Controversy Over Prop. 187

Norman Matloff (“American Minorities Try to Hold the Line,” Commentary, Sept. 30) points out how immigrants, legal or illegal, impact the job markets of minority groups. No argument--they do!

He does not, however, indicate how denying health care or education to illegal immigrants impacts these job issues. Most citizens believe that immigration control and enforcement are indeed necessary. Prop. 187 offers nothing to promote these goals, but only exposes all to the potential of ignorance and disease.

MERV FREEMAN

Beverly Hills

* Re “The Dirty Secret Behind Proposition 187,” Column Left, Sept. 29, by Robert Scheer: The real issue here is do we or do we not live according to law? This is an all or nothing question. If you choose to ignore the laws you don’t like, then you have no position to complain when you are a “victim of crime.” Has your car been stolen? Yourself robbed? Raped? Too bad. If we don’t enforce the laws, then might makes right. Illegal immigrants are not needed. They are exploited. They should all be deported. They are not here legally.

SCOTT CLINE

Monterey Park

* I have been a longtime fan of Scheer, and his column confirms my judgment. His claim that Prop. 187 “rots our soul” cannot be denied. What have we become in California if we are willing to punish children for the actions of their parents and if we continue to readily exploit their parents to maintain our own lifestyles? Proponents of 187 say they just want to send a message to Washington. The only message we’ll send if this passes is that California has no idea what demons it is releasing.

JEAN FORBATH

Costa Mesa

* Carlos Fuentes’ opinions (Commentary, Sept. 28) cry for a response. Fuentes’ remarks are not only incorrect but are also inflammatory by suggesting the possibility of strikes and boycotts. This is no way to nurture goodwill between our countries.

His depiction of Gov. Pete Wilson as poisoning relationships between the two countries should be reversed. If there is poisoning, it is created by the continuing flow of illegals across our borders.

Fuentes is quick to bring attention to the possible illegality of Prop. 187 but remains silent about the illegality of thousands of undocumented people who daily violate our borders. He should direct his journalistic talents toward opening the eyes of his fellow citizens in Mexico to the ills plaguing his own country--poverty, corruption, violence, civil uprising and assassinations. These are the root causes motivating the illegal flow across our borders.

M. D. LAITY

San Clemente

* California does not want to get rid of Mexican workers. Pete Wilson wants to get reelected.

JACQUELINE McCAULEY

La Mirada

* As a legal Latino immigrant I am amazed by what I hear and read about Prop. 187 and illegal immigration in general.

People talk about civil rights, language rights, health rights, minority rights, school rights, these rights and those rights. What about the rights of legal residents and citizens?

One of the reasons I wanted to come here was to leave behind the lapsed law enforcement, the corruption, the impunity, the colonial mentality prevalent everywhere in Latin America. I was convinced that this was the country of the rule of law.

In reality, the laws in this case are not enforced. Illegal immigrants are outside the law, they are outlaws. They infringe on this country’s sovereignty. That is plainly unacceptable in any civilized society. Our borders should be defended by any means, including any necessary level of force.

I am convinced that legal Latino immigrants and citizens do not want to see this motherland of our choice become a banana republic like the places we left, whatever the cultural ties we want to keep alive. This will gradually happen if the sheer numbers of illegal immigration are not brought under control.

JOSE M. WAECHTER

Redondo Beach

* Your Oct. 2 editorial critical of Prop. 187 was dead on. The proposal is barbaric and retrograde. The provisions against the citizen sons and daughters of illegal immigrants undoubtedly violate the 14th Amendment requirement of equal protection of the laws.

The recent outbreak of the plague in India points up the dangers of the denial of medical care. Let’s assume an Indian traveler is faced with forms to determine whether he’s an illegal alien. I can see him responding, “I’m not really very sick,” and walking out of the hospital.

JOHN P. TESCHKE

Long Beach

* Your editorial related Prop. 187 to the “law of unintended consequences.” You thereby left yourself open to some unintended inconsistencies. You said it would be an “ugly outrage” to require teachers to identify immigration status. But you supported earlier legislation that required employers to do the very same thing. If reporting criminals is a duty of employers, surely it can be no less a duty of teachers.

Twice in your editorial you worried about the possible loss of federal aid to California if the proposition passed and were implemented. That is the very purpose of the legislation--to reduce both state and federal spending. Apparently you believe the proposition will achieve its objective--its intended consequence.

You argue that the low-wage immigrant keeps the California economy going, yet in the next breath you hope the United States and Mexico can work out an agreement that will reduce the lure of jobs. You cannot have it both ways.

Finally, if you are successful in reducing the flow of immigrants by reducing the lure of jobs, just think of all the people who will not be able to get the basic medical care and education that they do get when they come here. Either Prop. 187 or your denial of jobs to immigrants would have the same effect. Perhaps your heart can now bleed over your own proposal.

DONALD R. BOOTH

Villa Park

* Your editorial missed mentioning an inevitable consequence of interest to many of the right-wingers pushing this initiative--the national identity card. Perhaps a tattoo to the wrist and an implanted computer chip is in our future to better identify us as legal residents.

This is no joke--the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, chaired by Barbara Jordan, has just recommended a computerized registry (Oct. 1).

Giving more power to government to regulate our lives is not the answer. If welfare were financed by voluntary contributions to private charities, the primary concern of the illegal alien issue of Prop. 187 would vanish. The problem is that government has coerced contributions to a function (charity) for which it has no constitutional authority.

ERNST F. GHERMANN

Winnetka

* I find it difficult to believe that citizens are naive enough to vote against Prop. 187 based on your editorial. Your editorial’s putative “clincher,” that California would “lose” $15 billion in federal payments, is so disingenuous as to be asinine. Aside from the fact that without the illegals we won’t need the money, where do you suppose that $15 billion comes from?

Grown-ups know that it comes from the pockets of citizens like you and legal aliens like me.

HAL PAWLUK

Long Beach

* As a conservative, it isn’t often that I find myself agreeing with your editorials. Your denunciation of Prop. 187, however, is right on target.

For me, the truest measure of who should get the benefits of citizenship should be the contributions made by the individual or group. Many of the immigrants who would be affected by the proposition perform the menial jobs that the rest of us consider demeaning--yard work, cleaning houses, picking fruit and vegetables, etc. In doing so, they help many to enjoy a good life. These immigrants understand more fully than many native-born Californians what this country is all about: Trying to get ahead by honest, hard work.

To be sure, there are many problems created by unwanted immigration, but to blame these people for problems created by politicians is disingenuous and cowardly.

IAN BOARD

Brea

* I never believed that I would agree with a Republican, and a conservative one at that, but thank God for Ron Unz’s commentary arguing against Prop. 187 (Oct. 3). It’s about time someone spoke up about this dastardly, immoral and heartbreaking piece of so-called legislation.

Punishing children for their parents’ attempts to provide them with a decent life is so immoral that it boggles the mind. “Save Our State,” indeed. The xenophobia of this proposition is astounding, but amazingly, none seem to care. I think most Californians, unfortunately, will vote for this, and I’m sure their answer, if asked why, would be something along the lines of “We’ve got to save California for real Californians.” Didn’t someone say that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel? I hope and pray that we haven’t become a whole state full of scoundrels.

ALEXANDRA A. LoSCHIAVO

Burbank

* Re “Clergy Struggles to Address Volatile Issues of Prop. 187,” Oct. 3:

While I have not yet made up my mind on the proposition itself, the spectacle of religious leaders speaking out against Prop. 187 illustrates the double standard in the media and our culture with respect to the “religious right.” When people use the Bible to justify conservative positions on issues such as abortion, school prayer, and homosexual agendas, such people are branded as zealots who wish to impose their religious views on everyone else. However, when people use the Bible to support left-wing causes such as expanding the welfare state to accommodate illegal aliens, they are simply regarded as nonpartisans who are instituting “compassion and morality” for people of all faiths.

Presumably, you will now be covering stories of how the “religious left” has taken over the Democratic Party and is moving it away from mainstream America.

When are people going to realize that the agendas of religious conservatives have every bit as much to do with morality as the religious liberals’ agendas, and that they are moved by the same ideals?

JUSTIN LEVINE

Playa del Rey