To the editor: The three Latino California lawmakers quoted in the article — Sens. Ricardo Lara (D-Los Angeles) and Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles) and Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) — are emblematic of ethnic activists who continue to live in a time warp, constantly fighting battles of the past, while America and California have moved on. ("Latino lawmakers move to reverse decades of anti-immigrant legislation," June 22)
No aspect of Proposition 187, which passed in 1994, is currently being enforced, having been found unconstitutional by a federal judge. Consequently, lawmakers should be addressing matters of concern to all Californians and not just those of their respective ethnic groups.
And in case the legislators haven't been paying attention to the thousands of kids from Central America currently crashing our southern border, former Gov. Pete Wilson was right: "They keep coming."
Jim Redhead, San Diego
To the editor: The day after Proposition 187 passed, one of our school administrators came to speak to each of my history classes.
The administrator told all of the students that despite anything they heard to the contrary, no student would be removed from our middle school based on immigration status, no family in the school would be asked about its immigration status, and no new student entering the school would be turned away based on immigration status and, in fact, would not be asked any questions about it.
The children were told that public schools were open to all children, period. I was very, very proud of my school that day.
Ann Bourman, Los Angeles
To the editor: Perhaps someone should advise these Latino lawmakers that they represent all Californians, not just those of Hispanic descent. Some things that are good for this group may not be good for everyone else.
They should beware: Their action today could boomerang tomorrow. Just ask Eric Cantor.
Bobby Fraker, Hacienda Heights
To the editor: Lawmakers working on removing divisive language from the California Constitution should include Proposition 8 in their efforts.
There is still a chance that the U.S. Supreme Court will hold different-sex-only marriage to be a legitimate state policy because it provides for diversity — yes, diversity — within marriages. Such a ruling could give new life to the sentence, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
It would be nice if voters got the chance to delete that sentence before it comes back to haunt us.
David A. Holtzman, Los Angeles