crimresearch said:
"The ACLU actively fought against Japanese internment in WWII and "Immigrant rights" is one of their main theme issues (of about 15). With involvement in more than 5000 cases a year they are involved in so many things what most people hear about is more a refelction of what the media chooses to report rather than what the ACLU is really focused upon."
Sorry, but that is revisionist history. I'm sure that the ACLU *wishes* that they had lead the charge against the relocation of Japanese Americans instead of bringing up the rear with a losing effort after reversing their earlier reluctance..
"In the meantime, Baldwin and the ACLU wrestled with the issue of internment of Japanese-Americans and Japanese aliens, which had been demanded by the U.S. military. In contrast to many of his longtime colleagues at the ACLU, Baldwin continued to challenge such violations of civil liberties, but he also sought to maintain good relations with the federal government. "
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/baldwin_r.html
"Wrestled with" could mean all sorts of things. Considering they were all loosing cases and there was even friction with some oddly patriotic Japanese over the ACLU's court fights against internment I think you just made up your own meaning from a very ambiguous paragraph. Is the implied contrast between Baldwin and his collegues that "he also sought to maintain good relations with the federal government" while they all continued to fight for civil liberties?
From the JACL 10 points:
"the ACLU decided against a test case, and they are champions of civil liberties "
And from the ACLU attorney A.L. Wirin on the ACLU's helping the JACL with internment (evacuation) cases:
" We are particularly interested in the suggestion that the JACL appear as a friend of the court in the Native Sons' and other suits against our civil rights. That does not refer to the evacuation cases. "
"
http://www.javoice.com/limreport/LimPartIIA.htm"
That seems like a manipulative use of a link to me, the JACL was opposed to test cases so what they say about the ACLU's position is suspect and the reason for the ACLU not asking them to appear in test cases is without the meaning you imply. Here's the opening to that link:
The issue of what JACL's position on a legal test case was clearly and unequivocally spelled out in Bulletin #142 of the JACL, Office of the National Secretary, dated April 7, 1942. This particular bulletin, issued and signed by Mike Masaoka in his capacity as National Secretary and Field Executive is entitled RE: TEST CASES. It specifically discusses the facts of Min Yasui's case. The third paragraph of the three page bulletin states:
National Headquarters is unalterably opposed to test cases to determine the constitutionality of military regulations at this time. We have reached this decision unanimously after examining all the facts in light of our national policy of: "the greatest good for the greatest number."112
Here's the abstract of a document that I think paints a much more complete picture of what the ACLU was up to:
Fighting the Japanese Internment in Federal Court:
The A.C.L.U. During World War II
R. Jeffrey Blair
jeffreyb@dpc.aichi-gakuin.ac.jp
Aichi Gakuin University
Nagoya, Japan
An earlier paper (Blair, 1999) describes the background of the Japanese Internment and the efforts of the American Civil Liberties Union to lobby against it before legislatures and the public. This paper describes the organization¹s efforts to litigate in the courts against curfews imposed on the West Coast Japanese, their evacuation, and their internment in camps.
Three Caucasian groups in the United States--the Fair Play Committee (Shidler, 1952), the American Friends Service Committee, and the American Civil Liberties Union (Blair, 1999 and McDaid, 1969)--recognized the grave injustice of the Japanese Internment carried out during the Second World War. All three attempted to defend the reputation of Japanese (this term will include all ethnic Japanese regardless of citizenship) on the West Coast and to mitigate the impact of the United States government's shameful and racist policy. When the political battle was lost, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) continued this fight in the courts. Since the legal issues under dispute concerned federal policy, all litigation took place in the federal courts--United States district courts, appeals courts, and the U.S. Supreme Court. (For convenience and the sake of brevity, the term "United States" will usually be omitted when referring to these courts.)
In the first half of 1942, the ACLU national office prodded its three West Coast branches to find evacuation test cases and bring them to litigation. All three complied enthusiastically. Seattle took up the defense of Minoru Yasui and Gordon Hirabayashi; San Francisco found Fred Korematsu and Mitsuye Endo; and Los Angles argued the cause of Earnest Wakayama.
http://www.aichi-gakuin.ac.jp/~jeffreyb/research/ACLU.two.abref.html#head
'Immigrant rights' to vote and get driver's licenses and public education is an entirely different issue from 'migrant workers' which include many people who are American born citizens and yet are denied protection of OSHA, the EEOC, etc. by legislation that the ACLU will not challenge, and by illegal actions such as violent attacks, and forced labor, that the ACLU, along with politicans and corporate interests, ignores and therby tacitly condones.
As I said, it is their choice to choose who they ignore, and turn down, but to claim that the ACLU does not ignore and turn down important isssues is a crock.
Paul [/B]
What specific legislation do you think the ACLU will not challenge. I am unfamilar with the specifics of what you are referring to. I also never claimed the ACLU doesn't turn down/ignore importnat issues, with finite resources in a world full of injustice that seems unavoidable.
