Posted on 08/15/2003 11:33:39 AM PDT by The Old Hoosier
California’s special October 7 election on whether to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis ought to resurrect an issue that fainthearted Republicans have too long avoided: Should taxpayers be forced to fund education, non-emergency health care and welfare benefits for foreign nationals living illegally in the United States?
In 1994, California voters answered this question with a thundering "No Way." By 59% to 41%, they approved Proposition 187, terminating non-emergency state services for immigration lawbreakers.
Eight days later, Federal District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, a self-professed "liberal" appointed by President Jimmy Carter, issued an injunction suspending enforcement of the law. In a series of decisions between 1995 and 1998, she ruled that Prop 187 was unconstitutional. It usurped, she said, the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration.
In effect, Pfaelzer told taxpayers in the nation’s largest state that no matter what laws they enact for themselves, the federal Constitution imposes on them a duty to surrender their hard-earned dollars to subsidize welfare payments, medical services and tuition for people from other countries who flout U.S. immigration law.
Preposterous and Unjust
Were Pfaelzer right it would mean the Constitution mandates a form of taxation without representation—the very issue that inspired the American Revolution.
If a federal judge can order Californians to pay for the non-emergency health care of, say, Frenchmen living illegally in California, why can’t a federal judge order Californians to pay for the non-emergency health care of Frenchmen living in France?
The proposals would be equally preposterous and unjust.
Former California Gov. Pete Wilson, a moderate Republican who had angered conservatives by raising taxes and who won reelection in 1994 primarily because he supported Prop 187, fought Pfaelzer’s ruling. Wilson did so in the face of malicious assaults by Democratic Party leaders falsely portraying him, and Prop 187 supporters in general, as racists.
The Democrats’ race-baiting strategy was based on their assumption that the immigration lawbreakers who would benefit most from free public services in California were not from France, but from Latin America. Thus, the Democrats’ basic argument: If you do not believe Californians should be forced to pay for public services for illegal aliens, you are anti-Latino.
In fact, the truth is the opposite. Opponents of Prop 187 are forcing hardworking Mexican-Americans and other Latino Americans (as well as Americans of all other ethnic backgrounds) to pay additional taxes to provide services to immigration lawbreakers of whatever national origin.
Before a federal appeals court could rule on Prop 187, however, Gray Davis, who opposed the proposition, was elected governor. Davis "negotiated" a deal with other Prop 187 opponents to simply drop the appeal in the federal courts.
Davis killed Prop 187—-and this is now a key item in the bill of indictment for his recall.
With the removal of Davis, Prop 187 should be resurrected. The proposition is not only right, it is also indispensable to saving California from financial ruin. In April, for example, the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services (DHS) determined that its un-reimbursed cost for providing non-emergency health care to illegal aliens is now running $340 million per year. That means it will account for more than the aggregate $993 million deficit the DHS is expected to run over the next three years. In 1999, the Rand Corporation calculated that native-born California taxpayers pay an additional $1,200 in state and local taxes each year to subsidize services for immigrants.
As a bonus, Prop 187 is still popular. Despite the demagogic race-baiting campaign to thwart it, evidence suggests that support for Prop 187 has grown. In June 1999, the Los Angeles Times conducted a massive poll of 1,179 registered California voters. Sixty percent said they supported Prop 187, only 35% said they opposed it.
Prop 187 is probably more popular in California now than any politician.
That may be why Arnold Schwarzenegger let it be known last week that he had voted for Prop 187. This inspired the Los Angeles Times to publish a front-page story headlined: "Schwarzenegger’s Prop 187 Support Could Hinder Him." The story said Democrats were moving "to capitalize on his support for the initiative and his close ties to one of its key backers," former Gov. Wilson, who is co-chairing Schwarzenegger’s campaign.
When challenged on the issue, Schwarzenegger’s campaign did not back down. But it did not sound a trumpet call either. "No one understands the dreams and motivations of immigrants who come to this country more than Arnold Schwarzenegger," spokesman Sean Walsh told the Times. "He arrived in this country with just a few dollars in his pocket, and like millions of other immigrants, was unable to speak the English language. He has great empathy for those who come here under similar circumstances. That said, he believes we are a nation governed by laws and that when our immigration laws are violated, too often undocumented immigrants are exploited."
Schwarzenegger needs to go further if he wants make a real difference for California taxpayers. He should pledge to resurrect and fully enforce Proposition 187.
|
Cruz Must Lose calgov2002: for new calgov2002 articles. Other Bump Lists at: Free Republic Bump List Register |
Prop 187 was passed by the voters on Nov. 8, 1994 to deny public benefits to illegal aliens in California.
The next day several lawsuits were filed in California state court (Mexican-American Legal Defense/Education Fund (MALDEF), League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), ACLU, and others.
On Nov. 11, 1994 a "temporary restraining order (TRO)" was issued by Federal Judge Matthew Byrne (it was filed in Federal Judge Marianna Pfaelzer's court, but she was out (vacation?), so Byrne did the TRO. An answer was filed by Attorney General Dan Lungren in state court.
Judge Pfaelzer came back and issued a permanent injunction pending trial. Her rationale was essentially a case in Texas in the 1980's (Plyler v. Doe). Texas tried to deny public education to illegal aliens. The Supreme Court ruled for the illegals, based on two pillars:
1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and
2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.
The cases were consolidated into Judge Pfaelzer's court in 1995.
There were hearings, filings, hearings, filings ...
In 1996 California (Att'y Gen. Dan Lungren) said that Prop 187 was not in conflict with federal law.
In September 1996 federal immigration law was enacted, and in 1997 Lungren asked Judge Pfaelzer for a summary dismissal. (The 1996 federal law included Sec. 133 - that local law enforcement can cooperate with the INS)
Judge Pfaelzer said NO to summary dismissal and ruled for plaintiffs; Lungren said he'll appeal.
Lungren appealed in 9th District Circuit Court in late 1997. FOR SIX MONTHS LUNGREN TOOK NO ACTION - IT SAT THERE. HE SHOULD HAVE MOVED THE CASE ALONG!
Then came the gubernatorial campaign of 1998, and Gray Davis was elected in November. The appeal process was still sitting silently in court because Lungren had not moved it along. Davis was elected. The plaintiffs requested "mediation" in the 9th District Court, the court agreed to "mediation".
We know what happened then - Davis (who vehemently opposed Prop 187) "represented" FOR Prop 187. Neither the proponent of Prop 187 nor anyone else who co-sponsored Prop 187 was allowed in the bogus "mediation".
Governor Davis refused to allow the appeal to proceed and dropped the appeal, essentially KILLING PROP 187 against the will of the voters. This after having promised to support the appeal during his campaign.
Even the most vocal plaintiffs against Prop 187 said they were afraid that if it went to the U.S. Supreme Court it would be held to be constitutional, reversing Plyler v. Doe.
"Illegal immigration has been a festering boil with California voters since 1999. That’s when Davis, in a smoke-filled room deal with then Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo, the California Latino Caucus and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, killed Proposition 187, a citizen’s initiative to ban services to illegal aliens. Five million Californians voted for Proposition 187.
For a blow by blow account of how the slippery Davis, constitutionally bound to defend Proposition 187, instead worked in tandem with the Mexican government and its agents to ax the measure, see this link to Glenn Spencer’s American Patrol.
Of special note in the sordid, sickening saga is Davis’s romance with Zedillo. In February 1999 Davis, in one of his first official acts, flew to Mexico to woo Zedillo. And three months later, Zedillo toured California with Davis at his side.
After Davis completed his dirty deed, Antonio Villaraigosa, then California House Speaker and never one to miss a chance to add his two cents said,
"As leader of the State Assembly, I say President Zedillo had a great impact in defeating Prop. 187."
Echoing the sentiments of enraged Californians, FAIR Executive Director and lawyer Dan Stein said:
"In no democracy in the world are the results of an election overturned without the voters having their day in court - that is, until today. The decision to drop the appeal of Prop. 187 has absolutely nothing to do with its constitutionality. This is a capitulation by Governor Davis to pressure from an elite group of pro-illegal immigration politicians and organizations. The implications of this are as frightening for the future of self government in our country as they are outrageous."
Davis’s refusal to support the will of Californians prompted American Patrol’s Glenn Spencer to initiate a recall effort. Not least because of a total news blackout by the mainstream media—not one word was written - the recall effort failed. But that was then and this is now."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.