There is great social and legal concern today that no rights or privileges be denied to persons who happen to qualify as "minorities", regardless of such other factors as citizenship or behavior. In the name of equality of opportunity, we have created a program to promote equality of outcome -- as though everyone in a race had to finish together also. It is a flawed notion, since that would require the average runner to carry the slow, and the fast to be hobbled. That’s no way to produce a nation of winners.

"Affirmative action", is legalized racism. In the name of racial non-discrimination, we have created racially-discriminated groups, each calling for special status before the law. Though perhaps justified as an expedient (the Supreme Court seems to think so), it unfortunately creates closed race-denominated loyalty groups which see themselves as apart from the rest of American society. Where these groups have strong racial loyalties to people in other countries, and these loyalties exceed their sense of American patriotism, conflict occurs which can only weaken national social resolve in this country.

If through amnesty and affirmative action, the benefits of American citizenship are to be given away without requiring anything in return, to anyone of the correct racial denomination who is here by virtue of violation of our immigration laws, for the declared purpose of violating our labor laws, and in many cases violating our welfare laws, then what is the point of exclusive citizenship at all? And where does it stop? To how many amnesty candidates can we give the State-paid services of an attorney, a psychologist, and a social worker, so as to get them a green card, a Food Stamp card, a library card, a public school report card, a BankAmericard, and a "Get Out Of Jail Free" card? To quote the Law of Tanstaafl: "There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch". How much of that can we afford...and who are "we" that must pick up the tab? Where can the government draw the line? How can the citizen draw the line? What happens when strife in Central America drives millions more people more desperately against our border...and not all of them are looking for a $2.00 per hour job?

In our popular movies, the evilest villains are rapists and terrorists. Consider this movie scenario: outlaw street-fighting youths from a troubled third-world country illegally enter the United States, armed with weapons of silent death. They move at night into a peaceful town to make some twisted statement by an act of terror against an innocent citizen -- and to have a good time doing it. This is not their first mission. They stalk, attack, threaten, beat, and rape a child.

That attack took place for real. In March 1987, in a park in a friendly border town, a 14-year-old American schoolgirl was put through that scene without benefit of makeup or stunt double. She was ambushed and raped by four boys, the children of alien workers, members of a gang called "Colt-45’ers". Strangely, the event went by quietly in the local paper. Nobody wanted to make racially-sensitive waves over four juveniles of questionable jurisdiction. Is this not what Americans claim they would take up arms against in the name of righteousness? Yet how did our system of law, justice, and social protection behave? No one was ever convicted or punished for the crime. It was merely grist for pointless dialogue about what legal recourse we have to deal with "illegal alien juvenile status offenders", and the extent of their rights.

What can we actually do? There is expulsion from the country, jail, and what else? How many times can we just give them a free ride back home? How many can we afford to pack into our prisons, where they can organize, train dissatisfied ethnic-minority convicts in anti-American sentiments, and terrorize the prizon population? Is there nothing else we can do? We cannot patrol all the parks and alleys, short of putting everyone in uniform. What if a citizen had seen that gang-bang in progress, and in the act of defending the little girl had killed one of her assailants? Our laws would require us to return the other three "kids" to Mexico and try that citizen for child-murder. The citizen and his daughter seem defenseless.

By the notion of righteous defense by force, the behavior of those young terrorist invaders precisely defines the real enemies of society, whether they are 12 or 92, Hispanic, Iranic, organic, or so deaf they made her scream in sign. Where the organs of social justice fail, at best the citizen can only keep his babies off the street, or go with them...well armed.

America is hardly alone in the world with problems of illegal and unwanted immigrants flooding its borders. Though we have a number of genuine refugees seeking entry by any means, most of those who enter our country unofficially are seeking employment opportunity. Trying to curb the effect they have on our labor market, Congressmen suggest the use of "employer sanctions" -- that is, fining employers who get caught employing illegal alien labor. The idea seems to have practical merit, since it is clear that as long as employers can hire for less than minimum wage, they will, and workers will keep coming, even if we start shooting them.

The trouble with this plan lies in the execution of enforcement. How much do guilty employers pay...and to whom? Who pays for the investigation and who makes the bust? Is it a crime that must be tried, or an administrative fine? If enforcement follows the precedents established in the War On Drugs, might not the agency be able to sieze the employer’s farm or factory and sell it to finance the defense of the American worker from aliens? The task would demand a huge undercover squad, and the group they would be sent out to spy on are mostly working class conservative good old boys, members of the most partiotic segment of the population. Guys like those Congressman.

So how about "Amnesty" for undocumented workers? That means we let them just stay if they’re here now, as long as they come in and register, right? What about next week’s wave? How can we say we are trying to discourage them, when our worst response is to give them a deficit-dollar ride back to somewhere else, and a bit of cooperation (or affordable and available forgery) will get them benefits they can’t even dream of back home?

If instead of attempting to forcibly seal our borders, we are willing to make some kind of amnesty "deal" with our own labor laws in order to let certain employers take advantage of labor at lower-than-legal rates for citizens, then let us do it openly, and to our own advantage. Perhaps we might organize an Alien Corps, an organization of the government, structured like the military, but intended to provide a program through which immigrants can be trained and employed through the steps of obtaining citizenship or responsible permanent residence.

This could be accomplished through the performance of such labor tasks as highway maintenance, disaster relief, and the like. Captured wetbacks and other applicants for labor permits can come to the US, serve four years in a controlled environment working on a subsistence income (like our own VISTA volunteers), during which they are taught the English language and prepared to accept the responsibilities of citizenship or alien residency. They would thereafter be employable -- and taxable -- at the minimum wage. As members of the Alien Corps, they would not be available to the private sector, but would relieve the government of the deficit-dollar burden of hiring private contractors at the going union scale. Instead of paying farmers a deficit-dollar subsidy, The Alien Corps could harvest crops. It is not cruel or unjust to demand responsible social contribution from aliens.

Even with such provisions for opportunity, there will be some who insist on remaining genuine illegal aliens, and at some point those who refuse to be brought to a regulated status within our system will have to be stopped, and the actions to do that must necessarily be severe. No "illegal alien" bill can be complete which does not address precisely at what point we will endure no more from an individual alien, and precisely what mandatory punitive measures will be taken against him, or her.

When ethnic discrimination becomes denominated, organized, institutionalized, and given privilege enforced by the process of the law, then we are no longer speaking of racial problems, but of racism. However justified affirmative action and its inter-national extension may seem to minority legislators, recipients, political candidates, and groups advocating government-enforced equality of wealth, the deliberate isolation and organizing of racial groups and placing them in competition to get special legislation for advantage at the Federal trough can only be harmful to our society in the long run, and to the individuals in it, of all ethnic varieties.

James Nathan Post