Schwarzenegger's support for Prop. 187 reveals glimpse on issues

Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign said Sunday that the actor had voted for Proposition 187, the divisive 1994 ballot measure to deny social services to illegal immigrants, offering a first glimpse at one of his stances on a major policy issue.

The Republican has promoted himself as the candidate in California's gubernatorial recall who can best appeal to the state's politically and ethnically diverse electorate. But Democrats were quick to jump on the disclosure as a chink in the action hero's armor.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/08/10/state1930EDT0082.DTL

California became a democratic state after Wilson promoted Prop 187. Publicize this enough and get turnout in Latino/latina communities and Dems get a lock. Best yet, it may be a Dem lock that lasts. Remember, latinos/latinas are becoming the majority in California or, at least, one of the largest voting blocks.

I'm white and I can remember telling anyone who brought up the subject that this prop was stupid and mean spirited. Hispanics should never forget it.

Pete Wilson was incredibly stupid on that one. Prop 187 was like being anti-Catholic in Boston or anti-Gay in San Francisco. Jeeze Louise, a politician has to be able to count the votes. Hell, even George Wallace renounced his racist past and won as Governor of Alabama again in the 80s with support from the African-American community.

we missed you Saturday! :)

For a state that is now in difficult financial difficulties, how would proposition 187 would play out today, particularly after 9/11? Why would the State's meager resources be allocated for people that are in this country illegally, while there are plenty of legal immigrants and citizens that are hurting?

Most Latinos in this country were either born here or are here legally.

The problem with Prop 187 is that in trying to address a legitimate State interest, it ignored basic human rights as well as a little known document called the Constitution.

Here is a good 1995 article on Prop 187:

California's Proposition 187 and Its Lessons
By Stanley Mailman

New York Law Journal (p. 3, col. 1)

January 3, 1995

Based on the judge's statement, the written decision/order, when issued in January, will find that much of the statute violates two of the provisions of the Constitution -- (1) the Supremacy Clause,*7 by stepping on ground preempted by federal immigration law; and (2) the Fourteenth Amendment, first, by effectively ordering the deportation of California residents without hearings or other due process of law and, second, by denial of free education to undocumented children, that Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

Proposition 187 prohibits public social services to those who cannot establish their status as a U.S. citizen, a lawful permanent resident, or an ``alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time.''*8 Only persons in those categories may receive health-care services from a publicly funded health care facility, ``other than emergency medical care as required by federal law . . . .''*9 Anyone else must be denied the requested services or other benefits, directed in writing to ``either obtain legal status or leave the United States'' and be reported to the authorities, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).

Proposition 187 also limits attendance at public schools to U.S. citizens and to aliens lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or otherwise authorized to be here.*10 The new statute gives school districts until next Jan. 1 to verify the status of pupils and their parents; but whenever they reasonably suspect a violation they have only 45 days to so notify INS and other authorities and to advise parents that schooling will be cut off in 90 days.

The denial of education to children is particularly open to constitutional attack in view of the 1982 Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe.*11 There the Court held that a Texas statute that effectively denied undocumented children a public-school education violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. (School authorities, however, were not called on to identify parents who lacked proper immigration status or to report that fact to INS, a requirement in Proposition 187 that allegedly causes undocumented parents, afraid of being turned in, to withdraw even their U.S. children from school.*12)

http://ssbb.com/article1.html

and I was proud to do so. That was my first general election as a voter, and what an awful election it was.

NOT

This is like Cheney casting the tie breaking vote against medical help for seniors.

trying to help dismantle affirmative action.

.."I am up here...quick..pull the ladder up "...

but a positively-reinforced message about the overall philosophy of the Republican way, evinced by AHH-nold.

"Hasta la vista..." could take on meanings of very wry proportions. Hello Cruz!

Gave buku bucks to GWB campaign, will probably do the same for anti-immigrant Arnold

I honestly don't know how I'll ever be able to redeem my faith in the philosophical concept of democracy. After having listened to a number of "interviews in the street" regarding this matter, I'm really starting to believe that an overwhelming majority of the people in this country haven't the education or the insight sufficient to form an informed opinion regarding something as serious as the choosing of a governor, or for that matter, a president.

How could anyone look at Arnold and his background and say, "Gosh, there's a fine set of gubernatorial qualifications"? I just don't get it.

Arnold is an immigrant who voted against helping immigrants?

This sounds like something that Democrats are going to have to look into and find a way to communicate to the voters of California.

it possible to distinguish b/w an illegal immigrant and a legal immigrant?

Is it fair to force legal immigrants to pay for services directed at illegal immigrants?

Every Latino in California will now vote against him.

I agree with denying social services to illegal immigrants. Note I said illegal immigrants. Not hispanic immigrants. All illegal immigrants. We can talk til we're lavender in the face about the childrens needs, etc, but the fact remains that they are illegally residing in this country. I cohabitate with someone who is 5th generation hispanic american - still speaks spanish, and agrees with me. Most hispanics that have been in this country legally for many years or decades have a strong negative feeling about the illegal immigration problem. They feel they have done things the legal and correct way, as have other ethnic group for generations, and do not believe the influx of illegal people is helping this country one whit.

denying education to children of undocumented workers is bad. They are here. They WILL be here. Please remember that immigration is a federal issue. We as a state have a vested interest in maintaining public health (that includes among the undocumented!) and in allowing the children here an education. I think it really makes sense. Again, I know what you mean about this in the abstract... but on the ground I think it's bad policy to deny such services.

Also, it's more than clear that the motivation of the authors of 187-like laws are racist. Wilson's commercials with footage of "hoards" of Mexicans crossing the borders, I think, stand as an example of this...

no child should be denied an education. Their parents, however, entered the country illegally, and should be deported if mitigating circumstances do not warrant otherwise. All children pay for the sins of their parents. The children should go back with the parents, receive an education in their home country, but maintain the right to return legally to the US (if born here) upon reaching age for emancipation.

A child born in America becomes a US Citizen automatically. You can't deport a US citizen out of the country.

refuse to give up custody? That would be a fight I wouldn't want to see.
I know about the born in America = automatic citizen, but I'm trying to think in the best interest of the child as well as following long-term immigration policy. If people want the basic immigration laws changed, then vote to change them. For now, they stand as they do and I agree with them.

Yeah but children born here are US Citizens and that shouldn't change.

I have found the opposite of what you say to be true.

Most Hispanics who I have spoken with about this issue over the years are very compassionate about the plight of legal and illegal immigrants.

You mention one person who you know, and then say that "most" Hispanics who have been in the U.S. for many years feel the same way as that one person. I would like to see some numbers that support your assertion.

Your question is a good one. I can only go on living in primarily - and that means over 50% population - hispanic communities for most of my 43 years and basing my opinion upon that. Perhaps I am mistaken about areas other than where I have been.
It would be good to get some solid statistics - I agree.

I still have a belief that not following immigration policy and entering the country illegally is wrong, and no ethnic group should be given special treatment.

I work with a woman who emigrated here from Germany 7 years ago, and is still trying to become a citizen in the legal manner. She wouldn't think for a minute about trying to live in this society without declaring her status and intentions.

I don't know what the actual stats are on Hispanic opinions on illegal immigration. I'm sure someone must have done some polling on this issue.

Part of the problem here is that denying school for children of illegal immigrants is not going to stop immigration, it's going to stop education. So you will probably end up with the same number of immigrants, but many of them will be less educated and have less to offer to society.

What if the question was whether we should allow the children of illegal immigrants to starve to death or to die of a lack of medical care? Should we let children die in America because their parents came to this country illegally looking for a better life?

It's a comlex issue, and just saying "we don't care about you because your parents broke the law" doesn't sound like a great solution.

I think you hiot the nail on the head. Few among us, I think, would claim that illegal immigration is a great thing, but whether we like it or not, it does happen, and will continue to happen so long as there is such economic disparity on either side of a contiguous border. The more one tries to ostracize undocumented aliens and shut them off from services, the more we force them to go underground - not, mind you, to stop coming. We therefore create a whole subclass of people who are doomed to stay that way, because we've left them with no means for improving their lot.

Consider, if you will, by way of contrast, a small program that was set up several years ago along the Texas/Mexican border whereby children from a Mexican border community were allowed to enterthe US to attend schools in the US sister city just on the other side of the border. The program cost virtually nothing, they used old used textbooks and hired a few extra teachers for peanuts, but the rewards were far-reaching. Mexican children took back with them the educations which they'd acquired, shared it with family members, economic prosperity increased in the Mexican community, profitable trade between the two communities developed, and illegal border crossings in that area dropped substantially, as they was no longer so great an incentive to move here for jobs. Everybody won and nobody had to get nailed or anything.

I don't mean to suggest that there are simple solutions for immigration questions, but I do think that we do ourselves and undocumented aliens both a disservice by focussing our efforts so exclusively on punative responses. Our whole focus on border enforcement is on beefy guys with guns and penalizing people for entering illegally; there's no carrot, just bigger and more menacing sticks. It's never been an effective strategy, I don't know why we keep thinking that the solution is to become simply more and more repressive in the hopes that sooner or later it will work.

:kick: Arnuld Out!

I'd say the Democrats should focus on the fact that Ahhhnuld only voted twice in the last EIGHT elections. Some 'governator' eh?

:kick:

I think there are three great things that will impact Arnie's chance at the governorship.

1) Pete Wilson is his campaign manager.

2) Arnie supported 187 -- the initiative that led to the Wilson ouster.

3) There will be another of the Ward Connelly-type race initiatives on the same ballot as the Governor's race.

I already saw Jessie Jackson in state talking about the need to get to the polls to vote down that initiative, and Cruz on one of the Spanish language stations talking about Arnie and 187.

A high minority/anti-initiative turnout could help the anti-recall vote considerably.

187 and 209 were VERY unpopular and both of those props drove out a lot of pukes from office.

187 passed with almost 60% of the popular vote. Although it's wrong for obvious reasons, voters passed it in frustration.

It was "hard" opposition, and especially in the Latino community. Telemundo, Univision, La Opinion need to hear from us.

Further, let's remember that 187 didn't merely "deny services." It turned teachers and doctors into stool pigeons, reporting "suspected" undocumented immigrants. That sounds pretty fascist to me, and it did to a lot of Latinos too. Goodbye Wilson, "hasta la vista" Arnie!

He's flip-flopped on it himself.

This election is Cruz against Arnold.

There were massive protests and large-scale efforts to send it to the courts to get provisions removed, which they were.

And as far as voters passing it in frustration, the latino vote was mobilized when a lot of effort was made to register latinos to vote.

I've seen all this happen but if you want links to be sure, go ahead and ask.

:kick: