- Home
- Commentaries and Reports
- Proposition 187: "Last Gasp of White America in California"
Proposition 187: "Last Gasp of White America in California"
- By Tom Shuford Columnist EducationNews.org
- Published 07/11/2006
- Commentaries and Reports
-
Rating:
Tom Shuford Columnist EducationNews.org
Tom Shuford [email protected] is a retired public school teacher living in Lenoir, North Carolina. He graduated from Duke University (BS, mechanical engineering) and from Emory University (MA, experimental psychology). He taught at the elementary level for 28 years.
Proposition 187: "Last Gasp of White America in California"
Power is not given to you. You have to take it. Remember, 187 is the last gasp of white America in California. Understand that. (Art Torres, soon-to-be and current Chairman of the California Democratic Party speaking to a Chicano audience in1995: One-minute Real-Audio clip: 5th item)
"Understand that ," said Torres for emphasis.
The derailing of Proposition 187 by a federal judge was a victory for Torres and those like-minded. (1) The American judicial system is an ideal vehicle for effecting a transfer of power. See "Plyler v. Doe (1982) Transforms American Public Schools."
Granted, Art Torres probably did not know that his virtuoso display of ethnic triumphalism was being recorded. Even if he did, he could count on the news media not to report his remarks.
I defer to economist Robert Samuelson's gentle words of explanation:
...group-think is a powerful force in journalism. Immigration is considered noble. People who critically examine its value or worry about its social effects are considered small-minded, stupid or bigoted. The result is selective journalism that reflects poorly on our craft and detracts from democratic dialogue. ("Immigration Bill's Hidden Impact," Washington Post Writers' Group, May 31)
"Selective journalism" is the accurate term. The mainstream media do not select stories that jeopardize "noble" causes.
Few such causes will impact schools more in coming years than illegal immigration. Given its privileged status, ignoble features enjoy immunity from scrutiny. (2)
In fact, Prop 187 and the immigration debate since have produced a cornucopia of Torres-type observations from prominent Latino politicians and academics. These would have made for captivating reading.
Fortunately, a free-lancer put together a video, The Nation of Atzlan (four minutes), which has closeups of last spring's "immigrant rights" rallies accompanied by voice overs of prominent Mexican-American reconquistas.
The racial chauvinism of the Prop 187 era (mid-to-late nineties) is illuminating, but what happened after Proposition 187 was approved by California voters even more so.
Federal Judge Mariana Pfaelzer's ruling was not the final nail in the Prop 187 coffin — or even the largest.
What was the fuss about? What was Prop 187?
Proposition 187 was a citizen initiative placed on the California ballot in 1994. It would have denied non-emergency health care, state-funded social services and public education to illegal aliens. The measure passed on November 8, 1994, with 59% of the vote.
What happened next?
*Filing suit the day after Proposition 187 passed was the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the ACLU, and others.
*Two days later, a temporary restraining order was issued in Judge Pfaelzer's court, in her absence.
*Judge Pfaelzer, appointed to the bench by President Jimmy Carter, returned and issued a permanent injunction pending trial. The injunction was based on Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 Supreme Court decision which held that Texas could not deny free public schooling to illegal alien students.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The Plyler majority of 1982 justified their 5-4 ruling, in part, by arguing: 1) "there is no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the state's economy," 2) "the record in no way supports the claim that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the state" and 3) Congress was, in any case, contemplating an amnesty (which did occur four years later in 1986).
None of these conditions applied in California in the mid-nineties. In fact, in 1996, Congress passed a tough new law on illegal immigration — streamlining deportation, adding border patrol agents, allowing local law enforcement to cooperate with the INS [Immigration and Naturalization Service], and adding investigators to pursue employer sanctions. No amnesty in sight.
* In 1997 California Attorney General Dan Lungren asked Judge Pfaelzer for a summary dismissal of the suits against Prop 187. The judge refused.
*In 1998, Judge Pfaelzer declared most of Proposition 187 unconstitutional:
In her final ruling, Pfaelzer rejected California's attempt to regulate immigration, which she said is the federal government's responsibility. ("Most Of California's Prop. 187 Ruled Unconstitutional," CNN , March 19, 1998)
*California Governor Pete Wilson filed an appeal.
*In November 1998, Democrat Gray Davis was elected governor. During the campaign, Davis, an opponent of Prop 187, promised to honor the wishes of California voters if elected by supporting the appeal of Judge Pfaelzer's ruling.
Once elected, however, Davis was under severe political pressure from minority pressure groups. He had to find a way to drop the appeal while seeming to honor the wishes of the voters. There was no ambiguity about what anti-Proposition 187 forces wanted: The appeal of Judge Pfaelzer's ruling against Prop 187 must not be allowed to reach the Supreme Court . Opponents knew there was a good chance the high court would overrule the judge and find Prop 187 constitutional.
Davis decided to submit Prop 187 to "mediation." No supporters of Prop 187 were included in the mediation, only opponents. Davis would "represent" the interests of California voters:
By choosing mediation, Davis is setting up a process in which he will meet with Proposition 187's most outspoken opponents to decide its fate. With no proponent of the anti-illegal immigration initiative at the negotiating table, Proposition 187 will almost certainly die a quiet death. (Los Angeles Times , 4-29-99)
Indeed, the "quiet death" came a few months later. Proposition 187 was gutted, the appeal dropped:
The decision . . . reverses his earlier stance that as governor he was obligated to appeal a court ruling declaring unconstitutional the controversial 1994 voter-approved initiative. (San Jose Mercury News ,7-30-99)
At a news conference, Davis tried to reassure voters: "Proposition 187 has not prevailed, but the spirit of 187 has prevailed through the adoption of very similar pieces of federal legislation." ("California governor gives up immigration measure," CNN, 7-29-99)
A ballot initiative approved by five million voters by a 6-4 ratio was thus overruled by a single judge, the right of appeal blocked by a single politician.
The nullification of Proposition 187 is, like Plyler v. Doe , a milestone on a road to pathological openness.
* * *
Understanding What Happened to Proposition 187: Scenes and Reflections
The essay above has the basics.
There are side paths and scenes, however, on Prop 187's journey to oblivion that illuminate the immigration landscape:
Mexico's Role
One would expect the Mexican government to have had a hand in the initiative's demise. After all, with its 47 consulates throughout the U. S., Mexico is aggressively undermining U. S. immigration laws, culture and sovereignty. A provision in the recently passed Senate immigration bill (S. 2611) even mandates
So surely Mexico would have opposed letting California voters restrict services to illegal aliens. So the record shows:
May 19, 1999: KTLA TV reports on a visit to California by Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo:
Reporter: "President Zedillo says he has a commitment from the governor."
Mexican President Zedillo: "I have confidence in the governor [Gray Davis] that he will do whatever he can so that these catastrophic effects that were foreseen for Proposition 187 several years ago will not come to pass."
This was two months before the measure's "quiet death."
August 4, 1999: California Assembly Speaker (now mayor of Los Angeles) Anthony Villaraigosa: "As leader of the state Assembly, I say President Zedillo had great impact in defeating Proposition 187." (news conference after Villagairosa and a state delegation met with Zedillo.)
Fear that 187 would be found Constitutional
Fear motivated those pressuring Governor Gray Davis to drop the state's appeal of the ruling against 187.
Peter Schey was the lead litigator for the plaintiffs in Plyler v. Doe. Schey, now executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, also led the legal assault on Prop 187. Carlos Holguin is Schey's General Counsel. Here is how Holguin described what was at stake for a Spanish-language newspaper [translation]:
Carlos Holguin, the Human Rights and Constitutional Law Center's attorney, said that the process of negotiating [mediation] that the litigating parties followed to reach this conclusion avoided a greater risk that the case would go to the Supreme Court and the right to education of the undocumented would be lost. (La Opinion , August 1, 1999) (3)
Epilogue
Proposition 187 may have been too bold for its time.
Though favored by a large majority and likely constitutional, it was intensely opposed by California's news media (I lived in the Los Angeles metro area in the late nineties), by various elites and by minority pressure groups. They would and did find a way to defeat it.
Immigration policy since 1965 had been determined behind the scenes by special interests. Proposition 187, an expression of majority will, disturbed this policy-making status quo, arousing ferocious opposition.
The measure's key vulnerability was the denial of free schooling to children illegally brought to the United States. A more modest first attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration might have survived the elite/special interest assault.
Even today, the majority of voters in California and nationwide have little defense against the immense forces seeking to use immigration for economic gain or ethnic hegemony.
Most politicians are no defense: The current U. S. president enforces immigration laws even less than his predecessor. This is the Presidential Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
This is Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion . . .
The President of the United States is violating his Oath of Office.
The two houses of Congress are little defense. They are bitterly divided between an enforcement-focused House and an amnesty/guest worker-focused Senate.
The Supreme Court brought on the crisis (as with Plyler v. Doe ) by usurping Congress' constitutional role in setting immigration policy. Article I, Section 8 states that: "The Congress shall have power . . . To establish a uniform rule of naturalization."
The mainstream media have been approximately useless. For the media "diversity," however attained and of whatever character, is a universal good, not to be questioned.
With individual and institutional dereliction and paralysis on this scale, 187 may yet prove to be the watershed — "the last gasp" — Art Torres envisioned. (4)
Endnotes
1) Mexican-American ethnic chauvinists are fascinated by power — particularly the transfer thereof. Note the excitement in the voice of UCLA ethnic studies professor Armando Navarro, speaking to a Chicano audience about the changing demographics of California in January, 1995 (one-minute audio):
Ladies and Gentlemen, what this means is a transfer of power, it means control, and it is the young people, the people who are now moving to develop an agenda for the twenty-first century they are going to be in a position to really make the promise of what the Chicano movement was all about in terms of self-determination, in terms of empowerment, even in the terms of an AZTLAN. [mythical place of origin of the Aztec peoples, the US Southwest].
Navarro has finally gotten his due at the Los Angeles Times. See: "Vision That Inspires Some and Scares Others: Atzlan" (July 7, 2006).
2) Two-time Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for TIME magazine Donald L. Barlett: I began (reporting) in 1956 and never have I seen a more badly covered subject [than immigration] , and there is no question it is a political correctness issue. I find that offensive as a reporter.
Barlett's partner James B. Steele: This is not just a victimless crime as people like to portray illegal immigration . . . But to tell that story would run headlong into community groups in that arena and a general reluctance to take on a controversial story.
Almost all stories are of the immigrants-as-victims variety: They [the two reporters] found many stories that show the immigrant as the victim: the dangers they face in crossing the desert, exploitive workplaces where they toil, and articles about anti-immigrant efforts. Both Barlett and Steele said those were all legitimate stories. But they argue the other side of the story should be told as well.
Steele: Almost nobody has written a story like we have written. What people write about are the hardships.
Barlett on why there are few stories on the negatives of immigration: Editors are pandering, absolutely pandering. (" Opening the Door to Better Immigration Stories : A Pulitzer winning team talks about how to go beyond political correctness," by Mary Sanchez, Poynteronline , Oct. 12, 2004)
3) A highly informative account of the demise of Proposition 187 is the transcript of a broadcast by American Patrol (an anti-illegal immigration site). The transcript is on the Recall Gray Davis official site. (Davis was recalled by California voters on Oct. 7, 2003.)
4) An animated cartoon feature (five-minute video) explores parallels with the Pilgrim invasion of Indian lands 380 years ago. The Great Immigration Debate of 1621 is hilarious.
Tom Shuford [email protected] is a retired teacher living in Lenoir, North Carolina.
Published July 12, 2006
Spread The Word
Related Articles
Comments
