University of Virginia Library

Drew Gardner

80,000 More Victims

Which is the most
suppressed American minority
today? Chicanos, American
Indians, Blacks, Puerto Ricans?
It is a good question. In many
ways some 80,000 American
(or ex-American) youths might
be considered such.

President Nixon, defying
past precedents, has adamantly
refused to consider granting
amnesty to the expatriates.
These are the young males
who, for various moral,
religious or political reasons,
left the U.S., thereby refusing
induction into the armed
forces, (and with it the
questionable call to arms for
the cause of
freedom-Vietnam). Vietnam
has been decimated, close to
50,000 Americans have been
killed, the five hundred odd
POW's have already started
arriving. Add to these figures
303,600 wounded, and over
1,300 missing in action, and
you almost have the total in
American losses. Almost.

Now the 80,000 expatriates
must be considered one more
tragic American legacy
incurred by this involvement.
These "ex-citizens" have no
legal or civil privileges within
the borders of the U.S.. Is it
possible that the President's
anti-amnesty policy is merely
another cog in the machinery
of "Peace with Honor?"

Nixon recently stated that
"One of the reasons I
considered it vitally important
the war in Vietnam be
ended [Is it over?] in what I
think was the right way, peace
with honor, was that it was
essential to demonstrate to
our allies...and to potential
adversaries, that the United
States is a dependable ally." It
now seems his expatriate
policy might be considered,
indeed is, an extension of this
same demonstrative logic.

The President now feels he
must, with some self-righteous
patriotic indignation,
demonstrate to the people
here at home, "his allies" in the
silent majority, and to
his "potential adversaries",
those citizens who cried,
cajoled and protested for a
more expedient end to our
involvement in the hostilities,
that he is a dependable
incoercible ally.

Conceivably the President
considers this a warning to
young male citizens: in the
future, any such shirking of
military responsibility will be
met with equally unmerciful
logic. This example-setting is
useless though, if all that we
have been led to believe proves
true. The draft is now officially
ended (though 18 year olds
must still register), and we
purportedly stand on the
threshold of a generation (or
more) of peace.

For whom must he set an
example? If it is, in actuality,
true that the military shall
henceforward be all volunteer,
and if it is true also that the
U.S. shall not soon again
stumble, blunder, or fall into
an involvement as
costly-physically, economically
and politically as the Vietnam
police action, then what
rationale remains for punishing
this select minority who chose
not to fight?

As far as demonstrating his
dependability to his allies at
home, the silent majority, it
would seem that this group
would, at this time, be most
concerned with the course of
their nation's economy, more
specifically the buying value of
their dollar. Indeed, if one was
even to consider amnesty a
political issue with potentially
damaging effects on electorate
support, there is again no
rational platform for the
President to stand on. Nixon
has already demonstrated his
concern for popular support in
his second term, (ie. December
bombing, fund impoundmeet,
media repression, budget cuts,
etc.).

One must consider, though,
with sincere sympathetic
concern, the family and friends
of those thousands killed, and
more, the thousands of
maimed veterans now
handicapped for life. Everyone
can empathize with their desire
not to have to think their
losses were in vain. Hopefully,
if what we've been told about
the future prospects for peace
are true, they were not. Yet
whereas the effect amnesty
would have on them would not
seem to seriously enter into
whatever evaluation they might
make of the worth of their
loss, we must temper any such
considerations with the
perspective of the family and
friends of the 80,000
expatriates. What of their
anguish?

How do you measure the
degree or amount of pain
caused by this war, and the
extent to which that pain will
be increased by granting these
expatriates amnesty? The
answer is you cannot. But you
can know that the anxiety
occasioned by a refusal to
grant such amnesty will only
add to the total suffering
American citizens, both
individually and collectively,
have been burdened with since
January 1, 1961, the official
beginning of military
involvement, and casualty
calculation for the United
States' interdiction in Vietnam.

Is it possible that some
morning soon, when you
grumble to the front door to
pick up the newspaper, you
will be greeted with a front
page headline:
"EXPATRIATES FREED"?

It too is a good question.