Sounds like you’re trying to state this as a zero sum game, and I’m not sure if that properly applies. When people in a “dominant” group fight for equal treatment under the law, they don’t diminish their status at all — they simply work towards others enjoying the same treatment that they had before.
In the case of reparations, that’s collective racial punishment and racial reward — something that is hardly moral, and on its face requires unequal treatment under the law. Replacing white supremacy with black supremacy really sucks for the asians and hispanics who end up having to pay too, not to mention the poor white immigrants who have no link to the past oppressions in the United States except a common skin color.
For equal pay for equal work, we already have that on the books (The Equal Pay Act of 1963). When people don’t do equal work, disparities in wages are completely expected and explicitly moral.
For legalization of the undocumented, we already have legal paths to immigration and citizenship. Any amnesty program simply encourages violating the law in the future, and disparages those people who have taken the time and effort to become U.S. citizens or legal residents through the proper channels.
Indeed, if I were going to look at structural problems, institutionalized in our government and government programs across the United States, I’d first cast a very keen eye on racial and sexual preference programs. The institutionalized advantages given to certain races, and certain sexes, aren’t the ones you hear SJWs complaining about.
tl;dr: equal treatment, or equal outcome — pick one.