The full question is as follows:
In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the U.S. government to order the internment of a minority group in the interest of national security, even though there was no evidence that any members of this group were disloyal to the United States. Should the same policy be applied today against U.S. Muslims or Muslim immigrants? Why or why not? Are these forms of internment different from Native reservations? If so how? If not, why?
<u>Question 1:</u>
No, the same should not be applied against U.S Muslims or Muslim immigrants because the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War has been regarded as one of the shameful events in the History of the united states. it was considered shameful because the people were held without any prove of wrong doing
<h2>Further Explanation</h2>
During World War II, the Japanese were forced to move to a concentration camp located in the western part of the country. These actions forced over 120,000 Japanese, most of whom resided within the pacific coast to internment camp shortly after Japan attacks pearl harbor.
Violence was recorded in the concentration camps, at least two people were killed and the camps were overcrowded.
<u>Question 2:</u>
These form of Internment camps are different from Native reservations.
<h2>Further Explanation</h2>
Internment camps were designed to detained enemy aliens and are guarded by the heavy military presence. Also, detainees are threatened to be killed if they made any attempt to escape but Native reservations are not guarded by the military.
They are areas that are occupied by Native Americans and it is also supported by law. The native reservations were created with the purpose to bring the Native under the control of the US government and also to reduce conflicts between the Native Americans and settlers.
LEARN MORE:
KEYWORDS:
- supreme court
- internment camp
- Japanese american
- native reservations
- 1944