State Enemy Number ONE!
Enemy of WE THE PEOPLE
Enemy of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob
Enemy of the US Constitution
Spoiler of the BLOOD spilt by our Founding Fathers to PRESERVE
In March 1998, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a final ruling in
the ACLU's challenge to Proposition 187
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our
State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to
establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit
illegal aliens from using
health care, public education, and other social services in the
U.S. State of
California. Voters passed the proposed law as a referendum in
November 1994; it was the first time that a state had passed legislation
immigration, customarily an issue for federal policies and programs.
The law was challenged in a legal suit and found unconstitutional by a
federal court. In 1999, Governor
Gray Davis halted state appeals against the ruling.
Passage of Proposition 187 reflected state residents' concerns about
illegal immigration into the United States and the large Hispanic
population in California. Opponents believed the law was discriminatory
against immigrants of Hispanic or Asian origin; supporters generally
insisted that their concerns were economic: that the state could not
afford to provide social services for so many illegal residents.
In 1994, California had an estimated 1.3 million undocumented
immigrants, which included approximately 308,000 illegal alien children.
Legal residents were increasingly concerned about the costs of providing
services to the families of undocumented immigrants.
Dick Mountjoy of
Monrovia introduced Proposition 187 to the state legislature as the
"Save Our State" (SOS) initiative. It gained enough signatures to be
placed on the ballot as a referendum vote during the general election on
November 8, 1994. Originally one of several immigration reform bills
placed before the California legislature in the early 1990s, polls
surveying community responses showed that Proposition 187 began with
widespread support - a 37-point lead in July 1994, and 62-29 percent
lead among likely voters by September 1994.
Proponents of the bill estimated that California spent $3 billion per
year on services for undocumented immigrants, about half of which
education to children of undocumented immigrants.
Pete Wilson, a
Republican, was a prominent supporter of Proposition 187, which
ultimately became a key issue during his 1994 re-election campaign
Kathleen Brown. After facing record low approval ratings during his
first term, Wilson trailed Brown in opinion polls by more than 20% early
during the gubernatorial campaign. Commentators considered his
aggressive support of the Proposition 187 as crucial to his re-election.
In the days leading up to the election, Wilson said that he would
require all state and local government employees to report suspected
undocumented immigrants to the
Attorney General's Office if Proposition 187 passed. State Attorney
Dan Lungren, also running for re-election, agreed to enforce
emergency regulations to implement the law immediately after the
United States Senate election in California, 1994 campaign, the
Diane Feinstein and Republican challenger
Michael Huffington both adopted tough policies against illegal
immigration. The candidates each revealed that they had previously hired
undocumented immigrants for housekeeping and childcare. Unlike
Feinstein, Huffington had hired an illegal
housekeeper after the
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal to
knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. Feinstein was narrowly
Bill Clinton urged Californians to reject Proposition 187 as an
impediment to federal policy on immigration. After admitting that "it is
not wrong for you [Californians] to want to reduce illegal immigration,"
Clinton asked voters to allow the federal government to "keep working on
what we're doing."
In the days leading up to the referendum vote, Latino students
organized large protests of Proposition 187 across the state, including
a mass boycott of high
schools. Their protests often included waving the Mexican flag, a
controversial symbol that was described by opponents as
On November 8, 1994, California voters approved the proposition by a
wide margin: 59 percent to 41 percent.
According to the
Los Angeles Times exit polls, 63 percent of ethnic European
voters and 23 percent of Latino voters voted for Proposition 187;
African-American and ethnic Asian voters split their voting equally for
and against the law. Although ethnic Europeans comprised 57% of
California's population at the time, they comprised 81% of voters in the
1994 general election. Latinos totaled 8% of voters, although they
comprised 26% of the state's population.
While 78 percent of Republicans and 62 percent of
Independents voted for the initiative, Democratic voters opposed the
measure by 64 percent.
Section 1 of Proposition 187 provides this introduction:
The People of California find and declare as follows: That they
have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the
presence of undocumented immigrants in this state. That they have
suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the
criminal conduct of undocumented immigrants in this state. That they
have a right to the protection of their government from any person
or persons entering this country unlawfully.
elements of Proposition 187
Proposition 187 included the following key elements:
- All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has
been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate
the detainee's immigration status, and if they find evidence of
illegality they must report it to the attorney general of
California, and to the federal
Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They must also
notify the detainee of his or her apparent status as an alien.
- Local governments are prohibited from preventing or limiting the
fulfillment of this requirement.
- If government agents suspect anyone applying for benefits of
being illegal immigrants, the agents must report their suspicions in
writing to the appropriate enforcement authorities.
- A person shall not receive any public social services until he
or she has been verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully
- A person shall not receive any health care services from a
publicly funded health care facility until he or she meets the
- A public elementary or secondary school shall not admit or
permit the attendance of any child until he or she meets the
- By 1996, each school district shall verify the legal status of
each child enrolled within the district and the legal status of each
parent or guardian of each child.
- A child who is in violation of the requirements above shall not
continue to attend the school 90 days from the date of notice to the
attorney general and INS.
- The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and
make them available to any other government entity that wishes to
- The manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of false citizenship
or residency documents is a state felony punishable by imprisonment
After the bill's passage, activists on campuses, churches, and ethnic
communities in California and across the country rallied to express
opposition to Proposition 187. Critics argued that the bill was
xenophobic and discriminated against ethnic minorities, especially those
of Latino origin. Others were fearful that the costs of a state-run
citizenship screening system and the potential loss of federal funds
would off-set any savings of denying public benefits to illegal aliens.
The day after the law was approved, an alliance of Latino and civil
rights groups, including
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and
American Civil Liberties Union, filed lawsuits against the measure
in state court.
Multiple local governments outside California, including the city of
Denver, Colorado, threatened to boycott the state altogether. Latino
organizations announced that they would not hold conventions in
California and urged a boycott by their members and supporters of
Disneyland. a major tourist attraction.
Proposition 187 was widely supported by conservatives. However, some
prominent conservatives, including former
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Education
William Bennett, and unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate
publicly opposed the initiative.
Due to Proposition 187's statutes requiring children and their
parents or legal guardians to prove their legal status, the California
Parent-Teacher Association joined in opposing the bill.
The Democratic gubernatorial candidate,
Gray Davis, who succeeded Wilson, campaigned against Proposition
187. On October 16, 1994, three weeks before Proposition 187 was passed,
more than 70,000 people marched in downtown
Los Angeles against the measure.
The Mexican president,
Carlos Salinas de Gortari, decried the law as xenophobic and harmful
to the human rights of migrant laborers. One week after the bill was
approved, Salinas proposed cross-border discussions to develop a "guestworker"
program that would permit non-resident Mexicans to work legally in the
Such a program had been in place during
World War II.
The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several
lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage,
Federal Judge Matthew Byrne issued a temporary
restraining order against institution of the measure, which was
filed by State Attorney General
Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent
injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994, blocking all
provisions except those dealing with higher education and false
documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the
federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be
unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal
government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to
Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the
Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,
the Congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that
the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:
"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to
regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own
legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."
Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in 1999, the newly elected
Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation.
His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999,
effectively killing the law.
Noting a rapid increase in the Latino participation in California
elections, some analysts cite Governor Wilson's and the
Republican Party's embrace of Proposition 187 as a cause of the
failure of the party to win statewide elections.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only Republican to win a California
gubernatorial, senatorial, or presidential election since 1994.
Since 1995 the following states have had similar ballot initiatives
or laws passed:
Tyranny: Massive Invasion
of our Gene Pool
96% of Americans OPPOSE amnesty for
An overwhelming majority of
California voters passed two propositions, 187 to stop illegal immigration and 209 to end
affirmative action, which the federal government condemned with every fiber in its body.
Federal nigger judge Thelton Henderson held up
implementation of 209 for one full year, even though 54.7% of California
voters supported it, on the basis that the voters didn't understand what they were voting
for. Can you imagine how a federal judge could operate under such a cynical
hypothesis, what this does to our constitutional republic, how Mr. Jefferson and
Washington are now turning in their graves?
Fortunately, with the following
scathing opinion, the appeals court threw out this utterly stupid, cynical, and
unconstitutional ruling so that this legitimate public mandate could be implemented:
"A system which permits one judge to block with the stroke of a pen
what 4,736,180 state residents voted to enact as law tests the integrity of our
Unfortunately, Proposition 187 was also blocked
and never implemented . because of such high handed, unconsititutional and
cynical acts on the part of our federal judiciary, this time by District Court Feminazi
Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer. Where the wording was directed at illegal immigrants
who're not in this country legally, its opponents used the sleight of hand of calling
these criminals "illegal citizens". By
definition, they're criminals, not citizens, and such language reveals their hidden
agenda. They also object because they "envision school officials, law
enforcement, and social workers judging people based on their appearance, skin color and
accents". Well guess what--this is EXACTLY the point! This is exactly why
TWO THIRDS of California voters passed this
initiative in the first place. And if a two thirds majority of Americans don't WANT
to continue to pay taxes for services to incompetent third world muds who can only be
identified by their appearance, skin color, and accents, and if 94% of them oppose amnesty
for illegal aliens whose appearance, skin color, and accents are an affront to the
sensibilities of we the people, then why should the federal government do what Israel
wants rather than what 19 out of 20 Americans want?
Because enemies of a foreign power control our
mass media which has become a fourth branch of government which controls the other three
legitimate branches. Because this foreign power is using illegal immigration,
miscegenation with muds, and Christian guilt as a weapon against us. Because only
ONE of our elected officals, Representative Tancredo, has had the
courage to "just say NO" to this federal encroachment on our gene pool!
Because this fourth branch of government has more influence in Washington than 95%
of voting Americans.
|Do you favor Bush's proposal to extend amnesty for illegal immigrants?
|No, our open border policy
is our worst national security problem
|No, it encourages illegal
entry into the U.S.
|No, it allows potential
terrorists to become citizens
|Yes, America is a nation
|Yes, they're already here
|Yes, that way they'll pay
TOTAL VOTES: 3197
Copyright ï¿½ A. Alonso 1-15-96
University of Southern California
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
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
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
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.
"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
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
"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
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
"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."