Injustice at Home: The Internment of People of Japanese Descent in Canada and the United States during World War II
The forcible removal and internment of people of Japanese ancestry in Canada and the United States during World War II remains one of the most consequential civil-liberties crises in North American history. Carried out in the name of “national security” after the attack on Pearl Harbor, these policies uprooted tens of thousands of citizens and residents, dispossessed many of their property, and left long shadows that governments only acknowledged decades later.
Below is a compact, sourced account of why internment happened, how it was authorized, what life in the camps was like, how treatment compared for people of German and Italian ancestry, how the public reacted at the time, how Canada and the U.S. differed, and how each country later responded with apologies and reparations.
Why was it done?
The immediate trigger was wartime panic and military defeat in the Pacific. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor (7 December 1941) and quickly occupied British colonies and territories in Asia, political leaders, military authorities, and many members of the public in North America feared espionage, sabotage, and fifth-column activity on the Pacific coast. That fear merged with longstanding racial prejudice and economic resentment toward people of Japanese ancestry, especially on the West Coast where Japanese communities had long been visible in fishing, farming and small business.
Although decades of federal and provincial/state reports would later show little or no evidence of organized disloyalty among the Japanese-ancestry populations, wartime hysteria plus opportunistic politics produced policies of mass exclusion, detention and dispossession. The U.S. and Canadian governments invoked emergency powers to remove people from coastal “exclusion” zones and house them in camps far from their homes.
What laws and orders authorized it?
United States
- The principal legal instrument was Executive Order 9066 (Feb. 19, 1942), issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. EO 9066 authorized military commanders to designate exclusion zones and to remove “any or all persons” from those areas; it was the practical basis for mass removal of roughly 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry from the West Coast and their transfer to War Relocation Authority (WRA) centers inland. National Archives+1
- Parallel authorities and proclamations—Presidential Proclamations 2525–2527 and the Alien Enemy Act—allowed arrest and detention of some non-citizens of Japanese, German and Italian nationality under the “enemy aliens” framework. presidency.ucsb.edu+1
Canada
- The Canadian government used the War Measures Act (1914) and related Defence of Canada Regulations and Orders in Council. Beginning in early 1942, Ottawa declared a protected coastal zone in British Columbia, ordered the seizure of property (boats, radios, vehicles), and arranged for the forced removal of about 22,000people of Japanese ancestry (including many Canadian-born citizens) from the BC coast. Administration of seized property was handled by a government “Custodian of Enemy Property.” Wikipedia+1
Who was removed and where were they sent?
Numbers
- United States: about 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry were removed from the West Coast and placed in federal assembly centers and WRA concentration camps between 1942 and 1946; about two-thirds were U.S. citizens by birth. densho.org
- Canada: about 22,000 Japanese Canadians were uprooted from British Columbia beginning in 1942; roughly 14,000 of them were Canadian-born. Many were deported or forced to move east of the Rockies. Wikipedia+1
Where (not exhaustive, but representative)
- United States (major WRA camps and assembly centers):
- Manzanar (California)
- Tule Lake (California; later segregation center)
- Heart Mountain (Wyoming)
- Topaz/Central Utah (Utah)
- Gila River and Poston (Arizona)
- Rohwer and Jerome (Arkansas)
- Minidoka (Idaho)
- plus many temporary “assembly centers” (fairgrounds and racetracks, e.g., Tanforan, Santa Anita) where families waited before being transferred to more permanent camps. National WWII Museum+1
- Canada (examples):
- Hastings Park (Vancouver) was used for initial processing and detention.
- Interior camps and road camps in the BC interior (e.g., New Denver, Tashme), and the federal “sugar-beet” relocation program that placed thousands on farms in Alberta and Manitoba under poor conditions.
- Many families were dispersed into makeshift labour camps, road-building camps, and farm projects; some were eventually moved further east to Ontario and other provinces. Wikipedia+1
Conditions inside the camps
Conditions varied by site and season, but recurring features included:
- Housing: cramped barracks or hastily built shacks; poor insulation and privacy; communal latrines and inadequate facilities, especially at the outset.
- Work: internees were pressed into work—farm labor, construction, or camp maintenance—often for low pay or “credit” toward later bills. In Canada, many also laboured under the government-run sugar beet and road camps with little protection. Wikipedia+1
- Surveillance and restriction: curfews, ID restrictions, policing by military or camp authorities, and loyalty questionnaires (in the U.S.) that caused divisions and hardship. The U.S. government administered a loyalty questionnaire in 1943 that led to internal rifts and the segregation of some “disloyal” detainees at Tule Lake.
- Dispossession: perhaps the most painful aspect was the loss or forced sale of homes, boats, businesses and personal property. In Canada, federal custodians sold off property and fishing operations—many assets were lost permanently. In the U.S., many families sold businesses or property at severe loss to survive. Wikipedia+1
Were Germans and Italians treated the same way?
No—but some were detained.
- In both countries, Germans and Italians—mainly non-citizen “enemy aliens”—were subject to restrictions, curfews, and some internment. The U.S. issued Presidential Proclamations in December 1941 (e.g., Proclamation 2526 and 2527) under the Alien Enemy Act to regulate and detain persons from enemy nations. Some thousands of German- and Italian-born residents were arrested or interned, and some faced deportation proceedings. But they were not removed en masse from their homes or dispossessed on the scale experienced by people of Japanese ancestry. Overall, the scale, geographic sweep, and permanence of Japanese exclusion and dispossession were far greater. presidency.ucsb.edu+1
Why the difference? Race and geography mattered. People of German and Italian ancestry were more integrated with the broader white population and lived across the country (not concentrated on a strategic coast), while anti-Asian racism and local political pressures on the Pacific coast greatly amplified calls for sweeping action against Japanese-ancestry communities.
What did the public think at the time?
Public opinion was mixed but strongly shaped by fear and racism:
- Majority support: Wartime polls and press coverage showed majorities on the West Coast and in many Canadian communities favored removal or harsh measures. For many the measures felt necessary, defensive, or even patriotic. In Canada, significant political pressure from provincial leaders in British Columbia pushed federal action. Wikipedia
- Opposition and dissent: civil libertarians, some churches, lawyers, and a number of individual journalists and citizens argued against mass removal. A few journalists and elected officials warned that the policy violated constitutional protections, targeted citizens, and would do lasting harm. Over time these critics and organized survivors built a redress movement.
- Everyday consequences: even where the public softened later, the practical effect on Japanese-ancestry communities—broken businesses, lost housing and fractured families—was immediate and often irreversible.
Major legal turning points
- Korematsu v. United States (1944) — the Supreme Court controversially upheld the constitutionality of exclusion orders (the Court’s decision is widely criticized today);
- Ex parte Endo (Dec. 1944) — the Court ruled that the government could not continue to detain a loyal citizen without cause; the decision helped trigger the rescinding of exclusion orders and the shutdown of camps. Wikipedia+1
How did Canada and the U.S. differ in practice?
Similarities: both countries removed large numbers of people of Japanese ancestry from coastal zones, detained them in camps or labour projects, and allowed or forced sale of property. Anti-Japanese racism was a strong common thread.
Key differences:
- Scale vs. dispossession pattern: the U.S. removed about five times as many people (roughly 120,000) but did not pursue the same level of forced deportations after the war. Canada interned roughly 22,000, but the Canadian state went further in officially dispossessing Japanese Canadians—the government sold property held by the Custodian of Enemy Property and, after the war, pressed a program of deportation that resulted in nearly 4,000 deportations to Japan (many were Canadian-born). Many Canadian Nisei were thus forced out of the country or permanently displaced within it. densho.org+1
- Duration and mobility rights: in the U.S. most camps were closed by 1945 and many internees resettled (often under difficult conditions). In Canada, restrictions on movement for former West Coast residents remained in force longer (through 1949 in some respects), and the forced dispersal eastward was more aggressive and prolonged. Wikipedia
- Postwar deportation pressure: the Canadian government initially pursued deportation of many internees to Japan; public pressure and political activism forced partial rollback of that policy, but deportations still occurred in significant numbers before 1947. turn2search7
What happened after the war? Government responses and reparations
United States
- For decades, official recognition of wrongdoing was slow. In 1980 Congress created the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC); its 1983 report, Personal Justice Denied, concluded that the incarceration had been the product of “race prejudice, war hysteria, and a failure of political leadership.” The Commission recommended a formal apology and redress.
- Congress passed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 (signed by President Ronald Reagan), which included a formal government apology and $20,000 in monetary redress to each eligible surviving internee. The law also created funds for public education about the incarceration. Wikipedia+1
Canada
- After decades of activism, the Canadian government negotiated the Japanese Canadian Redress Agreement in 1988. On 22 September 1988 Prime Minister Brian Mulroney formally apologized in the House of Commons and announced a $300-million package, which included $21,000 payments to each surviving internee, funding for a community fund and for race-relations education, and reinstatement of citizenship for deported survivors. The package also included measures to preserve historical records and support community rehabilitation. Legion Magazine+1
Both countries’ 1980s redress processes were the result of persistent survivor activism and broader evolving public understandings of civil rights and historical injustice.
How important were these events for the future?
- Civil liberties lesson: the internments are invoked today as a cautionary example of how fear, prejudice, and weak political leadership can erode constitutional protections. Courts, scholars and educators use the record to teach about due process and minority rights.
- Historical memory and education: the redress movements produced important legislative apologies, educational funds, museums, memorials and scholarship, helping ensure the camps are not forgotten.
- Societal impact: the internments destroyed many local communities and removed assets and generational wealth from families—harm that redress could only partially repair. They also fed later civil-rights alliances; Japanese-American and Japanese-Canadian activists were influential in later human-rights and reparations discussions.
Further reading and sources
- U.S. National Archives, Executive Order 9066 and records on WWII Japanese American incarceration. National Archives
- Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, Personal Justice Denied (1983); Civil Liberties Act of 1988. Wikipedia
- Densho (encyclopedia of Japanese American incarceration) and the National WWII Museum articles on internment and redress. National WWII Museum+1
- Canadian sources: Library and Archives Canada, National Association of Japanese Canadians (NAJC) histories, and the 1988 Redress Agreement materials (apology and $300 million package). Government of Canada+1
Closing thoughts
The wartime internment of Japanese-ancestry people in the United States and Canada was an action that combined real wartime fear with long-standing racism and political expedience. It uprooted citizens and residents, broke families and communities, and inflicted economic and psychological damage across generations. The later governmental apologies and reparations acknowledged the wrong but could not fully restore what was lost. Remembering this history is important: it reminds democratic societies that in times of crisis the best response is measured leadership that protects both security and civil rights—never to sacrifice one for the other.
