...from the 1940s forward the relocation camps were also referred to publicly, indeed even by government officials, as both 'internment' camps and as 'concentration' camps....   Such references were made only by those who didn't know better. In its First Quarterly Report the War Relocation Authority wrote; A sharp distinction should be drawn at all times between residents of relocation centers

| ...from the 1940s forward the relocation camps were also referred to | publicly, indeed even by government officials, as both 'internment' | camps and as 'concentration' camps.... | | Such references were made only by those who didn't know better. In its | First Quarterly Report the War Relocation Authority wrote; A sharp | distinction should be drawn at all times between residents of relocation | centers

....if we were to concede that internment was strictly for the diplomats and the enemy aliens who had been accorded due process, and that relocation was for the ethnic Japanese detained under the military/WRA program, clearly the two groups were given disparate treatment and the case some people would like to make for reimbursement for  internees seems to fall apart, doesn't it? Correct.  And the above apparent concession by Mr. Kirkman blows away his prior argument that 'internment' describes the detention of Japanese Americans under Army and WRA authority as well as those detained under DOJ authority.  The term internment, described only the status of persons held for deportation in Dept. of Justice camps.  Such status was NOT synoymous with relocation which described residency in relocation centers operated by the separate War Relocation Authority.  Only enemy aliens were interned and that included some 5,000 former dual-citizen Japanese-Americans who had renounced their U.S. citizenship and requested expatriation to Japan. However, not all Japanese enemy aliens WERE interned (even though under both domestic and international law they all could have been).  Considerably more enemy alien Japanese were relocated away from military zones than were interned.  Internees could not leave interment centers unless deported or paroled. Persons in relocation centers could voluntarily leave for outside employment in locations other than in restricted areas and during the war over 30,000 (both alien and citizen) did so. There was a significant difference between the status of internees and the status of  those relocated from restricted military zones. As for payment of reparations to internees, enemy aliens were (and still are) subject to internment in wartime under both international law and the U.S.Enemy Alien Act of 1798.  Nevertheless, Congress authorized payment of  reparations to Japanese nationals interned during WW II despite the vigorous opposition of the U.S. Dept. of Justice from the standpoint of both legality and precedent. W.J.Hopwood

As for payment of reparations to internees, enemy aliens were (and still are) subject to internment in wartime under both international law and the U.S.Enemy Alien Act of 1798.  Nevertheless, Congress authorized payment of  reparations to Japanese nationals interned during WW II despite the vigorous opposition of the U.S. Dept. of Justice from the standpoint of both legality and precedent. How many of those JA 'internees' would have been subjected to the 'loyalty oath' fiasco and then sent on to secure detention if not for the underlying racism and hysteria that led to EO9066 and their evacuation from their homes?  The bulk of them came out of relocation camps, not off the streets after hearings and due process. To end on a cautionary note: In 1947, U.S. District Judge Louis E. Goodman order[ed] that the petitioners in Wayne Collins' suit of December 13, 1945 be released; native-born American citizens could not be converted to enemy aliens and could not be imprisoned or sent to Japan on the basis of renunciation. Three hundred and two persons [were] finally released from Crystal City, Texas and Seabrook Farms, New Jersey on September 6, 1947. [http://www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/timeline.html]

.... the Act grew out of the study and recommendations of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC), whose charge was to review the facts and circumstances surrounding Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942 [snip] ... and to recommend appropriate remedies. [http://www.clpef.net/backgrnd.html].  IOW, their assignment was to look only at those affected by EO9066. I beg to differ.  The problem here is that your reference above, from which you quoted at length, omits the portion of the CWRIC's assignment as outlined in its report Personal Justice Denied