1. Regarding the ability to leave the camps (yes with permission of the authoritites):
"In May, 1942 farmers began to petition the White House for help in recruiting seasonal farm labor for their crops due to the labor shortage. The seasonal leave program began on May 21, 1942 from the Portland Assembly center to help thin beets in eastern Oregon. The local officials had to pledge that the seasonal labor was needed and insure the safety of the internees working on the farms. In September, 1942 the demand for seasonal labor had increased dramatically. By mid-October, 10,000 evacuees were on seasonal leave, and the demand well exceeded the supply. Although there were some incidents of local hostility, the program was judged a relative success."
"In Ex Parte Endo, Ms. Endo, an American citizen being held in a Relocation Camp, filed for leave clearance. It was granted, but she failed to file for indefinite leave. Instead, she filed for writ of habeas corpus, demanding that she be restored to liberty and that the regulations holding her were invalid.
The Endo Court granted her petition, but explicitly declined to rule on constitutional grounds. The Court merely found that, pursuant to the War Relocation Authority statute and Executive Order 9066, the WRA had no power to subject admittedly loyal citizens to its leave procedure, i.e., no power to detain, where the citizen was admittedly loyal.
The Court explicitly left open the possibility that the Order allowed for detention of citizens whose loyalty was not known. The Court stated "[d]etention which furthered the campaign against espionage and sabotage would be one thing. But detention which has no relationshipto that campaign is of a distinct character…" Ex Parte Endo, 323U.S. 283, 302 (1944). Thus, although the camps were generally opened in the wake of Endo, the case never addressed the constitutionality of the measure. "
From an interview with KEN MASUGI:
"Let's reflect on the relocation centers or "camps" before we use terms like this. These were self-governing towns, with barracks-like quarters. In Washington, D.C. at the Smithsonian history museum there is a replica of such a barracks. My mother affirms its authenticity. What is not known is that people could leave the camps for work (as did my parents, who returned when the seasons changed) or for college. The government actually offered jobs in other parts of the country. Other relatives of mine moved outside the camps to take jobs. Now, would anyone have chosen them as places to live? Highly unlikely. The mistake we may be making today is trying to rectify the past injustice and not see the problems created by our utterly different attitudes toward immigration and race today. Racial segregation was routine back then, hardly anyone questioned the legitimacy of discrimination based on race. Obviously there were basic rights and many fought to assure greater liberties for all. What we have today is a multicultural, group-rights mentality that keeps us from acting prudently just as an analogous racial mentality encouraged some rashness after WWII".
When I mentioned Hayakawa, I was remembering incorrectly. He was an Associate Professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology from 1939 to 1947, and example of an alien Japanese (Canadian citizen) who could freely live outside the exclusion zone.
2. On compensation.
In 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed the Japanese American Evacuation Claims Act allowing reimbursements. Some 23,689 claims were filed asking for $131,949,176. By the time these claims outlasted federal procedures which required itemized claims and receipts, the Federal Government recompensed Japanese Americans $38,000,000 or about 29 cents for every dollar claimed.
Let me say again the relocation of Americans of Japanese descent and resident aliens from Japan was stupid, cruel, and counter productive to American war efforts, and with undoubtedly racist motivations. I still protest, however, the invalid comparisons to Nazi concentration camps that is made today for political purposes.