progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 70,969
- 45,289
- 2,615
and thats what they are doing,,
but you pricks want to whine and complain because its happening,,
you need to stop believing the MSM nd do your own research,,
Zone1 Let's actually DISCUSS the origins and intent of the "Due Process Clause" of the Constitution.
- Thread starter MarathonMike
- Start date
but you pricks want to whine and complain because its happening,,
you need to stop believing the MSM nd do your own research,,
I did my own research. Discovered that MAGA is a bunch of cowards who get off on the feeling of authoritarian dick up their asses. Whodathunkit?
I'll be publishing my results in the scientific journal "Duh".
Last edited:
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 70,969
- 45,289
- 2,615
you life sounds difficult and depressing,,
How do you know this. What is your source? Link?
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 70,969
- 45,289
- 2,615
whats your source they arent dong that?? LINK PLEASE??
MarathonMike
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #106
I don't read AI generated responses. We all know of the "Garbage In/Garbage Out" aspect of current AI engines. American Indians, Chinese laborers and even Japanese CITIZENS were all denied due process. So the claim that today's illegal aliens have rights to due process is clearly invalid. And in the case of Kilmar Garcia he DID receive due process, was deemed an MS-13 gang member and a threat to society and was court ordered to deport.What the United States did was not Constitutional but that did not happen for decades..
------------------
[the following response was generated by AI]
You're implying that because the U.S. government interned Japanese Americans during WWII, it sets a precedent for waiving due process, even for citizens. But this is legally and historically misleading. Here's why:
1. The Internment Was Not Constitutionally Authorized — It Was Later Found Unjustified
The internment of Japanese Americans was carried out under Executive Order 9066, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942. This order did not explicitly suspend due process, but it did grant the military broad authority to exclude people from designated areas. That power was abused.
- In Korematsu v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court upheld the internment — a decision that was heavily criticized and effectively overturned decades later.
- In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court formally repudiated Korematsu in Trump v. Hawaii, calling it "gravely wrong the day it was decided."
- The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 acknowledged that the internment was based on "race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership" — not law — and provided a formal apology and reparations.
2. The Government Cannot "Waive" Constitutional Rights Without Legal Basis
Due process rights under the 5th and 14th Amendments cannot simply be “waived” by executive will. The internment camps were later recognized as a constitutional violation. So citing them as precedent is akin to citing a wrongful conviction as justification for denying someone a fair trial.
3. Non-Citizens Still Have Due Process Rights
In Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), the Supreme Court held that non-citizens in the U.S. — even those here unlawfully — are entitled to some form of due process under the 5th Amendment. Immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal, but the government must still follow procedural protections.
So to answer your question:
The internment of Japanese Americans was not authorized by law in a constitutional sense. It was implemented under an executive order, upheld temporarily by a flawed Supreme Court decision, later admitted as a grave injustice by all branches of government.
-----
Here’s a clear, structured explanation of how Japanese American internment was carried out legally at the time, even though we now know it was a grave constitutional violation:
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066, which gave military commanders the authority to designate “military areas” and exclude any persons from them.
STEP 1: Presidential Executive Order 9066 (Feb. 19, 1942)
- It did not name Japanese Americans specifically.
- It gave military commanders discretion over who to exclude.
- The West Coast was declared a military area.
This was the legal foundation, though vague, that allowed further discriminatory action.
Congress quickly passed a law making it a federal crime to violate any military order issued under Executive Order 9066.
- This gave legal teeth to the executive order.
- Now, failing to comply with exclusion orders could land someone in prison.
General John L. DeWitt issued military orders requiring the forced evacuation and internment of Japanese Americans on the West Coast.
- No hearings, no individual assessments.
- Over 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry — 2/3 of them U.S. citizens — were forcibly relocated and imprisoned in camps.
The Supreme Court upheld the exclusion order in a 6–3 decision:
Korematsu v. United States (1944)
- They claimed it was not about race, but “military necessity.”
- Justice Frank Murphy dissented, calling it a “legalization of racism.”
- 1980s: The U.S. government admitted wrongdoing through the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians.
- 1988: The Civil Liberties Actwas signed by President Reagan, offering:
- A formal apology
- $20,000 in reparations per survivor.
Summary of Legal Path
-----
Authority Action Executive EO 9066 gave military power to exclude people Legislative Congress criminalized non-compliance Judicial SCOTUS upheld the policy under "military necessity" Later Findings The justification was false; the actions were unconstitutional
Many people did recognize it as unconstitutional even at the time, including members of the Supreme Court, government officials, and the public. Here are a few key points that show just how clear the violations were:
Murphy was blunt: he called it "legalized racism" — and he was a sitting justice of the Supreme Court.
Even J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI, opposed the mass internment. He believed:
Similarly, Attorney General Francis Biddle initially resisted the plan, warning that it was legally and morally indefensible.
- There was no credible evidence of espionage or sabotage by Japanese Americans.
- Internment was based more on race and hysteria than any threat.
Commissioned by President Roosevelt himself, this confidential report concluded:
Despite this, Roosevelt signed EO 9066 just three months later.
- Quakers and some clergy publicly objected.
- Some editors and columnists (though few) called it a violation of due process.
- Japanese American groups petitioned and protested.
- Fred Korematsu: Challenged his arrest for not complying with the exclusion order.
- Gordon Hirabayashi and Minoru Yasui: Also refused to comply and challenged the constitutionality in court.
So yes, there was awareness, objection, and legal dissent, but the courts, military, and public hysteria overwhelmed the constitutional safeguards — at least for a while.
You said:
what happened to the people who had been interned between 1944 & the 1980s?
ChatGPT said
That’s a profound and often overlooked question — what became of the over 120,000 Japanese Americans who were interned during World War II between their release and the formal apology and reparations decades later?
Here’s what happened during that intervening period (1944–1988):
- The camps began shutting down after the war ended (some people were released earlier for work or military service).
- Many had no homes to return to — their property had been stolen, sold, or vandalized.
- Some had to stay in temporary housing, hostels, or churches while trying to rebuild their lives.
- Interned families lost millions in property (homes, farms, businesses).
- They faced widespread discrimination — in jobs, housing, and public life.
- The economic damage was generational; many families never recovered their prior status.
- Many Nisei (2nd-generation Japanese Americans) rarely spoke of their internment afterward.
- There was a stigma — and fear of further retaliation.
- Children and grandchildren often only learned later in life what their families had endured.
- Some returned to the West Coast, others resettled in Chicago, New York, and Midwest cities.
- Community organizations (like JACL, Japanese American Citizens League) provided limited support.
- Despite the trauma, many internees rebuilt from scratch, started businesses, and contributed significantly to American society — including veterans who had volunteered from inside the camps.
- By the 1960s, younger Japanese Americans (Sansei, 3rd generation) began pressing for justice.
- The Redress Movementbuilt momentum, leading to:
- The formation of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (1980)
- Emotional congressional testimonies from former internees
- Mounting public pressure
- In 1988, President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act, granting:
- A formal apology
- $20,000 in reparations to each surviving internee
- It took until the early 2000s to pay all claims, and many had already passed away.
The time between 1944 and the 1980s was filled with:
The Emotional Toll
One internee said:
- Painful silence
- Economic hardship
- Resilience and rebuilding
- And eventually, vindication, though late
The release of Japanese Americans from internment didn’t happen all at once — it was a gradual, politically pressured, and legally challenged process that began in 1944 and continued through 1946. Here's what caused it:
This is the most direct legal trigger for their release.
Impact: This decision made it legally indefensible to continue holding thousands of internees.
- In December 1944, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Ex parte Mitsuye Endo that:
The government could not continue to detain a U.S. citizen who was “concededly loyal.”- Unlike Korematsu, which upheld the exclusion orders, Endo addressed continued detention.
- The Court basically said: Even if the government claims national security, it cannot keep loyal citizens imprisoned.
- On the same day the Endo decision was announced (Dec. 18, 1944), the War Department issued Public Proclamation No. 21, lifting the West Coast exclusion orders effective in January 1945.
- After the defeat of Germany (May 1945) and Japan (August 1945), the justification for internment evaporated.
- Internment camps began closing — the last one (Tule Lake) shut down in March 1946.
- People like Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi, and Mitsuye Endo bravely brought legal cases.
- Groups like the ACLU, JACL (Japanese American Citizens League), and religious organizations criticized the camps publicly.
- The public was slowly made aware of the human toll and injustice, though racism remained entrenched.
- Some Japanese Americans were released earlyunder limited circumstances:
- To work in areas away from the West Coast
- To attend college
- Or, notably, to serve in the U.S. military — many joined the highly decorated 442nd Regimental Combat Team
Summary: Why They Were Released
"
Trigger Effect Ex parte Endo (1944)
Declared indefinite detention of loyal citizens unlawful Military Proclamation No. 21
Lifted exclusion orders End of WWII
Removed the (false) justification of "military necessity" Labor & Military Needs
Pressured the government to release internees sooner Civil Rights Pressure
Legal and public advocacy forced reconsideration
And their rights were, in fact, violated. Is that the kind of government you want?
Maybe. I don't know the full story on Garcia, and I doubt anyone else here does either. I don't know whether, in his case, due process was followed or not. But what I keep hearing, from MAGA apologists, is that it doesn't matter. They're saying that those deported don't "deserve" due process. And that displays a complete ignorance regarding due process and why it's important.
Sorry but I have no sources to prove a negative. Surprise.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 70,969
- 45,289
- 2,615
so why did you lie nd say it was happening??,,
IM2
Diamond Member
- Mar 11, 2015
- 113,739
- 144,177
- 3,645
Bullshit.
All "due process of law" means is that the law is followed when depriving someone of life, liberty or property. It doesn't mean the actual "due process" is the same for every situation.
It's meant to prevent "lawlessness" and/or one entity playing judge, jury and executioner -without regard to the law. It doesn't mean illegal immigrants have the same legal rights/privileges as US Citizens - it means that the US will follow the law as it pertains to illegal immigrants.
It varies....being at the border is a scenario and being caught 100 miles in to the country...and the week of entering or three years later, criminal record shown when caught at border, criminal record of US crimes after being here, valid claim to asylum seeker or not meeting criteria for asylum seeker....missing court date, court date has not come yet...etc etc etc etc....
There are rules and a process under our laws to follow for each one of those and other scenarios if undocumented people...it is different on their due process...usually a hearing by a judge for all those different scenarios is considered due process though the judicial process may differ...due process can be different for each individual's case....
Trump admin knows the law, and knows under the law, they all get a chance to hear what they are being accused of, and get the chance before the neutral arbitrator judge to show their evidence of why they should be able to stay, or prove mistaken identity, or prove fear of grave harm if returned, etc etc etc...
this is WHY the trump admin falsely claimed we are in a declared war with the Venezuelan government, so they could SKIRT THE RULE OF LAW AND DUE PROCESS, and imprison the alleged gang members in another country's concentration camp prison, under the guise of the Alien Enemy Act, which they believed could and would eliminate the legal step of DUE PROCESS....
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 70,969
- 45,289
- 2,615
you know how I know youre just making shit up??
you didnt provide a link to anything you just said,,
MarathonMike
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #116
Exactly. So in the case of Japanese US citizens in WWII their "due process" was to ship them to prison camps and keep them there for years. That is the definition of depriving one of their rights to Liberty. In the modern day case for illegal immigrants, their "due process" is to verify proof of citizenship and possibly deport them if no proof can be presented.
Initially "The due process" during WWII was to follow the Executive order of the president - In hindsight, it was tragic - and it could have been worse but the balance of power within the US government eventually clarified the issue:
In its 1944 decision Korematsu v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the removals under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders, avoiding the issue of the incarceration of U.S. citizens without due process, but ruled on the same day in Ex parte Endo that a loyal citizen could not be detained, which began their release. On December 17, 1944, the exclusion orders were rescinded, and nine of the ten camps were shut down by the end of 1945. Japanese Americans were initially barred from U.S. military service, but by 1943, they were allowed to join, with 20,000 serving during the war. Over 4,000 students were allowed to leave the camps to attend college.
Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
Balance of Power and Due Process is what separates the United States from countries like WWII Nazi Germany - here, history speaks for itself.
In modern day, the initial "due process" for illegal immigrants is whatever the law states it is. That said, there is still a "balance of power" within the United States in which certain issues can be contested in court.
MarathonMike
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #118
So you agree that Trump's current actions with illegal immigrants are consistent with historical precedent.Initially "The due process" during WWII was to follow the Executive order of the president - In hindsight, it was tragic - and it could have been worse but the balance of power within the US government eventually clarified the issue:
In its 1944 decision Korematsu v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the removals under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders, avoiding the issue of the incarceration of U.S. citizens without due process, but ruled on the same day in Ex parte Endo that a loyal citizen could not be detained, which began their release. On December 17, 1944, the exclusion orders were rescinded, and nine of the ten camps were shut down by the end of 1945. Japanese Americans were initially barred from U.S. military service, but by 1943, they were allowed to join, with 20,000 serving during the war. Over 4,000 students were allowed to leave the camps to attend college.
Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Balance of Power and Due Process is what separates the United States from countries like WWII Nazi Germany - here, history speaks for itself.
In modern day, the initial "due process" for illegal immigrants is whatever the law states it is. That said, there is still a "balance of power" within the United States in which certain issues can be contested in court.
airplanemechanic
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2014
- 22,685
- 19,150
- 2,415
Because they're in the country illegally?
Not with WWII - completely different situation. And historically, illegal immigration and the border was typically a bi-partisan issue.
But since this became a highly politicized issue during this last election, you get what we have here now - "which is the way they want it - well, they'll get it."
Since you seem to be asking - these are my thoughts on the issue:
Legal Immigration is fine. This is a country that was built by immigrants. Even prior to the establishment of the United States in 1776, early settlers came from various parts of the world. Only Native Americans can claim "not to be immigrants" when it comes to America.
That said, illegal immigration is not "fine" - at least not to the extent it reached over the past several years. A small % of illegal immigration has been somewhat tolerated over the years. It's when illegal immigration reaches record levels without the necessary judicial processes and/or deportations that should follow mass illegal immigration - is when it becomes a problem.
To begin, illegal immigration sets a bad precedent from the start. A person knowingly enters the country illegally and on his/her very first step on American soil, breaks the law. This person will be forced to lead a lower class life, in the shadows of society and would be considered "lesser" by society because of the person's status. The tragedy is that many of these people would prefer to be considered "lesser" here vs first class citizens in their own country of origin.
Why is this happening at such alarming rates? Human trafficking has become a lucrative industry for organized crime. Many of these people give their life savings to these groups in order for them to secure entry into the U.S. Some of them are "tied" to these groups for years - sometimes longer - paying them for their services or "protection" even after they enter the U.S.
For the United States, it can create an expensive burden in terms of border control, judicial processing, enforcement, politics, and so forth. It also creates an influx of undocumented labor that can affect some areas - but usually that isn't nearly as much of an issue as some make it out to be. Most of the jobs illegal immigrants do are the jobs most Americans do not want to do - there is a demand for their type of labor in the workforce.
Unfortunately, with illegal immigration, there is no control of who (or what) enters the country. You can have criminals, people who are trafficked against their will, drug mules, drugs, or worse all entering illegally.
That said, the idea is to take the immigration process out of the hands of organized crime and back into the hands of the people who want to immigrate here AND do it legally - so that they are fully documented to begin their lives in the U.S.
Ideally, once the current issue subsides, the United States can begin to focus on streamlining legal immigration - the same way many Americans and our ancestors came to this country - with their heads raised high.
Last edited:
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
AI music created for AI listeners(yep, you read it right)
- Started by ozro
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
Is it true that the Iranian Embasay in Denmark raises the old Persian Flag?- Started by BackAgain
- Replies: 3
