Answer to question 1. It should be emphasized that racism in conjunction with nativism has negatively shaped the immigration law and policy in the United States (Johnson, 1998). The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 has been one of the most noticeable examples of discriminatory treatment with regard to non-Europeans occurred before the internment of Japanese Americans. The executive order 9066 has successfully followed the policy of the Chinese exclusion with its measures of control, registration and deportation (Roosevelt, 1942). The executive order of 9066 has prescribed a wide range of restrictions in internment camps resembling the past policy of segregation and racial discrimination. Moreover, the Supreme Court ruling in Korematsu v. United States has disfavored racial minority groups making internment of Japanese a lawful measure (Johnson, 1998) However, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka case (1954) is a landmark decision which has eliminated “de jure” racial segregation.
Answer to question 2. The arguments in favor of the internment of Japanese Americans should be enumerated as follows: 1) – protection against espionage and sabotage to national defense (Roosevelt, 1942); 2) – elimination of threat to the US Pacific Coast; 3) – protection of Japanese Americans; 4) – protection of American citizens from Japanese; 5) – sacrifice for the war effort (Malkin, 2004).
Answer to question 3. Roosevelt has issued Executive Order 8802 of 1941 creating the Fair Employment Practices Committee. The aforesaid order has been followed by Executive Order 9981 of 1948 and by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (Brooks et al, 2000). The president’s aspirations in the domain of civil rights lie in both the promotion of labor rights for minorities including African-American and abolishment of the segregation in the US Army and Navy. However, the internment of Japanese Americans contradicts the aforementioned endeavors augmenting segregation and racial discrimination in the domain of civil liberties and labor rights. Thus, Roosevelt’s achievements in civil rights are incoherent.