|Back to Index|
Harry Guilbeau writes:
Mr. Evans condemns the US for the Japanese internment during WW2. Now we know that the Italians on the coast were also included. We can all agree that this was a violation of their civil rights. Every country that declares martial law during times of unrest also violates the civil rights of its citizens.
However, was it not a prudent, practical and sane measure to be taken in time of war? Do we really believe that just because a recent immigrant now has US citizenship, he will abandon all loyalty, identity and care for his motherland? We know that some Japanese internees were relocated after they led banzai rallies in their camps. For that matter, wouldn't all countries at war, view with some suspicion recent immigrants from the opposing side?
I realize this is not politically correct, but I would love to hear this debated.
My comment: Indian Americans have formed a political pressure group to get the U.S. to side with India against Pakistan, and as usual Congressmen are rushing after their votes. They say glibly that they now have two mothers, India and the United States,. The question remains: If in case of conflict they had to choose, which would they choose?
Ronald Hilton - 10/10/99