Decision ’94 / SPECIAL GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA’S ELECTIONS : Prop. 187 : 187: Denies Services to Illegal Immigrants

P roposition 187 proposes action in several major areas: education, health, social services and law enforcement. Following is a summary of how the measure would impact each area and arguments for and against its passage.

SCHOOLS

* WHAT IT DOES

Proposition 187 requires educational administrators to verify the legal status of each child--and their parents--enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools. Children who cannot prove they are citizens or lawfully admitted immigrants would be barred from school after a 90-day period. School administrators would also be required to forward the names of suspected illegal immigrant children and parents to the INS, the state attorney general and state superintendent of public instruction.

Estimates by various authorities have placed the number of students statewide who could be expelled as a result of this provision at between 300,000 and 400,000. The annual savings for excluding 300,000 students could amount to $1.2 billion annually. However, passage of Proposition 187 would put at risk $2.3 billion in annual federal education funding because the reporting of suspected illegal immigrants appears to violate the provisions of a federal educational privacy act, according to the state legislative analyst.

Unlike other provisions of the ballot measure, which would take effect immediately upon passage, verification of the legal status of children enrolling in school for the first time would begin Jan. 1, 1995. By Jan. 1, 1996, the status of current students and their parents would have to be checked.

Both sides agree that passage of Proposition 187 would result in a legal challenge. In order for this component of the law to take effect, the U.S. Supreme Court would have to ignore or reverse its decision in the 1982 Plyler vs. Doe case, which made it unconstitutional to deny public education to undocumented school-age children.

The proposition includes a clause, common in statewide initiatives, saying that if any portion of the measure is held invalid, other portions would remain in effect.

* ARGUMENTS FOR

Sponsors say that by reducing the number of students in schools across California, classroom overcrowding and educational costs would be significantly reduced.

The state’s student-to-teacher ratio could be decreased, costly bilingual programs could be reduced and the quality of education could be improved for students who are legal residents.

The process of verifying legal status would not require major bureaucratic entanglements since school administrators already are responsible for receiving identification documents and health records for students enrolling in school. Students who do not produce documents will be reported to the INS so they can be returned to their home countries to receive an education.

A challenge of the Plyler vs. Doe decision could force the Supreme Court, which now includes six new members, to reverse its decision, allowing this measure, and similar ones that other states might be encouraged to enact, to stand.

* ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Opponents say it is unfair to turn school administrators into quasi-immigration officers and immoral to turn children into scapegoats because their parents may have broken the nation’s immigration laws.

If children are not educated, yet remain in the country, they are bound to be a costly, long-term burden to society. The measure provides no specific means of deporting illegal immigrants so most would remain in the state. Youngsters who are on the streets rather than in school would be more likely to turn to street gangs, drugs and lives of crime.

Even some youngsters who are citizens could face problems remaining in school if their parents were reported to authorities as illegal immigrants.

The legal challenge that would result if Proposition 187 passes would be costly, time-consuming and would, in all likelihood, result in the Supreme Court reaffirming its 1982 decision. If the sponsors of 187 were serious about saving taxpayers’ money and wanted to challenge the court decision, opponents ask, why aren’t they doing it without forcing taxpayers to foot the bill?

PUBLIC COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

* WHAT IT DOES:

The state’s public colleges, universities and community colleges would be barred from admitting pupils who are not citizens or lawfully admitted immigrants. Administrators would be required to verify the legal status of all students and provide the names of those suspected of being illegal immigrants to state and federal officials.

Undocumented students currently taking courses for credit at community colleges or the University of California are required to pay non-resident tuition to cover the cost of their education. Students in the California State University system, in accord with a court ruling, pay in-state tuition.

* ARGUMENTS FOR

Those who break the law by being in California illegally should not be allowed to make use of the state’s public services.

* ARGUMENTS AGAINST

There is no reason to penalize students who are paying their own way through school. The release of information to immigration authorities would violate federal privacy requirements and jeopardize at least $1.1 billion in federal funds subject to these standards.

HEALTH CARE

* WHAT IT DOES

Virtually all health care clinics and hospitals would be barred from providing any services other than emergency medical care to anyone who cannot prove that he is a U.S. citizen, a lawfully admitted permanent resident or a lawfully permitted temporary visitor. The wording of the measure indicates that medical service could not be provided at publicly funded hospitals and clinics even if a patient was willing to pay for it.

Those suspected of being illegal immigrants would be refused health care and would have their names forwarded to the state Director of Health Services, the state attorney general and the INS.

Currently, illegal immigrants are eligible for prenatal services and nursing home care for the elderly and disabled. They also participate in public health programs such as immunizations and testing for sexually transmitted disease. Illegal immigrants are generally not eligible for non-emergency Medi-Cal services but can receive basic indigent health care service.

Eliminating these services would provide savings of more than $100 million a year, according to the legislative analyst, but also appears to run afoul of federal confidentiality requirements, placing at risk the approximately $9 billion in annual federal funds California receives for its entire Medi-Cal program.

* ARGUMENTS FOR

In an ideal world, all people who need health care would receive it. But with health costs high, a system of rationing is required. Proposition 187 would accomplish that, saving taxpayers the expense of subsidizing the health care costs of those living in California illegally.

Strict controls on health care might even persuade illegal immigrants to leave California or not come here in the first place. Since illegal immigrants are not screened for diseases, any effort aimed at reducing their numbers might limit the spread of infectious diseases into the state.

The measure also does not preclude concerned opponents from setting up their own privately funded clinics to pay for and dispense vaccinations and other medical services. Sponsors of Proposition 187 have suggested that groups ranging from the Catholic Church to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund could take over such services--and remove the cost from taxpayers’ wallets--since they are so concerned about the rights of illegal immigrants. As for the $9 billion of at-risk funds, proponents say it is politically naive to think that the Clinton Administration, faced with a 1996 national election, would deny billions of dollars of funds to California because the state refused to pay for services to illegal immigrants.

* ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Disease does not recognize borders or ask for green cards. Therefore, denying care to illegal immigrants could result in the spread of illnesses to the general population.

The lack of preventive treatment, particularly for pregnant women, is likely to have much steeper long-term emergency medical costs, since children born in the United State are citizens.

Already overcrowded emergency rooms would be further packed, and the measure, as written, might even prevent screening exams to determine whether an emergency exists when a patient arrives. Also unclear is just when an emergency is no longer an emergency, and therefore, when hospitals would have to report the legal status of patients who are illegal immigrants to federal authorities. Proposition 187 is likely to have such a chilling effect that illegal immigrants who need medical care might not seek it until it is too late.

The measure would also turn doctors and nurses into quasi-immigration agents when their time is more properly spent dealing with the public health.

SOCIAL SERVICES

* WHAT IT DOES

Proposition 187 requires the cutoff of all public social services to anyone other than U.S. citizens or immigrants lawfully admitted as permanent residents or temporary visitors.

All persons employed in providing these services would be called on to verify the legal status of applicants and turn in the names of anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant to federal authorities and the state attorney general’s office.

Illegal immigrants are already precluded from receiving most major publicly funded social service grants, including food stamps, unemployment insurance and welfare.

If Proposition 187 is approved, the list of banned services would be extended to child welfare and foster care benefits, publicly funded family planning programs and specialized government efforts targeting at-risk groups, including abused and parentless children, the elderly, blind, homeless, mentally impaired and drug abusers.

Passage of Proposition 187 could save counties and the state roughly $50 million a year, the legislative analyst estimates. It would also put at risk about $3 billion in federal matching funds for Aid to Families With Dependent Children because the reporting requirement runs counter to federal confidentiality regulations.

* ARGUMENTS FOR

Illegal immigrants who are paid the minimum wage or even less for their labor cannot afford to live in many parts of California without supplementing their income with public benefits. For that reason, a certain percentage takes advantage of social service programs, if need be, by using false identifications.

Strict verification standards might make some illegal immigrants think twice about seeking social services they do not qualify for. Moreover, taxpayers should not have to pay for any services at all for those who enter the United States illegally.

Every time an illegal immigrant takes advantage of a social service program, less money is available for American citizens. Moreover, politically speaking, it is silly to think that the federal government would cut off $3 billion in funds from California because the state is not paying for social services for illegal immigrants.

* ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Most social services are already beyond the legal reach of illegal immigrants. If there is fraud in those programs, the state simply should enforce the rules that already exist.

It would be mean-spirited to extend the ban to programs for foster children and other needy youths. Indeed, if youngsters taken from abusive parents or without any parents at all are booted out of county programs, it is unclear just what their fate would be.

The ballot measure does not stiffen the penalty for falsely obtaining services currently unavailable to illegal immigrants. Yet it puts at risk federal funding for all AFDC cases, including those of legal residents.

POLICE

* WHAT IT DOES

All law enforcement agencies would be required to fully cooperate with the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service after arresting anyone suspected of being an illegal alien.

Law enforcement officers would seek to verify the legal status of all people arrested by questioning them regarding their date and place of birth and entry into the United States. Documentation would be demanded regarding citizenship status.

Arrestees who appear to be in the United States illegally would be informed, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, that they must obtain legal status or leave the country. Officers would notify the state attorney general and the INS of the names of all arrestees suspected of being illegal immigrants.

The measure would apparently void all municipal sanctuary ordinances protecting refugees and end limited-cooperation agreements the INS has with some law enforcement agencies.

* ARGUMENTS FOR

Law enforcement officers already seek the identity and legal status of those arrested, so this provision would hardly turn California into a police state. Besides, the measure only applies to those arrested for other crimes--people cannot be arrested on the suspicion of being an illegal immigrant.

Getting tough on the illegal immigration issue requires action that would prevent local communities from granting any shelter to those who are in the United States illegally.

Passage of the measure would increase the pressure for federal authorities to deport illegal immigrants who have committed crimes--and who now make up about one-sixth of the state’s prison population.

* ARGUMENTS AGAINST

The aura of suspicion created by Proposition 187 would make it tougher for police to do their job. Crime witnesses and victims would be less willing to cooperate with law enforcement authorities if they feared they might be reported to federal immigration officers.

Law enforcement agencies across California are already stretched to their limits and will be forced to deal with more paperwork and bureaucracy by having to report all suspects.

With more than 300,000 illegal immigrant youngsters expelled from school, the job of police will be even tougher.

FALSE DOCUMENTS

* WHAT IT DOES:

Proposition 187 provides a new state penalty of five years in prison or a $75,000 fine for manufacturing, distributing or selling false citizenship or resident alien documents. It also provides a new state penalty of five years in prison or a $25,000 fine for using fake citizenship documents.

* ARGUMENTS FOR

Stiffening the penalty for selling or using false documents might make illegal immigrants more reluctant to use fake identifications to apply for jobs or for government-funded social service and health programs. That, in turn, would free up more jobs for American citizens and result in fewer phony public welfare claims.

* ARGUMENTS AGAINST

The manufacture or use of false immigration or citizenship documents is already a federal crime and the state already has statutes against the forgery of such documents as driver’s licenses. Why impose such severe sanctions against individuals who are most often carrying fake papers so that they can find work, usually at meager wages?