Calblog

187 was the product of "revisionist history", courtesy of left-wing media propoganda. People were trained to think that support for 187 meant you were a racist. People now remember hating something (187) that they had previously supported.

It is like those polls showing that millions and millions of people remember being present at Woodstock, or at Dodger Stadium hit the homerun to win game 1 of the World Series.

"or at Dodger Stadium [when Kirk Gibson] hit the homerun to win game 1 of the World Series."

Interesting theory. I wonder who implanted me with the memory of clipping anti-187 articles out of the Catholic newspaper and making copies to hand out to my Catholic friends.

Because you did those things? I am discussing why it might be political poison to be in support of something which passed overwhelmingly. The post-187 revisionist propoganda by the liberals has been something to marvel.

I really don't understand what's so radical about the concept that ***illegal*** aliens should not entitled to freebies, courtesy of my tax dollars. In fact, I find it outrageous that this goes on. Even socialist paradises like Sweden don't allow people to flood over their borders and immediately go on welfare.

187 was the last gasp attempt of middle class voters to save this state. Since this failed, they've fled this state in droves.

I think Veg is right, Justene -- though I also think that if 187 were put to another vote today it would pass again, if by a narrower margin.

Political correctness has created a reluctance among ordinary people to admit openly what they really think about issues that particular groups have made risky -- but in the privacy of the voting booth they do still express what they won't tell a pollster.

I agree with most of Justene's points here, but there is one factor concerning the 187 backlash that wasn't discussed.

Prop 187 was on the ballot in Nov. 1994, after California's economy had been in the doldrums for years. By the 1996 elections, however, the economy improved considerably, and continued to improve up to 2000. By this time, people were frankly uninterested in illegal immigration as an issue. I doubt very many people's opinion of illegal immigration changed, but once the economy improved the issue lost its ability to motivate voters.

By contrast, the opposition to Prop 187 did not abate after the economy improved, and hostility to the Republican Party for supporting it in 1994 continued to plague the Party long after the short term bump they received in 1994. It wasn't until last year, when Simon aggresively courted Hispanic voters, and when Hispanic turnout began to drift towards pre-187 levels, that we see signs that the anti-187 backlash may have played itself out.

My only quibble with Justene's analysis is that, since we are once again in a period of economic downturn, a Prop 187-like initiative would have a good chance of passsing in the short term, although I doubt it would pass by the same margin it did in 1994. However, any benefit the Republican Partry would obtain by re-redefining themself as the "anti-illegal immigrant party" would be short term, while the backlash would continue for years to come.

Prop. 187 would have kicked illegal immigrant children out of public schools. It would have forced teachers and schools to investigate the background of the parents of *legal* immigrant children.

Remember Ron Unz? The guy who helped end the disastrous bilingual education experiment? Here's what he wrote about it in 1994 (http://reason.com/9411/col.unz.shtml): "Prop. 187 would be an unmitigated disaster for California, with regard both to personal liberty and to state finance."

Also, according to the highest-ranking judge who ruled on it, it was unconstitutional. You don't have to be some kind of multi-culti squishy brained lefty to find Prop. 187 a bad law, just like you don't have to be a racist to think it was good.

Yes, the partisan hack 9th Circuit activist judge.

Why should my tax dollars go to finance the education of illegal aliens?

Right-wing Veg has made it abundantly clear that he does not have a clue.

And I, for one, thank him for it.

The "partisan hack 9th Circuit activist judge" ruled correctly.

The United States Supreme Court had already ruled that denying illegal immigrants public school education was unconstitutional. I don't expect you to agree with the opinion (I don't and I opposed Prop. 187), but the precedent was very clear (Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202, 102 S.Ct. 2382 (1982)) and a lower court judge would be compelled to uphold the precedent of the United States Supreme Court, unless their opinion was reversed.

Must have been the first time in the history of the Republic that a 9th Circuit judge felt constrained by Supreme Court precedent. What a joke.

And that doesn't even go for the non-education parts of 187 that the hack judge stripped, or the fact that the appeal was dropped.

Revisionism indeed. 187 was supported not only by 59% of the electorate, but by a majority of the Latino population before the racism baiting crowd began. http://www.democ.uci.edu/democ/papers/lina.htm The ugly and truly divisive left and Democrat Party will use any tactic to get their way. Whether Milosivic or Jesse Jackson or Bustamante, racial and ethnic politics and hate works and the morally bankrupt will continue to use it until they pay a price for it. But since the major California media is a collaborator, implicitly and even explicitly supporting this behavior, that isn’t happening.

The canard about 187 only passing because of the state of the economy has been disproved. Every poll I’ve read about indicates that support for the initiative is as great as it always was.

The legal process surrounding the challenges to 187 were an abomination. Contrary to what is constantly said in the press (I read it again today for the hundredth time), the “courts” did not rule 187 unconstitutional. There was only one judge involved because Mariana Pfaelzer pulled all the cases into her court where they remained for almost 4 years. Because she held it for so long it was up to Gray Davis do what was his constitutional responsibility, to defend duly enacted laws by continuing the appeal of Pfaelzer’s ruling. Davis had promised respect the will of the voters with regard to these intitiatives. Instead he “mediated” 187’s demise. But this mediation contained nobody who supported 187. It included only those opposed to 187 including Davis. Since mediation is process of trying to help opposing parties reach agreement, how does this fit that definition? (It’s not a little ironic that this fails to gain mention by the owner of this blog who claims to be a mediator.)

That such a travesty of justice and due process, the exclusion of any representation for the 59% of the state’s voters that supported 187, could be blithely accepted by the media is an indication of the profession’s intellectual corruption and bias. Had this been counter to the prevailing media ideology it would have been impossible to pull off. Even a lawyer representing clients who were challenging 187 thought so.

According to an AP article at the time, Attorney Stephen Yagman said, “It is completely undemocratic for a politico like Governor Davis to come into office and nullify an initiative that was approved by a majority of the voters."

And who approved Davis’ sham process? None other than Mariana Pfaelzer. One judge, one dissembling politician and a media that might fairly be described the same.

By the way, Bustamante and Davis had a public split over this issue with Bustamante arguing that Davis should drop the appeal while Davis did exactly that but in a way that was designed to hide the fact.

As for the correctness of Pfaelzer’s decision, that’s why we have an appeal process. Only the Supreme Court has the final say. The Pyler decision was part of the debate before the election with 187’s proponents acknowledging that it would require a reconsideration by the court. Having read that 5-4 decision I thought they had a reasonable case. Remember until a couple of months ago, Bowers v. Hardwick allowed laws against sodomy. The Supreme Court can change its mind.

But that isn’t possible with an inititiative if the the will of the voters can be disregarded when the inevitable legal challengers get a favorable initial court ruling from a judge and the Governor refuses to allow the voters the right to the subsequent due process of an appeal. The initiative was designed by the Progressive Republicans early in the century to allow voters to enact laws that the political structure never would because of the influence of interest groups. But that power of the people is rendered moot if the same politicians the voters want to overrule can kill an initiative in the legal system. It’s a matter of principle. If only we could find people who had any.

disabuser:

excellent.

the 187 fiasco makes me wonder why Ted Costa or some other pro-reform group hasn't started an initiative to form some independent "solicitor general" office for CA which would be charged with defending in court duly enacted initiatives/referendum, so that this miscarriage of justice could not occur in the future.

The way Pete Wilson campaigned for it; the "they keep coming" television ads were the perfect way to create a backlash, regardless of the merits of the proposition.

Matt - I agree. I voted against Proposition 187 because I believed then, and believe now, that regardless of why teenagers are here, failing to give them an education will be enormously harmful to society; a bunch of uneducated illegal immigrant teenagers with a lot of time to kill is much more dangerous than a bunch of poorly educated illegal immigrant teenagers who are going to school every day. The rest of the proposition had some merit, but that clause was a deal-breaker for me.

Right-wing vegetarian: a blunt answer to your question is that unless a way is found to make all of the illegal immigrants go away, failing to educate them will leave them with nothing better to do than pursue a life of crime. Yeah, it's expensive to educate them, and yes, educating them gives them something they aren't entitled to - but the overall cost to society of not doing it will be higher.

More silly revisionist nonsense. The idea that without Pete Wilson’s ads, which were more of a factor in his demonization than people’s opinion of 187, there wouldn’t have been a so-called “backlash,” is ridiculous. Who could think that the pro-illegal immigration groups would have quietly accepted 187 without those ads defies the evidence of their response to all things that have the slightest chance of dissuading illegal immigration.

As for not educating kids, here’s the relevent text:

"SECTION 7. Exclusion of Illegal Aliens from Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.
Section 48215 is added to the Education Code, to read:
48215. (a) No public elementary or secondary school shall admit, or permit the attendance of, any child who is not a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, or a person who is otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States.
(b) Commencing January 1, 1995, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolling in the school district for the first time in order to ensure the enrollment or attendance only of citizens, aliens lawfully admitted as permanent residents, or persons who are otherwise authorized to be present in the United States.
(c) By January 1, 1996, each school district shall have verified the legal status of each child already enrolled and in attendance in the school district in order to ensure the enrollment or attendance only of citizens, aliens lawfully admitted as permanent residents, or persons who are otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States.
(d) By January 1, 1996, each school district shall also have verified the legal status of each parent or guardian of each child referred to in subdivisions (b) and (c), to determine whether such parent or guardian is one of the following:
(1) A citizen of the United States.
(2) An alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident.
(3) An alien admitted lawfully for a temporary period of time.
(e) Each school district shall provide information to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Attorney General of California, and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any enrollee or pupil, or parent or guardian, attending a public elementary or secondary school in the school district determined or reasonably suspected to be in violation of federal immigration laws within forty-five days after becoming aware of an apparent violation. The notice shall also be provided to the parent or legal guardian of the enrollee or pupil, and shall state that an existing pupil may not continue to attend the school after ninety calendar days from the date of the notice, unless legal status is established.
(f) For each child who cannot establish legal status in the United States, each school district shall continue to provide education for a period of ninety days from the date of the notice. Such ninety day period shall be utilized to accomplish an orderly transition to a school in the child's country of origin. Each school district shall fully cooperate in this transition effort to ensure that the educational needs of the child are best served for that period of time. "

The essence is that kids and their parents who are here unlawfully would be deported together in an orderly fashion. Since children must be in school here by law, it would be very difficult for those here illegally with children to continue being in the country as the presence of children not it school would attract notice to them. The purpose is not to keep kids illegally here out of school and in the country but to send them back to their own countries where they would go to school.

Anything that makes it easier to be in the country illegally promotes illegal immigration. Anything that make it more difficult helps to deter it. Incentives matter.

The idea that Pete Wilson's ads were a major contributory factor to the problem of the backlash has been expressed by political operatives on both sides of the spectrum since *before the election happened*. You may disagree with it, but it is hardly revisionist.

The chunk of the initiative you quoted does not adressing the problem I was addressing. It presupposes that if the children of illegal immigrants aren't educated, they'll just leave - or that hte presence of children who aren't in school would attract attention leading to deportation. I think that's wildly optimistic; it is far more likely that the children would just fade into the woodwork. No school district would know they were there, and they would be here, with nothing to do, no education, and no future.

That would be a disaster.

Good points on all fronts. I suggest you all read Mexifornia: A State of Becoming. It's a truly fascinating read which shows the complexities of illegal immigration.

I have yet to talk to a trauma room nurse who doesn't point out that illegal aliens use emergency rooms as their free health care system, and that it is breaking the back of hospital budgets in this state.

I have yet to talk to a trauma room nurse who doesn't point out that illegal aliens use emergency rooms as their free health care system, and that it is breaking the back of hospital budgets in this state.

Warning, anecdotal evidence ahead. When I was in the hospital last year, I shared a room with a woman who was an illegal alien. She was there for poor blood sugar control and her family had been administering insulin but had never once checked her levels and didn't even have a monitor. What should have been avoided was a three-day hospital stay. The social worker spent a great deal of time explaining to them where to get the supplies and lowercost insulin to avoid the problem. There were nods and then the question "can you give us the forms to fill out because we can't pay for this stay". There was no indication in any of the conversations between the family members that they had any plans to actually take those measures. The hospital is available whenever their faulty system failed.

This is a problem though with many uninsured, not just those here illegally.

Justene-

Your silence is deafening regarding a mediation where only one side is represented and approved by the judge who had rendered the ruling in question which favored the only parties involved in the mediation. Just what kind of mediator are you?

In essence all those against Prop 187 were able to exclude any representation for 59% of the voters of the state and deny them any opportunity for the due process of appellate review. This is an Orwellian perversion of justice on a monumental scale.

The most disgusting, evil criminals are guaranteed representation and the right to many appeals but the citizen's right under the California Constitution to enact laws, a right designed to overcome politicians beholden to interest groups, can be stopped by those same politicians without judicial recourse. You can hate Prop 187 but if you have any principles at all still find this completely unacceptable.

I maintain my argument about the backlash nonsense despite what any political operatives say. It’s confusing the target of the backlash with the existence of a backlash which was a political strategy and a continuing one. Who else but Pete Wilson were they going to go after, 59% of the electorate? That wouldn’t do.

As far as illegals leaving if their children aren’t allowed in school. It is but one more disincentive to being here and its effectiveness is directly related to the willingness to deport. Using the intersection of the laws requiring schooling and immigration could result in both removing those here illegally and deterring future illegal immigration.

But let me be clear. I would exchange workplace enforcement and a secure system of identification for all the provisions of 187. It is by far the linchpin of any effective immigration enforcement strategy. This is just not my opinion but that of almost every serious student of immigration policy including the U.S. Commission of Immigration Reform. I even personally questioned one of the authors of Prop 187 about the absence of such a provision in the initiative. His response was highly ironic in that it matched Judge Pfaelzer’s rationale for overturning 187. It’s the province of the federal government.

Victor Davis Hanson’s contribution to the discussion of immigration policy is invaluable. And he brings a personal experience dimension to his writing that must be the envy of the so-called journalism profession that has eschewed reasoned analysis for anecdote. He can certainly trump them is this regard.

I caught the first sentence of the comment "your silence is deafening". I point to the note at the top of the blog about kids starting school and a cold. I have a backload of unread comments in my email. If one comes in when I have time to read it, I do but not all have been read and it hasn't been in any kind of order. So any silence should be interpreted as just that -- silence, not some hidden message of approval or disapproval.

SD Disabuser:

I don't know Justene's views, but I think its a bit unfair to assume that, since she opposed Prop. 187, she also supported the strategy for undermining Prop. 187 in the Courts. It is entirely possible that she opposed BOTH Prop. 187 AND the means by which Prop. 187 was challenged.

Regarding the Plyer case, it is true that the Supreme Court could have overturned the ruling. However, until the Supreme Court decided to hear a challenge to Prop. 187, Plyler was the law of the land and ALL judges (conservative and "hack liberals" alike) were -- and are -- obligated to respect its precedent. And the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to even HEAR the appeal if the Attorney General of the State of California didn't petition the US SUpreme Court. And the Attorney General elected in 1998 campaigned against Prop. 187, so his decision to not proceed with its appeal should hardly have come as a shock.

Finally, re: the anti 187 backlash "canard". The Hispanic proportion of the electorate in 1996 and 1998 was over 50% higher than the proportion in 1994 and earlier. Plus, Wilson carried 41% of the Hispanic vote in 1990 (before his embrace of 187), while Dan Lungren couldn't even top 28% in 1998. More voters, and angry voters sounds like a backlash to me. And if you still believe the 187 backlash is a myth, I think explaination as to why only two Republicans have won statewide office in California in the 4 elections since 187 -- and no Republican has won an "open" election during that period -- is in order.

To both Justene and Sean. I fully understand the demands of life may make necessary an allowance of time to consider and adequately respond. And I don’t assume anything about her view of it. In fact I assume that this is off her as it is almost everyone’s radar. And that is the problem. I’m reminded of Bobby Kennedy’s phrase, ‘All that’s required for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing.” Or something like that. Silence is assent.

I am in perfect agreement that a ruling respecting the Pyler decision would have been correct. As I wrote before, the proponents of 187 said as much themselves. But if obeying the law of the land as set by the Supreme Court is important, so is obeying the California Constitution and a judge and a politician have no right to block access to appellate review. This violates the fundamental due process of the judicial system.

Take this away from 187. Imagine yourself in some legal dispute where a judge made a ruling against you. You file an appeal and that appeal is shifted to a process where neither you nor anyone representing you are participants. Surprise, surprise; they find against you. I can’t imagine you nor anyone else not being outraged.

I believe in mediation. I’ve worked on conflict resolution panels to help others. What Davis did had nothing to do with mediation. Those who call it mediation or accept others calling it have no regard for truth.

As for more Hispanic voters representing a backlash, did you see the census data reported today. The proportion of population that is Hispanic or Latinos has grown tremendously. Still they represented but 10% of voters in the last election although I fully expect that to grow. And like I wrote before, playing the racial-ethnic identity card works. If it can get neighbors to kill neighbors as it has elsewhere in the world, it can get Democrats elected here. Unless people stand up against it that is. But that is difficult in the environment fostered by the elites with their multicultural ideologies and spurious charges of racism.
And it certainly has worked against Republicans. The trashing of Pete Wilson was a sight to behold. Wilson who won statewide office some four times was trashed largely based on his support for what the majority of the population supported. How bizarre is that. But what chance did he have against a media as morally and intellectually corrupt as California’s.

To be honest, the party faithful of the Republicans have been far right of where Californians are politically. The moderate in the last election was destroyed by $10 million in attack ads by Gray Davis thereby removing an opponent more representative of the state. This in a state where the voters have chosen open primaries which would likely result in more moderate candidates. Once again Davis has no regard for what voters want.

I am with Mr. Welch on this one. I too voted against Prop. 187 on the basis that it was a badly written law with some truly stupid provisions. Great. Take the illegal kids out of school. Then what? Where are you then? I work at a community college in a heavily Hispanic community, and we were somehow magically expected to investigate each and every person that came our way, thus becoming a little mini branch of the INS? As written, the law, for these reasons and many others, was simply not practicable. A better formulated piece of legislation -- one slightly grounded in reality -- might have gotten my vote.

This whole referendum way that we do things here...there needs to be some kind of more stringent guideline to getting them on the ballot. There's a lot of chaff that ends up being unconstitutional, and not enough wheat.

Laurie K.

Plyler was strictly limited on its facts to public education, yet the hack district court judge stripped out many other provisions of 187, such as banning welfare for illegals.

Laurie wrote “Take the illegal kids out of school. Then what?”

If you read the text of 187 I posted you would have seen that kids weren’t to be kicked out of school. They were allowed to remain in school for 90 days. “Such ninety day period shall be utilized to accomplish an orderly transition to a school in the child's country of origin. Each school district shall fully cooperate in this transition effort to ensure that the educational needs of the child are best served for that period of time. " Given the stated purpose and the emphasis on the educational needs of the kids, I would fully expect this would become whatever time it took to arrange for the family to return home.

As for “magically investigating everyone,” there are already things one has to do to be enrolled in school. It is a red herring that schools would become immigration enforcement agencies. All they would do is gather data submitted to them by applicants and submit it to the INS for verification. If the INS couldn’t verify it, then students wouldn’t be admitted.

And why should your views on the law matter more than the majority of the electorate? Are you so self-righteous and arrogant that you believe the established systems of law and government are trumped by what you feel is right? As for it being unconstitutional, the greatest affront was to the Constitution of California that allows the citizens to pass laws and the Federal Constitutional right to judicial review. Gray Davis and Mariana Pfaelzer are who do damage to the constitutions, not 187. There was not one other court that had a say about the initiative. A judge made a ruling after holding it in her court for years and then allowed a corrupt, lying politician to prevent any other court from reviewing her decision. There is a reason why the founders created a system where the views of one judge would be subject to the scrutiny by other courts.

Finally, where is Justene on this? This is your blog. You are a lawyer and mediator. This was a perversion of both the law and the meaning of mediation. Speak up. Say something. Say anything.

Unusual ideas can make enemies.

I find it hilarious that most of you think illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. I grew up in the Salinas Valley in the central coast of California. This area has a huge illegal immigrant population. Most work in the fields or in factories. As I recall from doing the payroll for some of these businesses the illegal immigrants got paychecks which also had a FICA, Medicare, Soc. Sec., Federal, and State tax deduction. Not only this but when it was time for them to get their W-2's to see how much they should get back, they would just throw them away because they can get their refund because they have no social security number. They are technically donating that money to our government because they should be entitled to it. Also, they pay social security which when they are older they wont be allowed to claim and is added to the fund. That is why some politicians aren't to worried about running out of the social security money (they have the illegal immigrants money). If we really want to see who is at falt its companies like McDanald's (and most fast food and restaurant chains), Walmart, Kmart, (dont worry there is one that checks every employee with INS, Target, that is why it is a little more expensive), Dole, Tyson Chicken, Glad, and so many other companies and individuals who are willing to hire them to save a few bucks. As long as we allow and provide the jobs, they will continue to be incoraged to come (that is why they come, to work not to live off of us).

I find it hilarious that most of you think illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. I grew up in the Salinas Valley in the central coast of California. This area has a huge illegal immigrant population. Most work in the fields or in factories. As I recall from doing the payroll for some of these businesses the illegal immigrants got paychecks which also had a FICA, Medicare, Soc. Sec., Federal, and State tax deduction. Not only this but when it was time for them to get their W-2's to see how much they should get back, they would just throw them away because they can get their refund because they have no social security number. They are technically donating that money to our government because they should be entitled to it. Also, they pay social security which when they are older they wont be allowed to claim and is added to the fund. That is why some politicians aren't to worried about running out of the social security money (they have the illegal immigrants money). If we really want to see who is at falt its companies like McDanald's (and most fast food and restaurant chains), Walmart, Kmart, (dont worry there is one that checks every employee with INS, Target, that is why it is a little more expensive), Dole, Tyson Chicken, Glad, and so many other companies and individuals who are willing to hire them to save a few bucks. As long as we allow and provide the jobs, they will continue to be incoraged to come (that is why they come, to work not to live off of us).

I find it hilarious that most of you think illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. I grew up in the Salinas Valley in the central coast of California. This area has a huge illegal immigrant population. Most work in the fields or in factories. As I recall from doing the payroll for some of these businesses the illegal immigrants got paychecks which also had a FICA, Medicare, Soc. Sec., Federal, and State tax deduction. Not only this but when it was time for them to get their W-2's to see how much they should get back, they would just throw them away because they can get their refund because they have no social security number. They are technically donating that money to our government because they should be entitled to it. Also, they pay social security which when they are older they wont be allowed to claim and is added to the fund. That is why some politicians aren't to worried about running out of the social security money (they have the illegal immigrants money). If we really want to see who is at falt its companies like McDanald's (and most fast food and restaurant chains), Walmart, Kmart, (dont worry there is one that checks every employee with INS, Target, that is why it is a little more expensive), Dole, Tyson Chicken, Glad, and so many other companies and individuals who are willing to hire them to save a few bucks. As long as we allow and provide the jobs, they will continue to be incoraged to come (that is why they come, to work not to live off of us).

null