By February 19th, then-President Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066. You're right, it was the executive order. Basically declaring the entire western region under the military commander of a guy named John L. DeWitt based in the army headquarters in San Francisco. Literally, the next day, DeWitt designated the entire western states as military zones for which anybody could be excluded.

These weren't neighborhoods near a military installation. They were the western half of Washington, the western half of Oregon, all of California, and the southern half of Arizona. By March 2nd, again, note the speed of this, 1942, Congress passed Public Law 503 declaring in very self-contradictory language, anybody who enters, remains in, or leaves a military zone shall be guilty of a crime, basically.

[00:06:28] Host: There's no option but to pack your things and go at that point.

[00:06:32] Donald: Exactly. In other words, if you stay, you’re a criminal.

[00:06:35] Host: We have family on the on the East Coast. We're going to go stay with them if that's not enough.

[00:06:39] Donald: If you leave, you are guilty of a crime. These were diametrically opposite contradictory orders within Public Law 503. Because of that, the roundup began in earnest, and literally, by March/April, people are herded into temporary prison camps while these 10 concentration camps are being built. There were three people who defied these orders. Fred Korematsu in California, San Francisco, Minoru Yasui, a young lawyer in Oregon, and Gordon Hirabayashi, a student at the University of Washington, all born in this country, all American citizens who made the decision to defy these orders. By and large, everybody else got rounded up.

[00:07:33] Host: With regards to those who refused, was there knowledge of their constitutional rights, and did they see this as “this is our right to not have to follow this?” Where does the Constitution fit into what happened to these 125,000 people?

[00:07:56] Donald: Well, Jon-Barrett, you're absolutely right. Each of these three litigants said that it was unlawful for an American citizen to be rounded up, be deprived of their property, their freedom, and for some of these Japanese Americans, even their lives, without trial, without evidence, without any showing of any wrongdoing, and merely because of their racial ancestry. They didn't know each other. Each defended these cases on their own in their jurisdictions and they lost. All of them lost. Within the next two years of their arrest, 1943 and 1944, these cases went up to the US Supreme Court.

The question is, how did the government defend itself? The 14th Amendment of the Constitution, the due process clause of the Constitution says this is unlawful. What did the government argue? The government argued that Japanese Americans were engaging in spying, in espionage, and sabotage. Because of the urgency, the national emergency of the situation, it was too overwhelming to have individual loyalty hearings.

They were only left with one option. To round the whole of them up and put them away in concentration camps. Basically, long story short, the government said, "If a military General John L. DeWitt tells us that this is necessary for the safety of the nation, then we believe him." Without trial, without any evidence, it ruled that an entire racial group, men, women, and children, young, the old, the healthy, and the infirm, could all be rounded up and put into concentration camps. Those cases stood for the next 37 years, basically. They were known, for the very reason that they utterly disregarded the Constitution, among the worst cases in US Supreme Court history. Now, the interesting thing is, 37 years later, researchers Aiko Yoshinaga-Herzig and Peter Irons were researching government archives and Peter couldn't find Fred Korematsu's Justice Department file. He wanted to write a book about Fred. He wanted to see what the Justice Department had and so on, and the archivist said, "We can't find them. They're nowhere to be found." Peter gave up because the documents weren't there. Two weeks later, he gets a call from our archivist saying, "We found them. They were misfiled in the Commerce Department."

Peter goes to the Commerce Department, not the FBI Justice Department, but the Commerce Department. No one would ever know these documents existed. Among, he opens this box that obviously hadn't been disturbed or opened in over 40 years. At the very top are memos within the Justice Department, writing on the eve of these cases being heard before the US Supreme Court saying, "We're about to tell lies to the US Supreme Court. Every intelligence agency is saying that the Army's claims that Japanese Americans are engaging in spying and espionage are 'intentional falsehoods.'" The FCC basically said, "We have monitored all radio waves. Nobody is signaling. The Army is picking up signals emanating from Tokyo, calling them shortage of transmissions and blaming Americans of Japanese ancestry."

The FBI basically thoroughly investigated every single claim, and J. Edgar Hoover said, "Every claim has been investigated and under no situation was there any evidence in which prosecution could go forward." Similarly, the Navy, which had primary jurisdiction over national security on the West Coast, concluded before this roundup began that there was no reason to round up this entire population. They should be treated no differently than the German American or Italian American population and actually recommended against this roundup. All of that information was suppressed and memos--

These two Justice Department lawyers, they turned into whistleblowers. They urged the Assistant Attorney General that they had a duty not to lie to the US Supreme Court. They were ignored. The attempts to alert the court basically failed so the Solicitor General, knowing that all these claims that he's putting before the US Supreme Court are false, nevertheless, completely corroborated or backed up General DeWitt's false assertions. On that basis, what did the court do? The court said, instead of saying, where's the evidence, where's the proof of wrongdoing, what do you have with respect to radio signaling and spying?

Instead of asking those questions, it simply said, "In times of war, we're not going to question the military." End of story. People had characterized it as a huge mistake, but what it really reveals is a, I'll call it a scandal of epic proportions where they were so determined to uphold the constitutionality or a claim legality of this roundup, that they're willing to fabricate evidence, suppress it, and even destroy it in order to manipulate the outcome of this major Supreme Court decision. I think the lesson going forward is what happens when all three branches just fail to uphold democratic principles. Well, it's the end of democracy, at least as far as Japanese-Americans were concerned. It's a lesson that's important to remember going forward in our times today.

[00:14:20] Host: You mentioned the three who did take a stand, but out of 125,000, I know we weren't that big of a litigious society back in 1942, but I'm just curious why more individuals or families didn't seek legal support to fight this at that time.

[00:14:42] Donald: When the call to round up Japanese-Americans happened, it was insanely popular. The attorney general in California at that time was Earl Warren. Earl Warren, then the politician, not Earl Warren, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, who in 1954 led a unanimous court to outlaw racial segregation in public schools, but Earl Warren, the attorney general of California in 1941 and 1942, running for governor on basically a platform that the Japs must go.

Now, later in his life, he expressed profound regret for not upholding the principles of democracy, but then he was one of the key leaders that led the roundup. The newspapers, Hearst Publications, LA Times called for the roundup of Japanese-Americans. Every sector of American society, government, as well as you'd think people in the faith community would object, they did not.

The National Board of the ACLU issued a directive to all of its local chapters not to represent Japanese-Americans because they did not want to appear soft on fascism and not support the war effort. The Northern California chapter, the ACLU, led by Ernest Besig in San Francisco said, "This is wrong. Go ahead and oust us. We're going to represent Fred Korematsu." Even getting any kind of legal representation was extremely, extremely hard.

By the time Fred's challenge came up, everybody else had already been rounded up. Fred basically defied the law. He was alienated from his parents. He was in love with an Italian-American girl. He considered himself a loyal American citizen so he changed his name. Every Japanese-American was issued an enemy alien classification card, even though they were born in this country. He just simply tore that up.

Ultimately, he was arrested and put in the Presidio, which is a military stockade in San Francisco. Ernest Besig of the ACLU came to visit him and said, "We're going to represent you." Again, the public outcry, calling for this roundup of this or arrest of this Jap spy. He posted his bail $2,500 then which, in today's dollars, it's about $40,000. They went before the court, court asked to post bail. Ernest Besig pulls out the check, issues it. It would allow anybody else to go free pending trial, but the orders for the roundup that had been issued, Fred was met at the courtroom door with Besig by military MP and was arrested and then taken back with all the other Bay Area Japanese-Americans to Tanforan racetrack, which was a racetrack turned into a temporary prison surrounded by barbed wire and machine gun towers where Japanese-Americans, including my parents, ended up being forced out of their homes at gunpoint and living in horse stalls. Under those circumstances, not many people are going to object to that. They didn't like it, but literally, with a bayonet in your back, what are you going to do? People went along with that.

[00:18:49] Host: 125,000 is a large number of people, if there was more support, if the ACLU hadn't put a ban on supporting, that just the strength in numbers could have overturned this executive order?

[00:19:07] Donald: Well, you notice they didn't round people up in Hawaii. Again, strength in numbers, there were so many Japanese-Americans in Hawaii and they were the backbone of the entire state's economy, and that's where the attack happened. You'd think that that would be the place that [crosstalk]--

[00:19:27] Host: If there was going to be a spy.

[00:19:29] Donald: Exactly. By the way, not a single Japanese-American during the entire duration of the war was ever charged, let alone tried and convicted of espionage or sabotage. Not one. Yet, this happened and the court upheld it. I think the lesson to learn is that it was normal. When that happened, it was so normal to vilify disfavored groups that, as it went on, people said, "Of course, this is logical. This is normal. Japan attacks Pearl Harbor, therefore, people who are ethnically Japanese also must be traitors and disloyal, and saboteurs." The racial animosity was so strong that, simply, it was beyond question for anybody to criticize that or object to it.

[00:20:30] Host: Was there an element of maybe not fully understanding their own rights or was it just that fear of military with guns in your home? I would imagine if anything happened like that to me now, I don't necessarily know what my rights would be, and you would just go along because the gun is in your face.

[00:21:01] Donald: I think so. Like I said, within a day or two after Pearl Harbor, literally, all the community leaders had been arrested and the people left in charge, the average median age was 18 because all the senior leaders had already been arrested. Suddenly, you had these young people in their 20s thrust into leadership positions. They also viewed themselves as completely loyal to this country. Some concluded that it was their duty to cooperate and show that they were 110% American. Among those, for example, people volunteered.

By 1943, the government realized, "Okay, this is not at all dangerous population." They gave the opportunity for people to volunteer out of the concentration camps to serve in the 442nd Regimental Combat Team. Ultimately, 16,000 Japanese Americans served and fought bloody battles in Europe, became the most decorated unit for its size in the history of the army to this day. Here they are fighting for democracy in Europe while their own families are imprisoned at home. By then they were drafting people out of the camp. My father was drafted. There were some who said, "We will not cooperate with this draft. We will bear arms in defense of our country, but you got to free us." If they put conditions on their service, they went to Leavenworth. Those people ended up in prison. The idea that you're going to fight and defy this was simply not even a question.

[00:23:08] Host: As you mentioned, right after the bombing, people were arrested, these elders, these leaders of community, but this wasn't the executive order. They were arrested under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. Will you tell us a little bit about what that act entails?

[00:23:28] Donald: Well, it's only been invoked twice during the, I forget which war, literally, a century later, in the Japanese American roundup. Trump has said he wanted to invoke the Enemies Alien Act again to round up unlawful, undocumented immigrants. The sad history of this being invoked, it's only been done once. It's one of the most shameful chapters in US history, but that was immediately followed up by Executive Order 9066, and then the passage of Public Law 503 in Congress authorizing arrests of anybody remaining on the West Coast, and then upheld entirely by the US Supreme Court.

There's been much ado about the Alien Enemies Act, and they should, but it was a whole system, and the entire society bearing down on one very marginalized besieged population. I guess the takeaway is that all of those things are now being recycled and repurposed to be implemented possibly today. At least, that's the talk. It's actually more than talk. The deportations that Trump promised that just about every whistle-stop on the campaign trail are literally in the process of being launched.

[00:25:17] Host: Yes, as far as the Alien Enemies Act, we would have to be in conflict with where those immigrants are from to a certain extent. It makes me wonder now that we're looking to militarize our border and call cartels terrorists, that it's opening up this gray area for what an enemy looks like.

[00:25:47] Donald: Yes, I think that the threshold part of the act that you're teasing out is that, in order for the act to be invoked, you have to be at war with a country. Are we at war with Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua? No. In this mental verbal gymnastics about how to make it applicable, someone has come up with the idea that "Well, if we name the cartels as terrorist organizations like the War on Terror, we can declare war, and that will qualify as an entity, a country, that will allow us to invoke this ancient rarely used law." That's the talk that's going on. The bounds of this is breathtaking.

[00:26:42] Host: How else has the action the US government took towards Japanese Americans in 1942 reverberated over the last 80-plus years in how our government responds to other marginalized communities?

[00:26:59] Donald: Well, in the first version of the Trump presidency election of 2016, he was inaugurated January 20th of 2017. Seven days later, you'll all remember that the first of thrice revised Muslim bans were invoked, that Trump had long promised on the campaign trail. People were literally caught midair, including hundreds that had been issued visas, who themselves were escaping terror. I'm talking about Iraqi translators and their families and other people who literally were stopped at the airport, or prevented from entering the country, or were literally caught midair. The other groups were American citizen families who were separated from their parents. This went on for not a year or two, it went on almost the duration of his entire term.

In justifying it, he said, "Well, this was done during World War II. We did it to Japanese Americans. We should be able to protect our country against Muslim terrorists." None of the countries in the ban were involved in any act of domestic terror here in the United States. Ironically, some of the countries, namely Saudi Arabia, where 9/11 terrorists originated from, were not on that ban.

In addition, there were reports within the government itself, questioning whether this was necessary for the nation's safety. Those internal reports were never released. They were disclosed to the court, but none of that detail was ever produced. Again, in a replay of 1944 Korematsu v. United States, did the court ask for that evidence, the evidence of wrongdoing, the evidence that such a ban would make the nation safer? Again, like in 1944, no. They said, "If the President tells us that this makes the nation safer, then we believe him."

Now we're at a new juncture, and we're not just talking about closing down the borders. We're talking about arresting people and their families, separating families, sending US military down to the border, and so on, and talk of the Alien Enemies Act that was invoked during the Japanese American Roundup and then the incarceration of Japanese Americans themselves, as if it was precedent and a legitimate exercise of government power. Sadly, that's where we're at. It's regrettable that this whole chapter continues to have resounding relevance today.

[00:30:22] Host: What can we do? What can people do to protect themselves, to defend themselves and their rights during this time of sweeping executive orders and this unforeseeable future we're stepping into?

[00:30:40] Donald: I think one lesson is to not do what was done in 1941 and '42, and that is to vilify and demonize to the extent that people believe it's okay to do that. The issue of controlling borders is obviously a legitimate issue. In other words, the country will want to be able to control its borders, but the idea of mass arrest without any due process, the fact that this is an economy that depends upon immigrants, you only have to look out and to see who's cooking the food, washing the dishes, picking the crops. The idea of ending birthright citizenship is something that is not only embedded in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which was passed in 1866 and then tested in a case called Wong Kim Ark in 1898. The court ruled that, if you're born in this country, you are an American citizen and entitled to all the rights of citizenship, both state and federal. It's important for us to understand what that means and to take it seriously.

My grandfather was a stowaway, came to this country in 1906. His first son, my father, was an American citizen by birthright. I was born in Oakland, California. Birthright citizenship. What does that mean to purport to end it, and to all, for all generations, and all of those people that are contributing tax-paying members of this country in a country that's literally all immigrants except for enslaved people who were brought here? I think it's for all of us to be aware of what's going on.

This is a country that has become ever more fact-challenged where, literally, facts don't matter and the consequences of facts not matter being subject to being important is you can't have a democracy where that happens. I think the message to Americans is that you don't lose your democracy necessarily in a sudden coup d'état. You can lose it incrementally bit by bit until it's hollowed out to a point where we no longer recognize it as a democracy.

The idea of being able to arrest people, imprison them without any due process at all, we should have learned that lesson in 1944, if not earlier. Now, these whole issues are being raised once again in these broad and indiscriminate policies that are being proposed. These issues impact everybody. It's not just Japanese Americans. It's not just folks who believe in Islam. It's literally everyone. I hope everyone keeps their eyes and ears open, reads, makes their own conclusions, and pays attention to what's happening.

[00:33:57] Host: We'd like to thank Donald Tamaki. Chapters podcast was produced by Past Forward and made possible with support from Chapman University and California Civil Liberties Public Education Program, a state-funded grant project of the California State Library. For more information, visit pastforward.org, chapman.edu and library.ca.gov.