In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the authority of the U.S. government to order the internment of a minority group in the interest of national security, even though there was no evidence that any members of this group were disloyal to the United States. Should the same policy be applied today against U.S. Muslims or Muslim immigrants? Why or why not? Are these forms of internment different from Native reservations? If so how? If not, why?

First of all, the measure was unnecessary and uncalled for in 1944. Although the Supreme Court approved it, this was done out of unreasonable fear, as there was no evidence that Japanese Americans were disloyal to the United States. Despite this fact, many of them lost their homes and businesses, and saw their lives disrupted or destroyed.

In the case of Muslim minorities, this would be an even greater injustice. First of all, Muslim people do not belong to a particular country. Being a Muslim means following Islam, and persecuting them because of this is akin to forbidding the practice of their religion, which is unconstitutional. Secondly, the United States is not currently at war with a Muslim nation. Instead, it has intervened in several of these countries without a declaration of war. This means that taking action against citizens of these nations would be unethical and illegal. Finally, there is no evidence that Muslim people threaten the security of the United States in any way.

Native reservations are very different to internment camps. First of all, Native people have sovereignty over these lands, and they are able to make their own laws to a certain extent. This does not happen in internment camps, which are completely regulated by the United States. Secondly, people who live in reservations are there voluntarily, and can leave and move somewhere else if they want to do so. On the other hand, internment camps forcefully retain people against their will.