Japanese Internment and Constitutional Rights in WWII Newspapers

Introduction

Both the Chicago Daily Tribune and the Los Angeles Times presented anti-Japanese sentiment during World War II as a matter of constitutional protection for citizens of the United States. In "Supreme Court Rules Loyal Nips Held Illegally," Warren B. Francis outlines a series of cases related to the internment of Japanese Americans during the Second World War. Francis's article, published in December 1944 in the Los Angeles Times, centers on the legal conclusion that detentions should not be based on ethnicity but rather on genuine and proven threats. Likewise, the Chicago Daily Tribune editorial "Citizens by Right," published in May 1943, harshly criticizes the detention of Japanese Americans on the basis of their ancestry alone. Although one is a pithy editorial and the other straightforward journalism, both newspaper articles condemn the Japanese American internment camps.

Constitutional Protections as the Central Argument

Both articles present the issue of detainment as a matter of constitutional protection. In the Chicago Daily Tribune, the author notes that the Supreme Court decision "found that persons of Japanese blood, born in this country, cannot be deprived of their American citizenship." The author comments: "the decision was a sound one and, indeed, no other finding was possible if the Constitution is to be recognized as the supreme law of the land." Citing the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, the author continues in a sardonic tone: "Mr. Regan was asking the courts to declare the Constitution unconstitutional."

The Los Angeles Times article is not an editorial and therefore maintains a less opinionated tone. Yet anger and frustration are still apparent in the reporter's statements of fact. The author quotes sources that uphold the value of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, noting: "the President's war powers are definitely limited by the Constitution. The provision that persons cannot be deprived of liberty without due process of law takes precedence over the war powers." Both authors therefore agree that the American Constitution prohibits the unwarranted detention of citizens based on their ethnicity alone.

Conclusion

In the Chicago Daily Tribune, the author does not raise the issue of military measures but still achieves the same core objective. The Los Angeles Times article is longer and offers more in-depth commentary on the Korematsu case, which the Chicago Daily Tribune editorial does not address.

The Constitution forms the basis for both the Chicago Daily Tribune and Los Angeles Times articles. Although the former is an editorial and the latter a news piece, both articles denounce the detainment of innocent American citizens on the basis of racism. Both point out that racism was at the heart of the internment camp issue, even if the editorial author has the ability to use harsher language than the Los Angeles Times reporter. The two articles refer to the specific constitutional amendments and the recent Supreme Court cases that define them, together making a compelling case that ethnicity alone can never justify the deprivation of citizens' rights.