Browse By

Congressman Takano Slams Cruz and Trump For Following The Path Of Japanese Internment

Yesterday, Congressman Mark Takano stood on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives and said, “Today, as I watched leading politicians propose discriminatory policies targeting the Muslim community, I cannot be silent. Seventy years ago, my parents and grandparents were held prisoner during World War II without trial and without a reason, other than their Japanese heritage. In that moment, no one was willing to speak up for them. We
cannot ignore the lessons of history.

The Muslim community is the most frequent victim of terrorism and our greatest ally in ridding the world of extremism. Responding to Brussels by advocating for patrols of Muslim neighborhoods, or suggesting that we torture our enemies, is not only counterproductive, it violates the moral code that separates us from our enemies.”

This week, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz called for torture, government surveillance and police harassment against Muslim Americans in reaction to a terrorist attack in Belgium.

11 thoughts on “Congressman Takano Slams Cruz and Trump For Following The Path Of Japanese Internment”

  1. Charles Manning says:

    Great statement!

  2. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    Ted Cruz and Donald Trump oppose the Constitution. Despite what people say, torture, government surveillance, police harassment, and religious tests are all unconstitutional. Politicians should follow the Constitution. Where does the Constituion allow the government to intern, torture, surveill, or harass people on the basis of their religion? I’ll be waiting for Ted Cruz and Donald Trump’s fallacious answers or silence. They have no right answer, but to say “No, the Constitution doesn’t allow that, but we are so scared of Muslims and concerned with natioral security, that Muslims will need to have their Constituional rights suspended for the good of America!” It would be wrong, ethically, factually, and legally, but at least they would be honest about it.

    1. Jim Cook says:

      That’s a good summary of it — Ted Cruz and Donald Trump are at base panicky amoral candidates appealing to panicky amoral people.

  3. John says:

    I really don’t see why people are making such a big deal out if politicians calling for surveillance of Muslims in America. If you think for one second that NSA, FBI, or the CIA hasn’t already been listening to every word spoken in any given American based mosques for decades now, then I have a big red bridge up in San Francisco I want to sell to you for the low low price of $2000! Silly naive people

    1. Jim Cook says:

      I really don’t see why it’s such a problem to pick out and identify Jews and place them under surveillance and patrol in their neighborhoods. Why not? They’re not culturally integrated with us Germans and that makes them a threat, and we want to be safe, don’t we? Silly naive people. What’s wrong with a little yellow star here and there?

    2. J Clifford says:

      John, have you ever read the Bill of Rights?

      Amendment I: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

      Amendment IV: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

      These are the principles upon which our nation was founded, way back in the 1700s.

      You may not get it, John, but to most Americans, it’s kind of a big deal.

      1. John Simmons says:

        Thank God there was a provision penned into the constitution that if a certain group of people OPENLY professed a desire to cause America or its citizens harm that the threat could be dealt with minus political correctness in the equation. They must have foreseen the socialist agenda brewing in the democratic party.

  4. Dave says:

    A couple of questions come to mind: 1) According to johnstonsarchive.net there have been 11,318 deaths and injuries from Islamic terrorism in the U.S. from 1985 to 2013, and there have been 11,438 deaths and injuries in Israel. If the Presbyterians were responsible for a combined total of 22,756 deaths and injuries in just those two countries in that period would there be no reason to provide close scrutiny of the activities of Presbyterians?
    2) Canada currently has 1,053,945 Muslims, up 3000 percent since 1971. If this demographic trend continues Muslims will outnumber all other religions in Canada by 2050-60 or so. Does anyone here really think that Canada would continue at that point to be anything other than another another Middle-Eastern type country where multiculturalism thrives? (Hint – There appear to be no Middle Eastern countries where multiculturalism thrives.) Try to imagine a Canadian Supreme Court comprised of Rahim, Mohammed and Nancy adjudicating cases according to an Anglo-Saxon constitution.

    Oh, and as to the first question; I know some here like to compare deaths and injuries from terrorism to the same for auto accidents, but if you think about it, the unacceptable numbers of auto deaths resulted in much effort to reduce those numbers, i.e. safer car designs, seat-belts, better highways. Should those efforts not have been taken in order to protect the feelings of ignorant designers and careless drivers?

  5. Al Hopfmann says:

    Cruz and Trump (especially Trump) have their faults. But implicitly comparing them to the three communists who were ultimately responsible for the Japanese internment abomination that occurred in WWII is disingenuous.

  6. Korky Day says:

    The USA has taken the cowardly, immoral, and unconstitutional route of fighting wars without declaring war. The last time war was declared by Congress was 1941, I think. The Vietnam War was illegal. The USA, I think, should consider declaring war against Islamic terrorism now while at the same time starting high-level, extensive, and live-televised peace talks.

    In a state of war, enemy aliens then should be dealt with fairly. Some Muslims will help us. I hope that such will be done much better than the Japanese internment. I went to school with the children of those Japanese-Americans in Santa Maria, California.

    The meaning of the word surveillance seems to eluded most of you in this discussion.
    If a beat cop walks by your house occasionally and notices whether you are going in or out, or are suntanning on your lawn, that is surveillance. It means watching. That’s what police are hired to do. Of course, sometimes they go too far and break the law, but politicians calling for increased surveillance is not necessarily anything wrong or illegal.

    Calling for harassment, though, is different–unless you consider that (above-mentioned) beat cop to be harassing you, which I don’t.

    When did Donald Trump call for illegal harassment, Peregrin Wood?

    1. J Clifford says:

      Korky, there’s a big difference between A) a policeman walking his ordinary beat through a neighborhood, who just happens to see a crime taking place on your front lawn; and B) a policeman who is purposefully stationed outside your house with cameras and technology to intercept your cell phone calls, keeping track of your movements 24/7.

      What Ted Cruz and Donald Trump is more like situation B than situation A. They are talking about specifically targeting law-abiding citizens for intense police surveillance, for no other reason than their religion.

      You understand the difference, Korky. You’re choosing to overlook it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!