96% of Americans OPPOSE amnesty for illegal immigrants!

Proposition 187

Copyright ï¿½ A. Alonso 1-15-96
University of Southern California
Email: alonso@streetgangs.com
URL: http://www.soyboricua.com/alonso

When I think about immigration I can not avoid discussing the facts and implications that the passing of Proposition 187 will have on the state of California. Proposition 187 denies public social services, publicly-funded health care, and public education to people who are suspected of being illegal immigrants. It will try to accomplish this by interviewing, interrogating and demanding documents, from individuals who are suspected of being illegal citizens.

My view of Prop. 187 is that it is bad law, for several reasons. I believe that Prop 187 will fail to do its primary goals. Assemblyman Dick Mountjoy claims that Prop 187 will STOP illegal immigration and save the state of California an estimated 5 billion dollars a year. In fact, Prop. 187 does nothing to stop people from coming into California, and implementing the tactics to identify illegal immigrants and the consequences of enforcing Prop. 187 would cost more than the money that the bills supporters say it will save. Some estimates say that the implementing of Prop. 187 will cost 10 billion dollars in the first year.

Many believe that welfare, medical care and educational benefits are what attracts illegal citizens to California and the United States, but few illegal immigrants even take advantage of these benefits. Among legal immigrants the amounts of men and women are equal, but among undocumented persons, the men out number the women and their role in the US are primarily as laborers, with many of them never utilizing any of the social programs here in the US. It is a known fact that most illegal citizens come to the US searching for employment only.

It is difficult for me to even find this law sensible when the cost of enforcing this law will be astronomical. Prop. 187, also known as the Save Our State initiative, is negligent in saving California from the economic problems it currently faces. The law stipulates in section 7 that schools, must verify the legal status of each child enrolling in school, each child already enrolled in school, and of each parent or guardian of each child identified as an illegal citizen. It is estimated that school officials would have to verify and investigate about 10 million people, and continue to do this indefinitely. In my opinion, schools that are already suffering from cutbacks, would have the burden of the cost and time required to complete such a monumental task of verifying and reporting, putting the schools in a greater uncompromising economical position. Over many years this would cost the residents several hundred million dollars of their tax money which should be invested into California schools, to advancethe technology of the classroom.

The estimated 400,000 thousand youths that would not be able to provide adequate legal status would have ninety calendar days from notification to accomplish an orderly transition to a school in the childs country of origin. This would be costly to the family because Prop. 187 does not call for the deportations of any individuals. I could only imagine of all the social problems that would be added to our society with tens of thousands of alienated youths, on the streets and neighborhoods of our cities, that are stripped of the opportunity of getting an education and finding a job. There is no measuring what the monetary cost would be to the state. I feel that the peer pressure that some of these youths will face, will lead them to turn to gangs for the so-called support and unity that they believe they will find. The increase of gang membership will also contribute to an increase of crime and violence in the community, which effects every one from South-Central to the Inland Empire and throughout the rest of the state. This will also add to the states problem by using a significant amount of resources in trying to combat and eliminate the problems that many of these youths will cause.

If one closely analyzes the wording of this bill, I believe that it can be correctly argued that it is unconstitutional, and based on the fact alone will make California ineligible to receive Federal funds. If the schools comply with the verification process as stated in section 7, then those schools and districts would be in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. That could cost California schools an estimated 3 billion dollars. If the children of undocumented immigrants, are denied the right to attend school, that would be a violation of the XIV amendment which states all persons born in the US are citizens, and no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US. The 1977 case of Doe v. Plyler was found to be unconstitutional when the federal appeals court upheld the previous decision that treating undocumented children differently was a violation of the equal protection of the law clause of the XIV amendment in 1980. I foresee the Supreme court not allowing this bill to be enforced as it is written now.

Something else that I find troubling about Prop. 187 is the wording of it. All law enforcement agencies of California must report everyone suspected of being in the US illegally. If any public entity reasonably suspects a person to be an alien they shall be denied benefits and services. This type of wording can be found a total of seven times in six of the ten sections. What I find troubling about this is that Prop. 187 does not discuss how to draw this suspicion. I envision school officials, law enforcement, and social workers judging people based on their appearance, skin color and accents. This classification of individuals will lead to discrimination, racism and increased detachment of the people of California, broadening the ethnic separation in a region that has a bad history of racial division. People with names of Hispanic origin will be will be the targets of many investigations. The Chicano community in California will be harassed, even though many of them have been in the US legally for generations. Close to 100,000 thousand Puerto Ricans like myself, who currently reside in California will surely be unnecessarily harassed, even though we have had our citizenship in the US since the Jones Law was passed in 1917. Ultimately Prop. 187 will worsen the relations between the residents and the authorities, if they institute these unconstitutional practices.

By the Proposition denying health care to suspected illegal immigrants, it will not only threaten the health of those persons, but it will effect the health of their families, and all of the people around them. I truly believe that this bill was designed as a way to find scapegoats to blame the states poor economy on. The truth of the matter is that the politicians know that Prop 187 is not going to be an effective tool in curbing illegal immigration. I feel that the purpose of this bill was to appease the people of California, by convincing them that the politicians are sincerely trying to crack-down on illegal immigration, when the fact of the matter is that they are doing nothing about illegal immigration. These undocumented workers contribute positively to the economy of California. The politicians understand that capitalists obtain higher profits when taking advantage of immigrant workers, by paying them lower wages and the politicians do not want to hamper the arrangement that has existed for decades. These laborers also contribute significantly to Californias agricultural industry. If the politicians really want to end illegal immigration they should invest the 10 plus billion dollars that proposition 187 would lose every year, and beef-up the border patrol, but ironically Prop. 187 does not address preventing people from crossing the border. Prop 187 is just a continuation of the anti-immigration sentiment of the government of the US. For over 100 years previous laws such as the Gentlemens Agreement in 1907 against the Japanese, Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 & 1904 and several other laws including the Quota Act of 1965 which limited the amount of immigrants allowed in the US, have tried to prevent immigrants of their constitutional rights.

Tancredo assails Bush policy

GOP congressman says open border invites terrorism

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, News Washington Bureau April 20, 2002

WASHINGTON -- Rep. Tom Tancredo has picked a fight with President Bush over immigration, claiming the president has a politically motivated "open border" policy that leaves the country vulnerable to another terrorist attack.

The Colorado Republican said he started his day Friday with an angry, 40-minute call from the top White House political adviser, Karl Rove, after The Washington Times ran a front-page story about Tancredo's most inflammatory immigration arguments to date.

"Closed borders, open borders. I used to think it was Karl Rove and his outreach to Hispanics," Tancredo told The Times. "But no, it's Mr. Bush. He's driving the issue himself. He believes in open borders."

In a later interview with the News, Tancredo did not back down from any of his comments, but he added that he still thanks God every day that Bush is president.

Tancredo said Bush is pushing to give certain illegal immigrants amnesty partly out of misguided "altruism," but also to woo Hispanic voters in California and Texas and to prop up Mexican President Vicente Fox.

"I don't think it's cynical. It's just a political strategy," Tancredo said. The result, Tancredo said, is that the United States remains open to another attack like Sept. 11.

"I believe he is wrong and I believe this is such a serious issue that I'll continue to criticize him and/or Karl Rove, and I will take the flak that they send up," Tancredo said. "Because the reality is, if something else happens, who would the people look to be responsible? And who should they look to? And it is the Congress and this president."

Bush did not refer to Tancredo by name, but he issued a written statement Friday defending his response to the terrorist attacks and his stand on immigration.

"Improving our nation's border security is vital to protecting Americans from future terrorist attacks," Bush said. "I commend the Senate for passing legislation that strengthens border security and gives our law enforcement officials additional tools to secure our homeland. I look forward to Congress sending me this important legislation as soon as possible so that I can sign it into law.

"I also continue to urge Congress to act to strengthen families and make America more welcoming," Bush said. "Congress should pass a temporary extension under 245(i) so that immigrants eligible to become legal residents will not be forced to leave the country and their families to have their immigration status resolved."

White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said Bush's proposed budget would provide $380 million to secure U.S. borders through improved tracking of non-citizens, and $10.6 billion to add border patrols and enhance the U.S. Customs Service.

Alan Philp, executive director of the Colorado Republican Party, tried to distance the party from Tancredo's views.

"Congressman Tancredo has very strong opinions about the immigration issue. Those positions are not necessarily shared by most Republicans here in Colorado and nationally," he said.

Latino activists blasted Tancredo.

"The outrageous statements by this obviously desperate congressman should be immediately condemned by the leadership in Congress," Robert Deposada, president of The Latino Coalition, said in a release. "Congressman Tancredo basically stated that unless we militarize our southern border and basically build a wall to keep Mexicans out, terrorists will inundate this country and that the blood of Americans will be in the hands of the president."

Deposada, a Republican from Washington state, said, "I would love right now to find another Republican in that district to actually oppose him."

Democrat Lance Wright, who is running against Tancredo in the 6th District, echoed the criticism.

"Mr. Tancredo certainly has the right to say whatever he wants to say, but is he being responsible? Shrill rhetoric in a troubled time is seldom productive," Wright said.

By challenging the leader of his own party, Tancredo raised eyebrows among fellow Republicans and political observers.

"He seems to have little concern with advancing within the Republican Party or ingratiating himself with a Republican president," said Thomas Mann, a senior fellow from The Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank.

Tancredo seems to be motivated by "genuine beliefs," Mann said, "but it will certainly complicate the president's efforts to improve the Republican Party's standing with Hispanics and Asian-Americans."

Pollster Paul Talmey said Tancredo shouldn't expect any help from the White House in his re-election campaign.

"When he's saying his president is out of step with the majority of Americans, he's the person blocking (reform), and that it's a threat to national security, those are pretty strong statements," Talmey said.

It's the type of political heresy that sometimes makes state political parties look for challengers against their own incumbents, although it's probably too late in the year for Tancredo to worry, Talmey said.

Tancredo, who is debating whether to keep his term limits pledge in 2004, said his only motivation is to have an impact on policy.

"I'm a second-term member of the U.S. Congress and I have no chairmanship or subcommittee chairmanship yet," Tancredo said. "The ability of someone in my position to actually influence policy decisions is minimal. I have only two things: my voice and my vote. I'm going to use both of those things as aggressively and effectively as I possibly can."

http://www.soyboricua.com/alonso/Academic/187.html

Proposition 187