I’m not sure I agree that it was wrong. It was war. There was reasonable suspicion that the people interned might have had split allegiances. And we certainly didn’t need to be fighting a gorilla war here at home.
If we ended up in a serious all out war with several middle eastern countries, would I have a problem excluding muslims from the military? No. Or interning all middle easterners and/or muslims? I’d probably be for it.
The problem, of course, is that any government that has the power to "intern all middle easterners and/or muslims" necessarily also has the power to intern you and I. Doesn't take much to become an "enemy" fit for internment.
So how do you justify confiscation of their property, including homes and land?
There are probably not many of us Freepers who remember Pearl Harbor and the beginnings of WWII. I am one of them and I can tell you that the mood of the country was heavily in favor of interning them. There were legitimate doubts as to where the loyalties of some of them lay, contrary to what the revisionists would have us believe.
Internment was popular among many white farmers who resented the Japanese American farmers. “White American farmers admitted that their self-interest required removal of the Japanese.” These individuals saw internment as a convenient means of uprooting their Japanese American competitors. Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, told the Saturday Evening Post in 1942:
“We’re charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for selfish reasons. We do. It’s a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men. They came into this valley to work, and they stayed to take over... If all the Japs were removed tomorrow, we’d never miss them in two weeks, because the white farmers can take over and produce everything the Jap grows. And we do not want them back when the war ends, either.”