPANESE OF 

LATIN AMERICAN DESCENT INTERNEE 

Ms. YAMAMOTO. My father migrated to Peru in 1914, at the age 

of 20, as a contract laborer from Japan. Through hard work and 

dedication, my father rose from his humble beginnings to become 

a successful businessperson and establish our family as one of the 

many respected in the Peruvian city of Chiclayo and a nearby 

sugar plantation of Hacienda Toman. 

The period during World War II was very confusing for everyone 

in our community as we began to feel the effects of the war. Still, 

I never thought that our family would be affected. I was wrong. 

On the night of January 6, 1943, the police came to our house 

in the Hacienda and said to my father, ‘‘Senor Maoki, we have to 

take you by the order of the United States of America.’’ That night 

they took him to jail. We did not get any explanation; everything 

15 

happened so suddenly that my father had no time to pack any of 

his things. 

We knew nothing of his situation until the next morning when 

my father was moved to the city jail, and I went with my mother 

to visit my father there. During this time, the mothers who were 

there to see their husbands in jail held their tears in and tried to 

be strong; some were more successful than others. 

Then a truck came and our fathers were forced to get on it. That 

truck drove away, and we didn’t know where they were taking 

them, why, for how long, or if they would come back. As my father 

and the others waved goodbye, I remember our mothers lost their 

composure and collective weeping erupted into loud cries. 

This was an extremely traumatic experience for me at age seven. 

Finally, after an entire month, we received a letter from my father 

in Panama. We were just so happy to hear that he was alive. Later, 

we learned that his passport was confiscated and he was interned 

in a Department of Justice camp in Texas. There my father learned 

that the men from Peru were going to be shipped to Japan in a 

prisoner exchange. My father and the others began protesting because they knew this meant indefinite separation from their families. 

The so-called solution to this problem was to reunite these men 

with their families in Department of Justice camps. I think the 

U.S. government did not mind this because, in effect, it provided 

more hostages. Still, there were some families who were never able 

to reunite. 

We left Peru from the Port of Callao in July 1943. Boarding the 

ship was horrifying because there were U.S. soldiers on board 

pointing their big guns at us as if we were criminals. When we got 

to New Orleans officials inspected our baggage and some families 

had precious belongings thrown into the water. 

The Peruvians on our ship were among the lucky ones, because 

I later learned from my friend that she and other women and children were let off their ship first and marched to a warehouse. They 

were ordered to strip and stand in line naked, and then were 

sprayed with insecticide. I can’t imagine the humiliation my friend 

felt having to strip her clothes off in front of boys who are our age. 

How awful this must have been for our mothers, whose modesty 

was violated. 

Despite the physical conditions of the camps, my family was glad 

to be reunited with my father. At the end of the war the U.S. government told us to leave the country because we were illegal aliens. 

My sister and her family were deported first to Japan. She later 

wrote to us in camp that many people were starving and her family 

had to pull out weeds from the ground just to feed themselves, and 

her 5-month-old baby died from malnutrition. 

When it was my family’s turn to leave, my father became very 

ill and our deportation to Japan was canceled. Fortunately, we had 

Japanese American relatives in Berkeley who sponsored us out of 

camp in 1947, and we moved to Berkeley, California as parolees. 

I am now 73 years old, and many of my friends my age who had 

similar experiences have passed on. I come here today to ask that 

you support this commission bill to study what happened to famiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:22 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031909\48322.000 HJUD1 PsN: 48322
16 

lies like mine. Please help pass this bill before it is too late. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yamamoto follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LIBIA YAMAMOTO


LY-1.eps
17 


LY-2.eps
18 


LY-3.eps
19 


LY-4.eps
20 


LY-5.eps
21 


LY-6.eps
22 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, Ms. Yamamoto, for sharing 

your story. I know it is difficult to speak, but it is important that 

your voice be heard, and we do appreciate your testimony. 


LY-7.eps
23 

We now have a time when Members of the panel can pose questions to the panel for as long as 5 minutes. Mr. King, would you 

have questions? 

Mr. KING. I do, Madam Chair. I thank you, and I would say 

again to the witnesses, thanks for your testimony. 

And Ms. Yamamoto, I understand that it is very difficult to relive 

this after all these years, and I recall you saying that you were 7 

years old at the time. I appreciate you all coming, and there are 

things that we do to serve our countries and to serve humanity 

that cause us to have to rise above, sometimes, the things we 

might not want to do. 

So I am not going to ask any questions. I will give you a little 

relief in that; maybe you can sigh a little. And I will direct the 

other witnesses, who I think maybe can illuminate this a little bit 

for me, too. 

And I would ask Ms. Shimizu, is it your position that there 

should be an apology by the United States? 

Ms. SHIMIZU. We are here today to urge that what happened to 

our parents, our families, really be investigated further. And 

through that investigation, as more of the information comes out 

and the background becomes more clear, I think our faith is put 

in the commissioners to make the appropriate recommendations. 

Mr. KING. Then if that investigation—if there is full acknowledgement, then if that investigation concludes, I think, a conclusion 

that you have drawn, then would you, then, be asking for proper 

redress? 

Ms. SHIMIZU. Well, I would be looking at what the recommendations were, and then at that point, I mean, we would be at a better 

position to respond to that. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Shimizu. 

I would ask Professor Masterson, and you mentioned that there 

was very little public knowledge about the Peruvian detainees, and 

I mentioned in my testimony a book—I have the copies of it—by 

David Lowman, called ‘‘Magic.’’ Are you familiar with it? 

Mr. MASTERSON. Well, there is three books on this topic—at least 

three—and two more that I have written that deal with it. But 

what we have to be aware of is that the scholarly community is a 

relatively small scholarly community, and does this information get 

to the public? 

Mr. KING. So excuse me, but are you familiar with this copy? 

Mr. MASTERSON. Yes, I have heard of it, yes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. And have you had an opportunity to read 

it? 

Mr. MASTERSON. No, I haven’t. 

Mr. KING. Okay. I would encourage you to do that, because to 

have a balance in the history that you are talking about, I think 

it is important for you to understand the other side of this. And 

I would just comment that as I listened to your testimony, one 

thing stood out to me, that the Japanese workers fled from fields 

in Peru, and, you know, I might have characterized it that they migrated to better opportunities; there were a lot of bad circumstances during those times. 

And then what I mentioned in my testimony about the historical 

chronology of the Christian slaves—1.25 million, which is about 

24 

twice as many Christian slaves as there were African Americans 

brought here under slavery, at least by some accounts—is that is 

a piece of history that you have had an opportunity to study? 

Mr. MASTERSON. Of course. But you are looking at two different 

situations. 

Mr. KING. Sure I am. 

Mr. MASTERSON. You really are. And what you have, of course, 

is a situation in Peru where individuals are taken from their individual environments, many of whom have no justification whatsoever with regard to association with espionage, and in fact, you 

could argue that it wasn’t directly related to the security of the 

United States; it was more right directly related to the welfare of 

American citizens who were behind American lines, and the exchange was being done for them—— 

Mr. KING [continuing]. My clock is ticking. I want to be respectful, but—and I think that that is true, they are different circumstances, and I would go—I would ask it this way: This was a 

global war—— 

Mr. MASTERSON. Yes. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. It was a world war, and there were political entities for every nation state, and there were sub-entities 

within the nation states, and each of them are operating for national survival as well as doing a calculus off the intelligence that 

they had at the time. 

And so we had internments that went on around the world, and 

there were some horrible things that took place, and I would ask 

unanimous consent to introduce this book, called ‘‘Last Man Out.’’ 

It is about the internment also of some American prisoners in the 

Philippines, and I think it is important to add to this scholarship 

as well. 

Mr. MASTERSON. May I respond to that? 

I would then just—— 

Mr. KING. Professor Masterson, you have done a thorough study 

of this, and in the time we have left I would just offer back to you 

to conclude your statement so—respectful of your testimony. 

Mr. MASTERSON. There is a parallel to this, and it is that many 

of the Latin American governments who were involved in counterinsurgency wars during the 1970’s and 1980’s, where substantial 

violations of human rights occurred, have created—reconciliation 

commissions. Argentina has done one, Peru has done one, and that 

is designed to do exactly what we are talking about today: rectify 

a situation, which needs to be done, with regards to the—— 

Ms. LOFGREN [continuing]. The gentleman’s time has expired. I 

am going to ask, since we have three panels, that we go to see if 

Mr. Lungren has questions. 

Mr. KING. Madam Chair, could I just ask unanimous consent 

that I may just pose a brief yes or no question to the witness? 

I thank you, Madam Chair, and—do you support or oppose, then, 

reparations? 

Mr. MASTERSON. I am of the opinion that the reparations issue 

should be resolved by a commission which we are asking to be 

formed. We are not prejudging any of this until the commission 

does so. 

Mr. KING. Thank you. 

25 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Ms. Sa ́nchez has no questions. 

Mr. Lungren, do you have questions, or can we move to the next 

panel? 

Mr. LUNGREN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Then we will thank you, witnesses, for being here 

and ask the second panel to come forward. 

As the second panel is coming forward, I would like to introduce 

them. First, we have John Christgau. Mr. Christgau is the author 

of eight nonfiction books, including ‘‘Enemies: World War II Alien 

Internment,’’ the first book published on the subject. For the past 

8 years, he has been a member of the Enemy Alien Files Consortium, creators of the photo exhibit, the ‘‘Enemy Alien Files: Hidden 

Stories of World War II.’’ 

I am also pleased to introduce Karen Ebel. Ms. Ebel is the 

daughter of a recently deceased German American World War II 

internee. She is president and a founding member of the German 

American Internee Coalition, which was created to educate the 

public about and advocate ethnic German American and Latin 

American internees and their families. She is also a member of the 

multiethnic Enemy Alien Files Consortium, representing the German American community. 

Next I would like to introduce Heidi Gurcke Donald. Ms. Donald 

and six members of her family were deported from Costa Rica for 

internment in the United States during World War II. A founding 

member of the German American Internee Coalition, she serves on 

their board and writes for their Web site. She is the author of, ‘‘We 

Were Not the Enemy,’’ a book about her family’s World War II experiences. 

And finally, I would like to introduce Dr. John Fonte. Dr. Fonte 

joined the Hudson Institute in March 1999 as a senior fellow and 

director of the Center for American Common Culture. He has been 

a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where he 

directed the committee to review national standards under the 

chairmanship of Lynne Cheney. He also served as a senior researcher at the U.S. Department of Education and a program administrator at the National Endowment for the Humanities. 

As noted with the first panel, your full written statements will 

be made part of the official record. We would ask that your oral 

testimony consume 5 minutes. When you have 1 minute left the 

yellow light will go on, and we are going to be strict about the 

timeframe because we have still a third panel after you. We want 

to hear everyone. 

So if you would begin, Mr. Christgau? 

If you could turn on your microphone, thank you. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN CHRISTGAU, AUTHOR OF 

‘‘ENEMIES: WORLD WAR II ALIEN INTERNMENT’’ 

Mr. CHRISTGAU. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I appreciate this opportunity to talk about a piece of World War 

II history that has been largely ignored. At nightfall on December 

10, 1941, just 3 days after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, 

an unusual thunderstorm struck southern California. The deep 

booming thunder sounded like an enemy bombardment, and jittery 

26 

citizens of Los Angeles and San Diego feared they were under attack. 

An immediate lights out order was issued from Bakersfield to 

San Diego, and the coast went dark. Los Angeles residents shot out 

streetlights in the frenzy to black out the city. Hospitals were 

swamped with calls for ambulances to cover traffic accidents involving panicked drivers. 

That panic did not disappear, especially from the west coast, and 

in the weeks after, long-held ethnic and racial prejudices aggravated by the wartime panic led to the internment of over 30,000 

so-called enemy aliens of German, Italian, and Japanese nationality. The arrests were done under the provisions of the Alien Enemies Act, which says that whenever war is threatened or declared, 

all citizens of the hostile nation who shall be within the United 

States shall be liable to be apprehended, arrested, detained, and removed as enemy aliens. 

For months prior to the start of World War II, the FBI had been 

investigating so-called enemy aliens. The FBI sent its investigative 

reports to the Special Defense Unit of the Justice Department. 

That unit created what was called a custodial detention index, or 

ABC lists, which classified the aliens with respect to how dangerous the government considered them. 

Aliens on the A list were considered the most dangerous and 

were subject to immediate arrest and detention in case of war. 

Those lists were based on hearsay gathered mainly from confidential informants. In San Francisco, a Jewish immigrant named 

Eddie Friede, who had narrowly escaped death in a concentration 

camp in Germany, was arrested, detained, and then interned in 

North Dakota. In a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt he pleaded, ‘‘Please 

see what you can do to get me released from internment.’’ 

Eventually, wartime Attorney General Francis Biddle recognized 

the unreliability of the lists and wrote, ‘‘It is clear to me that this 

ABC classification system is inherently unreliable. It should not be 

used.’’ Still, eight internment camps for enemy aliens were established in Texas, North Dakota, New Mexico, and Idaho. In addition 

to those eight camps, there were dozens of other sites, from hastily 

constructed detention centers to compounds run by the Army. 

Those combined facilities detained and interned a total of 31,285 

enemy aliens and their families between 1941 and 1948. Approximately 16,000 were Japanese; nearly 11,000 were German; and 

3,000 were Italian. 

Beyond those who were interned, tens of thousands more, mainly 

Japanese but also Italians in large numbers and some Germans 

were forced to evacuate their homes in critical military zones on 

the east and west coast and relocate their families. Once the aliens 

and their families were detained or interned, they were given a 

brief hearing before an alien enemy hearing board to determine 

their guilt or their innocence. The hearings lasted from 5 to 15 

minutes, and there was no opportunity for the internees to learn 

the FBI’s charges against them. 

So why has so little historical attention been paid to the World 

War II Alien Enemy Control Program, which affected so many 

thousands of people from German, Italian, and Japanese communities? Perhaps the answer lies in something one German internee 

27 

chose to call ‘‘Gitterkrankheit,’’ the fence sickness. After you have 

been behind barbed wire for months and years, the internee explained, a part of you begins to feel like a criminal even if you have 

done nothing wrong. When you finally get out, he said, you would 

rather not talk about the past. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Christgau follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN CHRISTGAU

The United States is a nation of immigrants who were drawn here by economic 

opportunity and the promises of democracy. The fragility of immigrants’ rights in 

times of war and economic stress is a global concern. An understanding of the history of the WWII Alien Enemy Control Program is important to the creation of effective national security policy 

Italian and German immigrants began arriving in the U.S. in large numbers in 

the 19th century, with influx to the West beginning during the 1850s Gold Rush. 

Japanese immigration began in 1868 to Hawaii for plantation labor. Later, many 

went on to the U.S. mainland, mostly California. By 1940, Italians constituted the 

largest foreign-born group in the U.S., with Germans as the second largest. 

In 1936, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) started compiling lists of socalled ‘‘dangerous persons.’’ The lists included prominent business, cultural, and religious leaders in the German, Italian and Japanese communities. Officially known 

as the ‘‘Custodial Detention Index,’’ the list identified those ‘‘potentially dangerous’’ 

persons who would be arrested if the U.S. entered the war. The lists were the product of rumor, hearsay, gossip, and ethnic and racial prejudices gathered from confidential informants. The FBI also maintained a ‘‘Suspected Organizations List’’ for 

Italians, Germans, and Japanese in the USA. 

In 1940, as fears of German and Japanese aggression escalated, the Federal Alien 

Registration Act (‘‘Smith Act’’) required all aliens to register, to be fingerprinted, to 

provide information about their membership in organizations, and to report regularly to designated authorities. By the spring of 1941, the Justice Department had 

developed procedures to detain and intern aliens and ‘‘potentially dangerous persons.’’ 

At dawn on December 7, 1941, the Japanese military attacked the U.S. Naval 

base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Later that day, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Presidential Proclamation 2525, authorizing FBI agents to arrest without warrants any 

Japanese citizen fourteen years or older. On the following day, the President issued 

similar proclamations against German and Italian aliens, and declared war on 

Japan. Overnight, a million immigrants were transformed into ‘‘enemy aliens.’’ 

The Justice Department’s arrest and detention of thousands of Germans, Italians, 

and Japanese was authorized by the Alien Enemies Act of 1918—US Code, Title 50, 

Sections 21–24—which governs war and national defense. The Alien Enemies Act is 

based on the 1798 Alien and Sedition Laws, which specified that citizens (age 14 

and over) of enemy nations can be ‘‘apprehended, restrained, secured and removed’’ 

in case of declared war, or actual or threatened invasion by a foreign nation. No 

distinction is made between resident immigrants and aliens in the U.S. on a temporary basis. 

RESTRICTIONS, EVACUATION, INDIVIDUAL EXCLUSIONS

By nightfall of December 7, 1941, even before the U.S. formally declared war, FBI 

and other agents of the government descended upon the homes and businesses of 

people they had deemed to be dangerous. Three days after Pearl Harbor, 3,846 Germans, Italians, and Japanese had been apprehended without being charged with 

any crimes. Local FBI agents especially targeted community and religious leaders, 

people with business, cultural, or political ties to their home country, editors/publishers of German, Italian, and Japanese language newspapers, and teachers at language schools. Homes were searched and possessions seized. Many were arrested 

and jailed without explanation. Their families had no idea where or why their loved 

ones were taken. 

Within a month, all German, Italian, and Japanese aliens residing in the U.S. 

were ordered to be fingerprinted, photographed, and to carry photo-bearing ‘‘enemy 

alien registration cards’’ at all times. German, Italian, and Japanese immigrants 

who were designated as enemy aliens were ordered to turn over ‘‘contraband’’ to 

local police. Prohibited items included all firearms, short-wave radios, cameras, 

knives, and ‘‘signaling devices’’ such as flashlights. FBI agents searched homes and 

28 

confiscated personal property, much of which was never returned. Ownership of 

such property could later be grounds for internment. The Coast Guard appropriated 

fishing boats belonging to Italian and Japanese fishermen, depriving them of their 

livelihood. In addition, all German, Italian, and Japanese enemy aliens in the Western Defense Command were subject to a curfew between 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. daily 

and were not allowed to travel more than five miles from home unless a travel permit was applied for and granted. Many aliens’ assets, such as bank accounts, were 

frozen, making life even more difficult for those affected. 

In January of 1942, the Department of Justice designated restricted areas around 

military sites. By the first week of February, the Attorney General had designated 

133 prohibited zones for ‘‘any person’’ around airports, damns, power plants, and 

military installations. In addition, the DOJ set up 88 prohibited zones in California 

for German, Italian, and Japanese enemy aliens. Thousands of enemy aliens living 

in the prohibited zones were ordered to move elsewhere. These individuals were 

given ten days to close their businesses and homes. Most sought out family and 

friends in other states who could help them relocate and find jobs. In many cases, 

the government advised new employers of the excludees’ circumstances, making resettlement even more difficult. Some excludees had been U.S. citizens since the turn 

of the century and many had been in the U.S. for at least twenty years. To keep 

families together, many citizen spouses and children went with the alien head of 

the family, who was often the only breadwinner. Families who stayed behind were 

left without financial support. 

Not all government officials agreed with the mass orders. U.S. Attorney General 

Francis Biddle, head of the Justice Department, issued a memo in July 1943 stating 

that the FBI should only investigate activities of persons who may have violated the 

law, rather than classifying persons as to dangerousness. ‘‘The notion that it is possible to make a valid determination as to how dangerous a person is in the abstract 

and without reference to time, environment and other relevant circumstances is impractical, unwise and dangerous,’’ he wrote. The ‘‘dangerous person’’ label should 

never again be used to justify arrests or internment because it was not based on 

valid evidence. 

Biddle ordered the FBI to abolish its Custodial Detention Index, but FBI Director 

J. Edgar Hoover simply changed the name to ‘‘Security Index’’ and concealed its existence from the Justice Department. Nevertheless, the Justice Department relied 

on FBI reports to support its program of arrests and detention of German, Italian, 

and Japanese nationals in the U.S. and Latin America, which continued throughout 

the war, with some Germans held in U.S. camps until 1949. 

Restrictions on Italian aliens were lifted in October 1942, largely because of the 

impending Congressional elections that November, and because of the reported morale problems among military personnel due to restrictions on their parents. The 

support of Italian Americans was needed for the impending U.S. invasion of Italy 

and for the Italian population’s own revolt against Mussolini. However, the status 

of Italian excludees and internees remained unchanged until late 1943 after an armistice with Italy. 

DETENTION AND INTERNMENT

The arrest and internment of U.S. resident enemy aliens began the evening of December 7, 1941. The arrests were done on the basis of the Security Defense Unit’s 

ABC lists, which were in tern based largely on hearsay information gathered from 

confidential FBI informants. Among those arrested and detained was Eddie Friede, 

a Jewish immigrant in San Francisco who had narrowly escaped death in a concentration camp in Germany. Eddie was arrested the evening of December 7, detained, and then interned in North Dakota. In a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt, he 

pleaded with her, ‘‘Please, would you see what you can do to get me released from 

internment.’’ 

By war’s end, the number of aliens arrested and detained had reached 31,275: 

16,849 Japanese, 10,905 Germans, and 3,278 Italians, and some 200 Hungarians, 

Bulgarians and Romanians. Some were U.S. citizens. Though not all were formally 

interned, they were held for periods ranging from a few days to several years without ever learning the charges against them. After arrest, the aliens were turned 

over to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for detention. The detainees received cursory hearings, in some cases not until after months of detention. 

During the hearings, they were not able to have an attorney, question witnesses, 

or see the evidence against them. The hearing boards recommended release, parole, 

or internment. There were eventually eight permanent INS internment camps—in 

North Dakota, Idaho, New Mexico, and Texas—and over fifty additional detention 

29 

centers and internment facilities, from small local jails to Army POW camps, that 

held enemy aliens. 

Detainees’ families often did not know where they were for weeks. Sometimes 

both parents were taken and the children were left to fend for themselves until relatives or the local government took custody. Many women struggled to support their 

families and, having lost everything, sought refuge in a family internment camp. 

Border Patrol agents of the INS operated the DOJ camps, located at migrant worker 

and Civilian Conservation Corps camps, military bases, and prisons. Some housed 

men only, others women only, still others married couples. Camp conditions varied 

widely. 

Many internees were shifted from camp to camp. Italian internees at Fort Meade 

were sent after some months to a similar facility at Fort McAlester, Oklahoma. The 

very first West Coast German, Italian, and Japanese internees, arrested in early 

December 1941, were sent to the INS internment camps at Fort Missoula, Montana, 

and Fort Lincoln, North Dakota, before they had hearings. After hearings, they were 

either transferred to army-run internment camps in Texas and Oklahoma, or paroled.. 

In May of 1943, with captured Axis military personnel coming to the United 

States for imprisonment, the Army asked to be relieved of its civilian internees. 

Thus, all internees were returned to the custody of the INS, with Italians returning 

to Fort Missoula, and most Germans sent to Fort Lincoln. Japanese internees were 

kept mainly at Fort Lincoln, Fort Missoula and Santa Fe in New Mexico, until 

many went to War Relocation Authority camps to join their families. 

In addition, nearly 3,000 German and Italian merchant seamen whose ships happened to be docked in U.S. or Latin American ports were also turned into ‘‘illegal 

aliens’’. Their ships impounded, these sailors were sent to internment at Fort Lincoln, North Dakota and Fort Missoula, Montana. 

RELEASE FROM CAMP: HOSTAGE EXCHANGE AND POSTWAR DEPORTATION

When the German government learned that some of its overseas citizens had been 

seized in Latin America and interned in the United States, it ordered the seizure 

of U.S. and Latin American citizens living in Europe. Complex negotiations followed, 

resulting in several exchanges of civilian prisoners. From 1942 to 1945, at least 

2,000 persons of German ancestry and at least 37 Italians, including women and 

children, from the U.S. and Latin America were sent to Europe in six exchanges 

across the Atlantic Ocean at the height of the war. 

The U.S. did not want to return any aliens who might aid the Axis war effort, 

and State Department policy was to exchange only harmless people of German or 

Japanese ancestry. Repatriates to Germany signed an oath not to perform military 

service. Some died as civilians, killed by Allied bombs, while others were imprisoned 

under suspicion of being US spies. 

Japan also agreed to prisoner exchanges but did not want to accept ‘‘repatriates’’ 

who did not want to return. There was also difficulty in finding ships. Two exchanges occurred in 1942 and 1943 involving 2,800 persons of Japanese ancestry 

from the U.S. and Latin America. Some deportees were drafted into the military 

service of Japan and died in combat. Others lost their lives in air raids as civilians. 

The Alien Enemy Act only permitted internment for the duration of the war. After 

the European hostilities ended in May 1945, President Harry Truman issued Presidential Proclamation 2655 ordering deportation of ‘‘dangerous enemy aliens’’ who 

were still interned. Thus, many Germans and their U.S. citizen families were involuntarily ‘‘repatriated’’ to war-devastated Germany and left there to fend for themselves. Germans who did not want to repatriate remained interned and fought desperately for years to avoid being deported. By mid-1948, the camps were empty, 

though some internees remained in custody on Ellis Island until 1949. Some had 

been interned for seven years. 

IMPACT ON FAMILIES, UNCOVERING HIDDEN STORIES, BREAKING THE SILENCE

During WWII, the U.S. government assured the public that it was protecting national security by publicizing arrests of enemy aliens. However, officials made efforts to conceal specific details of the Justice Department camps and the hostage 

exchange program from the American public. Guards at the alien internment camps 

were required to sign statements agreeing not to reveal information about the 

camps. The internees themselves were also warned not to talk. Some have reported 

signing oaths of silence with which they complied all their lives, fearing the FBI 

would again come to their doors. 

For half a century, internees kept their stories hidden. Many felt shame and fear 

long after the war and refused to discuss their experiences, even with their families. 

30 

Even today, after more than six decades, many internees are reluctant to talk to 

researchers or allow their real names to be used in books and articles. 

Yet the emotional toll from their wartime trauma was extensive. After being labeled as enemy aliens and incarcerated, internees conducted daily life behind 

barbed-wire fences, klieg lights, and watchtowers patrolled by armed guards with 

dogs, experiencing all the problems associated with imprisonment. Mail was restricted and heavily censored, with no drawings, erasures or references to movements of internees or to the enemy nation allowed. For those in camps far from 

home, visitors were rare. Most of the internees were men separated from their families and loved ones. Army restrictions for internees tended to be even more severe 

than those imposed by the INS. Internees were housed in tents with wooden floors, 

four to a tent. Most were given POW uniforms to wear. Any lapse into the ‘‘enemy 

language’’ was forbidden. Internees were paid 10 cents a day for chores they performed. 

Having lost the fruits of a lifetime of labor, and facing an uncertain future, many 

adults suffered depression, listlessness, and despair. Many had grown children in 

the U.S. military, fighting overseas for a country which had locked up their parents. 

Many internees spent their days appealing to the government for release. Their 

pleas for rehearings were generally ignored. When the government persistently 

asked whether they wanted to repatriate to Germany or Japan, some grudgingly accepted this alternative to indefinite internment. Some were offered the chance to 

work outside the camps, such as on railroad construction. Most preferred the hard 

labor to incarceration. 

There were also tensions and violence in some camps. A few hard-core German 

loyalists in the camps occasionally quarreled with and intimidated those with whom 

they disagreed politically. Jewish internees, unaccountably placed near pro-Nazi 

prisoners, were harassed and sometimes beaten. Pro- and anti-fascist factions 

among the Italians occasionally scuffled. 

Most internees had a very difficult time reentering society after their long incarceration. They had lost their homes and belongings and could not go back to their 

old jobs. Many were stigmatized, particularly in the communities where the arrests 

and internment were well publicized. Others, particularly children, had their educational and economic opportunities seriously curtailed. Most internees never completely made the transition back to life before the FBI first knocked on their doors. 

Deportees trying to return to the United States had an even more difficult time adjusting. 

LEGACY OF THE WORLD WAR II EXPERIENCE

The Alien Enemy Act of 1918, which authorized internment of ‘‘enemy aliens’’ during WWII, remains intact. It permits arrests, evacuation, internment and other actions against ‘‘enemy aliens’’ if the United States becomes involved in a war, or a 

foreign country threatens invasion. Resident aliens who have not become naturalized citizens are still vulnerable any time their birth-country is perceived as a 

threat to U.S. interests. 

All of the communities affected by the wartime treatment of enemy aliens agree 

that public education about the past is vital to preventing future mistreatment of 

immigrants. As former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote during his term 

from 1930–42: 

‘‘You may think that the Constitution is your security—it is nothing but a piece 

of paper. You may think that the statutes are your security—they are nothing 

but words in a book. You may think that [the] elaborate mechanism of government is your security—it is nothing at all, unless you have sound and 

uncorrupted public opinion to give life to your Constitution, to give vitality to 

your statutes, to make efficient your government machinery.’’ 

An understanding of the history of the Alien Enemy Control Program can help 

policy makers avoid the mistakes of World War II. 

What were those mistakes? 

First, we relied on weak intelligence to help us separate the very few who were 

truly dangerous from the many who were innocent. 

Second, we assumed that aliens are the enemy. The very title of the Alien Enemies Act weds the two ideas. It led to a dragnet approach in which a net was 

thrown over entire German, Italian, and Japanese communities in the hopes of 

catching a few spies or saboteurs. 

Finally, in dealing with our immigrant population, we ignored the very due process provisions of the Constitution that bought those immigrants here seeking freedom and opportunity. 

31 

So why has so little historical attention been paid to the Alien Enemy Program 

which affected so many thousands of people from German, Italian, and Japanese 

communities? The simple answer is historical neglect and governmental shame. But 

perhaps the answer also lies in something one German internee chose to call 

‘‘Gitterkrankheit,’’ the fence sickness. After you’ve been behind barbed wire for 

months and years, the internee explained, a part of you begins to feel like a criminal. When you finally get out, he said, you would rather not talk about the past. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you so much. And I didn’t know the Los 

Angeles storm story; it is fascinating. 

Ms. Ebel, I would like to hear from you. 

TESTIMONY OF KAREN E. EBEL, PRESIDENT, 

GERMAN AMERICAN INTERNEE COALITION 

Ms. EBEL. My father, Max Ebel, a German internee, died in May 

2007. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Could you turn on your microphone, please? 

Ms. EBEL. I am sorry. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Very good. 

Ms. EBEL. My father, Max Ebel, a German internee, died in May 

2007. I am sitting where my father should be. One of the last times 

we talked, he told me how sad he was that the Wartime Treatment 

Study Act had not passed. He said, ‘‘Karen, this is important. Don’t 

give up.’’ Moments after he died, all I could think of was that I had 

failed. Almost 88, Dad still didn’t live long enough to hear his government acknowledge his internment. He didn’t even talk about it 

until he was 80, and then only with much prodding. 

Only 17, Dad arrived in New York Harbor in 1937. He left Germany because he had had a dangerous knife fight with local members of the Hitler Youth. They were angry because he wouldn’t join 

in their activities. Following his father to America, Dad boarded 

the ‘‘SS New York’’ with a nickel in his pocket, new woolen knickerbockers, and hope. He once told me ‘‘I was an American right 

from the beginning, and I always will be. I appreciated my freedom 

as much as a fish let out of a bowl.’’ 

On December 5, 1941, Dad learned that his citizenship application was accepted. Two days later, he and a million Germans, Japanese, and Italians became the enemy with a stroke of FDR’s pen. 

Our country was in grave danger, and America had to protect 

itself. Most escaped the internment disaster and some deserved 

what they got, but thousands didn’t. My father was one of them. 

Dad was arrested and detained in September 1942, his adversarial hearing board recommended parole, but the Department of 

Justice deemed him potentially dangerous to the public peace and 

safety of the United States. Internment was ordered. After 3 

months in a Boston detention center, he was sent to Ellis Island, 

where he joined hundreds of other internees living in squalid conditions. 

Then, by blacked out railcar under guard, it was on to Army facilities at Fort Meade, and later Camp Forrest in Tennessee. Finally, he landed at Fort Lincoln, in Bismarck, in May 1943. The 

only descriptive note in his calendar says, ‘‘Arrived. North Dakota. 

This is Hell.’’ 

32 

Dad was back in the fishbowl he thought he had left behind. He 

had no idea why or how he would get out. This was not his American dream. 

He eventually found a way out that he was happy helped his new 

country, too. That fall, about 100 trustworthy internees marched 

out of Fort Lincoln. For several months they lived in boxcars, still 

under guard, replacing rails on the North Dakota plains. 

In April 1944, he was drafted into the Army. Now my dangerous 

father was trustworthy enough to fight, but he flunked his pre-induction physical and remained interned. Because the railroaders’ 

good work helped the U.S. war effort, he got a rare rehearing. 

Dad really never knew why he was interned, but the release recommendation he got years later implied it was because he didn’t 

want to fight in Europe and made pacifist remarks. He apparently 

once said Hitler builds good roads. It states that Dad was in no 

sense disloyal, that his further internment was unjustifiable and 

recommends unconditional release. He was paroled. 

Back in Boston, he was not allowed near railroads. Three years 

after his arrest, he was finally free. One day in the ’80’s listening 

to the news about Japanese Americans, Dad said, ‘‘You know, 

something like that happened to me.’’ I didn’t pursue it; he didn’t 

either. 

Ten years ago, we did. We learned about the enemy alien laws, 

the camps, the exchanges, and the Latin American Program. I 

think my country is better than this. The internees deserve recognition, and the public should know what happened. Progress has 

been made, but slowly and not enough. 

Many still don’t believe Germans and Italians were interned. 

Others think there really weren’t enough to care about, that the internees were mostly only aliens, and that they must have been 

guilty of something to be there in the first place. Many internees 

are still afraid to speak. 

Eight years ago, the Wartime Treatment Study Act was introduced for the first time. It was a wonderful, miraculous day for the 

internees. The bill was just introduced for the fifth time. We are 

so grateful to Representative Wexler, Senators Russ Feingold and 

Charles Grassley, for their diligence. 

The advanced age of the remaining internees weighs heavily on 

my mind. Acknowledgment is long overdue. Sadly, my dad can’t be 

here to see it. You can help make sure the remaining internees do. 

Please make the study commission a reality. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Ebel follows:] 

33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KAREN E. EBEL


KEE-1.eps
34 


KEE-2.eps
35 


KEE-3.eps
36 


KEE-4.eps
37 


KEE-5.eps
38 


KEE-6.eps
39 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. Before we ask Ms. Donald 

to give her testimony we would note that we have been joined by 

Congressman Robert Wexler, a Member of the Committee. 


KEE-7.eps
40 

Ms. Donald, we would love to hear from you now. 

TESTIMONY OF HEIDI GURCKE DONALD, BOARD AND FOUNDING MEMBER, GERMAN AMERICAN INTERNEE COALITION 

Ms. DONALD Libia Yamamoto, from the last panel, and I are sisters, sort of, since she came from Peru and my family came from 

Costa Rica. Seven members of my family were taken from Costa 

Rica for internment in the United States in 1943: my parents, my 

aunt and uncle, my cousin, my sister and I were all—and thousands of others—lost our livelihoods, our homes, our personal property, our countries, and our freedom. 

Over 3,000 ethnic Germans of Latin America were also deported 

through the United States to war-torn Germany. Some of them lost 

their lives. So when I tell you my story, realize that my story is 

one of the least terrible of the stories. 

In World War II, my father was labeled by the United States as 

one of Costa Rica’s 35 most dangerous enemy aliens. After the war, 

in a U.S. governmental review done in 1946, they found that there 

were no facts to that claim. Our family’s whole ordeal hinged on 

unsubstantiated allegations by anonymous informants with one 

true fact: My father had been born in Germany. 

By mid-1941, the U.S. Proclaimed List had ruined my father’s 

business. He and my mother, who had barely ever gardened, tried 

to figure out a way to eke their way through the war years. They 

ended up with the idea of a farm, and for about a year they were 

semi-successful. By mid-1942, though, my father and my uncle 

were thrown into a dirty, vermin-filled, overcrowded prison. My 

mother, Starr, who was a United States citizen, born and raised in 

San Jose, California, wrote this anguished letter to her brother: 

‘‘July 17, 1942. Since the day before yesterday, Werner has been 

in the local penitentiary. We haven’t the remotest idea why they 

arrested him or what is going to happen to him and the many others there, and they won’t let me see anyone to find out the charges 

against him or to do any explaining. Heidi wakes up at night 

screaming, ‘Papi, Papi,’ and today is Ingrid’s first birthday.’’ 

My father also wrote desperately to the United States officials. 

On the 8th of September, ‘‘In a last effort to solve the situation of 

my family, I, Werner Gurcke now interned in the concentration 

camp in San Jose, Costa Rica, sincerely ask to consider the following points: There does not exist a real motive for my internment 

otherwise than that I am German. Even if you do think so, there 

must be a mistake, and I am sure to convince you of it if you will 

have the kindness to present to me the reasons.’’ 

But there was no kindness. There were no hearings; there were 

no legal proceedings; there was nothing. 

So in January 1943 we were loaded onto the United States Army 

Transport Puebla for deportation to the United States. We sailed 

on January 26 and arrived in San Pedro, California on February 

6. There, we were declared to have entered the country illegally because our passports and our visas had been confiscated on shipboard. 

We were given tags to tie to our clothes—these are my family’s 

tag. Imagine: tagged like a piece of baggage—loaded onto a train 

to the Crystal City Alien Detention Station, which later 

41 

euphemistically has been called a family camp. There, public 

health officials found that of our group of 131 people, 66 people required immediate medical attention. Two children required immediate hospitalization, and 55 of us children were sick with whooping cough, including my sister and me. 

Then finally, over 11⁄2 years after my father was arrested, in January 1944, he was finally given a real hearing, and by May of that 

year we were allowed to leave camp, although we were forbidden 

to go home to Costa Rica. My uncle, Karl Oscar, and his Costa 

Rican wife and daughter were sent to Germany that same year. 

Did our experience leave scars? Consider these facts and draw 

your own conclusions: My parents lived with uncertainty and fear 

for almost a decade. My father was barely 61 when he died of lung 

cancer caused or exacerbated by chain-smoking begun during the 

long ordeal. And more than 50 years later my mother, at age 83, 

finally tried to tell me the story. It took me a month of daily visits, 

collecting her memories through her tears. 

Our suffering, our pain, our loss of civil rights has never been acknowledged by Congress. Thousands of lives were damaged; enormous amounts of money, which could be better spent somewhere 

else, were spent with no tangible results except broken families 

and destroyed lives. Without a commission we are being written 

out of history. I think we, as a people, can and should do better 

than that. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Donald follows:] 

42 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HEIDI GURCKE DONALD


HGD-1.eps
43 


HGD-2.eps
44 


HGD-3.eps
45 


HGD-4.eps
46 


HGD-5.eps
47 


HGD-6.eps
48 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much. 

And finally we will turn to you, Doctor. 

TESTIMONY OF JOHN FONTE, DIRECTOR OF CENTER FOR 

AMERICAN COMMON CULTURE AND SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON INSTUTUTE 

Mr. FONTE. Thank you, Madam Chairman and Ranking Member 

King. 

Many historical facts cited in the Feingold-Wexler legislation are 

wrong. It is charged that the actions of the U.S. government during 

World War II had a devastating impact on Italian American communities. Now, I am an Italian American, and for decades have visited many little Italys, but there is no evidence offered in this bill 

of any devastated Italian American communities. 

The FBI rightly picked up pro-fascist, pro-Nazi aliens and citizens, including members of the German American Bund, and the 

blackshirts. Those interned were a relatively small number of people compared to the huge German American and Italian American 

populations in the United States who were overwhelmingly loyal. 

It is significant, there is not reference in any of this legislation 

to pro-Nazi, pro-fascist, and pro-Imperial Japanese activities by 

residents of the United States, including aliens and citizens. Why 

not? 

Distinguished historian Robert Abzug, in a review of Mr. 

Christgau’s book in the Holocaust Review, wrote that, ‘‘One is 

struck’’—this is from Mr. Christgau’s book; reading the book, 

Abzug said, ‘‘One is struck by the benign treatment of the aliens 

and the extraordinary access they had to the legal system and to 

appeal procedures.’’ He said even pro-Nazi German aliens were 

given all of these rights. Professor Abzug noted that most German 

aliens returned home or became American citizens and, ‘‘few 

emerged with permanent scars.’’ 

In 2007 the Department of Justice sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy. The DOJ letter stated that Justice had contacted the senior historian at the U.S. Holocaust Museum. The historian said that the bill’s intended depiction of the treatment of 

Axis citizens and European American citizens were, ‘‘outrageously 

exaggerated.’’ The Holocaust Museum historian, when asked about 

the bill’s accusations that the U.S. government violated the civil 

rights of European American citizens, said that he is aware of no 

historical facts to support these conclusions. 

Now, the facts concerning the Jewish refugees in this bill are accurate, whereas the facts in the rest of the bills are not. So the 

Jewish refugee section could be made into a separate bill, perhaps. 

The bill’s very terminology is fraudulent. It defines German 

American as American citizens and resident aliens of German ancestry. But a German alien living in the United States in 1941 is 

not a German American, but a German national, a citizen of the 

Third Reich living in the United States. 

The bill establishes an independent commission, but there is 

nothing independent about it. The commission includes two members representing the interests of the Italian American community, 

two representing the interests of the German American community. Italian American community—am I going to be represented, 

49 

or millions of other people? Who is going to be representing the interests of the American community? 

The activists will have four of the seven seats on the commission. 

They will recommend appropriate remedies, which, as the Justice 

Department letter noted, could include financial compensation, reparations. 

There is nothing in this bill that would prevent the commission 

from making recommendations for financial compensation for 

former supporters of the Nazi and Fascist regimes. The commission 

is also charged with making recommendations for public education 

programs. These public education programs could become the propaganda of moral equivalence: they did bad things in the war, we 

did bad things in the war. They had concentration camps, we had 

concentration camps. That term has been thrown around today. 

In fact, we heard in the earlier panel a direct reference to the 

language used in the Nuremburg Trials in describing the actions 

of the U.S. government during World War II. I quote—earlier, on 

the first panel—‘‘war crimes and crimes against humanity. This is 

the level of severity of the human rights violations for which the 

United States has not been held accountable.’’ 

This phrase is the exact charge brought against the major Nazi 

war criminals at Nuremburg. The use of the term suggests similarity between the behavior of Franklin Roosevelt’s America and 

Adolf Hitler’s Germany. 

If this commission goes into effect, we, as a Nation, have moved 

from honoring the greatest generation to trashing it. The commission is supposed to make recommendations affecting American national security, protecting the civil liberties in wartime. The agenda 

is clear. The implicit logic of this bill says that there can be no special scrutiny under any circumstance for any group at any time. 

During World War II, my Italian American relatives were subject 

to special scrutiny. And they should have been. Today, we are in 

a conflict with radical Islam. Common sense tells us that there 

should be, in some cases, special scrutiny for some Muslims. 

If there is a conflict with China, then common sense would tell 

us there should be special scrutiy for some Chinese nationals. If 

there is a conflict with Iran, or Serbia, or Luxembourg, the principles of common sense, special scrutiny should apply for resident 

aliens and American citizens connected to this foreign power. 

This bill is not only historically inaccurate, it will teach us the 

wrong lessons of how best to protect our country in the future. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fonte follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN FONTE

Thank you Chairman Lofgren and Ranking Member King. 

To begin with many historical facts cited in the Wartime Treatment Study Act 

are wrong. It is charged that the actions of the government of Franklin D Roosevelt’s during World War II had a ‘‘devastating’’ impact on Italian-American communities whose ‘‘detrimental’’ effects ‘‘are still being experienced.’’ I am an Italian 

American and for decades visited many relatives in a lot of ‘‘little Italys’’ through 

our country. There is no evidence that Italian-American communities were ‘‘devastated.’’ No proof has been offered in this bill of any ‘‘devastated’’ Italian American 

community. 

The FBI rightly picked up those Italian aliens and Italian-American citizens, who 

were pro-Fascist and those German aliens and German-American citizens who were 

50 

pro-Nazi, like members of the German American Bund, the German-American Settlement League and participants in the pro-Nazi Camp Siegfried in New York state. 

They were a relatively small number of people. My grandparents and hundreds of 

thousands of other resident aliens (at that point, enemy aliens) were not disturbed. 

About 11, 000 people of German ancestry (mostly aliens) and about 1, 500 people 

of Italian ancestry (mostly aliens) were interned, The numbers are disputed, but, 

in any case, they are small compared to the huge German-American and Italian 

American populations in the United States that were overwhelmingly loyal and 

deeply involved in the wartime struggle. 

It is significant that there is no reference in this legislation to pro-Nazi, pro-Fascist, and pro-Imperial Japan activities by residents of the United States including 

aliens and citizens during the period from the late 1930s through the Second World 

War. This certainly existed and was successfully combated by the Roosevelt Administration. Why isn’t pro-Axis activity by residents of the United States discussed or 

examined in this legislation? 

History Professor Robert H. Abzug of University of Texas (who is an expert on 

Jewish studies) in a review of John Christgau’s book, Enemies wrote that, ‘‘one is 

struck by the benign treatment of aliens and the extraordinary access they had to 

the legal system and to the appeal procedures.’’ This included ‘‘even pro-Nazi German aliens.’’ He notes most of the German aliens returned home or became American citizens and ‘‘few emerged with permanent scars.’’ [source: Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol., I, No. 2, pp 330–31 (Washington: US Holocaust Memorial Museum, 1986)] 

The inclusion of the issue of Jewish refugees to this bill was not part of the original concept of the bill and is an obvious fig-leaf, added later. On May 8, 2007 the 

Department of Justice sent a letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Leahy on the 

Wartime Treatment Study Act signed by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Richard A. Hertling. The DOJ letter stated that in 2001 Justice had contacted 

the Senior Historian at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum and the historian said 

‘‘that the bill’s identical depiction of the treatment of Axis citizens and European 

Americans [US citizens] was ‘‘outrageously exaggerated.’’ The Holocaust Museum 

historian when asked about the bill’s accusation that ‘‘the United States Government violated the civil rights of European-American citizens’’ stated that he is 

‘‘aware of no historical facts to support those conclusions.’’ 

The facts concerning the Jewish refugees are accurate, whereas the facts in the 

rest of the bill are not. Therefore, if this issue is going to advance further, it would 

make sense to separate the Jewish refugee section into perhaps another bill and not 

include it in the issue of wartime treatment of German and Italian nationals. 

The bill’s terminology is fraudulent. It defines ‘‘German-American’’ as US citizens 

and resident aliens of German ancestry. But a German alien living in the United 

States in 1941, that is to say, a citizen of Nazi Germany who is not a citizen of the 

United States is clearly not a ‘‘German-American,’’ but a German national living in 

America. The same fraudulent terminology is used in the term ‘‘Italian-American.’’ 

Italian Americans should be defined as American citizens of Italian ancestry, not 

citizens of Italy living in the United States. This misuse of terminology comes from 

the earlier Japanese American legislation and this also should be corrected. 

For the most part, the Roosevelt Administration was not dealing with American 

citizens (except for those who had shown an affinity for Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. We have heard complaints that American born children of German nationals 

(who would be American citizens by birth) were returned to Germany with their 

parents. Under the circumstances what was the administration of Franklin D Roosevelt supposed to do: separate the children from their parents? 

It is charged by the activists for this legislation that, for example, Italian resident 

aliens and Italian-American fishermen were unfairly prohibited from fishing in certain areas. Stephen Sulejman Schwartz, a moderate Muslim-American journalist 

discussed this issue in the Weekly Standard as follows: 

‘‘Venturing into restricted waters was forbidden to all vessels of every kind, 

whether commercial or pleasure boats, without regard for their owner’s citizenship. 

Allegations that Italian-American fishing boats were confiscated also turn out to be 

a hoax. Boats were requisitioned by the federal authorities through charter or purchase, and the only craft confiscated belonged to owners who had repeatedly made 

incursions into prohibited waters.’’[source: The Weekly Standard, December 10, 

2001] 

There are complaints by the activists supporting this legislation about loss of civil 

liberties because of travel restrictions and the requirement to carry an identity card, 

and the like. But, as the same Weekly Standard article notes: 

‘‘What American’s freedom was not restricted during World War II? A draft was 

instituted, and evaders of it were imprisoned; consumer goods were rationed, wages, 

51 

prices, rents, and other transactions were controlled . . . travel was limited and ordinary people were regularly stopped and interrogated. . . . Wars are by definition 

unfair and uncomfortable. Loyalty tests may be especially uncomfortable to some, 

but should not trouble those whose loyalties are clear.’’ [source: same Weekly Standard article as above] 

The bill allegedly establishes a so-called ‘‘independent’’ commission. But there is 

nothing ‘‘independent’’ about it. As the Justice Department letter stated, the results 

are already ‘‘predetermined.’’ We have already been told in the bill that the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt was guilty of gross human rights violations. The 

commission is to include ‘‘two members representing the interests of the Italian 

American community’’ and ‘‘two members representing the interests of the German 

American community.’’ How is that going to be determined? As an Italian American 

are my interests going to be represented? Remember the fraudulent definition of 

German American and Italian American communities means that we are not necessarily taking about the interests of American citizens when using these terms. 

Who, one wonders, is going to be representing the interests of the ‘‘American community.’’ 

In short, the activists are going to be in charge with four of the seven seats on 

the commission. They are supposed to recommend ‘‘appropriate remedies,’’ which, as 

the Justice Department letter notes, ‘‘could include financial compensation.’’ In 

other words, they could recommend ‘‘reparations.’’ Certainly, there is nothing in the 

bill that would prevent the commission from making recommendations for financial 

compensation for former supporters of the Nazi and Fascist regimes, whether the 

beneficiaries are American citizens or German or Italian citizens. Clearly, there is 

nothing to prevent the commission from making such recommendations as the legislation is currently written. 

The commission is also charged with making recommendations for ‘‘public education programs related to the US Government’s Wartime Treatment of European 

Americans.’’ Is there any doubt that these ‘‘public education programs’’ will be the 

propaganda of moral equivalence: ‘‘they did bad things, so did we; they interned people in camps, so did we.’’ For example, one activist who is testifying here today used 

the direct language of the Nuremberg Trials in describing the actions of the United 

States government during World War II in a speech five years ago: 

The activist declared: ‘‘War crimes and crimes against humanity—this is the level 

of the severity of the human rights violations for which the United States has not 

been held accountable.’’ The phrase, ‘‘War crimes and crimes against humanity’’ 

were the exact charges brought against the major Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, 

many of whom were found guilty and executed. The use of the terms ‘‘war crimes 

and crimes against humanity’’ cannot be accidental, but an attempt to suggest similarities of behavior between Franklin Roosevelt’s America and Adolf Hitler’s Germany during World War II. [source: http://www.campaignforjusticejla.org/resources/ 

speeches/dor2004lgracelshimizu.html 

If this commission goes into effect, we, as a nation, will have moved from honoring 

the ‘‘greatest generation’’ to trashing it. The generation that through tremendous 

sacrifices defeated the totalitarian axis of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and the militarists of Imperial Japan. 

FUTURE ISSUES

Worst of all, this stacked commission of activists and special interest pleaders is 

supposed to make recommendations for the future affecting American national security such as ‘‘assessing the continued viability of the Alien Enemies Act’’ and protecting ‘‘civil liberties in wartime.’’ There is, of course, nothing in this legislation 

about how to combat internal subversion in wartime from residents (aliens and citizens) of our country whose loyalty is not to the United States. 

What recommendations for the future will be forthcoming from this commission? 

One of the activists, who is a majority witness here today declared: 

‘‘The necessity for this [public] education has been underscored in the aftermath 

of 9/11 and the unfolding of the global and domestic ‘war on terrorism.’ ’’ 

What happened during World War II ‘‘is history repeating itself in the government’s current racial profiling.’’ [source, same as previous web listing on Campaign 

for Justice website] 

The agenda here is clear and it weakens American security. The implicit logic of 

the bill says that there can be no special scrutiny for any particular group at any 

time, as, for example, occurred was during World War II. However, we should implement common sense special scrutiny actions where appropriate. For example, it 

makes sense for security at our nation’s airports (TSA) to examine special scrutiny 

52 

measures used by other liberal democratic nation—states such as Israel and Spain 

in dealing with potential threats. 

In fact, if we are serious about protecting lives, we need at different times to exercise a particular type of special scrutiny. During World War II it made sense to 

treat the communities of German and Italian aliens and citizens differently from 

other citizens and residents of the US. It certainly made sense to treat those who 

had expressed an ideological affinity with Nazism, Fascism, and Japanese imperialism differently from other residents and citizens of the US. 

My relatives as Italian Americans during World War II were subject to special 

scrutiny and they should have been. Today, we are in conflict (whether admitted 

or not) with radical Islam. This means that common sense tells us that there should 

be, in some cases (not blanket, but in some cases), special scrutiny for Muslims 

(residents and citizens) in America. If there is a conflict with China, say over Taiwan, then common sense would tell us that there should be special scrutiny for Chinese nationals (and some other residents, including citizens) living in the US. Likewise, if there is a conflict with Venezuela, Iran, Serbia, Somalia or Luxembourg, the 

same principle of common sense special scrutiny should apply for resident aliens 

and American citizens connected with the foreign power. 

The Wartime Treatment Study act is not only historically inaccurate, most importantly, it will teach us the wrong lessons on how best to protect our country in the 

future. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Now we will turn to Members of the Committee to see if there 

are questions for any of the panel members. 

First I will turn to you, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Again, I thank all the witnesses for their testimony. A series of 

questions arise for me, but I would—before I ask them, I have an 

article here that is the ‘‘Campaign for Justice,’’ dated February 22, 

2004, an article written by Grace Shimizu, that I ask unanimous 

consent to introduce into the record. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

53 


D-1.eps
54 


D-2.eps
55 


D-3.eps
56 


D-4.eps
57 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair, and all. That is direct contradiction to the earlier testimony. And I wanted to point out that 

‘‘Hill or Bill’s good rules by all account, I think so,’’ on a statement 

made that turned out to apparently be the lead of our pejorative. 

But some of the questions that come to mind to me would be, as 

I listen to Mr. Christgau, this tone of America. And I am just askVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:22 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031909\48322.000 HJUD1 PsN: 48322

D-5.eps
58 

ing myself as I listen to your testimony, if you were to list the 

countries in the world and in order of their morality, or their relative morality, where would you put the United States with—— 

Mr. CHRISTGAU. Number one. 

Mr. KING. As the most moral Nation? 

Mr. CHRISTGAU. Yes. 

Mr. KING. Very good. That really helps me put your testimony 

on a different perspective, and I just appreciate that. 

And I would ask also of Ms. Ebel this question, and I know that 

this gets focused on the family history and the things that you 

know because of personal experience, et cetera, but have you rolled 

over the thought about how everybody’s destiny is changed by a 

war? And I know that your testimony reflects upon how your family’s destiny was changed because of the actions that took place 

within the context of this war. 

Have you speculated on how different it might be if the internees 

had been drafted rather than interned? A certain percentage would 

have gone into combat and been put at great risk. Would that have 

been an injustice to draft them into the military rather than intern? 

Ms. EBEL. It is true that they could have been interned or they 

could have been drafted and gone into the war. In my father’s case, 

he objected to it because he had family in Europe, and he was concerned about fighting against his brother and his cousin, and so 

that is why he objected to it. In his release recommendation, they 

also noted that he was disappointed that he had flunked his preinduction physical, and that he was willing, then, to go and fight. 

But are you asking me whether it would be better to draft enemy 

aliens and have them fight in the war than intern them? 

Mr. KING. I would like to ask you a more general question, and 

less specific. But, if there was a conscientious objections, or as 

going back to Germany where my uncles went even though my 

grandmother came from there the previous generation, there was 

another theater in Japan, which we have heard about, so from that 

perspective, I would just ask if you have contemplated about, as 

you speak for many others, I believe, here as a witness, how the 

destiny might have changed had some of them been sent into the 

front and perhaps been captured by the enemy and put through 

those camps instead? Wouldn’t we have had more fatalities—some 

fatalities among this group that you are representing today that 

wouldn’t have lived through the war? 

Ms. EBEL. Yes, I think we would have. 

Mr. KING. And would that have been a worse atrocity? 

Ms. EBEL. For them to go in and fight in a war and die for their 

country? Yes. But I also wanted—— 

Mr. KING. And many of our contemporaries and many of our parents were engaged in that in a noble patriotic effort and lost their 

lives. So I raise that at the beginning. I just am having trouble getting past that comparison. 

I think I should turn to Mr. Fonte and ask if you would comment 

on that? 

Ms. EBEL. Well, I just want to say that my father was willing 

to go to the Pacific, but he had objected to going to Germany. And 

I also want to add that there were many internees who had family 

59 

members fighting in Europe and in the Pacific while they were sitting in internment camps. 

Mr. KING. I agree. Thank you. 

Mr. Fonte? 

Mr. FONTE. Well, in fact, my uncle was involved—and fought 

against the Italians and Sicilians during a war, too, so as many 

Italian Americans did. 

Mr. KING. I thank you. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman yields back. 

I would ask Ms. Sa ́nchez if she has a question. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. I just very briefly wanted to follow up on something that Ms. Ebel said regarding the fact that many aliens who 

were interned during this period had grown children that were 

fighting for the U.S. military effort, and I wanted to ask—our first 

witness, were there—how often that happened that they had family 

that was fighting for the United States while their parents while 

their parents were sitting in interment camps. 

Mr. CHRISTGAU. It happened frequently. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. And that was never taken into consideration when 

they were deciding who would be interned. 

Mr. CHRISTGAU. No, it was not. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Ms. Ebel, you stated that your father, while he 

was being interned, was called up to be drafted by the Army. Don’t 

you find it kind of ironic that they would be drafting a so-called 

dangerous person to serve in the military for the United States? 

Ms. EBEL. Well, I thought it was a great irony that he was so 

dangerous that he couldn’t be free in the United States, but he 

could go and fight on behalf of the United States. And then when 

he flunked his physical, he went right back into the internment 

camp again. 

I just want to add one interesting anecdote in response to your 

earlier question, was that during the Jimmy Doolittle Raid, one of 

the navigators for Jimmy Doolittle was a German American-born 

man, and his father was an alien internee in Washington State. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. A wonderful way to treat patriots. 

Last question for you: Those who were allowed to go home after 

the end of the war in 1945 had to sign an oath of silence not to 

talk about their internment. Do you know what the penalty was for 

speaking out against what had happened? 

Ms. EBEL. My understanding is that the penalty was possible deportation and possible internment, and that was the precise reason 

why many who signed the oath never spoke. I have heard of several stories where there were deathbed confessions of internment, 

and the family was just around, they couldn’t even believe what 

they were hearing. So the devastation to the individuals who were 

interned continued long after the internment. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you all for your testimony, and I yield back. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady yields back. 

The gentleman from California wishes to ask a question. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. 

As you may know, during my prior service in Congress I was selected to serve on the Commission on Wartime Relocation, and the 

civilians always know me, sitting Member of Congress who served 

60 

on that panel. I did that because I grew up in southern California 

and was completely unaware of the treatment of Japanese Americans and Japanese nationals. 

My home area, I lived not too far—I grew up not too far away 

from Federal Island, unaware that prior to World War II there 

was—Japanese American village there—fishing village—that was 

never returned after the war. And I grew up with the Japanese 

Americans in my community that had never heard about that. So 

when this was brought to my attention in the first Congress—the 

first time I was in Congress—I supported the effort to establish a 

commission. 

I did so by getting sufficient Republican votes to make sure that 

we could pass it, but I did so at that time by promising Members 

that it was not a simple excuse for granting reparations; rather, it 

was a commission—study the record and establish what the history 

was. But I do recall at the very first meeting that we had of the 

commission, one of the commissioners turned to us assembled and 

said, ‘‘Okay, how much money are we talking about?’’ which, frankly, put off alarm bells in my head because I had promised Members 

that was not the purpose of it. Rather, I had thought it was important for us to investigate that period of time, since it was fairly 

well unknown about the treatment of fellow citizens and people 

who were here legally at that time. 

I still think it is important for us to have historical records so 

that we know. I don’t think we know enough about how we—what 

the decisions were with respect to the Japanese Latin Americans 

here, and there is a lot of lack of knowledge with respect to Germans and Italians. 

But I would say that—and I am a co-sponsor of legislation to look 

at the question of Japanese Latin American treatment, but I would 

say this: I think we ought to be careful about how we handle this. 

I hear about members of your family who were reluctant to talk 

about their experiences. My dad was drafted into World War II as 

a doctor. He was a battle—he was a physician who was within one 

block, as I was told by someone who called me just a year ago, 

within one block of the front lines in Normandy. He received a Purple Heart there. 

He never spoke in any detail about his experiences in World War 

II. It wasn’t because he signed some oath. Because that experience 

was so horrendous. He told me he did not—he tried not to make 

friends, because he lost them so fast. He described to me one time 

one friend he did make who was blown up in front of his eyes, and 

there were just pieces of flesh and that was all that was left. 

So there are many who suffered, and many who, in that generation, sacrificed. I would hope that if we move on these bills, and 

the bill in which I have cosponsored, that we would, I hope, look 

at establishing a proper historical record as being the prime reason 

we are doing this, not that we are looking at making amends by 

reparations or something like that. 

Let me just say this: It is awfully easy for a generation 60 years 

later to say, ‘‘God, you were terrible, and we wouldn’t have done 

this.’’ My hope is that if you have a historical record established, 

we learn from those experiences, try and adopt some perspective 

61 

and some policies which prevent us from making some mistakes 

that were made. 

But just to set a little record, because there was some talk about 

the FBI. There was one person in the higher positions of the Federal Government who disagreed with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 

decision to round up Japanese Americans and nationals from the 

east and west coast. You know who that person was? J. Edgar Hoover, who said that based on the best information he had he thought 

he could limit the number of people we are talking about to the 

ones that he thought were suspicious. Now, in retrospect, we probably know that he was wrong on some of the people they would 

have rounded up. Wouldn’t that have been a better process than 

what we did do? 

And in fact, if you want to look at the historical record, it was 

in Hawaii that we did not impose that same order because the military commander in Hawaii said if we had that same order that was 

imposed in Hawaii we wouldn’t have enough workers, and we 

wouldn’t have an opportunity to be able to maintain the economy 

there. And so there we used J. Edgar Hoover’s approach, and we 

only rounded up a few people of Japanese American ancestry. 

The only point I am trying to make is as one who has been 

through this, who has been through the commission, sat on it, the 

only sitting Member of Congress who was willing to sit on that 

commission, I know the emotion that goes into it, and I know the 

possibilities of utilizing language. For anybody to say that we had 

concentration camps, and therefore equate what we did with what 

the Germans did, it is historically incorrect and casts a dispersion 

upon that generation. 

And to suggest that we engaged in war crimes or crimes against 

humanity, frankly, I think, is more than exaggeration. It upsets the 

historical record and frankly, it is not the way to gain support in 

the Congress of the United States and for a commission to look at 

any of this. I hope we would understand that—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentleman’s time has expired, and we have 

given extra time because of your service on the first commission. 

And we would thank this panel for your testimony. 

Ms. Ebel, I was particularly touched by your commitment to your 

father. As someone who has lost her father, I know that those obligations are important ones indeed, and I think you are living up 

to your promise. 

Ms. EBEL. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you very much, and we will ask our next 

panel to come forward. 

I will introduce them as they step forward. First, Valery Bazarov. 

Mr. Bazarov was born in Russia in 1942, immigrated to the United 

States in 1988. He holds two graduate degrees from Odessa State 

University and Hunter College. He joined the Hebrew Immigrant 

Society in 1988 and currently is committed to finding and honoring 

the heroes of Jewish and non-Jewish descent who rescued European Jews during the Holocaust. 

Our next witness is David Harris. Mr. Harris has been the executive director of the American Jewish Committee since 1990. He 

travels the globe meeting with world leaders to advance the 

wellbeing of Israel, combat anti-Semitism, monitor the condition of 

62 

Jewish communities, and promote intergroup and inter-religious 

understanding. He is a prolific author and commentator, and his 

insightful weekly AJC radio broadcasts are heard by an estimated 

35 billion listeners nationwide on the CBS radio network. 

Next, I am pleased as Mr. Leo Bretholz is here. Mr. Bretholz was 

in France in 1940, and by the summer of 1941, HIAS had assisted 

his aunt and uncle in the U.S. to apply for a visa for their nephew. 

However, in July 1941, just a day after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, his visa was delayed. Mr. Bretholz spent the next 6 years running from city to city around Europe barely escaping death several 

times. Finally, in 1947, he obtained a visa to the United States. He 

has published a book, ‘‘Leap Into Darkness,’’ that describes his life 

between 1941 to 1947. 

And the final witness is Michael Horowitz. Mr. Horowitz is the 

director of the Hudson Institute’s project for civil justice reform and 

project for international religious liberty. He served as general 

council for the Office of Management and Budget under the Reagan 

administration and has taught law at the University of Mississippi 

and at Georgetown. He has also practiced law as a partner at several national firms. 

Now, before I ask you to testify, I would like to note the presence 

in our audience today of Ira Crispen, who is a pretty famous immigration lawyer and author of immigration text that is used as a 

sourcebook throughout the United States. 

So Ira, we are very happy to have you here today, and honored, 

actually, by your presence. 

Ms. WATERS. And he is my friend. 

Ms. LOFGREN. And also, Ms. Waters’ friend, so also to your credit. 

We would ask, as you have heard before, your full statements 

will be made part of the official record. We would ask your testimony to consume about 5 minutes, and then we will have an opportunity to ask questions. 

So if we could begin with you, Mr. Bazarov? 

Mr. BAZAROV. Madam Chair, may I ask your permission to testify after Leo Bretholz, and you will understand why—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. That would be fine. 

Mr. BAZAROV. Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Then we will go to Mr. Harris. 

TESTIMONY OF DAVID A. HARRIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE (AJC) 

Mr. HARRIS. Do I get his 5 minutes too? [Laughter.] 

Madam Chairwoman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, my name is David Harris. I am the executive director 

of the American Jewish Committee. Thank you for holding this 

hearing on the topic of immense historical importance that resonates to the present day. 

Time does not permit more than a brief discussion of U.S. immigration policy during the years of the Third Reich. Fortunately, 

there are many scholarly works and personal testimonies to fill out 

the picture. They make clear that as a Nation we did far less to 

rescue Jews who were targeted for extinction by the Nazi juggernaut than we could and should have. 

63 

Allow me to cite just three examples that I believe encapsulate 

the larger story. In May 1939, a passenger liner, the ‘‘St. Louis,’’ 

set sail from Hamburg with over 900 Jewish refugees. It was destined for Cuba, but on arrival Cuban officials canceled the passengers’ transit visas and refused to let all but a handful disembark. 

The ship then headed for the coast of Florida, coming so close 

that the refugees could see the lights of Miami, but U.S. officials 

refused to let it enter a port. The ship was sent back to Europe, 

and more than a quarter of the passengers, we know, were killed 

by the Nazis. Imagine, Madam Chairwoman, our country could find 

neither the compassion nor the legal basis to admit 900 Jews fleeing Hitler who were within sight of our shores. 

The next year, 1940, Assistant Secretary of State Breckenridge 

Long wrote his now legendary words, ‘‘We can delay and effectively 

stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices 

which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of 

the visas.’’ 

Imagine key State Department officials, when they were not suppressing information coming from Europe about the fate of the 

Jews—and that is its own story—were seeking ways to block entry 

into the United States. In so doing, they failed even to meet the 

strict immigration quotas operative at the time. From 1933 onward, and I would wish to stress this point, the annual country 

quota for immigrants from Germany was only filled once—exactly 

once—even though, as you can well imagine, there was no shortage 

of applicants. The obstacle was a lack of compassion. 

And the refugees had few other places to turn: Britain, which 

itself took in 70,000 European Jews, succumbed to Arab pressure 

and tightened still further entry into Mandatory Palestine when, 

tragically, there was no sovereign Israel to offer safe haven. The 

vast majority of Europe’s Jews, feeling the Nazi noose tightening 

around their necks, were trapped—literally trapped—even when 

they could still leave countries like Germany and Austria. Too 

many had nowhere to go; they were the unwanted flotsam of the 

Second World War. 

And third, on January 16, 1944, Henry Morgenthau, the secretary of the treasury, wrote his now famous cri de coeur to President Roosevelt. He quoted a Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

report recommending a commission to formulate plans to save Europe’s Jews. The Committee report said, ‘‘We have talked; we have 

sympathized; we have expressed our horror; the time to act is long 

past due.’’ 

At the conclusion of Morgenthau’s admirable letter, with anger 

and anguish he wrote to the President, his friend, referring to the 

State Department—our State Department—‘‘The matter of rescuing the Jews from extermination is a trust too great to remain 

in the hands of men who are indifferent, callous, and perhaps even 

hostile.’’ Morgenthau’s intervention resulted in the creation of the 

U.S. War Refugee Board, which protected an estimated 200,000 

Jews from otherwise certain death. 

64 

It was a stark reminder of what this country was capable of 

when it resolved to act. If only we had acted sooner. But alas, the 

government spent little time considering ways to rescue Jews, slow 

down the transport trains to the camps, bomb the machinery of 

death, or warn the Nazis of sever retribution for their genocidal 

policy. 

Madam Chairwoman, ladies and gentlemen, I cannot end this 

testimony without a personal word. Even with the falures of omission and commission in American policy, an estimate 200,000 Jews 

were able to enter the United States from 1933 to 1945. That number may have been a mere pittance compared to those who sought 

and were eligible for entry, but nonetheless, those 200,000 Jews 

were saved. 

I would not be here today were it not for that group of 200,000. 

My mother and maternal grandparents were among them, arriving 

in New York in November 1941. Their entry into the United States, 

though, was not easy, I assure you. But in the end, having crossed 

the Iberian Peninsula to Lisbon, the boarded the ‘‘SS Exeter’’ and 

found a safe haven and new start in this country. 

If only more leaders had had the capacity not only to grasp the 

genocide at had, but also to identify with the anguish of the victims 

who, until the very end, wanted to believe that their plight would 

not, could not, go neglected. Then there would have been no need 

at least for my part of the panel. And yes, there would be many 

more people like myself, today proud to call America home. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID A. HARRIS

Madame Chairwoman, Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, 

My name is David Harris. I am the executive director of the American Jewish 

Committee. 

Permit me to thank you for holding this hearing on a topic of immense historical 

importance that continues to resonate—and haunt us—to the present day. 

Time does not permit more than a brief review of U.S. immigration policy from 

1933 to 1945, the years that coincide with the rule of the Third Reich. Fortunately, 

there are many scholarly works on the subject, as well as personal testimonies, 

which fill out the picture. 

Upon assuming office in 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt was immediately 

confronted with two daunting challenges—one domestic, the other foreign. 

At home, President Roosevelt faced the devastating impact of the Great Depression and the pressing need to rebuild the economy and restore confidence in the nation. 

Abroad, President Roosevelt took office just weeks after Adolf Hitler ascended to 

power in Berlin. 

From the start, the President showed courage and sagacity in dealing with the 

domestic challenge, while, over time, recognizing, to his everlasting credit, that a 

country unenthusiastic about the prospect of once again rescuing Europe from its 

own demons, as it had in the First World War, needed to be prepared for that eventuality. 

But the Roosevelt era included one great failing. As a nation, we did far less to 

rescue Jews, who were targeted for extinction by the Nazi juggernaut, than we could 

and should have. 

Who was to blame? Frankly, it would be easier, and much shorter, to list who was 

not to blame. 

The reasons, excuses, and defenses for those who failed to act could fill volumes. 

However sensitive President Roosevelt might have been to the Jews’ plight, and 

there is reason to believe that he was, domestic politics at the time made it difficult 

for him to act. 

65 

He was fearful of inciting the fertile ground of domestic anti-Semitism and facing 

the wrath of widespread nativist sentiment, both attested to by public opinion polls 

at the time. Moreover, he was convinced, once the U.S. entered the war, that the 

best way to help Europe’s Jews was to vanquish the Nazis as quickly as possible, 

without any so-called distraction or diversion of resources. 

The Congress, while including some Members who desperately wanted to help beleaguered Jews, could not overcome the resistance of restrictionist colleagues, who, 

reflecting the popular mood, were unwilling to revisit strict immigration laws adopted in 1924, leaving those laws intact throughout the period under discussion here. 

The State Department, plagued by the bureaucratic instinct for inertia and legalism at its worst, not to mention a tissue-thin facade that barely concealed the antiSemitism of some of its key decision-makers, was the last place in Washington to 

look for help. 

The general public was certainly not clamoring for the gates to be opened. Fearful 

of more newcomers, who were seen as threats to scarce jobs, and influenced the 

hysteria wrought by demagogues like Father Charles Coughlin, who railed against 

the Jews in his popular radio broadcasts, the American people exerted little pressure on elected officials to do something dramatic to help Europe’s embattled Jews. 

In fact, a 1942 survey, cited by Leonard Dinnerstein in Antisemitism in America, 

found that Americans rated Jews as the third greatest ‘‘menace’’ to the country, behind only Germans and Japanese, the country’s sworn wartime enemies. By 1944, 

Jews had moved to the top of the list, with 24 percent of Americans believing that 

Jews posed the greatest danger. 

With notably few exceptions, the media did not experience its proudest moment, 

either. In such leading newspapers and opinion-molders as the New York Times, stories about the plight of Hitler’s victims were often brief and buried, and editorials 

were few and far between. They hardly contributed to an understanding of, much 

less a popular outrage against, what was taking place in Europe, even as the grisly 

facts of the Nazi eliminationist plans emerged. 

Jewish agencies, including my own, were alarmed by the trajectory of developments and sought in their various ways to raise consciousness and reach decisionmakers, though, it must be said, their clout was severely limited. Indeed, as historian Henry Feingold despairingly notes in The Politics of Rescue: 

Much of their formidable organizational resources were dissipated in internal 

bickering until it seemed as if Jews were more anxious to tear each other apart 

than to rescue their coreligionists. 

I could go on. Suffice it to say that this was not our country’s finest hour. 

In the interests of time, let me cite just three examples that, I believe, encapsulate the larger story. 

In May 1939, a passenger liner, the St. Louis, set sail from Hamburg with over 

900 Jewish refugees. It was destined for Cuba, but, on arrival, Cuban officials cancelled the transit visas that had been issued to the passengers and refused to let 

all but a tiny handful disembark. The ship then headed for the coast of Florida, 

coming so close that the refugees could see the lights of Miami, but U.S. officials 

callously refused to let it enter a port and discharge its passengers. Rather, the ship 

was sent back to Europe. More than a quarter of the passengers, it is known, were 

subsequently killed by the Nazis. 

Imagine, our country could find neither the compassion nor the legal basis to 

admit 900 Jews fleeing Hitler who were within sight of our shores. 

The next year, Assistant Secretary of State Breckenridge Long, no friend of Europe’s Jews, to say the least, wrote his now legendary words: ‘‘We can delay and 

effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to 

put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to 

various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone 

the granting of the visas.’’ 

Imagine, key officials in the State Department, when they were not trying to suppress information coming from Europe about the fate of the Jews, were actively 

seeking ways to block entry to the United States. In so doing, they failed even to 

meet the strict immigration quotas operative at the time. Shockingly, from 1933 onward, for example, the annual country quota for immigrants from Germany was 

only filled once. 

In 1939, for example, there were over 300,000 applicants for the 27,000 German 

slots alone. The failure to do so was not for any shortage of applicants, cumbersome 

though the process was—including, hard as it may be to believe, a Certificate of 

Good Conduct from German police officials and, as of September 30, 1939, proof of 

permission to leave Germany. Rather, the problem was a total lack of compassion. 

66 

Nor were the refugees excluded in the knowledge that, if the United States did 

not resettle them, other nations would. Indeed, few other countries did. 

Apropos, Britain, which itself took in 70,000 European Jews, succumbed to Arab 

pressure and tightened still further entry into Mandatory Palestine, another theoretical escape route, when, tragically, there was no sovereign Israel to offer safe 

haven to Jews in desperate need. 

Two major intergovernmental conferences, Evian in 1938 and Bermuda in 1943, 

were touted as venues for discussion of the refugee crisis, but the U.S. and other 

participants seemed more far interested in the politics of symbolism than in substance. 

In other words, the vast majority of Europe’s Jews, feeling the Nazi noose tightening around their necks, were literally trapped, even when they still had the 

chance to leave countries like Germany and Austria. Too many had nowhere to go. 

They were the unwanted flotsam of the Second World War. 

And on January 16, 1944, Henry Morgenthau, the Secretary of the Treasury, 

wrote his cri de Coeur to his friend, President Roosevelt. 

In it, he said: 

The best summary of the whole situation is contained in one sentence of a report 

submitted on December 20, 1943, by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the 

Senate, recommending the passage of a Resolution (S.R. 203), favoring the appointment of a commission to formulate plans to save the Jews of Europe from 

extinction by Nazi Germany. . . . The committee stated: ‘We have talked; we 

have sympathized; we have expressed our horror; the time to act is long past 

due.’ 

Concluding his admirable letter to the President, Morgenthau wrote, referring to 

the State Department: 

The matter of rescuing the Jews from extermination is a trust too great to remain 

in the hands of men who are indifferent, callous, and perhaps even hostile. 

Imagine, the Secretary of the Treasury felt compelled to resort to such language 

about governmental colleagues in a letter to the President, so angry and anguished 

was he about U.S. refugee policy. 

Importantly, the result of Morgenthau’s intervention was the creation of the U.S. 

War Refugee Board, which, through sheer ingenuity and audacity, was successful 

in rescuing an estimated 200,000 Jews from otherwise certain death. 

It was a stark reminder of what this country was capable of when it resolved to 

act. If only we had done so sooner—but, alas, the government spent little time considering ways to rescue Jews, slow down the transport trains to the extermination 

camps, bomb the machinery of death, or warn the Nazi regime of severe retribution 

for its genocidal policy. 

Madame Chairwoman, I cannot end this testimony without a personal word. 

Even with the grievous failures of omission and commission in American policy, 

an estimated 200,000 Jews were able to enter the United States in the 12-year period from 1933 to 1945. 

That number may have been a mere pittance compared to those who sought entry 

and, indeed, were eligible for admission under the existing quota system, but nonetheless those 200,000 Jews were saved. 

I would not be here today, Madame Chairwoman, were it not for that group of 

200,000. My mother and maternal grandparents were among them, arriving in New 

York in November 1941. 

Their entry into the United States was not made easy, I assure you, but in the 

end, having crossed the Iberian Peninsula to Lisbon, they were able to board the 

SS Exeter and find a safe haven, and new start, in this country. 

But if only more leaders had had the capacity not only to grasp the genocide at 

hand, but also to identify with the anguish of the victims—the victims who till the 

very end wanted to believe that their plight as human beings would not, could not, 

go neglected—then there would have been no need for this hearing. And, yes, there 

would be many more people like myself today proud to call America home. 

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Harris. 

Mr. Bretholz, we will be pleased to hear from you. 

Could we get a microphone? 

67 

TESTIMONY OF LEO BRETHOLZ, 

AUTHOR OF ‘‘LEAP INTO DARKNESS’’ 

Mr. BRETHOLZ. Madam Chairwoman, it is a pleasure to be here 

and a privilege to have been invited to share my story with you. 

I am not an angry man. I am a disappointed man. I am sad because what Mr. Harris just said spells it all out. In addition to 

Breckenridge Long, there was a man at the State Department by 

the name of Robert Borden Reams, and Robert Borden Reams was 

informed by a man in Geneva by the name of Dr. Guerhard 

Reidner—he was the representative in Geneva of the America Jewish Congress—that he had just learned that the Final Solution has 

been decided on the the Wannsee Conference. 

Robert Borden Reams notified the American consulates overseas 

not to pay attention to Dr. Reidner’s report, because for your information, Reidner is Jewish. And Robert Borden Reams was in 

charge of the Nazi Jewish desk at the time at State Department. 

My story is one very personal of survival during the Holocaust. 

I was living in Vienna in Austria in March 1938 when Hitler and 

the German army entered the city and—the annexation of Austria, 

and at the encouragement of my mother, I fled Austria. In April 

1941, I had an aunt and uncle in Baltimore who prepared affidavits hoping to obtain a visa of immigration to the United States. 

That autumn, deportations from Vienna began. 

During this time, I was in France dreaming of immigrating to 

the United States, and every day I went to the post office hoping 

to find good news somewhere beyond so much awfulness. One day 

my eyes fell on a red, white, and blue bordered envelop from America. The postal clerk knew. 

For weeks I had been sighing disappointedly when no mail arrived from the United States, and now my aunt in Baltimore was 

writing to me. And with the help of the HIAS Hebrew Immigration 

Aid Society, my affidavit was accepted by the U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service. In the near future, my aunt wrote I should 

receive notification from a U.S. consulate to appear at its office for 

my visa. 

In November, I received notification that stated, ‘‘Present yourself at the U.S. consulate in Marseilles on December 8, 1941.’’ 

Early in the morning December 8, I stopped at the newspaper 

kiosk on my way to the U.S. consulate in Marseilles. I saw a headline. For those who know French, ‘‘Le Japon Attaque La Flotille 

Americaine A Pearl Harbor’’—Japan has attacked the American 

fleet in Pearl Harbor. 

Now, I didn’t know who this Pearl, was, you know, an unknown 

person to me, of course. I stood transfixed. Never had I heard of 

Pearl Harbor, and now it was the fulcrum of my entire life. At 9 

o’clock I presented myself at the receptionist—to a receptionist at 

the consulate and saw more than a dozen visa applicants. 

We waited at the consulate for someone in authority to enter the 

room to tell us our pleas would be answered, that an exception 

would be made for us. No one came. As I left, the consulate seemed 

a descent into doom, because the consulate had notified, no visa applications are going to be examined. 

After being denied a visa to the United States, I spent the next 

6 years on the run, barely escaping death—as I like to say, trying 

68 

to be one step ahead of those who wanted me dead. And that was 

in Vichy, France. I escaped Germany by swimming across the River 

Sauer into Luxembourg; I escaped the French camp at St. Cyprien 

near the Pyrenees Mountains; I crossed the Alps by foot into Switzerland, hid into attics; I was sent back to Vichy, France from 

Switzerland—by the way, I was arrested; I escaped and leapt from 

a train at night that was bound for Auschwitz—that was on the 

6th of November, 1942, and were it not for this night of November 

6, 1942, I would not be sitting here talking, because in that train, 

20 cattle cars, 50 each, 1,000 people, only five survived, and I am 

one of them. I had escaped from the train with a friend on the 

night of November 6, 1942. 

I wanted to find myself in the United States, and from Baltimore 

I received a letter from my aunt telling me to be patient. She had 

prepared another affidavit of support with the help of the HIAS 

Hebrew Immigration Aid Society. But at the time, there were thousands like me trying to immigrate to the United States. The process was slow. 

Almost a year later, on March 18, 1946, I received a letter from 

the American consulate in Bordeaux saying that I had been given 

a low case number, number 531. Receiving the low case number 

made me feel very important. 

In December 1946 I received my French exit visa. A week later 

I was booked passage on the steamer ‘‘John Ericsson.’’ I departed 

for the United States in January 1947; I arrived here 62 years ago. 

I reached America in 1947 and hid my story for the next 14 

years. Why had my life been spared when so many had been 

taken? Would some miracle arrive in the mail telling me that my 

mother and sisters were still alive somewhere in the wreckage of 

Europe? However, I do know that if I and many others had received visas to immigrate to the United States in 1941, many of us 

would have been spared the horrific experiences we endured, and 

many more people would have survived. 

My mother and sisters were murdered in a death camp, and 20 

more family members. In addition to the story of the ‘‘St. Louis,’’ 

there is also one other story that has to be mentioned, that while 

10,000 children were admitted to England in 1938 and 1939, at 

that time there was a bill introduced in the United States Congress 

to admit several hundred children and it was voted down in the 

United States. 

I want to end, Mrs. Chairwoman, with a quote from George 

Fantayana, and this is all the exercise here, but this is not recrimination because we are changing the past. That is the past. That 

cannot be changed. But George Fantayana said, ‘‘If we do not remember the lessons of history, we are condemned to repeat them.’’ 

And this exercise here is to make sure that that will never get repeated. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bretholz follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEO BRETHOLZ

I was living in Vienna, Austria in March 1938 when Hitler and the German army 

entered the city. At the encouragement of my mother, I fled Austria. 

In April 1941, I had an Aunt and Uncle in Baltimore who prepared affidavits, 

hoping to obtain a visa of immigration for me to the United States. That autumn, 

69 

deportations from Vienna began. An Aunt and cousin of mine were shipped to a 

Lodz ghetto en route to Auschwitz. An Uncle of mine was already there. During this 

time, I was in France, dreaming of immigrating to the United States. Every day, 

I went to the post office, hoping to find good news somewhere beyond so much awfulness. One day, my eyes fell on a red-white-and-blue bordered envelope from 

America. 

‘‘Enfin, ca y est,’’ the postal clerk said. At last, it’s here. 

The postal clerk knew. For weeks, I’d been sighing disappointingly when no mail 

arrived from the United States. Now, my Aunt in Baltimore was writing to me. 

With the help of the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society, my affidavit was accepted 

by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. In the near future, my Aunt 

wrote, I should receive notification from a U.S. Consulate to appear at its office for 

my visa. 

In November, I received the notification that stated: ‘‘Present yourself at the U.S. 

Consulate in Marseilles on December 8, 1941.’’ 

Early in the morning of December 8th, I stopped at a newspaper kiosk on my way 

to the U.S. Consulate. I saw a headline: Le Japon Attaque La Flotille Americaine 

A Pearl Harbor.’’ 

I stood transfixed. Never had I heard of Pearl Harbor, and now it was the fulcrum 

of my entire life. At nine o’clock, I presented myself to a receptionist at the consulate, and saw more than a dozen other visa applicants. 

We were told by the consulate that, ‘‘In view of the hostilities, the consulate has 

been instructed to cease all visa-processing formalities until further notice.’’ 

A woman standing with her small children began to cry, so the children also cried. 

A dreadful wailing commenced. A mistake, we proclaimed. People are waiting for 

us, we moaned. Yes, yes, we were told by the consulate, but this is war and we all 

must make sacrifices. 

We waited at the consulate for someone in authority to enter the room, to tell us 

our pleas would be answered, that an exception would be made for us. No one came. 

As I left the consulate it seemed like a descent into doom. 

After being denied a visa to the United States, I spent the next six years on the 

run, barely escaping death. I had escaped Germany by swimming across the River 

Sauer; I escaped a French camp at St. Cyprien; I crossed the Alps by foot into Switzerland; hid in attics and ceiling crawlspaces; I escaped and leapt from a train at 

night that was bound for Auschwitz; I was arrested by French gendarmes, beaten 

by prison guards, and escaped again; and I joined the French resistance until the 

War in Europe was over. 

The end of the War in Europe in 1945 was not like the end of a winning ballgame 

or the beginning of a new year. Instead, it felt like the winding down of an endless 

era of exhaustion, and the beginning of a great unknown. 

I wanted to find myself in the United States. From Baltimore, I received a letter 

from my Aunt telling me to be patient. She had prepared another affidavit of support with help from the Hebrew Immigration Aid Society. But, at the time, there 

were thousands like me, trying to immigrate to the United States. The process was 

slow. 

Almost a year later, on March 18, 1946, I received a letter from the American 

Consulate in Bordeaux, saying that I had been given a low case number, 531. Receiving the low case number made me feel important. 

In December of 1946, I received my French exit visa. A week later, I was booked 

passage on the steamer John Ericsson. I departed for the United States in January 

of 1947. 

Early on the morning of January 29, 1947, I saw seagulls gliding through the air. 

An airborne welcoming committee, I thought. Our steamer was approaching the 

coastal waters of the United States. In the afternoon, the steamer entered New York 

harbor, moving past a fog-enshrouded Statue of Liberty. Many of us stood on the 

deck of the steamer and gaped, not quite believing we had finally arrived. Spontaneously, we applauded her welcoming figure. 

I reached America in 1947 and hid my story for the next fourteen years. Why had 

my life been spared when so many had been taken? Would some miracle arrive in 

the mail, telling me that my mother and my sisters were still alive somewhere in 

the wreckage of Europe? However, I do know that if I and many others had received 

visas to immigrate to the United States in 1941, many of us would have been spared 

the horrific experiences we endured and many, many more people would have survived. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Bretholz. 

70 

Mr. Bazarov, you have reserved the time for after, and then we 

will go to Mr. Horowitz. 

TESTIMONY OF VALERY BAZAROV, DIRECTOR OF LOCATION 

AND FAMILY HISTORY SERVICE, HEBREW IMMIGRANT AID 

SOCIETY (HIAS) 

Mr. BAZAROV. Thank you. 

Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member King, Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify before this Committee which addresses the issue long time overdue. 

If somebody asks, ‘‘Why address the matters which lost urgency 

a long time ago and with not many witnesses left who can testify 

their own experience?’’ the answer is, we must address the matters 

which happened in the past just not to allow them to happen again. 

It could be argued that nobody learns from history. That is true. 

But there is always hope that the next time it will be different. I 

hope that this time it will be different. 

I have the honor to represent here, at this hearing, the Hebrew 

Immigrant Aid Society, HIAS, which opened its doors in 1881, and 

since then until this day, assists Jews and other people whose lives 

and freedom are in danger. The objective of this statement is to 

show that the numbers of Holocaust survivors would have been far 

greater were it not for the policies of the U.S. State Department 

toward the immigration of European Jews. 

From 1933 through 1941, Germany permitted immigration. The 

problem was finding safe haven for the desperate refugees. It was 

only in the end of 1941 that the Nazis instituted the infamous 

Final Solution and the fate of millions of Jews was sealed. 

Immigration in the time of peace was not an easy assignment. 

During the war, with the rules set by the State Department, it became almost mission impossible. To leave France, for example, a 

refugee needed an exit visa, a transit visa, an entry visa for the 

country of destination, affidavits of support—laural and political affidavits, certificates of good behavior, and paid tickets for the ship 

destined for the United States or other country of immigration. 

Documents with expiration dates had to be valid on the day of departure. Just one document had expired and the refugees needed 

to start all over again. 

In addition, visas were valid only for up to 4 months, and the 

tickets overseas were sold out for many months ahead. Moreover, 

the tickets would be not sold without issued entry visas, and of 

course the United States consulate would not issue a visa without 

a ticket. It is not surprising that the majority of the refugees could 

not make it. 

Sometime ago, I interviewed Hellen Katel, who worked for HIAS 

in France in 1940 and 1941. She remembered that she and her colleagues wept when they were obliged to choose from among the 

thousands of applicants only a few who met the requirements of 

the State Department. 

In 1941, FBI, through the State Department, reviewed allegations against HIAS, which allegedly was bringing the Gestapo 

agents under power of the refugee status. The answer of the consulate was straight and left no doubt that HIAS’s integrity was intact. 

71 

However, 3 weeks after the positive reports, State Department 

addressed the consulate with the following document: The Department received information from reliable confidential sources indicating that the Gestapo is using the Jewish refugee organization, 

HICEM—it is another name of HIAS in Europe—in getting their 

agents into the United States and other western hemisphere countries. It is suggested that any application for visas of persons to 

whom this information applies be examined in the light thereof. 

The only plausible reason for the State Department to issue such 

decree was an attempt to restrain lifesaving Jewish immigration. 

Now, I asked for permission to testify after Mr. Bretholz because 

his testimony is not complete. He doesn’t have in his documents, 

and I was able to procure them from our archives. He was denied 

the entry to the United States for the first time in June 1941, long 

before Pearl Harbor happened. That is when he received the letter 

from the consulate that the rules of the—again, and his visa was 

canceled. Now remember, David Harris quoted this quotation from 

Breckenridge Long, ‘‘Postpone, and postpone, and postpone.’’ 

According to the Jewish tradition, to save a life is to save the 

world. We will never know the exact number of those who might 

be saved were it not for the U.S. State Department policies in effect 

at that time. What we do know is that the loss is incalculable as 

millions of universes were extinguished forever. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bazarov follows:] 

72 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF VALERY BAZAROV


VB-1.eps
73 


VB-2.eps
74 


VB-3.eps
75 


VB-4.eps
76 


VB-5.eps
77 


VB-6.eps
78 


VB-7.eps
79 


VB-8.eps
80 


VB-9.eps
81 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you. 

And finally, Mr. Horowitz. 

TESTIMONY OF MICHAEL HOROWITZ, SENIOR FELLOW, 

HUDSON INSTITUTE 

Mr. HOROWITZ. I am Michael Horowitz. I am a fellow at the Hudson Institute. I have spent my career fighting racism, dealing with 

human rights. I was a professor of civil rights law at the University 

of Mississippi teaching the first integrated classes and had my 

share of run-ins with the Ku Klux Klan. I have been deeply involved over the last 10 years with right-left coalitions that have 

passed laws like the International Religious Freedom Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Sudan Peace Act, the North 

Korea Human Rights Act, the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and 

other such laws. 

I deeply believe that American interests are only strong when 

American values are honored, and so I am pleased and honored to 

be here today. I have got a wife who is a doctor; I have been a little 

under the weather, but I am here. If it were my deathbed I would 

be here, because I think that importance of this hearing is so critical. 

How can it be said to be critical? I mean, you are dealing with 

billion, trillion dollar bailouts and collapses of economies. My judgment is, how a nation defines itself, how it sees its own history— 

if it gets it right, if we get it right—it will do more to solve the 

toxic mortgage problem than all of the bailouts. History is how we 

understand ourselves and how we move on in the future. 

And so let me say that I am on this panel with men that I am 

just so honored to be with, and I agree with everything they have 

had to say, because a great nation needs to learn from its mistakes. 

If we are blind to our mistakes, we will not remain a great nation. 

And I would say as a Republican, my last appearance before a Judiciary Committee came when I opposed with all I had in me Bush 

administration policies that defined material support in ways that 

would require—that treated as terrorists women who were forced 

to wash the clothes of terrorist rapists. 

I come here in context of H.R. 1425, and I think it is very, very 

important to indicate that we learn from history only if there is 

balance, not prejudgment; if there is scholarship, not anecdotal 

work. And that is why I am here to talk about Section 101 of the 

bill, the one that deals with the German, Italian, European Commission. 

I would get off my sacred deathbed to ask this Committee to delete or oppose that provision, and here is why: That provision profoundly ignores context. You read the findings, it is as if we never 

fought World War II; it is as if we were never vulnerable to lose 

World War II. 

Doctors talk about a retrospectoscope; everyone is perfect when 

they have one, but there is no balance there. And there are no facts 

as one looks at that hearing—at that provision. The bill ignores, it 

blurs the treatment between enemy alien citizens of Germany and 

Italy and the United States citizens. 

Its numbers are wildly skewed. One looks at numbers like 

300,000. We don’t know what the numbers are but we can, I think, 

82 

fairly be confident that the numbers in the findings section are not 

accurate. 

The bill also ignores the fact that in context, we were looking at, 

as I am sure John Fonte has indicated, brownshirt and blackshirt 

and Bund organizations that were rampant throughout the United 

States. I grew up in the Bronx, and I have got to tell you that my 

Italian friends—and most of them were Italian—would not have 

given hearings, however imperfect they may have been, and appeals to many of the people who were interned; they would have 

had them executed. And I note that the bill talks about that they 

love this blessed land, and they hated the kinds of people who were 

actively intimidating in support of the Fascists and Nazis who had 

taken over their own home country. 

And so I think that that bill ignores that. It ignores the hearing 

rights that were present. It ignores the spy networks. And frankly, 

having sat on this panel and been moved by it, it just offends me 

so deeply that this bill, inadvertently or otherwise, ties America’s 

treatment, imperfect as it was, of the enemy aliens with what we 

did to immigrants seeking to come into the United States. Every 

one of those immigrants would have given anything to have been 

treated twice as badly as we treated those enemy aliens. 

Now, the main point I want to make about that commission is, 

its—I will wrap it up—not only its lack of balance, but its call for 

membership. It calls for four members who are involved in, who 

are active in the Italian American and German American affairs. 

What we need if we are going to do it right is scholarship, and 

we have talked about Professor Abzug. Let me just close. There are 

two things I want to say. 

One, I don’t have the chance to talk about its impact on the crisis 

we now confront with terrorism, but Professor Abzug, just before 

this hearing, asked me—authorized me to say something about the 

scholarship, and Mr. Christgau who—he cares—but here is what 

he had to say, this Regents professor: ‘‘As my review stated, the 

Christgau book is lightly researched, anecdotal, and in no way delivers compelling evidence of widespread abuse that can be compared to the situation of Japanese Americans during the war. In 

fact, I came away from reading the book with the distinct impression that abuses were present, but not widespread, on the basis of 

the author’s lack of evidence, lack of research and rigor, especially 

when one considers the security context of the time.’’ 

So if you are going to do it, insist that scholars like the kinds 

of scholars who research what Abraham Lincoln did during the 

Civil War, who can provide balance—— 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horowitz follows:] 

83 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL HOROWITZ


MH-1.eps
84 


MH-2.eps
85 


MH-3.eps
86 


MH-4.eps
87 


MH-5.eps
88 

Ms. LOFGREN. Mr. Horowitz, your time is expired. We do appreciate your testimony, and we appreciate the testimony of all of the 

witnesses. 


MH-6.eps
89 

At this point we have time for questions, and I would turn first 

to the Ranking Member, Mr. King, to see if he has questions for 

the panel. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Madam Chair, and as I listen to the testimony, something occurs to me, was a statement made in the Judiciary Committee 2 years ago by one of our Members, who said, 

‘‘Nazis predominantly were Christians and the Holocaust was a 

Christian tragedy.’’ 

I would ask first Mr. Harris, would you agree with that? 

Mr. HARRIS [continuing]. That is going to require a separate 

hearing. I would put it this way, sir: I would say that European 

soil for centuries was tilled by Christian anti-Semitism. And when 

the pagan philosophy of the Nazis, however they were born, whatever their baptismal certificate said, came, and they pursued the 

notion of a final solution, they found very fertile ground largely because of the result of centuries of the teaching of contempt and the 

imposition of everything from forced conversions to inquisitions, 

and so forth. So I would be a little more careful in the wording 

than the question presented, but nonetheless there is a connection. 

Mr. KING. And it is a cultural connection rather than religiously 

based. Would you agree with that? 

Mr. HARRIS. I would agree that the Third Reich did not act in 

the name of Christian faith. To the contrary, there were many 

Christian clergy in countries like Poland who themselves were targeted, who were incarcerated in concentration camps, and in many 

cases killed as Christian zealots and others. 

Mr. KING. And you had described it as a pagan philosophy. Is 

Nazism a pagan philosophy? 

Mr. HARRIS. That is the way they themselves would describe it. 

Mr. KING. As I would too, and I think that point of clarity needed 

to be brought, Mr. Harris. And then, have you in your studies— 

first, I have got great sympathy for this argument that here, and 

I can’t put myself into the context of the history back in that time, 

but, you know, I would think that bringing the ‘‘St. Louis’’ into the 

United States would be something I would like to think I would 

have approved in a heartbeat. This one really is stark, and it 

stands out to me. 

But I don’t think I am hearing the other side of this—the balance, the historical balance in this. And that is, the end that was 

put to Nazism by the free world, would you say that—I don’t want 

to put words in your mouth, I just wondered, do you have a speculation on how many Christians gave their lives to end the Nazi 

Holocaust? 

Mr. HARRIS. First of all, in my full written testimony, Congressman King, I speak about the dramatic issues that Franklin Roosevelt faced as President of the United States, including a country 

that itself was largely unwilling to go to war after rescuing Europe 

in the First World War. I give him credit for leading this Nation 

to the realization we would have to fight again, and you men particularly—young women as well, but primarily young men on the 

battlefield, and I would add not just Christians, but people of all 

faiths including many Jews—500,000 American Jews served in the 

military—and yes, we should never lose sight of the fact that at the 

end of the day the Allies, lead by the United States together with 

90 

Great Britain, and I have to add the Soviet Union, vanquished the 

Nazi dream of a 1,000-year reign; there is no question about it. 

Mr. KING. I thank you, Mr. Harris, and I think it does take another hearing to flesh this out. Myself, I feel the urge to go way 

deep into that history and lay out a lot more of the foundation of 

it. 

I wanted to ask Mr. Bretholz that—I would think there would be 

a bond there, but have you read Victor Frankl’s writings? 

Mr. BRETHOLZ. Yes. 

Mr. KING. And I just, as I listened to your testimony, his—— 

Mr. BRETHOLZ. He was Viennese, by the way. He was Viennese, 

just like I. 

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Mr. BRETHOLZ. I like to say, I am from Vienna, but nothing is 

perfect in life, you know. 

Mr. KING. The delivery and the tone in your testimony brought 

that to mind as I listened to you today, and I wanted to reference 

that and ask if you learned anything from his search for meaning. 

Mr. BRETHOLZ. If I had what? 

Victor Frankl’s search for meaning. Well, it is a text in schools 

now, just like my book has been taken and also is a text recently, 

but it has confirmed everything that I had experienced myself. And 

of course, Victor Frankl had a different reaction and he made 

something positive out of his life, while—from Italy, what is the fellow that came—Primo Levi was a destroyed man after the camp. 

Frankl did something positive and Primo Levi could not exist after 

that. 

Mr. KING. Thanks, Mr. Bretholz. 

I thank you all for the witness. Mr. Horowitz, if I could—— 

Mr. BRETHOLZ. One more thing about Christians. 

Mr. KING. Yes. 

Mr. BRETHOLZ. Do you know the late historian, Professor 

Halebrook, said that Hitler’s plan to annihilate the Jews was the 

culmination—this comes back to the point of Christians—was the 

culmination of what had happened for centuries. There is a book 

written by a Jesuit priest, Edward H. Flannery, he called it ‘‘The 

Anguish of the Jews’’—23 centuries of anti-Semitism. But the early 

missionary said you may not live among us as Jews, so the Jews 

converted. They may be allowed to live. 

Then came the secular Christians, and they said later on in the 

Middle Ages, they said, ‘‘You may not live among us.’’ So, you may 

not live among us, so they went into shtetles, in the first shtetle 

in Venice, is an Italian town, and then came Hitler and he made 

it a very simple, short—, ‘‘You may not live,’’ you know? And this 

was the culmination of it all. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Bretholz. The gentleman’s time 

has expired, and we are about to be called for votes, so I am going 

to ask Ms. Sa ́nchez if she has a question before hearing from Mr. 

Lungren. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Well, in the interest of time, because we are going 

to be summoned for votes shortly, I will submit written questions 

for our panelists and some of our previous panelists. I just really 

want to commend all of you for your testimony and your bravery 

in coming forth and sharing your stories, and I think that absoVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:22 Jul 15, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\IMMIG\031909\48322.000 HJUD1 PsN: 48322
91 

lutely those that don’t study history are doomed to repeat it, and 

I think your stories show that, you know, and idealized version of 

history does nobody any good. We really need to examine the good 

and the bad in the hopes that in the future the bad won’t be repeated. 

And with that I am going to yield back my time. 

Ms. LOFGREN. The gentlelady yields back. 

I would turn to Mr. Lungren to see if he has a question. 

Mr. LUNGREN. If I could just make a comment, and some may 

think this is a little off, but one person that we don’t recognize for 

his greatness during this time is a fellow, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 

for the great contributions he made to make sure that we knew 

that there was a Holocaust and that there were concentration 

camps. He was a Midwestern raw-boned American who—justice did 

his job as he thought he should, and we don’t give him enough 

credit for the enormous job he did. 

But secondly, it was his innate goodness and his—horror that he 

found with the concentration camps that lead him to make sure 

that we documented that so that the non-believers and the disclaimers would be put to a lie. I know that is not the subject of 

this hearing, but he happens to be one of my heroes, and we just 

don’t mention it often enough. 

Thank you. 

Ms. LOFGREN. At this point, the bells are going to ring any moment. So I would just like to not ask questions but really thank, 

once again, the witnesses, from Mr. Masterson and Ms. Shimizu 

and Ms. Yamamoto, especially those of you who came all the way 

from California to talk about your stories and to inform us, this is 

on the Web. So not only are we looking at your testimony here in 

this room; I think people all over the world have had the benefit 

of what you have said. And hopefully this will inform us as we 

move forward. I am enormously grateful for your presence and also 

the extra efforts that you have made over the years. 

For our second panel, I know Mr. Christgau and Ms. Ebel and 

Ms. Donald and, of course, Dr. Fonte, we appreciate your approach 

on the bill, but the personal stories are hard to tell. I know that. 

And that you would share them with us to inform us as we proceed 

means a lot to me and, I think, to all of the panel. 

And finally this last panel. Mr. Bretholz, as you were speaking 

I leaned over to Mr. King and said, what a tremendous feat of survival and bravery that you were able to share with us. And really 

the history that we have learned, you are right, is to inform our 

future. 

And that is really what we are talking about with all of this. We 

can’t undo the past, but we can try to understand our history, to 

acknowledge when mistakes were made—only a big country can do 

that—and to learn so that we can be a better country going forward. 

So I want to thank each of you for being here today and for your 

tremendous efforts. We will keep the hearing record open. If Members have additional questions we would ask that they would be 

submitted to you and that you respond to them within the—saved 

by the bell, yes, those bells there are to let us know that our presence is required on the House floor, so we will adjourn this meeting 

92 

asking Members to submit additional questions within 5 days. And 

thanks to all of you. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(93) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ZOE LOFGREN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRWOMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL

LAW

I would like to welcome the Subcommittee Members, the public, and especially 

our witnesses, many of whom have come from all over the country to share a part 

of U.S. history that many of us are unfamiliar with. Some of our witnesses will tell 

us deeply personal stories that are very difficult to share and I would like thank 

them for being here today to provide this important part of history for us. 

Much is known about the internment of 120,000 Japanese Americans during 

World War II, partly due to the enactment of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians Act in 1980, the Commission’s report in 1983, and 

the subsequent Civil Liberties Act of 1988 that provided an official apology for the 

internment of Japanese Americans. What is not as well known today is the mistreatment of thousands of Japanese and European Latin Americans, European 

Americans, and Jewish refugees prior to and during WWII. 

The 1980 Commission did detail the mistreatment of Japanese, German, and 

Italian Latin Americans, but only in the appendix of their report. It also included 

just one chapter of thirteen on mistreatment of German and Italian Americans in 

the U.S. Furthermore, no recommendations were made on these populations and 

there was no official apology, as was done for Japanese internment, pursuant to the 

Civil Liberties Act of 1988. 

It is time for this history to be fully heard and considered. 

I would like to note that although there are two bills that have been referred to 

this subcommittee concerning the issues we are examining today, this is NOT a legislative hearing. Before we consider specific legislation on an issue that many are 

very unfamiliar with, indeed, our general history books are sparse in this area, it 

is important that we learn the facts and listen to the history to determine whether 

legislation is the appropriate response. If it is, we will then turn to the bills referred 

to this subcommittee and examine whether the specific language in the bills is appropriate or whether amendments are needed. I welcome comments on the bills and 

will consider them if we decide to move legislation in this area. Today, however, I 

am particularly interested in learning about the issue and whether another commission is indeed necessary to review history that has not been told in an adequate 

way. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON THE

JUDICIARY

Reconciliation and justice can only come after the truth is known, and as commissions of inquiry have played important roles in the United States and abroad. 

Today, we are going to look at how the US Government undertook broad sweeps 

against perceived ‘‘enemy aliens’’ after an attack on our country. But unlike hearings we’ve held on rendition, detention, and mass round-ups in the wake of the September 11 attacks, today we’re going to look at the government’s actions during 

World War II. Let me lay the playing field as I see it: 

First, there is a consensus that the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians in the 1980s was particularly effective in confronting the historical record of the arrest and internment without due process of Japanese Americans 

94 

during the Second World War. The work of that commission which led to an official 

apology and some measure of restitution for the victims of internment. 

Second, despite the good work of that commission, there is additional history involving other populations that were also mistreated during World War II that have 

not been sufficiently examined. This history involves the rendition of thousands of 

Japanese and European Latin Americans to the United States for incarceration, the 

internment of at least 1,500 German and Italian-Americans, and the callous rejection by consular and immigration officials of Jewish asylum seekers seeking to flee 

Nazi oppression. 

There are several bills being circulated in Congress for commissions of inquiry 

into these matters, and today’s hearing will help us weigh those proposals. 

Third, what we do today will not substitute for sustained study that grapples with 

the hard questions of what America does with minority communities in a time of 

war. While we can shine a little bit of light today on these unfortunate chapters 

in our history, one hearing is just part of the historical conversation. 

We have seen this in other areas—the Committee’s oversight hearings on rendition, torture, surveillance, and racial profiling of Arab communities have had an 

impact on American policy, but they are no substitute for a truth and reconciliation 

inquiry into abuses in the name of the war on terror. 

So too, legislation that we passed in the 110th Congress commemorating the 

200th anniversary of the Slave Trade Act and to provide new tools to enforce the 

13th amendment’s guarantee of freedom do not take the place of a commission that 

would help us confront the ongoing effect of chattel slavery on this nation. 

So I am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and participating 

in the ongoing conversation about how we can preserve the rights of ethnic minorities and refugees in wartime, so that these tragic episodes are not repeated. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMI- GRATION, CITIZENSHIP, REFUGEES, BORDER SECURITY, AND INTERNATIONAL LAW

Thank you Madam Chairwoman for convening today’s very important hearing 

where we will consider, ‘‘The Treatment of Latin Americans of Japanese Descent, 

European Americans, and Jewish Refugees During World War II.’’ This hearing explores the treatment of Latin Americans of Japanese descent. In addition, there are 

other populations mistreated during WWII whose histories have not been fully examined by the Federal Government in a similar manners as the histories of the Japanese and Italian Americans mistreated during WWII. 

The Japanese, German, and Italian American communities have advocated for an 

official government study of the mistreatment of their communities in Latin America by the U.S. government in a similar manner as was completed for Japanese 

Americans interned during WWII. 

The mistreatment of Japanese Latin Americans is the subject of H.R. 42, a bill 

that has been referred to this subcommittee. H.R. 42 establishes a fact-finding Commission to extend the study of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians to investigate and determine facts and circumstances surrounding 

relocation, internment, and deportation to Axis countries of Latin Americans of Japanese descent from 1941 to 1948, and the impact of those actions by the U.S., and 

to recommend appropriate remedies. The mistreatment of German and Italian Latin 

Americans is the subject of H.R. 1425. In addition, the mistreatment of Jewish refugees during WWII is the subject of H.R. 1425. 

Today we have distinguished panelists on three separate panels. I look forward 

to hearing today’s testimony and hearing from each of the witnesses on this topic. 

Chairwoman, thank you, again. I yield the balance of my time. 

f 

95 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

———— 

Note: Due to the voluminous amount of material submitted, only a portion is being 

published in this hearing. All material submitted is on file with the Subcommittee. 


A-1.eps
96 


A-2.eps
97 


A-3.eps
98 


B-1.eps
99 


B-2.eps
100 


B-3.eps
101 


B-4.eps
102 

Æ 


C.eps