Immigration Reform, Not Hysteria : The SOS initiative would bring immediate court challenges and would take money from strapped public schools.

Attacks on undocumented immigrants in California have switched from talk shows to the November ballot, with a proposed law that hopes to exclude these individuals from publicly funded health, education and social-service programs. The “Save Our State” Immigration Initiative (SOS) was spearheaded by Alan Nelson, head of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Reagan Administration, and Harold Ezell, former INS western regional commissioner. The main mechanism that would be used to ensure exclusion from these services would be through legal verification of “suspected” undocumented individuals; providers would be required to report these people to the INS.

This initiative goes beyond limiting entitlements to non-citizens: It violates fundamental rights guaranteed under both the U.S. and California constitutions. For example, the law would force educators and health professionals to violate their legal and ethical standards of confidentiality and their clients’ rights of privacy. The initiative attempts to shift the immigration discussion away from employment and toward entitlements. Yet despite the much-ballyhooed studies on the cost of immigrants, there is not a single study that can assert that the main cause of undocumented immigration to the United States is access to entitlements. Rather, most studies suggest that, political upheavals aside, the major pull is higher wages. By ignoring this fundamental influence, the initiative will not stop undocumented immigration.

Another problem with SOS is the lack of data on how much implementing it would cost. A preliminary report from the Senate Office of Research indicates that the state could lose more than $2 billion in federal funds for requiring school districts to report undocumented students to the INS. This loss would be substantially more than the estimated cost of educating the undocumented children. That the proponents of the bill are willing to forgo needed federal dollars for financially strapped public schools suggests that their real agenda is not meaningful immigration reform, but rather to force reform through the courts, using the statute with the specific intent to stimulate further litigation. The authors of the SOS initiative apparently hope to force the Supreme Court to revisit the landmark Plyer vs. Doe case, which upheld the right of public education for undocumented children in Texas. In that case, Justice William Brennan spoke to the real dangers in a society that would hold children equally culpable for the actions of their parents. The SOS initiative directly contradicts this principle, maintaining equal standards of culpability for children and adults.

These moral concerns aside, it makes no sense to propose a law that would immediately be challenged on constitutional issues, particularly if the impact on undocumented immigration is negligible. In addition, SOS would place school districts at financial risk as they attempt to uphold a state mandate that requires teachers, nurses, social workers, physicians and other service providers to violate their professional codes of ethics to cooperate with the INS.

Californians are more than ready to discuss meaningful immigration reform. This does not mean, however, that we should accept a law that rides on the wave of anti-immigrant hysteria, with neither a solid legal nor financial base. The initiative does not identify where the money for implementation and enforcement will come from, and it specifies no agency for enforcement. Nor does it include any criminal penalties for noncompliance, thereby providing no incentives for compliance. Any thoughtful legislation would have provided these basic pieces of information.

Unfortunately, such flawed and costly initiatives will continue unless Congress and the Clinton Administration tackle reform. In California, the anti-immigrant ideology has become the new litmus test for politicians who hope to appeal to the alienated middle class. These folks have become uncomfortable with the state’s new demographic reality and see little help coming from Washington or Sacramento. Their concerns fuel the message of anti-immigrant mavericks--and require our immediate attention if we are to move forward on reform.