President Bush`s plan to amnesty
millions of illegal Latin Americans could conceivably
work if he simultaneously announced the end of racial
quotas that make native-born whites second-class
citizens in their own country. Instead, the Bush
administration is preparing to defend a federal
racial quota policy in an upcoming Supreme Court
American blacks are a solid bloc-vote for liberal
Democrats who have invested heavily in "hate
whitey" rhetoric. Bush`s political advisers see
an opportunity to offset the effect on elections of the
black vote by gaining the Latin or Hispanic vote for
Republicans. From this standpoint, amnesty for Latin
illegals and permission for Mexican
trucking companies to deliver goods in the U.S. make
However, the combination of amnesty and quotas spells
the end of the American constitutional
order and implies the marginalization of native-born
white citizens. Republican plans to gain the
vote will cost native-born whites their rights.
Constitution prohibits differential group rights
that confer higher or lower legal standing on the basis
of class, race, religion or any other basis. The
combination of U.S. immigration and civil rights
policies is destroying the equality in law that is the
basis of our constitutional order.
Ever since Senator Ted Kennedy (D,Mass.) restructured
U.S. immigration law in 1965,
practically every legal immigrant has been a
"person of color." The 1964
Civil Rights Act was rewritten
by federal bureaucrats and federal courts to favor
people of color, thereby creating an illegal and
unconstitutional policy of legal preferences.
The perversion of the Civil Rights Act means that
practically every immigrant who arrives on our shores
has privileged legal standing in discrimination
lawsuits, federal contracting, university admissions,
employment and promotion.
Legal and illegal immigrants constitute a new class
of citizens with privileges based on skin color. Good
intentions and crass politics have produced two classes
of citizens separated by a new color line: non-preferred
whites and "preferred minorities."
Even with minorities comprising a relatively small
percentage of the population, it has proved to be
impossible for native-born whites to regain the equal
protection of the law that is guaranteed by the
Constitution. Among others, Professor Frederick R. Lynch
at Claremont McKenna College in California has shown
that racial quotas persist even in California and
Washington, two states with anti-quota laws on the
As the voter ranks of preferred minorities continue
to swell with high rates of legal immigration and
amnesties for illegals, there is little prospect for
People who advocate
open borders have studiously avoided the implication for
equality in law. Although never put formally to a vote,
the decision has been made to sacrifice the Constitution
in favor of immigration from the Third World. Even if
immigration advocates were correct about its economic
benefits, are these benefits worth the demise of
equality in law, an achievement of centuries of
Once group rights are in place, they tend to expand.
Why should a preferred group`s privileges
be limited to employment, government contracts, college
admissions and discrimination lawsuits? Why not all
lawsuits? Why should a legally privileged group be
subject to the same income tax and criminal law that
applies to second class citizens?
Unlike the old color line, the new color line is
based in federal
regulations and executive branch policies.
Instead of combating these unconstitutional policies,
the Bush administration is gearing up to defend before
the Supreme Court a Department of Transportation
set-aside program for the new class of preferred
citizens, who have acquired the right to a percentage of
federal contracts even if they are the high bidders.
If Republicans will not combat unconstitutional
privilege because they want to expand their voter
base to include Latins, how can they possibly object
to preferences once preferred minorities are part of
their voter base? The end result will be Republicans and
Democrats trying to out-bid each other with offers of
new privileges for preferred minorities. At some point
even white liberals will see the writing on the wall.
Legal privileges for people of color are buttressed
teachings that portray Western civilization not as
the triumph of liberty and democracy but as the
oppressor of women and minorities. The white male is
portrayed as evil incarnate. Why should he have equal
rights? The new color line is his just deserts. The Bush
administration is going to etch the new color line more
deeply in law.
Paul Craig Roberts is the author, with Lawrence M. Stratton, of The New Color Line: How Quotas and Privilege Destroy Democracy. His latest book with Stratton, The Tyranny of Good Intentions: How Prosecutors and Bureaucrats Are Trampling the Constitution in the Name of Justice, was the subject of a recent Forbes article by VDARE`s Peter Brimelow
COPYRIGHT 2001 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
August 07, 2001