Italian immigrants rounded up and placed in internment camps

Author: 3RU7AL

Posts

Total: 39
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
In Highlandtown, life changed overnight. Federal agents across the country immediately arrested 98 Italian “aliens,” including ten in Baltimore. The agents identified their targets with the help of the Census Bureau. [LINK]

Italian-Americans had faced prejudice for decades by the time the order was drafted, says Guglielmo. Italians were the biggest group of immigrants to the United States who passed through Ellis Island for much of the late 19th and early 20th century; between 1876 and 1930, 5 million Italians moved to the U.S. Not without backlash: By the 1920s, pseudo-scientists and polemicists in the 1920s popularized the notion that Italians were a separate race from Anglo-Americans. [LINK]

The same chill settled in Connecticut. One morning in spring 1942, federal officers knocked on the door of a New Haven home. The man who opened the door, Pasquale DeCicco, was a pillar of his community and had been a U.S. citizen for more than 30 years. He was taken to a federal detention center in Boston, where he was fingerprinted, photographed and held for three months. Then he was sent to another detention facility on Ellis Island.
Still with no hearing scheduled, he was moved again to an immigration facility at Fort Meade, Maryland. On July 31, he was formally declared an enemy alien of the United States. He remained at Fort Meade until December 1943, months after Italy’s surrender. He was never shown any evidence against him, nor charged with any crime.

EO 9066 not only allowed the government to arrest and imprison “enemy aliens” without charges or trial—it meant their homes and businesses could be summarily seized. On the West Coast, California’s attorney general Earl Warren (later the Chief Justice of the United States) was relentless in registering enemy aliens for detention.

Even Joe DiMaggio’s parents in Sausalito weren’t spared. Though their son, the Yankees slugger, was the toast of New York, General John DeWitt, a leading officer in the Western Defense Command, pressed to arrest Joe’s father, Giuseppe, who had lived in the U.S. for 40 years but never applied for citizenship papers. DeWitt wanted to make a point: “No exceptions.”

2 minute video summary. [LINK]
#2
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
The US government doesn't do that to Italians anymore.
Topic's author
#3
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Alec
The US government doesn't do that to Italians anymore.
Does the US government currently hold anyone "without charges or trial"?
#4
Alec
Alec's avatar
Debates: 42
Posts: 2,472
5
7
11
Alec's avatar
Alec
5
7
11
-->
@3RU7AL
The BoP would be on the person making the claim.
#5
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Does the US government currently hold anyone "without charges or trial"?

The American Constitution is for Americans, not non-Americans.

Jurisdiction is derived from sovereignty.

There are no guarantees from the Constitution for illegal invaders or foreign combatants.
#6
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
Also, here is a bad SCOTUS decision from a court packed with justices from the infamous Fascist FDR.

Sometimes the government can deny Constitutional rights to Americans as well.
Topic's author
#7
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Alec
The BoP would be on the person making the claim.
In the United States, indefinite detention has been used to hold terror suspects during the War on Terror. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Section 412 of the Patriot Act permits indefinite detention of immigrants;[8] one of the most highly publicized cases has been that of Jose Padilla,[9] whose ultimate prosecution and conviction in the United States have been highly controversial. The indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay has been called a violation of international law by the United Nations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Human Rights Watch.[10][11][12][13]

On November 29, 2011, the United States Senate rejected a proposed amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 ("NDAA") that would have banned indefinite detention by the United States government of its own citizens, leading to criticism that the right of habeas corpus had been undermined.[14][15] The House of Representatives and Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act in December 2011, and President Barack Obama signed it December 31, 2011.[16] The new indefinite detention provision of the law was decried as a "historic assault on American liberty."[17] The ACLU stated that "President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law."[18]

On May 16, 2012, in response to a lawsuit filed by journalist Chris Hedges, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Wolf and others,[19] United States District Judge Katherine B. Forrest ruled that the indefinite detention section of the law (1021) likely violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution and issued a preliminary injunction preventing the U.S. government from enforcing it.[20][21][22][23][24]
In 2013, the House of Representatives[25] and the Senate[26] reauthorized the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendments to effectively ban indefinite detention of US Citizens were defeated in both chambers. Moreover, on July 17, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit struck down an injunction against indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the president under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012.[27] The appellate court ruled that "plaintiffs lack standing to seek pre-enforcement review of Section 1021 and vacate the permanent injunction. The American citizen plaintiffs lack standing because Section 1021 says nothing at all about the President’s authority to detain American citizens." On December 26, 2013, President Obama signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014.[28][29] [LINK]
#8
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
Democrats could repeal the Patriot Act and don't cause it gives them extra power too. 
Topic's author
#9
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
The American Constitution is for Americans, not non-Americans.
This statement is provably false.

Jurisdiction is derived from sovereignty.
This is correct, and a non sequitur.

There are no guarantees from the Constitution for illegal invaders or foreign combatants.
This statement is provably false.

Also, here is a bad SCOTUS decision from a court packed with justices from the infamous Fascist FDR.
Sometimes the government can deny Constitutional rights to Americans as well.
Guilty until proven innocent I guess.

The U.S. Supreme Court settled the issue well over a century ago. But even before the court laid the issue to rest, a principal author of the Constitution, James Madison, the fourth president of the United States, wrote: "that as they [aliens], owe, on the one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled, in return, to their [constitutional] protection and advantage."

More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that "due process" of the 14th Amendment applies to all aliens in the United States whose presence maybe or is "unlawful, involuntary or transitory." [LINK]
Topic's author
#10
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
Democrats could repeal the Patriot Act and don't cause it gives them extra power too. 
That's why we must vote the "deep state" candidates out of office.
#11
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
There are  no phrases in the constitution that specifically guarantees rights to foreign invaders or foreign combatants.

"Settled law" is a provable myth as long as the SCOTUS retains its powers. One more judge on the bench wearing a MAGA hat and illegal invaders can kiss their rights byebye.

However the phrase "we the people of the United States of America" appears a few times in the American Constitution, that is the guarantee.
Topic's author
#12
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
There are  no phrases in the constitution that specifically guarantees rights to foreign invaders or foreign combatants. 
So, you don't believe in human rights based on the United States constitution?

What do you think of,

The Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, is a United Nationsmultilateral treaty that defines who is a refugee, and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. The Convention also sets out which people do not qualify as refugees, such as war criminals. The Convention also provides for some visa-free travel for holders of travel documents issued under the convention. Although the Refugee Convention was agreed in Geneva, it is considered incorrect to refer to it as "the Geneva Convention" because that term is more widely understood as referring to any of four treaties regulating armed conflict.
The Refugee Convention builds on Article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes the right of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries. A refugee may enjoy rights and benefits in a state in addition to those provided for in the Convention.[2]


"Settled law" is a provable myth as long as the SCOTUS retains its powers. One more judge on the bench wearing a MAGA hat and illegal invaders can kiss their rights byebye. However the phrase "we the people of the United States of America" appears a few times in the American Constitution, that is the guarantee.
So you believe the law is not based on any core constitutional principles, but is instead arbitrarily subject to the whims of nine political appointees?
#13
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
So you believe the law is not based on any core constitutional principles, but is instead arbitrarily subject to the whims of nine political appointees?


You saw the Korematsu decision from the FDR judges.
Topic's author
#14
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
You saw the Korematsu decision from the FDR judges.
Do you believe their decision was principled or unprincipled (argumentum in terrorem)?

Do you have any opinion on the 1951 Refugee Convention?
#15
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The constitution is not based on UN Laws.

I'll also say that most of the UN resolutions are non-binding, or non-enforceable, and many go against the national interests of America.
Topic's author
#16
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
The constitution is not based on UN Laws.
This is a non sequitur.  Nobody ever made such a claim.

I'll also say that most of the UN resolutions are non-binding, or non-enforceable, and many go against the national interests of America.
So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?

I believe that Countries like Hungary and Australia have a valid reason to resist UNHCR when their National interests are put at risk.

UNHCR has no mechanism to punish these countries either. UN resolutions should not be a suicide pact. 

International courts are invalid for the very reason of conflicting national interests.

China has already violated the Paris CO2 resolutions, where is the penalty? Sanctions only do so much. National interests always supercede sanctions.
Topic's author
#18
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?
I believe that Countries like Hungary and Australia have a valid reason to resist UNHCR when their National interests are put at risk.
UNHCR has no mechanism to punish these countries either. UN resolutions should not be a suicide pact. 
International courts are invalid for the very reason of conflicting national interests. 
China has already violated the Paris CO2 resolutions, where is the penalty? Sanctions only do so much. National interests always supercede sanctions.
So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?
#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
You should already know the answer to that.

Should we be perpetual allies with Russia simply because we had a national interest to be their Allies in 1941?

Of course not. National interests supercede any international agreements. This is a universal principle, not just a USA thing.
Topic's author
#20
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
You should already know the answer to that.
I generally try to let people speak for themselves.  Can you answer the question?

Should we be perpetual allies with Russia simply because we had a national interest to be their Allies in 1941?
Nobody has suggested we ever had a perpetual alliance with Russia.  This is a straw-man and a red-herring.

Of course not. National interests supercede any international agreements. This is a universal principle, not just a USA thing.
Are you suggesting that we should never keep our word because others might be untrustworthy? [LINK]
#21
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't think you understand what a national interest actually is.

#22
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Nobody has suggested we ever had a perpetual alliance with Russia.  This is a straw-man and a red-herring.

Stop being so defensive and open up.

The phrase specifically asked you if we SHOULD have remained allies with Russia forever. We broke that international agreement. Explain why we did that.
Topic's author
#23
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
We broke that international agreement.
Which agreement are you referring to?

Citation please. [LINK]
#24
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL

Take your pick. Now stop turtling and tell me what you think the term "National interests" means?

Topic's author
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
Your link is a laundry list of signed but unratified treaties and agreements.  These are not broken agreements, and none of them have anything to do with a perpetual alliance with Russia.

We broke that international agreement.
Which agreement are you referring to?

Citation please. [LINK]
Now stop dodging and tell me what agreement you are referring to please.

I've never mentioned any dispute regarding the definition of "National interests".
#26
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I've never mentioned any dispute regarding the definition of "National interests".

Fine, then you already know the reason for all these broken international agreements.


Your original question is answered.
Topic's author
#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
I've never mentioned any dispute regarding the definition of "National interests".
Fine, then you already know the reason for all these broken international agreements.
These are unratified agreements, not broken agreements.

Your original question is answered.
I'm going to guess that your double-dodge-red-herring-leap-to-conclusion is a reflection of the fact that there never was any perpetual alliance between the United States and Russia.
#28
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
These are unratified agreements, not broken agreements.

Really?

Treaties between the US and American Indian Nations (1722-1869)
According to the US national archives, 374 treaties (pdf, p.4) signed between the US and Native American Tribes from 1772 to 1867 were ratified.


All of the Trump withdrawals were also from non-ratified international agreements. What's your real point here?
Topic's author
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Greyparrot
You never answered my question from post 16. [LINK]

"So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?"

First you claim that the U.S. broke some imaginary perpetual treaty with Russia.  Then you go on an off-topic rant about how the U.S. breaks agreements all the time (the implication being that this practice is standard operating procedure and should be, presumably, morally neutral?).

Certainly the U.S. has broken many agreements with, and grossly mistreated the Native American Tribes.  This is a tragedy if not an outright crime.

Do you believe this is right or wrong or purely neutral?

Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a personal promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?

Would you, based on a principled position, say that intentionally breaking a professional business promise or agreement is always or never or conditionally right or wrong or morally neutral?

The question is, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?

All of the Trump withdrawals were also from non-ratified international agreements. What's your real point here?
I never mentioned this person.
#30
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,048
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
"So, do you believe we should abide by any international agreements?"
Clearly with all the international agreements the USA has previously broken, there has been a national issue with them. Do you disagree?

As far as the "should" goes, I agree that national interests should supercede international agreements.

Do you disagree? Why?