xmas3.gif (5351 bytes)

Mariana Pfaelzer

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 THEIR HERITAGE

 

 

 

In March 1998, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a final ruling in the ACLU's challenge to Proposition 187

California Proposition 187 (1994)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 related to immigration, customarily an issue for federal policies and programs.[1] 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.[2][3]

Contents

[hide]
bullet 1 Background and passage
bullet 2 Results
bullet 3 Key elements of Proposition 187
bullet 4 Opposition
bullet 5 Legal challenges
bullet 6 Subsequent developments
bullet 7 See also
bullet 8 Notes
bullet 9 References

[edit] Background and passage

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.[4]

The Republican assemblyman 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.[5] Proponents of the bill estimated that California spent $3 billion per year on services for undocumented immigrants, about half of which provided education to children of undocumented immigrants.[6]

Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, was a prominent supporter of Proposition 187, which ultimately became a key issue during his 1994 re-election campaign against Democratic opponent 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.[7]

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 General Dan Lungren, also running for re-election, agreed to enforce emergency regulations to implement the law immediately after the election.

During the United States Senate election in California, 1994 campaign, the incumbent Senator 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 re-elected.[8]

President 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."[8]

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 counterproductive.[8]

On November 8, 1994, California voters approved the proposition by a wide margin: 59 percent to 41 percent.[9] 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.[10]

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.

[edit] Results

Proposition 187
Choice Votes Percentage
Referendum passed Yes 5,063,537 58.93%
No 3,529,432 41.07%
Valid votes 8,592,969 96.54%
Invalid or blank votes 307,667 3.46%
Total votes 8,900,636 100.00%
Voter turnout 60.45%
Electorate 14,723,784
Source: 1994 Statement of Vote

[edit] Key elements of Proposition 187

Proposition 187 included the following key elements[5]:

  1. 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.
  2. Local governments are prohibited from preventing or limiting the fulfillment of this requirement.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 admitted alien.
  5. A person shall not receive any health care services from a publicly funded health care facility until he or she meets the requirements above.
  6. A public elementary or secondary school shall not admit or permit the attendance of any child until he or she meets the requirements above.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.
  10. The manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of false citizenship or residency documents is a state felony punishable by imprisonment or fine.

[edit] Opposition

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.[11] 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.[12] 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.[13]

Proposition 187 was widely supported by conservatives. However, some prominent conservatives, including former Congressman and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, and unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron Unz, publicly opposed the initiative.[14][15]

Due to Proposition 187's statutes requiring children and their parents or legal guardians to prove their legal status, the California State Parent-Teacher Association joined in opposing the bill.[16] 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.[17]

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 United States.[18] Such a program had been in place during World War II.

[edit] Legal challenges

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 Dan Lungren.[19] After Judge 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 immigration.[20] 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 federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in 1999, the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation.[21] His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[22]

[edit] Subsequent developments

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.[23] Governor 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: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma and Texas.[24]

 

 

 

Tyranny:  Massive Invasion of our Gene Pool

96% of Americans OPPOSE amnesty for illegal immigrants

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 constitutional democracy."

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.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/polls/former_poll.asp?POLL_ID=403

Do you favor Bush's proposal to extend amnesty for illegal immigrants?
No, our open border policy is our worst national security problem 59.43% (1900)
No, it encourages illegal entry into the U.S. 26.90% (860)
No 6.51% (208)
No, it allows potential terrorists to become citizens 3.19% (102)
Yes, America is a nation of immigrants 1.19% (38)
Yes, they're already here contributing 1.09% (35)
Yes, that way they'll pay income taxes 1.00% (32)
Yes 0.69% (22)

horizontal rule

TOTAL VOTES: 3197

http://www.soyboricua.com/alonso/Academic/187.html

Proposition 187


Copyright � A. Alonso 1-15-96
University of Southern California
Email: alonso@streetgangs.com
URL: http://www.soyboricua.com/alonso

 

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 year.

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 employment only.

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 constitutional rights.

horizontal rule

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. 11.

"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 this president."

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 criticism.

"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 said.

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 re-election campaign.

"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."