Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source text

Shouldn't source text belong somewhere else? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 01:07 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it should be on WikiSource.∼∼∼∼ Eric0928 Talk 20:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Any documentation for this?

An anonymous editor added this to the article

There is had been some speculation that President Roosevelt was not at all enthusiastic about Executive Order 9066, but given that Japanese Americans were already being subject to increasing harassment by White Americans, and that it would only be a matter of time before killings and large-scale race rioting would start, President Roosevelt would have thought internment to be a lesser evil than having riots occur during wartime.

Is there any documentation of this, or is it only "some speculation"? Frjwoolley 16:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The University of California's Japanese American Relocation Digital Archive mentions a study commissioned secretly by President Franklin Roosevelt to assess the potential for sabotage and espionage by Japanese Americans in the event of a war (this study was completed prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor) which concluded that most of the Japanese in America were loyal, not a war risk, but feared rioting and other racial violence in the event of a war. They cite Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Distant Shore, page 386.
I'd say that was pretty good documentation (if a piss-poor reason for locking well over a hundred and ten thousand innocent people away against their will). loupgarous ( talk) 14:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

folly or assistance?

considering the hundreds that did diein the internment camps , did this really help out the one ore two people that would've been saved from racial attacks? or was this just to protect the government from terrorist attacks such as those witnessed recently around the world.

Please sign your comments by adding four ~'s to the end of your comment, like this: ~ ~ ~ ~ (taking out the spaces inbetween the ~'s). 169.229.121.94 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know. Can anyone find a source that answers the question one way or another? loupgarous ( talk) 12:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

DeWitt

It's my understanding, though I can't remember where I came across it, that John DeWitt, commanding General of the Pacific military district (cast defense and such) was the main factor in inducing Roosevelt to sign this. it is further my understanding that he lied and misrepresented, in a racist way (for personal reasons?), to make his case. If this is correct, in whole or part, it should be included here. Anyone got a citation, some source material, more info on DeWitt's actions or attitudes, Roosevelt's views on Fifth column stuff prior to the agitation for removal, ... Note that the area with the highest Japanes ancestry population (certainly in proportion if not absolute numbers) was Hawaii, and internment was very different and less strict there, with no protest from those responsible for its security.

We've got what seems to be a large missign bit here, people. Help?! ww 13:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

There's already a reference to the Battle of Niihau, in which two Japanese-Americans and a resident Japanese alien assisted a downed Japanese pilot in his attempt to escape capture after taking part in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, with reference to how this was used by Army officials to shape the attitude of our leaders toward Japanese-Americans resident in the US. loupgarous ( talk) 12:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

"Some" Italain and German Americans?

The raceism twords these two groups, still evident today, is down-played in this article.

ummm, one of those references was a dead link and a pair of them were simply linking to different parts of the same page. not to mention that upon reading the article it talks of internment of German/Italian nationals in one and German/Italian sailors and residents of south American nations in the other. BTW the racisms directed towards German and Italian Americans tends to be “downplayed” because its not as overt, widespread or serious as that directed towards people of color.

In this page's Exclusion under Executive Order 9066, lists 120,000 Japanese Americans interned. The remaining internees included about 11,000 people of German ancestry and 3,000 people of Italian ancestry, making about 9.5% of internees of European descent, which is probably why it's "downplayed". Steelsilkfan ( talk) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's so much downplayed, as no one has written a lot that specifically deals with 9066 and italians or germans. I have done a lot of research on the Italian-American internment, but I haven't contributed much to this article. I usually contribute to the main article. I doubt anyone here would revert anyone adding valuable content about their experiences with citations. There are great books about it. @Steelsilkfan, Southern Italians were definitely people of colour around the time of the internment. One look at the documents from DeWitt (a total racist) or the the California House Delegation's letter and it becomes clear of that status as PoC in many participants minds. That even could be included here if someone cares to document it correctly. -- Paolorausch ( talk) 08:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Also, do we or do we not need sources for the part where it states how many Italian American and German Americans were interned? It seems suspiciously citation-less at the moment. Jackalopeicus ( talk) 08:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Pretty much anything stated as a fact needs to have a verifiable citation, so yes, it does need a citation. -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 09:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Ok, just asking because my source needed edits were reverted. I'll add that back in then. Jackalopeicus ( talk) 11:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply

J Edgar Hoover opposed internment?

Following the link on this page to J Edgar Hoover leads to an article that says he was one of the most vocal supporters of internment. If the statement in this article is correct, then clearly some additional detail is needed. Did he change from opposing to supporting internment?

I'm sorry I don't have a direct reference for you but in all my research on Hoover, he never regretted his opposition to E.O. 9066. MattFoley Motivational Speaker ( talk) 04:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Matt, if you don't have a published source which SAYS "J. Edgar Hoover opposed EO 9066 and the internment of the Japanese," then you don't have enough support to say that in the article. It still comes back to WP:NOR. loupgarous ( talk) 12:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Billions?

Some quick math will show how this remark is just plain wrong. 130,000 people were effected by this order. If you accept the premise of the above line then $2,000,000,000/130,000=$16000 per person in 1941 dollars was lost. That is $16000, for each man, woman, and child. A family of four would have lost $64,000 during a time when the United States was still feeling the effects of the "Great Depression". How is this possible? Without a citation, I suggest that this line be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.101.93 ( talk) 06:08, 30 September 2006

It's an interesting claim whose substantiation would be historically relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.227.45 ( talk) 22:34, 6 March 2007
We need to include in the calculation the household incomes that would have been earned by the 130,000 internees during the course of the war. If one in three internees would otherwise have been employed, earning $5000 a year, that would work out to a quarter of a billion dollars per annum. We also need to include the values of the businesses that we effectively destroyed -- the shops, small manufacturers, and other enterprises that were owned by interned people and which they could not operate while interned. The calculation would need to include both the lost revenues, rents and leases, the depreciation of capital equipment material (often, no doubt, accelerated by neglect if not outright theft), and the opportunity costs of losing several years of operations. Some of the interned people owned real estate; they were deprived of the use of their property, or forced to sell it under grave duress. The difference in the value of education received by children in the camps, compared to those educated in the towns and cities, should be taken into account. MarkBernstein 14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply
And while these are grave losses and ought to be commemorated somewhere, the point would be to find an authoritative published source that does the commemmoration, and cite it in the article. If we simply do the calculation ourselves, that's forbidden as "original research" under WP:NOR. loupgarous ( talk) 12:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

merge

shouldn't this just merge with Japanese American internment? Rds865 ( talk) 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I would agree with that. There's really no reason that this should be a separate entry. Inks.LWC ( talk) 09:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply
It is not the same thing, Executive Order 9066 is the formal reference to the order by FDR that provided the rationale and outline of why/how to carry out the internment of American citizens of decent of the enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.198.243 ( talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Photo Request

Why is there a request for photos for this article? We already have a photo of the executive order. If this article is about the order and not the internment itself, what other photos would we use? Inks.LWC ( talk) 09:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The poster in the top photo isn't of Executive Order 9066, but of local regulations implementing the order. It contains specific instructions to people of Japanese ancestry (the word "Japanese" set forth in bold, large type in the center of the poster).
Why we'd need a photo of EO 9066 is hard to justify, given that the entire text is given in the article, word for word. I've found a link to the National Archives' photo of the first page of Executive Order 9066 to the article, anyway. That link also has a photo of relocated Japanese-Americans boarding a train to the camp where they were to be interned.
The only additional photo I can think of, if we need photos of legislation, would be of "An Act of March 21, 1942, Public Law 77-503, 56 STAT 173, to Provide a Penalty for Violation of Restrictions or Orders with Respect to Persons Entering, Remaining in, Leaving, or Committing Any Act in Military Areas or Zones, 03/21/1942", which made it a Federal offense to violate Executive Order 9066, thus giving a legal pretext for its enforcement. The link I provided has a nice, zoomable photo of the actual Congressional copy of the law as passed.
Does anyone think that it's worthwhile to add that to the article? I'm strongly inclined to put at least a reference to "An Act of March 21, 1942, Public Law 77-503, 56 STAT 173, to Provide a Penalty for Violation of Restrictions or Orders with Respect to Persons Entering, Remaining in, Leaving, or Committing Any Act in Military Areas or Zones, 03/21/1942" in the article early on, to show that Congress supported its implementation. loupgarous ( talk) 15:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Internment of Americans is not a right by the President to be used by his authority as Commander-in-Chief

This sentence is factually incorrect:


At no time in U.S. history has the President ever had or used the power as Commander-in-Chief to intern Americans by their racial background. Therefore, it is not a part of his authority in the historical sense. This executive order is not regarded by any constitutional authorities to be a valid power for the President. The sentence needs to be changed. MattFoley Motivational Speaker ( talk) 04:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The nature and extent of Presidents' rights to do things in executive orders is still controversial today. President Obama has, in the opinion of legal scholars Nathan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley (both of whom also accused George W. Bush of abusing his executive authority) far exceeded his authority to set aside Federal law and to act outside it. That being said, the outlines of executive authority are ill-defined now, and were ill-defined at the time Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066.
Congress, however, mooted the issue of any conflict with Roosevelt over its prerogative to make law in this matter on March 21st, 1942 - a little more than a month after EO 9066 was signed - by passing Public Law 77-503, 56 STAT 173, "to Provide a Penalty for Violation of Restrictions or Orders with Respect to Persons Entering, Remaining in, Leaving, or Committing Any Act in Military Areas or Zones," which made it illegal for anyone proscribed by Executive Order 9066 to enter, remain in, leave or do anything in a Military Area as defined in EO 9066. This law essentially recognized the existence of EO 9066 and lent Congressional authority to it, giving a legal pretext for the incarceration of people affected by the order.
The fact is, Roosevelt did sign Executive Order 9066, authorized by the Constitution to do so or not, and the United States Department of War under Secretary of War Henry Stimson accepted his authority to do so. A month later, Congress passed a law making it illegal for people affected by EO 9066 to be in the areas outlined by the executive order, tacitly recognizing Roosevelt's authority to act in the matter.
Whether Roosevelt actually had authority under the Constitution to act or not (and there was enough dissension on the matter in the Justice Department for moral and legal reasons that Roosevelt had to give the War Department and the US Army specific authority to override the Justice Department on the matter of military zones and relocation in EO 9066), he did indeed act, and his actions were regarded as authoritative by the man who was detailed in that order to carry it out. So that sentence is perfectly true and encyclopedic for Wikipedia purposes.
What you're proposing, on the other hand, is editing a Wikipedia article based on original research, and we don't do that. WP:NOR Unless you can locate and present an accepted source that says what you want to say above, we can argue well into the night as to whether FDR acted outside his authority and still have nothing that belongs in the article, or which justifies removal of the sentence to which you refer. loupgarous ( talk) 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Other nationalities?

Were any other Axis nationalities (e.g. Bulgarian, Romanian, Finnish, etc.) affected by the order? If so, it might be worth noting. Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The Axis Powers are generally regarded as the initial signatories of the " Tripartite Pact" - Germany, Japan and Italy. While Hungary (November 20, 1940), Romania (November 23, 1940), Slovakia (November 24, 1940), Bulgaria (March 1, 1941, prior to the arrival of German troops), Yugoslavia (March 25, 1941), and Croatia (June 15, 1941) signed the treaty later, I can't find any reference to people descended from any of these nations being interned in the United States of America during a brief Google search.
The Federal Enemy Alien Control Program is documented in the National Archives Web site; the summary of its contents http://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/enemy-aliens-overview.html only mentions detainees from the original three Axis powers.
As an American of German descent (my great-great-grandfather arriving in the US in 1867 through the Port of New Orleans) I don't recall internment even being discussed for the many south Louisianians of German descent living in New Orleans and the parishes upriver from New Orleans ("The German Coast" of Louisiana, settled by Germans and other central European immigrants before the arrival of the Acadians/"Cajuns"). In fact, my father and uncle fought in the European Theater of World War II against the German Army; my father through France and moving eastward, my uncle fought in the invasion of Italy, and the consequent movement of those forces northward toward Germany. Our only exposure to interned Germans was with German prisoners of war sent to the sugar cane fields west of New Orleans as voluntary laborers; one of these men later settled five miles from my house, a man named Eisenhardt. loupgarous ( talk) 01:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Japanese-American Citizens League

In an article by John Tateishi and William Yoshino (2000) published in Human Rights, it is mentioned that the JACL was responsible for pushing the government into creating the CWRIC. Should this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marunabe ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC) hi the people died 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.119.193 ( talk) 14:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Query about the statutory authority for EO 9066

The article doesn't state where the authority to make Executive Order 9066 came from. Which statute was the president acting under?

Or did the president claim to be exercising a decree power inherent to the office of "commander-in-chief"?

78.16.25.242 ( talk) 16:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Good catch! We totally left that out!
The entire text of Executive Order 9066 was not given in the article originally; the first paragraph outlined the statutory authority President Roosevelt claimed for issuing the executive order:
"Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);"
The President may act in Executive Orders to exercise any power granted the office of the President in the Constitution. The mandate in Article II of the Constitution that the President “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution and uphold its provisions has been cited on several occasions to include "emergency powers" given the President to defend the nation and keep it running in time of national emergency. See http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/constitutional_powers.html for a discussion of these powers in general.
In this specific case, President Roosevelt was claiming that Executive Order 9066 was issued to help implement Federal laws defining national defense material, premises and utilities by protecting those items from espionage and sabotage; the language of the order essentially painted every Japanese and Japanese-American in the "military areas" which were broadly defined to include the entire Western United States as a potential saboteur or spy.
I freely stipulate that these "emergency powers" and the scope permitted the President in general to act outside his Constitutional mandate to enforce the laws passed by Congress are highly controversial - especially now that executive orders are being issued to override Federal law in the absence of a national emergency (apart from, perhaps, a ruling party's need for more votes). However, this article simply describes what Roosevelt did at the time - Executive Order 9066's moral and legal pitfalls are described adequately at the and of the article, I think.
Civilian officials of the United States Department of Justice raised objections on moral and Constitutional grounds to taking this action, so the President placed the matter in the hands of the War Department with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942. The United States Army was then given the authority to begin relocations of enemy aliens and American citizens descended from enemy nationalities - and significantly, to overrule the authority of the Justice Department in such matters.
Congress then implemented that executive order on March 21, 1942, by passing Public Law 77-503, 56 STAT 173, "An Act... to Provide a Penalty for Violation of Restrictions or Orders with Respect to Persons Entering, Remaining in, Leaving, or Committing Any Act in Military Areas or Zones." That law, while not specific statutory authority affirming Executive Order 9066 in detail, recognized the executive order and made it a Federal offense to violate its terms. See http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=74 for more information on that.
Thanks for your good catch on the omission of the statutory authority paragraph from the language of EO 9066 quoted in the article. I've taken care of the problem by quoting the order in its entirety as a "cut and paste" from the National Archives' transcript of Executive Order 9066.
"Cut and paste" is normally deprecated here, but the way the order was originally edited left out very important information, as you pointed out. And there can be no copyright issues with material made public by the National Archives. loupgarous ( talk) 02:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

How many non-Japanese were interned?

There wasn't much discussion, but it appears that attributing conflicting sources is the best compromise.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 22:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The numbers cited in this article conflict with the numbers listed on this web page: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5154/ , which states that 11,000 Germans and 3,200 Italians were arrested, but only 5,000 and 300 were actually interned. Can someone check other sources to confirm which numbers are most accurate? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

According to Roger Daniels, "perhaps twenty-three hundred German nationals and a few hundred Italian nationals" were interned. Source, Roger Daniels, "Incarcerating Japanese-Americans", OAH Magazine of History, Vol. 16, No. 3, World War II Homefront (Spring, 2002): 19-23, 20
More from Roger Daniels:

It is not yet possible-and may never be-to give precise figures, but the best "guesstimate" of the total number of resident "alien enemies" actually interned under Roosevelt's order of December 7th and 8th is something under 11,000 persons, about one percent of the total number of enemy aliens. By ethnicity some 8,000 Japanese, 2,300 Germans, and a few hundred Italians were actually interned.Many more-largely Germans and Italians-were arrested and held in custody for days and even weeks without being officially interned. Note that these figures amounted to about twelve percent of alien Japanese, about six/tenths of one percent of alien Germans, and less than one-one hundredth of one percent of alien Italians.

— Roger Daniels, "Incarceration of Japanese Americans: A Sixty Year Perspective", The History Teacher, Vol. 35. No. 3 (May 2002): 297-310, 300

FiachraByrne ( talk) 19:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify the Japanese figure above - Daniels appears to apply a stricter and more perhaps more accurate interpretation of internment that many and does not regard the other 110,000 Japanese who were rounded up as interned (prefers the term incarceration). FiachraByrne ( talk) 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If different sources give different numbers, should we attribute them? Instead of saying "11,000 were arrested" in wikipedia's voice, it's better to write "Daniels estimates that 11,000 were interned, but source X says Y, and source Z says ..." Dental plan /  lisa needs braces! 13:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Added things unaccountably missing from the article

such as

- a reference citation for Executive Order 9066 itself,

- a tally of how many Japanese-Americans were interned (another editor gave those figures for the German-Americans and Italian-Americans interned, which seems to me to imply the Japanese-Americans weren't worth counting, even though they were the predominant nationality interned under EO 9066),

- a reference citation for the University of California's Japanese American Relocation Digital Archives (JARDA), which supports the

- information on the number of Japanese Americans interned as well as short paragraphs on the conditions under which they were interned, and their fate after World War 2.

loupgarous ( talk) 13:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Error regarding the applicability of the Civil Liberties Act

The article now reads:

"On August 10, 1988, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, based on the CWRIC recommendations, was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. On November 21, 1989, George H. W. Bush signed an appropriation bill authorizing payments to be paid out between 1990 and 1998. In 1990, surviving internees began to receive individual redress payments and a letter of apology. This bill only applied to the Japanese Americans."

In fact, the boldfaced part of the article quoted above is in error.

Title II of this Act specifically sets up restitution to the members of the Aleut people who were relocated from their homes in the Aleutian Islands in Alaska under Executive Order 9066.

I have changed the article to reflect that fact. loupgarous ( talk) 17:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Headings added - possible new section "The Justice Department Dissent on Executive Order 9066"

Previously, the article lacked headings for sections prior to "Post World War Two," which had the "Contents" table two-thirds of the way down the article, once new material was added.

So I added headings for:

Transcript of Executive Order 9066
Relocation under Executive Order 9066
Relocation Camps Under Executive Order 9066.

I wonder if we ought to add material regarding the Constitutionality of Executive Order 9066... the Justice Department was almost totally excluded from any significant role in executing the order, and this probably relates to objections the Attorney-General of the United States (head of the Justice Department) had to forcible relocation of the Japanese population of the US on moral and legal grounds.

That change I'll put off pending discussion here in the talk page, because it's pretty significant. Nowadays, we have a similar legal crisis surrounding executive orders and what limits ought to exist on their use, bipartisan in that prominent critics of George W. Bush are also criticizing Barack H. Obama on his use or abuse of the executive order. Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 is a relevant case study in that discussion. loupgarous ( talk) 17:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

More information on GA/IA Internment

Recent edits to remove IA/GA from the article does reinforce the idea that maybe we should add some more context from their individual pages to this article as well. People seem to think it's a means of minimising the JA internment rather than as a place to start to learn about the way that the GA/IA communities were also affected by EO9066. Paolorausch ( talk) 12:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Section "World War II camps under the order": undefined initials WRA

What does WRA stand for? Grassynoel ( talk) 19:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

War Relocation Authority. I've replaced the initials with the full name as it is not defined elsewhere in the article. Thanks for pointing that out. Bahooka ( talk) 20:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

potentially useful information

Some leaders of the JACL agreed with internment as a means of protection if the US were to go to war with japan, during WW2 but before the bombing of pearl harbor. (I'm having trouble finding a source for this, this is FOAA stuff though and I know it's in a book, if someone could help me that would be great)

Some nikkei evacuated to other states and not all were interned in camps. During the evacuation, some japanese americans (and the JACL in part) sided against those resisting the draft out of fear that could get deported in mass, if later deemed unloyal, and that ultimately, it was to show their loyalty, according to an ex-president of the fresno JACL. [1] DarmaniLink ( talk) 06:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://ddr.densho.org/interviews/ddr-densho-122-29-1/

The Intro is broken beyond understanding

Currently, it reads "On February 19, 1824, President Franklin D. Executive Order 9066 became Roosevelt's special order during World War II. They were then brought across the river to Japan, where other Americans were born and raised in the United States.

In general, Asian Americans are more likely to be incarcerated than African Americans in the same population. Executive Order 2526 of 1798 for Germany and the United States was part of the Immigration and Nationality Act."

Literally, what? 209.234.74.183 ( talk) 20:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The term “concentration”

Please remove the term "concentration" from the line "Roosevelt wanted to put Japanese in concentration camps in Hawaii. This is incredibly untrue and misleading . Concentration camps are far different from and worse than internment camps. The bias in this article is mind-blowing. 2600:1700:FCA:5E00:55A8:F223:46C6:EF59 ( talk) 03:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Wiki Education assignment: Race, Law, and Politics

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Quoncen ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PurdueGrad29 ( talk) 21:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Executive_Order_9066&oldid=1214696727"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source text

Shouldn't source text belong somewhere else? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo stick 01:07 14 Jun 2003 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it should be on WikiSource.∼∼∼∼ Eric0928 Talk 20:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Any documentation for this?

An anonymous editor added this to the article

There is had been some speculation that President Roosevelt was not at all enthusiastic about Executive Order 9066, but given that Japanese Americans were already being subject to increasing harassment by White Americans, and that it would only be a matter of time before killings and large-scale race rioting would start, President Roosevelt would have thought internment to be a lesser evil than having riots occur during wartime.

Is there any documentation of this, or is it only "some speculation"? Frjwoolley 16:36, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The University of California's Japanese American Relocation Digital Archive mentions a study commissioned secretly by President Franklin Roosevelt to assess the potential for sabotage and espionage by Japanese Americans in the event of a war (this study was completed prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor) which concluded that most of the Japanese in America were loyal, not a war risk, but feared rioting and other racial violence in the event of a war. They cite Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Distant Shore, page 386.
I'd say that was pretty good documentation (if a piss-poor reason for locking well over a hundred and ten thousand innocent people away against their will). loupgarous ( talk) 14:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

folly or assistance?

considering the hundreds that did diein the internment camps , did this really help out the one ore two people that would've been saved from racial attacks? or was this just to protect the government from terrorist attacks such as those witnessed recently around the world.

Please sign your comments by adding four ~'s to the end of your comment, like this: ~ ~ ~ ~ (taking out the spaces inbetween the ~'s). 169.229.121.94 01:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know. Can anyone find a source that answers the question one way or another? loupgarous ( talk) 12:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

DeWitt

It's my understanding, though I can't remember where I came across it, that John DeWitt, commanding General of the Pacific military district (cast defense and such) was the main factor in inducing Roosevelt to sign this. it is further my understanding that he lied and misrepresented, in a racist way (for personal reasons?), to make his case. If this is correct, in whole or part, it should be included here. Anyone got a citation, some source material, more info on DeWitt's actions or attitudes, Roosevelt's views on Fifth column stuff prior to the agitation for removal, ... Note that the area with the highest Japanes ancestry population (certainly in proportion if not absolute numbers) was Hawaii, and internment was very different and less strict there, with no protest from those responsible for its security.

We've got what seems to be a large missign bit here, people. Help?! ww 13:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC) reply

There's already a reference to the Battle of Niihau, in which two Japanese-Americans and a resident Japanese alien assisted a downed Japanese pilot in his attempt to escape capture after taking part in the bombing of Pearl Harbor, with reference to how this was used by Army officials to shape the attitude of our leaders toward Japanese-Americans resident in the US. loupgarous ( talk) 12:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

"Some" Italain and German Americans?

The raceism twords these two groups, still evident today, is down-played in this article.

ummm, one of those references was a dead link and a pair of them were simply linking to different parts of the same page. not to mention that upon reading the article it talks of internment of German/Italian nationals in one and German/Italian sailors and residents of south American nations in the other. BTW the racisms directed towards German and Italian Americans tends to be “downplayed” because its not as overt, widespread or serious as that directed towards people of color.

In this page's Exclusion under Executive Order 9066, lists 120,000 Japanese Americans interned. The remaining internees included about 11,000 people of German ancestry and 3,000 people of Italian ancestry, making about 9.5% of internees of European descent, which is probably why it's "downplayed". Steelsilkfan ( talk) 19:32, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's so much downplayed, as no one has written a lot that specifically deals with 9066 and italians or germans. I have done a lot of research on the Italian-American internment, but I haven't contributed much to this article. I usually contribute to the main article. I doubt anyone here would revert anyone adding valuable content about their experiences with citations. There are great books about it. @Steelsilkfan, Southern Italians were definitely people of colour around the time of the internment. One look at the documents from DeWitt (a total racist) or the the California House Delegation's letter and it becomes clear of that status as PoC in many participants minds. That even could be included here if someone cares to document it correctly. -- Paolorausch ( talk) 08:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Also, do we or do we not need sources for the part where it states how many Italian American and German Americans were interned? It seems suspiciously citation-less at the moment. Jackalopeicus ( talk) 08:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Pretty much anything stated as a fact needs to have a verifiable citation, so yes, it does need a citation. -- Gmatsuda ( talk) 09:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply
Ok, just asking because my source needed edits were reverted. I'll add that back in then. Jackalopeicus ( talk) 11:48, 15 October 2019 (UTC) reply

J Edgar Hoover opposed internment?

Following the link on this page to J Edgar Hoover leads to an article that says he was one of the most vocal supporters of internment. If the statement in this article is correct, then clearly some additional detail is needed. Did he change from opposing to supporting internment?

I'm sorry I don't have a direct reference for you but in all my research on Hoover, he never regretted his opposition to E.O. 9066. MattFoley Motivational Speaker ( talk) 04:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply
Matt, if you don't have a published source which SAYS "J. Edgar Hoover opposed EO 9066 and the internment of the Japanese," then you don't have enough support to say that in the article. It still comes back to WP:NOR. loupgarous ( talk) 12:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Billions?

Some quick math will show how this remark is just plain wrong. 130,000 people were effected by this order. If you accept the premise of the above line then $2,000,000,000/130,000=$16000 per person in 1941 dollars was lost. That is $16000, for each man, woman, and child. A family of four would have lost $64,000 during a time when the United States was still feeling the effects of the "Great Depression". How is this possible? Without a citation, I suggest that this line be removed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.101.93 ( talk) 06:08, 30 September 2006

It's an interesting claim whose substantiation would be historically relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.227.45 ( talk) 22:34, 6 March 2007
We need to include in the calculation the household incomes that would have been earned by the 130,000 internees during the course of the war. If one in three internees would otherwise have been employed, earning $5000 a year, that would work out to a quarter of a billion dollars per annum. We also need to include the values of the businesses that we effectively destroyed -- the shops, small manufacturers, and other enterprises that were owned by interned people and which they could not operate while interned. The calculation would need to include both the lost revenues, rents and leases, the depreciation of capital equipment material (often, no doubt, accelerated by neglect if not outright theft), and the opportunity costs of losing several years of operations. Some of the interned people owned real estate; they were deprived of the use of their property, or forced to sell it under grave duress. The difference in the value of education received by children in the camps, compared to those educated in the towns and cities, should be taken into account. MarkBernstein 14:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC) reply
And while these are grave losses and ought to be commemorated somewhere, the point would be to find an authoritative published source that does the commemmoration, and cite it in the article. If we simply do the calculation ourselves, that's forbidden as "original research" under WP:NOR. loupgarous ( talk) 12:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

merge

shouldn't this just merge with Japanese American internment? Rds865 ( talk) 23:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC) reply

I would agree with that. There's really no reason that this should be a separate entry. Inks.LWC ( talk) 09:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply
It is not the same thing, Executive Order 9066 is the formal reference to the order by FDR that provided the rationale and outline of why/how to carry out the internment of American citizens of decent of the enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.182.198.243 ( talk) 01:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC) reply

Photo Request

Why is there a request for photos for this article? We already have a photo of the executive order. If this article is about the order and not the internment itself, what other photos would we use? Inks.LWC ( talk) 09:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC) reply

The poster in the top photo isn't of Executive Order 9066, but of local regulations implementing the order. It contains specific instructions to people of Japanese ancestry (the word "Japanese" set forth in bold, large type in the center of the poster).
Why we'd need a photo of EO 9066 is hard to justify, given that the entire text is given in the article, word for word. I've found a link to the National Archives' photo of the first page of Executive Order 9066 to the article, anyway. That link also has a photo of relocated Japanese-Americans boarding a train to the camp where they were to be interned.
The only additional photo I can think of, if we need photos of legislation, would be of "An Act of March 21, 1942, Public Law 77-503, 56 STAT 173, to Provide a Penalty for Violation of Restrictions or Orders with Respect to Persons Entering, Remaining in, Leaving, or Committing Any Act in Military Areas or Zones, 03/21/1942", which made it a Federal offense to violate Executive Order 9066, thus giving a legal pretext for its enforcement. The link I provided has a nice, zoomable photo of the actual Congressional copy of the law as passed.
Does anyone think that it's worthwhile to add that to the article? I'm strongly inclined to put at least a reference to "An Act of March 21, 1942, Public Law 77-503, 56 STAT 173, to Provide a Penalty for Violation of Restrictions or Orders with Respect to Persons Entering, Remaining in, Leaving, or Committing Any Act in Military Areas or Zones, 03/21/1942" in the article early on, to show that Congress supported its implementation. loupgarous ( talk) 15:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Internment of Americans is not a right by the President to be used by his authority as Commander-in-Chief

This sentence is factually incorrect:


At no time in U.S. history has the President ever had or used the power as Commander-in-Chief to intern Americans by their racial background. Therefore, it is not a part of his authority in the historical sense. This executive order is not regarded by any constitutional authorities to be a valid power for the President. The sentence needs to be changed. MattFoley Motivational Speaker ( talk) 04:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC) reply

The nature and extent of Presidents' rights to do things in executive orders is still controversial today. President Obama has, in the opinion of legal scholars Nathan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley (both of whom also accused George W. Bush of abusing his executive authority) far exceeded his authority to set aside Federal law and to act outside it. That being said, the outlines of executive authority are ill-defined now, and were ill-defined at the time Franklin Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066.
Congress, however, mooted the issue of any conflict with Roosevelt over its prerogative to make law in this matter on March 21st, 1942 - a little more than a month after EO 9066 was signed - by passing Public Law 77-503, 56 STAT 173, "to Provide a Penalty for Violation of Restrictions or Orders with Respect to Persons Entering, Remaining in, Leaving, or Committing Any Act in Military Areas or Zones," which made it illegal for anyone proscribed by Executive Order 9066 to enter, remain in, leave or do anything in a Military Area as defined in EO 9066. This law essentially recognized the existence of EO 9066 and lent Congressional authority to it, giving a legal pretext for the incarceration of people affected by the order.
The fact is, Roosevelt did sign Executive Order 9066, authorized by the Constitution to do so or not, and the United States Department of War under Secretary of War Henry Stimson accepted his authority to do so. A month later, Congress passed a law making it illegal for people affected by EO 9066 to be in the areas outlined by the executive order, tacitly recognizing Roosevelt's authority to act in the matter.
Whether Roosevelt actually had authority under the Constitution to act or not (and there was enough dissension on the matter in the Justice Department for moral and legal reasons that Roosevelt had to give the War Department and the US Army specific authority to override the Justice Department on the matter of military zones and relocation in EO 9066), he did indeed act, and his actions were regarded as authoritative by the man who was detailed in that order to carry it out. So that sentence is perfectly true and encyclopedic for Wikipedia purposes.
What you're proposing, on the other hand, is editing a Wikipedia article based on original research, and we don't do that. WP:NOR Unless you can locate and present an accepted source that says what you want to say above, we can argue well into the night as to whether FDR acted outside his authority and still have nothing that belongs in the article, or which justifies removal of the sentence to which you refer. loupgarous ( talk) 01:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Other nationalities?

Were any other Axis nationalities (e.g. Bulgarian, Romanian, Finnish, etc.) affected by the order? If so, it might be worth noting. Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

The Axis Powers are generally regarded as the initial signatories of the " Tripartite Pact" - Germany, Japan and Italy. While Hungary (November 20, 1940), Romania (November 23, 1940), Slovakia (November 24, 1940), Bulgaria (March 1, 1941, prior to the arrival of German troops), Yugoslavia (March 25, 1941), and Croatia (June 15, 1941) signed the treaty later, I can't find any reference to people descended from any of these nations being interned in the United States of America during a brief Google search.
The Federal Enemy Alien Control Program is documented in the National Archives Web site; the summary of its contents http://www.archives.gov/research/immigration/enemy-aliens-overview.html only mentions detainees from the original three Axis powers.
As an American of German descent (my great-great-grandfather arriving in the US in 1867 through the Port of New Orleans) I don't recall internment even being discussed for the many south Louisianians of German descent living in New Orleans and the parishes upriver from New Orleans ("The German Coast" of Louisiana, settled by Germans and other central European immigrants before the arrival of the Acadians/"Cajuns"). In fact, my father and uncle fought in the European Theater of World War II against the German Army; my father through France and moving eastward, my uncle fought in the invasion of Italy, and the consequent movement of those forces northward toward Germany. Our only exposure to interned Germans was with German prisoners of war sent to the sugar cane fields west of New Orleans as voluntary laborers; one of these men later settled five miles from my house, a man named Eisenhardt. loupgarous ( talk) 01:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Japanese-American Citizens League

In an article by John Tateishi and William Yoshino (2000) published in Human Rights, it is mentioned that the JACL was responsible for pushing the government into creating the CWRIC. Should this be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marunabe ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC) hi the people died 2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.119.193 ( talk) 14:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Query about the statutory authority for EO 9066

The article doesn't state where the authority to make Executive Order 9066 came from. Which statute was the president acting under?

Or did the president claim to be exercising a decree power inherent to the office of "commander-in-chief"?

78.16.25.242 ( talk) 16:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC) reply

Good catch! We totally left that out!
The entire text of Executive Order 9066 was not given in the article originally; the first paragraph outlined the statutory authority President Roosevelt claimed for issuing the executive order:
"Whereas the successful prosecution of the war requires every possible protection against espionage and against sabotage to national-defense material, national-defense premises, and national-defense utilities as defined in Section 4, Act of April 20, 1918, 40 Stat. 533, as amended by the Act of November 30, 1940, 54 Stat. 1220, and the Act of August 21, 1941, 55 Stat. 655 (U.S.C., Title 50, Sec. 104);"
The President may act in Executive Orders to exercise any power granted the office of the President in the Constitution. The mandate in Article II of the Constitution that the President “preserve, protect and defend” the Constitution and uphold its provisions has been cited on several occasions to include "emergency powers" given the President to defend the nation and keep it running in time of national emergency. See http://www.cqpress.com/context/constitution/docs/constitutional_powers.html for a discussion of these powers in general.
In this specific case, President Roosevelt was claiming that Executive Order 9066 was issued to help implement Federal laws defining national defense material, premises and utilities by protecting those items from espionage and sabotage; the language of the order essentially painted every Japanese and Japanese-American in the "military areas" which were broadly defined to include the entire Western United States as a potential saboteur or spy.
I freely stipulate that these "emergency powers" and the scope permitted the President in general to act outside his Constitutional mandate to enforce the laws passed by Congress are highly controversial - especially now that executive orders are being issued to override Federal law in the absence of a national emergency (apart from, perhaps, a ruling party's need for more votes). However, this article simply describes what Roosevelt did at the time - Executive Order 9066's moral and legal pitfalls are described adequately at the and of the article, I think.
Civilian officials of the United States Department of Justice raised objections on moral and Constitutional grounds to taking this action, so the President placed the matter in the hands of the War Department with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942. The United States Army was then given the authority to begin relocations of enemy aliens and American citizens descended from enemy nationalities - and significantly, to overrule the authority of the Justice Department in such matters.
Congress then implemented that executive order on March 21, 1942, by passing Public Law 77-503, 56 STAT 173, "An Act... to Provide a Penalty for Violation of Restrictions or Orders with Respect to Persons Entering, Remaining in, Leaving, or Committing Any Act in Military Areas or Zones." That law, while not specific statutory authority affirming Executive Order 9066 in detail, recognized the executive order and made it a Federal offense to violate its terms. See http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=74 for more information on that.
Thanks for your good catch on the omission of the statutory authority paragraph from the language of EO 9066 quoted in the article. I've taken care of the problem by quoting the order in its entirety as a "cut and paste" from the National Archives' transcript of Executive Order 9066.
"Cut and paste" is normally deprecated here, but the way the order was originally edited left out very important information, as you pointed out. And there can be no copyright issues with material made public by the National Archives. loupgarous ( talk) 02:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

How many non-Japanese were interned?

There wasn't much discussion, but it appears that attributing conflicting sources is the best compromise.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 22:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC) reply

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The numbers cited in this article conflict with the numbers listed on this web page: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5154/ , which states that 11,000 Germans and 3,200 Italians were arrested, but only 5,000 and 300 were actually interned. Can someone check other sources to confirm which numbers are most accurate? Thanks, Aristophanes68 (talk) 12:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

According to Roger Daniels, "perhaps twenty-three hundred German nationals and a few hundred Italian nationals" were interned. Source, Roger Daniels, "Incarcerating Japanese-Americans", OAH Magazine of History, Vol. 16, No. 3, World War II Homefront (Spring, 2002): 19-23, 20
More from Roger Daniels:

It is not yet possible-and may never be-to give precise figures, but the best "guesstimate" of the total number of resident "alien enemies" actually interned under Roosevelt's order of December 7th and 8th is something under 11,000 persons, about one percent of the total number of enemy aliens. By ethnicity some 8,000 Japanese, 2,300 Germans, and a few hundred Italians were actually interned.Many more-largely Germans and Italians-were arrested and held in custody for days and even weeks without being officially interned. Note that these figures amounted to about twelve percent of alien Japanese, about six/tenths of one percent of alien Germans, and less than one-one hundredth of one percent of alien Italians.

— Roger Daniels, "Incarceration of Japanese Americans: A Sixty Year Perspective", The History Teacher, Vol. 35. No. 3 (May 2002): 297-310, 300

FiachraByrne ( talk) 19:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify the Japanese figure above - Daniels appears to apply a stricter and more perhaps more accurate interpretation of internment that many and does not regard the other 110,000 Japanese who were rounded up as interned (prefers the term incarceration). FiachraByrne ( talk) 19:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply
  • If different sources give different numbers, should we attribute them? Instead of saying "11,000 were arrested" in wikipedia's voice, it's better to write "Daniels estimates that 11,000 were interned, but source X says Y, and source Z says ..." Dental plan /  lisa needs braces! 13:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Added things unaccountably missing from the article

such as

- a reference citation for Executive Order 9066 itself,

- a tally of how many Japanese-Americans were interned (another editor gave those figures for the German-Americans and Italian-Americans interned, which seems to me to imply the Japanese-Americans weren't worth counting, even though they were the predominant nationality interned under EO 9066),

- a reference citation for the University of California's Japanese American Relocation Digital Archives (JARDA), which supports the

- information on the number of Japanese Americans interned as well as short paragraphs on the conditions under which they were interned, and their fate after World War 2.

loupgarous ( talk) 13:55, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Error regarding the applicability of the Civil Liberties Act

The article now reads:

"On August 10, 1988, the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, based on the CWRIC recommendations, was signed into law by Ronald Reagan. On November 21, 1989, George H. W. Bush signed an appropriation bill authorizing payments to be paid out between 1990 and 1998. In 1990, surviving internees began to receive individual redress payments and a letter of apology. This bill only applied to the Japanese Americans."

In fact, the boldfaced part of the article quoted above is in error.

Title II of this Act specifically sets up restitution to the members of the Aleut people who were relocated from their homes in the Aleutian Islands in Alaska under Executive Order 9066.

I have changed the article to reflect that fact. loupgarous ( talk) 17:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Headings added - possible new section "The Justice Department Dissent on Executive Order 9066"

Previously, the article lacked headings for sections prior to "Post World War Two," which had the "Contents" table two-thirds of the way down the article, once new material was added.

So I added headings for:

Transcript of Executive Order 9066
Relocation under Executive Order 9066
Relocation Camps Under Executive Order 9066.

I wonder if we ought to add material regarding the Constitutionality of Executive Order 9066... the Justice Department was almost totally excluded from any significant role in executing the order, and this probably relates to objections the Attorney-General of the United States (head of the Justice Department) had to forcible relocation of the Japanese population of the US on moral and legal grounds.

That change I'll put off pending discussion here in the talk page, because it's pretty significant. Nowadays, we have a similar legal crisis surrounding executive orders and what limits ought to exist on their use, bipartisan in that prominent critics of George W. Bush are also criticizing Barack H. Obama on his use or abuse of the executive order. Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066 is a relevant case study in that discussion. loupgarous ( talk) 17:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC) reply

More information on GA/IA Internment

Recent edits to remove IA/GA from the article does reinforce the idea that maybe we should add some more context from their individual pages to this article as well. People seem to think it's a means of minimising the JA internment rather than as a place to start to learn about the way that the GA/IA communities were also affected by EO9066. Paolorausch ( talk) 12:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC) reply

Section "World War II camps under the order": undefined initials WRA

What does WRA stand for? Grassynoel ( talk) 19:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

War Relocation Authority. I've replaced the initials with the full name as it is not defined elsewhere in the article. Thanks for pointing that out. Bahooka ( talk) 20:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC) reply

potentially useful information

Some leaders of the JACL agreed with internment as a means of protection if the US were to go to war with japan, during WW2 but before the bombing of pearl harbor. (I'm having trouble finding a source for this, this is FOAA stuff though and I know it's in a book, if someone could help me that would be great)

Some nikkei evacuated to other states and not all were interned in camps. During the evacuation, some japanese americans (and the JACL in part) sided against those resisting the draft out of fear that could get deported in mass, if later deemed unloyal, and that ultimately, it was to show their loyalty, according to an ex-president of the fresno JACL. [1] DarmaniLink ( talk) 06:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

References

  1. ^ https://ddr.densho.org/interviews/ddr-densho-122-29-1/

The Intro is broken beyond understanding

Currently, it reads "On February 19, 1824, President Franklin D. Executive Order 9066 became Roosevelt's special order during World War II. They were then brought across the river to Japan, where other Americans were born and raised in the United States.

In general, Asian Americans are more likely to be incarcerated than African Americans in the same population. Executive Order 2526 of 1798 for Germany and the United States was part of the Immigration and Nationality Act."

Literally, what? 209.234.74.183 ( talk) 20:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The term “concentration”

Please remove the term "concentration" from the line "Roosevelt wanted to put Japanese in concentration camps in Hawaii. This is incredibly untrue and misleading . Concentration camps are far different from and worse than internment camps. The bias in this article is mind-blowing. 2600:1700:FCA:5E00:55A8:F223:46C6:EF59 ( talk) 03:08, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Wiki Education assignment: Race, Law, and Politics

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Quoncen ( article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by PurdueGrad29 ( talk) 21:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Executive_Order_9066&oldid=1214696727"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE