Talk:Enemy alien

WPMILHIST Assessment

The WWII examples are interesting, but they do little to illustrate the real definition of enemy aliens, or the historical application of the concept more widely. What does international law say about enemy aliens? the Geneva Conventions? UN Resolutions? What US, UK, or other countries' individual laws, policies, and historical actions are relevant here? LordAmeth (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Foreigner, not "Alien"

It all sounds so ancient, and so short-minded, the legal oddity and compulsion to call alien any human being that was not "born here" or does not have "this" nationality. The expression "Enemy Alien" sacrifices any intelligent meaning for the sake of shortness, for (besides referring to a terrestrial with an implication that he's or she's not one) it implies that a citizen of a foreign country (another stupid expression, because no country regards itself as "foreign") in conflict with "this one" is necessarily and automatically regarded as an enemy. Is this concept still valid and in use nowadays? Perhaps it could be replaced by the more rational "Suspect Foreigner". (Lawyers!) --AVM (talk) 02:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Your problem is with the English language, not the article. The proper term is alien. You are confusing "space alien" with "alien" (a person from another country).

The term "illegal alien" is the most accurate way to define a person in a country illegally. An "enemy alien" is an person in country "a", legally or illegally, during a time of war, from country "b" during the time countries a and b are at war.

It is absurd to contend "alien" is somehow pejorative or inaccurate.

"And "suspect foreigner" is WAY more pejorative. Enemy aliens don't have to be suspect as individuals.108.48.226.29 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Enemy alien

It seems to me that the article mangles the difference between "resident alien" and "enemy alien." See Alien_(law)#Categories. A resident alien is in one list. "Enemy alien" is in a list by itself. That is, a resident alien may still be an "enemy alien." Preferred residential status does not relieve him/her from being treated as an enemy in case of conflict. Note the section on the Japanese. Issei (first generation) were not allowed to become citizens but were given "resident alien" status. My contention is that they were lawfully (if somewhat immorally) interred. The second generation (Nessei) were Japanese Americans and were illegally interred (though for minors, hardly any choice!). Student7 (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Incredibly, the Alien_and_Sedition_Acts are still in affect. That article should be examined in order to make clarifications here. The Internment of the Issei was quite legal, if somewhat underhanded. Student7 (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I just edited the section to (I hope) clarify this distinction. Since an "enemy alien" is a national of a hostile country, that would mean that resident aliens become enemy aliens during wartime if they are from one of those countries and have not obtained US citizenship. So in this case, the Issei (and the Italian- and German-Americans — although you seem to be mainly concerned with the Japanese?) were permanent residents before the war, but on December 8, 1942 their status changed to enemy alien. I don't think the legality of the internment is (or should be) questioned in the article. It seems to me the focus is on explaining how and why enemy aliens were classified as such. MartinaDee (talk) 01:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

IMO, the Alien and Sedition Act is more germane to the United States subsection than the "See also" would indicate (not peripheral). In other words, the sympathetic Internment of Japanese Americans article is given at the top of the subsection, but not the Act, which justified some of the internment. Student7 (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Somehow I overlooked the fact that you edited it. I think this is "close enough" to what I wanted. Better than duking it out inside the article! I agree that the illegality is a bit hazy. Attempting to be precise would doom the discussion and maybe any agreement. And yes, I was emphasizing the Japanese. I was on the East Coast with various German American residents and did not realize that some were incarcerated. As in Hawaii with Japanese Americans, so it was on the East coast with German Americans, but just not to that degree since they were eligible for citizenship. Student7 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Detention in Canada

The article mentions the transportation of detainees to Australia. Some were also sent to Canada. My uncle, a Jewish refugee from Germany, was detained as an enemy alien and sent to an internment camp in Quebec. There must be documentation of this.Bill (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Casual disregard of disproportionate interment of Japanese-American citizens compared to citizens of other ethnicities

The article makes mention that "many" Japanese-Americans who were interned "held American citizenship". Actually, that would be "most" of the ones who were interned—something close to 60% or two-thirds. The article also compares the case of Japanese-American interment to Italian- and German-Americans as if they were equivalent. They weren't. Those of German or Italian ethnicity who were interned were overwhelmingly nationals of those nations, not citizens of the United States.

While there's no need for this article to rehash everything that is covered at internment of Japanese Americans, it should not imply that Germans, Italians and Japanese were all treated the same way.

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/11/us/an-official-apology-is-sought-from-us.html

The Italian immigrants were caught up, to a milder degree, in the hysteria that swept the West Coast after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. While all the interned Italians were citizens of Italy, about two-thirds of the interned Japanese were American citizens. The anti-Japanese measures lasted the length of the war, while the anti-Italian restrictions mostly ended after less than a year.

108.34.206.74 (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The section is badly written to start (first it says this is a well-known example of "enemy aliens", then a few sentences later, immediately says that, no, actually, they weren't "aliens" because they were, in fact, citizens) and gives a false impression that the rules applied equally to all. WP Ludicer (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)