From DiscoverNikkei.org

Contents

Timeline

The passage of the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 and the subsequent securing of appropriations are the hallmarks of the Japanese American redress movement. This movement was initiated within the ethnic minority community, fought in both the legislative and judicial arenas, ultimately supported by a president whose administration initially opposed it, and finally financed through an entitlement status.

The early roots of the redress movement can be found during World War II, when individuals such as James Omura, Joseph Kurihara, and the Heart Mountain Fair Play Committee demanded some form of restitution for the violations of their constitutional rights. From out of this oppressive environment also emerged one of the most heart-wrenching stories of loyalty and patriotism. Despite the racism, discrimination, and wholesale violation of constitutional rights to which they were subjected, the Japanese American community produced three of the most celebrated and decorated military units in American military history: the 442nd Regimental Combat Team, the 100th Battalion, and the Military Intelligence Service. Each of these units served with distinction and their actions would ultimately refute any allegations of disloyalty or treason.

In the immediate postwar period, significant events began to change the sociopolitical context for the Japanese American community. The Japanese-American Evacuation Claims Act of 1948 provided limited compensation for property losses incurred during the exclusion from the West Coast. The California Supreme Court ruled that the Alien Land Laws violated the equal protection clauses of the United States and California Constitutions. The McCarran-Walter Act of 1952 gave Japan a token immigration quota, and more important, the Issei were given the right to apply for citizenship. In 1954 the U.S. Supreme Court, in Brown v. the Board of Education, struck down the doctrine of “separate but equal,” which served as the foundation of legal segregation.

1959 The admission of the Territory of Hawai`i as the 50th state of the Union played an important role in the redress movement. This event opened the door for the election of Japanese Americans to Congress. Daniel K. Inouye, a decorated World War II veteran who lost his right arm in battle, became the first Japanese American to serve in the U.S. House of Representatives; he was elected to the Senate in 1962.

1970 Edison Uno, a university professor from California, introduced a redress resolution at the biennial Japanese American Citizens League (JACL) convention, making redress a formal issue.

1974 Norman Y. Mineta elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from California.

1976 Masayuki “Spark” Matsunaga became a U.S. Senator from Hawai`i. Robert T. Matsui elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from California.

1978 The first “Day of Remembrance” was held on Thanksgiving weekend at the Puyallup Fairgrounds in Washington.

The JACL passed its most strongly worded resolution, which called for an apology and $25,000 in monetary redress. Its leadership met with the four Democratic Japanese American legislators; at that meeting Senator Inouye suggested the creation of a commission to educate both the American people and members of Congress about the concentration camp experience. Although this would delay directly pursuing redress legislation by several years, the JACL opted to follow his suggestion. Subsequently, individuals formed other groups that developed different strategies. The National Council for Japanese American Redress (NCJAR), the National Coalition for Redress and Reparations (NCRR), and the coram nobis legal team all played instrumental roles in the redress movement.

1979 NCJAR (followed by the 1983 coram nobis legal team) expanded the redress movement into the judicial realm with a class action lawsuit and legal action to correct the Supreme Court convictions of Fred Korematsu, Gordon Hirabayashi, and Min Yasui.

1980 The NCRR invigorated the effort by aggressively employing grassroots political techniques. The diversity of organizations offered new opportunities for people across the nation to join in the redress movement. Ultimately, all the groups had the same goal: to right a grave constitutional wrong.

1981 The Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) held ten public hearings in nine cities involving more than 750 witnesses.

1982 CWRIC released Personal Justice Denied—a report of the findings resulting from the public hearings—which documented the financial losses suffered by Japanese Americans, as well as the “physical illnesses and injuries,” “psychological pain,” and “unjustified stigma” that resulted from the camp experience. The Commission stated that the camps were the result of “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” The Commission’s recommendations included a presidential apology, an educational fund, and a monetary redress payment of $20,000 to each surviving individual.

1983/1985 The first redress bills were introduced in the 98th and 99th Congress. The bills never made it out of the subcommittees to which they were assigned.

1987 In the 100th Congress, House Resolution 442 (named after the famous 100th Infantry Battalion / 442nd Regimental Combat Team) and Senate Resolution 1009 were introduced. Both bills called for a presidential apology; redress payment of $20,000 to each surviving individual; and the creation of a public education fund. Both bills also included redress payments for the Aleut and Pribilovian people relocated during World War II.

The 100th Congress was a golden window of opportunity for the passage of redress. The Nikkei members of Congress were at the height of their collective political influence: Senator Inouye possessed seniority and great political clout in the Senate; Senator Matsunaga was in his second term and was very popular with his colleagues; and Representatives Mineta and Matsui were in their seventh and fifth terms respectively, and both were well respected by their House colleagues. In the 100th Congress, the Democrats regained control of both the House and the Senate, creating a situation most conducive to the passage of a redress bill.

September 17 marked the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution. The House of Representatives passed HR 442 by a vote of 243 to 141.

1988 On April 20, the Senate passed its version of HR 442 by a vote of 69 to 27. The bills were sent to a Senate-House conference committee. On July 27 the Senate approved the conference report by a unanimous voice vote. On August 4 the House agreed to the conference report by a vote of 257 to 156.

On August 10 President Ronald Reagan signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Three factors were instrumental in obtaining the president’s support: the personal connection that he had with the issue, the willingness of Congress to compromise on key technical components of the bill, and the growing political strength of the Asian American community.

The Civil Liberties Act of 1988 was an authorization bill that was only a promise to pay if and when funds were ever appropriated; the appropriation of the actual funds to fulfill that promise was still needed. Through the exercise of influential political power, Senator Inouye managed the process of creating an entitlement status for redress funding. On November 21, 1989, President George H. W. Bush signed into law HR 2991, which established entitlement status for redress funding.

To date, more than 82,000 individuals have been issued [a] presidential apology and a monetary redress payment of $20,000. Additionally, a $5 million dollar Civil Liberties Public Education Fund was created.

Redress Court Cases

The foundation for Redress was established by a series of court cases challenging the legality of the relocation and incarceration of people of Japanese ancestry. When the Redress movement picked up momentum many years later, a renewed look at these court cases became pivotal to the ultimate success of the campaign.

Political Empowerment

Grassroots Movement

External Links

Profiles four Japanese-American alumni (Carl Nomura, Robert Naka, George Iwanaga, and Shuji Magota) and their experiences as internees during World War II. (Cf. entries on Nomura under Business & Work.)
Abstract: "In contrast to the outpouring of scholarship on the causes of what was called the 'internment' of Japanese-Americans and Japanese-Canadians and on the quest for redress in these two cases, little research has yet addressed the question of whether redress 'works.' That problem is the focus of this article. We report the results of a comparative study of the consequences of 'coming to terms with the past' among the Japanese-Americans and the Japanese-Canadians. We seek to understand whether and how the initiatives grouped under the rubric of 'coming to terms with the past' actually contribute to the greater integration into the larger society of previously marginalized and maligned groups. We conclude that these measures do help those who benefit from them to feel more integrated in their societies, but the broader consequences of internment and redress depend on larger forces, which differed in the two countries."
Nash describes the roles Jack Herzig and Aiko Yoshinaga-Herzig played in retrieving documentary evidence that the U.S. government misrepresented its efforts to determine loyalty among Japanese Americans prior to the decision to incarcerate them during World War II. Their research was instrumental in the coram nobis case that ultimately vacated the convictions against Fred Korematsu, Min Yasui, and Gordon Hirabayashi.
Profile of Thomas Fujita-Rony, assistant professor of Asian Studies at California State University, Fullerton. Fujita-Rony's research focus is on the redress movement in general, and specifically on the work of Akio Yoshinaga-Herzig and the experience of Fred Korematsu.
"Yesterday the sun set on the federal Civil Liberties Act of 1988, which provided redress to about 82,000 Japanese Americans who were interned or displaced during World War II. Of those, 2,665 were from Hawaii."
Originally published April 26, 1999.
"The release of Years of Infamy in 1976 finally gave redress advocates the facts they needed to press their righteous claims in the courts and in Congress. The redress movement’s efforts led to a 1988 law giving $20,000 per former internee, and it was research done by Weglyn and other activist-scholars such as Aiko Yoshinaga-Herzig that made the difference for Congressional skeptics and critics. Weglyn also was a key backer of the William Hohri et al. versus United States class action redress lawsuit in the 1980s and the Heart Mountain draft resisters, who refused, on principle, to be drafted to fight for freedom when they themselves were living behind barbed wire. Until just weeks ago, she served as a resource person for Japanese American railroad workers, Japanese Latin Americans, and anyone else who had been denied redress compensation for any reason."
"U.S. District Judge Charles Legge on Nov. 12 dismissed the class-action lawsuit by the National Coalition for Redress/Reparations (NCRR) and Japanese Latin American Joe Suzuki. They had charged the government with “breach of fiduciary duty” for delaying the investment of a $1.65 billion fund set aside to provide reparations for Japanese Americans under the landmark Civil Liberties Act of 1988. But Legge ruled that because the fund expired on Aug. 10, 1998 and is depleted, the NCRR did not have the right to sue. He noted that the decision to allocate more money should be made by lawmakers, not judges, according to NCRR lawyer Chris Prince."
Robert J. Gould, Review. Oregon Historical Quarterly vol. 104, no. 4 (date).
A review of James Shimabukuro's book, Born in Seattle: The Campaign for Japanese American Redress.
"Shimabukuro’s book also leaves us with a fascinating question: how could an Asian Pacific Islander American community smaller in percentage population than that found in New York, San Francisco and several other cities, gain so much political power in such a short time? Part of the answer no doubt lies in the coalitions built with other communities of color based on living together in Seattle’s segregated working-class communities. But part of the answer also lies in the extraordinary individuals who came together to play their particular roles in the overall struggle."
Retrieved from "http://www.discovernikkei.org/wiki/index.php/Redress_Movement_in_the_United_States"
Personal tools