I find your points here persuasive, Rob. The Niem�ller quote comes to mind ("First they came for. . .").
Rob seems to be suggesting that the inequality would be hidden — i.e. Arab-Americans would be (are being?) subject to racial profiling via supposedly random computer checks. In such a case, I agree that there will be less outrage than against a system in which everyone's rights are so violated.
But if inequality is openly acknowledged and built into the law (as would seem necessary in the case of tax rates), I think that's a different story. Of course there has to be a feeling that the oppressed minority does not deserve such treatment. If people actually believe the group receiving worse treatment deserves it (i.e. the wealthy being taxed at higher rates), then there may not be much general outrage without a change in public opinion toward the victims.
If a bunch of studies were done showing that African-Americans were having their tax returns audited at a greater rate than whites, it probably wouldn't generate a large negative reaction outside the African-American community. But if a law were passed requiring African-Americans to be audited more frequently, you can bet that the roar of outrage would be immediate and huge.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>