Proposition 187
Proposition 187 was a controversial initiative introduced in California in the early 1990s amid growing concerns about economic challenges and social issues. The proposition sought to make illegal immigrants ineligible for public services, education, and non-emergency healthcare, reflecting fears among some conservative groups that new immigrants would struggle to assimilate and burden the state’s resources. It was supported by several prominent political figures during the 1994 election, leading to its approval by 59% of voters. However, many of its provisions were quickly challenged in court, with federal Judge Mariana Pfaelzer ruling against significant parts of the initiative, asserting that federal immigration laws take precedence over state legislation. The debate surrounding Proposition 187 highlighted broader discussions about immigration, economic contribution, and social cohesion in the United States, particularly regarding the role of immigrant labor in the economy. Over the years, criticisms emerged, emphasizing the essential services immigrants provide and warning of the repercussions of denying them access to basic needs. Ultimately, California governor Jerry Brown repealed parts of Proposition 187 in 2014, signaling a shift in the state's approach to immigration policy.
On this Page
Proposition 187
Proposition 187 was developed in the early 1990s as California and the United States were experiencing major economic changes and social problems. Worries about increased taxation and unemployment were added to concerns that violence, illegitimate births, and welfare dependency were increasing. Some members of conservative organizations raised fears that the new wave of immigrants would not easily assimilate into the dominant culture.
In 1994, Dan Lungren, running for attorney general, Michael Huffington, who later lost to Senator Dianne Feinstein, and Governor Pete Wilson, running for reelection, all offered an answer to voters as to why California’s citizens were insecure: Too much tax money was being spent on illegal immigrants. Proposition 187, a proposed law, would make illegal immigrants ineligible for publicly financed social services, education, and nonemergency health care. Proponents of this initiative argued that, by making false documentation a felony, it would prevent illegal immigrants from coming to the United States to take jobs from US citizens. Furthermore, the threat of arrest would prevent pregnant foreign women from crossing the border, illegally, to give birth in the United States.
This call to limit immigration was also reflected in the platforms of many Republicans across the country who soon would take control of the US House and Senate. A disproportionately large white voter turnout in California on election day, November 8, 1994, may have contributed to the 59 percent of voters who approved of this initiative; its preamble declared that Californians were suffering “economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens” and from their criminal activity.
Lawyers were successful in getting an immediate hold placed on most provisions of Proposition 187 until federal courts could examine its merits. Not blocked, however, were the provisions making it a felony to manufacture or use false documents.
On November 20, 1995, federal judge Mariana Pfaelzer ruled against major portions of Proposition 187. She argued that federal laws regarding immigration cannot be overridden by state laws and that it would be illegal to ask people who sought to attend public schools or to receive health and welfare services about their immigration status; she did not extend her argument to include higher education benefits. Judge Pfaelzer’s decision permitted the state to deny benefits to illegal immigrants only in those programs that are fully funded by the state; that is, where no federal funds are involved. Although Proposition 187 was essentially gutted by Judge Pfaelzer’s ruling, the decision faced further appeals. Judge Pfaelzer made her final ruling in March 1998. In September 2014 California governor Jerry Brown repealed unenforceable sections of Proposition 187.
One argument against Proposition 187 is that because US employers want low-wage workers who will tolerate poor working conditions—such as migrant farmworkers or textile factory workers—employers will continue to entice Mexicans to come to the United States to find work. Therefore, it would be wrong to deny immigrants and their families the basic health, educational, and social services that they need. Others have pointed out that if immigrants are denied these basic services, the larger society will inevitably experience a host of related economic and social problems.
Another argument made against Proposition 187 is that immigrant laborers from Mexico and elsewhere make significant contributions to the US economy, other than through the work they do for their employers, including the Social Security and other taxes that they pay.
Bibliography
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Tara L. Butterfield. “The Resurgence of Nativism in California? The Case of Proposition 187 and Illegal Immigration.” Social Science Quarterly 81.1 (2000): 167–179. Business Source Complete. Web. 14 May 2015.
Eig, Lary M. California's Proposition 187: A Brief Overview. N.p.: Congressional Research Service, Lib. of Congress, 1995. Digital file.
HoSang, Daniel Martinez. Racial Propositions: Ballot Initiatives and the Making of Postwar California. Berkeley: U of California P, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost). Web. 14 May. 2015.
McGreevy, Patrick, and Phil Willon. “Gov. Brown Repeals Unenforced Sections of Prop. 187.” Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times. 14 Sept. 2014. Web. 14 May. 2015.
Valenty, Linda O, and Ronald D Sylvia. “Thresholds for Tolerance: The Impact of Racial and Ethnic Population Composition on the Vote for California Propositions 187 and 209.” Social Science Journal 41(2004): 433–446. Print.