Sacramento Struggles in the Immigration-Issue Thicket : An array of bills in the Legislature--some wise, some misguided; some alive, some thankfully dead--illuminates the problem

Despite its reputation as a state open to all comers, California has been most unfriendly to foreigners at times. Not just overt hostility, like Los Angeles’ anti-Chinese riots of 1871, but more subtle, or even legal, forms of anti-foreign discrimination.

In the 1850s, for example, the Legislature imposed special taxes on Mexican miners in an effort to discourage them from staying in the new state. For most of the early part of this century the Alien Land Law prohibited Japanese from owning farms in California. Some of these laws were even the work of state governments that billed themselves as liberal and reformist, like that of Progressive Gov. Hiram Johnson.

Most Californians would look back on these episodes as part of a less sophisticated, and certainly less tolerant, past. Yet one can’t ignore the echoes of California’s history when pondering the 22 separate bills that have been introduced before the Legislature this year aiming, in one form or another, at problems blamed on illegal immigrants.

Although some of these proposals are otherwise sensible efforts to save tax money in a time of recession and tight budgets, others are very problematic.

ACCEPTABLE MEASURES

Assembly Bill 1968, which died recently in committee, would have required the state Department of Education to count the number of children in California’s public schools who are not legal residents of the state. If sensitively and economically administered, a revised version of this measure would deserve support. One of the biggest difficulties in discussing the impact of illegal immigrants is that there are few reliable statistics to work with. A census of foreign students could be useful to state officials trying to persuade the federal government that it should help California pay for educating immigrants who have settled here.

However, any school census must be carefully conducted so as not to needlessly frighten students. It should also not be overly expensive. One critic estimates the cost of such a census at $200 million, an outlay the state cannot afford.

Senate Bill 345 would require the state’s Department of Corrections to cooperate more closely with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to expedite the deportation of any illegal immigrants held in state prisons. Under federal law, any immigrant who commits a crime in this country is subject to deportation, but there have been instances where immigrant felons have slipped through bureaucratic cracks and been freed by state officials after serving sentences instead of being handed over to the INS. That should certainly be prevented.

MEDI-CAL ISSUE

There have also been recent reports that Mexican citizens from Baja California have crossed the border into neighboring San Diego and Imperial counties to abuse the state’s Medi-Cal system by receiving medical treatment at public expense. Last year state investigators cracked down, exposing 2,700 such fraud cases in the two border counties and saving the state an estimated $6.5 million. Not much, perhaps, compared to a 1993-94 Medi-Cal budget of $14.9 billion, but in recessionary times every penny counts.

One reasonable measure to help curb this Medi-Cal abuse, SB 1131, would require that all persons seeking medical treatment under Medi-Cal have proof of legal residency in California. A rival bill, SB 284, goes too far by requiring that hospitals turn over to the INS the names of any Medi-Cal patients they suspect of being illegal immigrants. That could frighten away immigrants who genuinely need medical treatment. And who knows what impact it could have on public health if, for example, an undetected infectious disease like tuberculosis went untreated?

The better bill--SB 1131--gives health care professionals leeway to use their own judgment as to how to handle a patient who they suspect may be in the country illegally. For instance, in a medical emergency a doctor must be free to provide treatment even if the patient has no valid identification.

Another solution to the Medi-Cal abuse problem would be for the Legislature to simply increase the number of state investigators who pursue fraudulent cases. Statistics indicate they more than pay for themselves by saving the state money and recovering payments from scofflaws. And tighter state scrutiny could prod hospitals to screen Medi-Cal patients more carefully so that only the truly needy and truly sick get treatment.

UNACCEPTABLE BILLS

The question of how to handle immigrants who need medical care is instructive because the same general guidelines can apply in other instances where similar issues arise. Several measures pending in the Legislature try to set hard-and-fast rules for public servants who must deal with immigrants when, in fact, those rules may not work in real-world situations.

Take police officers dealing with crime victims or witnesses who may be illegal immigrants. Many major California police departments, like Los Angeles’ and Santa Ana’s, generally ignore the immigration status of crime witnesses or victims for the sake of dealing with a more serious problem, violent crime. But such a reasonable and realistic policy could be harder for local police to implement if SB 691 is enacted. It goes too far: It would make it illegal for any city in the state to bar its police from cooperating with the INS. But local police already cooperate with the INS where appropriate and necessary, and the specific decision as to when and where that should be done is best made by local officials.

Then there are three bills--AB 983, AB 2171 and SB 976--that would prohibit the Department of Motor Vehicles from issuing driver’s licenses or providing any other services to illegal immigrants. Does anyone really think that immigrants won’t try to drive cars simply because they don’t have a license? No, better they at least be exposed to the rules and responsibilities of driving in California via contact with the DMV.

The same shortsightedness is what undermines two measures, AB 1801 and AB 2228, which aim to bar illegal immigrants from public schools and colleges. Again, what sounds like a reasonable money-saving step doesn’t make much sense when the possible long-term consequences are weighed. Who can say if a child who illegally immigrated with his parents will eventually return to his homeland or remain in California? If the child stays--a good possibility given the rapidity with which young immigrants assimilate into American society--isn’t it in the state’s best interest to make sure that the youngster is educated and has a chance to become a productive, tax-paying worker?

XENOPHOBIC OR JUST SILLY?

AB 86 would make illegal immigration a state crime. Such a measure would get no further than its first court test, where any careful judge would throw it out by pointing to U.S. Supreme Court cases that long ago determined that immigration is a federal responsibility, not a state matter. State legislators must understand that measures like this, whether well-intentioned or not, are a waste of time--and deceptive to voters--because immigration control is reserved to the federal government.

AB 1525, which recently died in committee, would have authorized the governor to deploy the California National Guard along the Mexican border. The only positive thing to be said for such an outlandish proposal is that a reasonable fellow like Gov. Pete Wilson would never bother with such a silly stunt. But the very suggestion illustrates the problem of eager politicians trying to score points on this very emotional issue.

In fact, the National Guard has already been deployed at times along the border to help federal agencies. National Guard personnel and equipment have helped the Border Patrol construct a new, sturdier border fence south of San Diego that dramatically reduced crime in that border sector. And the National Guard did this work without any busybody state legislators looking for publicity.

So what are politicians, eager to show constituents that they are ready to get tough with illegal immigrants, to do? Well, they can vote for AR 16, a resolution that expresses the sense of the Legislature that only legal residents of California should be allowed to use public services. While it can be argued that this measure is selfish and perhaps in some cases even mean-spirited, at least it does not have the force of law.

Many Californians are concerned that illegal immigrants have a negative impact on the state. We do not share that view, not least because it doesn’t take into account how immigrant workers benefit California’s economy through low-wage, highly productive labor. But we concede that fears about illegal immigration are shared by many well-intentioned people. If elected officials feel a need to publicly respond to that concern, voting for AR 16 is a relatively harmless way to do it. But in casting their vote, legislators should not forget California’s past, and be aware they just might be adding another less-than-admirable page to the Golden State’s history.