California Proposition 187 still on books - must exclude illegal aliens

www.americanpatrol.com ^ | 2/11/02 | Glenn Spencer

[janetgreen]

Is Proposition 187 really legal after all?
Well, it is part of the Education Code
Go to the following url, select California Education Code, and search for 48215
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

CALIFORNIA EDUCATION CODE SECTION 48215.

(a) No public elementary or secondary school shall admit, or permit the attendance of, any child who is not a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, or a person who is otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States.

(b) Commencing January 1, 1995, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolling in the school district for the first time in order to ensure the enrollment or attendance only of citizens, aliens lawfully admitted as permanent residents, or persons who are otherwise authorized to be present in the United States.

(c) By January 1, 1996, each school district shall have verified the legal status of each child already enrolled and in attendance in the school district in order to ensure the enrollment or attendance only of citizens, aliens lawfully admitted as permanent residents, or persons who are otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States.>p> (d) By January 1, 1996, each school district shall also have verified the legal status of each parent or guardian of each child referred to in subdivisions (b) and (c), to determine whether such parent or guardian is one of the following:

(1) A citizen of the United States.
(2) An alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident.
(3) An alien admitted lawfully for a temporary period of time.

(e) Each school district shall provide information to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Attorney General of California, and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any enrollee or pupil, or parent or guardian, attending a public elementary or secondary school in the school district determined or reasonably suspected to be in violation of federal immigration laws within forty-five days after becoming aware of an apparent violation. The notice shall also be provided to the parent or legal guardian of the enrollee or pupil, and shall state that an existing pupil may not continue to attend the school after ninety calendar days from the date of the notice, unless legal status is established.

(f) For each child who cannot establish legal status in the United States, each school district shall continue to provide education for a period of ninety days from the date of the notice. Such ninety day period shall be utilized to accomplish an orderly transition to a school in the child's country of origin. Each school district shall fully cooperate in this transition effort to ensure that the educational needs of the child are best served for that period of time.

The Pacific Legal Foundation has claimed that no initiative passed by California voters can be held unlawful unless tested by an appeals court. That did not happen with Proposition 187. Could it be that the entire education establishment is breaking the law? Glenn Spencer

[janetgreen]

Does this mean that we California taxpayers will get a refund for our millions of dollars that we spend each year trying to educate illegal aliens? Yeah, right. The schools are not even allowed to question immigration status. Fellow Californians, let's ask our congress people about this one.

[DoughtyOne]

I received this email this morning. Very intersting!

[monkeywrench]

"The schools are not even allowed to question immigration status." Must be part of the "don't ask, don't tell" deal. If no one asks, you have to assume their legal, so, no one broke the law? Dem law 101.

[John Jorsett]

Congress has nothing to do with it, since it's a state proposition. It was overturned by a court and Gray Doofus took that opportunity to throw up his hands, decline to appeal, and declare it null and void. He even 'negotiated' with the Mexican President on the issue, if you can believe that. Of course, this was a complete abnegation of his duty to make a good-faith effort to defend ballot propositions, as required in the state constitution. You'd do better writing to the Republican candidates for governor, asking them if they intend to make an attempt to appeal the earlier ruling.

[Clemenza]

Prop. 187 --- So many holes, even many a conservative judge would throw it out!

F--k rule by the sheeple. Ballot initiatives undermine our representative form of government (I must admit that I live in a state where ballot initiatives frequently allow liberal measures to be passed. :-( )

[Regulator]

Ping. Thought this might pop up.

I'm not sure why Glenn put this up, and why he and the PLF didn't know about it. It's possible that the text was inserted in the code as a formality, but Judge Pfaelzer's ruling continues to prohibit enforcement.

It does provide cover for any school district if they wanted to start enforcing it. Davis and Eastin could go to court to stop them, which could possibly trigger an appeal - a bizarre one, where the state would be in the position of trying to prevent someone from complying with state law. I think the only way that they could legitimately be stopped is if the Feds were called in.

Wouldn't that be interesting?

[Regulator]

Actually, 187 was written to contradict Plyler v. Doe explicitly. This would cause a review of the grounds on which Plyler was based, specifically, does it apply when costs are "excessive"? The so-called 'constitutional problems' are not problems at all, but deliberate attempts to provoke rulings.

When it was adjudicated in 1982, the leftists on the court said that it was legitimate to force states to provide education to illegal alien children since the costs were not 'excessive'. This is an Ad Hoc argument that wouldn't hold up in California today, where the costs are in the billions. And it is precisely the argument then Justice, now Chief Justice William Rehnquist used to point out that the court was making social policy with Plyler, not deciding whether the citizens of Texas were within their rights to decide if they were going to be forced to give their money to non-citizens who were breaking federal laws.

If there's one thing the United States is supposed to be about, it's that we shouldn't be compelled to give our money to any one who demands it.

[Regulator]

millions of dollars that we spend each year trying to educate illegal aliens

It's actually about $3.4 Billion for the education part. Per year. In one state. This one.

[Clemenza]

If there's one thing the United States is supposed to be about, it's that we shouldn't be compelled to give our money to any one who demands it.

Amen.

[Regulator]

This seems to be a failing with conservatives. They don't know the rules. It may be that all along, the law was intact, and Davis/Bustamante/MALDEF knew it. But school district administrators didn't, and I'm sure Eastin sent out a memo not to comply. But that doesn't mean anything. The state can violate a federal injunction and force the feds to act. In other words, as a practical matter, they can say, "look. This is our law. Bring federal marshalls to enforce your injunction, but we're going to enforce our laws until the Supreme Court says we can't". Then the feds would be in the position of using federal force to put non-citizens into class rooms, at the expense of citizens. This would be a momentous act of intimidation in American history: The citizen's government pushing them aside to accomodate foreign citizens.

Of course, that's just what the left wants here. To depict it as if illegals are a "discriminated against" group, just like blacks in the South in 1963. But that's a long stretch for most people: the notion of open immigration, and the idea that borders are unjustifiably discriminatory. There isn't any way that citizens of Mexico could allege discrimination by the citizens of the United States. Unless, of course, they claim that this is really Mexico...

[I_Love_My_Husband]

We admit illegal children into San Francisco public schools every single day. We also give them free lunch, and welfare, section 8, welfare for the parents, now PGE gives the illegals lower rates on their gas and electric bills mandated by the STATE, and lower rates on their phone and cable bills. In San Francisco, we also provide, free, bilingual education, and it's practically mandatory.

I *hope* someone is listening to what I am saying. I am also wondering how many illegals VOTE in SF.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

I don't think think you will have much luck with this unless there is a provision in the law to arrest and punish those who are sympathetic to harboring and fostering illegals.It can't be some little piddling fine but serious jail time.

[Poohbah]

Actually, 187 was written to contradict Plyler v. Doe explicitly. This would cause a review of the grounds on which Plyler was based, specifically, does it apply when costs are "excessive"? The so-called 'constitutional problems' are not problems at all, but deliberate attempts to provoke rulings.

And the rulings provoked probably would not have been to your liking. The FEDERAL government makes immigration policy, not the STATES.

[B Knotts]

Regardless, it was the job of the state government to defend the will of the people in the courts, and they failed to do so.

[Poohbah]

Regardless, it was the job of the state government to defend the will of the people in the courts, and they failed to do so.

The will of the people was enunciated when the people elected Grayout Doofus and Bill Lockjaw to Governor and AG, and explicitly threw out the Republicans who'd backed 187 to the hilt in the 1994 campaign.

Proposition 187 poked the Hispanic community in this state with a sharp stick (mostly because the advertising campaign managed to look like it was written by Tom Metzger). They went out, registered to vote, and then they poked us back. Most Hispanic voters in 1994 supported it; but the new ones that showed up in 1996, 1998, and 2000 hadn't voted in 1994.

There's a lesson in there: don't go out of your way to pick a fight you don't need to engage in.

It's going to be decades before a GOP candidate gets into the statehouse again. I'm pushing for Simon--but it'd take a miracle to get him elected right now.

[B Knotts]

I disagree. I don't remember any of the ads for 187, but the reason I voted for it was very simple: it applied to illegal aliens. Not Hispanics. Illegal aliens.

For crying out loud, if we can't even deny state services to people that aren't legally in the country, why should we even bother to have immigration laws, or really, any laws?

[B Knotts]

I should add that I'm not trying to be a "meanie" and keep people from eating or anything like that. But you know as well as I do that the services the state provides are an additional enticement for people considering entering illegally. So, at some point, you have to remove the incentive.

The taxpayers need to eat, too.

[DoughtyOne]

It's a fact of life. Subsidize something and it grows.