Controversy Over Prop. 187

I teach a class of first-grade students in Santa Ana. Half of my students were born in California and half were born in Mexico. I must add my voice to the growing protest against Prop. 187. This initiative requires that the “unlucky half” of my children who do not possess U.S. birth certificates be prohibited from attending school. I shudder at the thought of having to explain to the remaining “lucky half” as to why their former classmates, cousins and sometimes even siblings are banished from school due to the lack of a legal document.

Clearly, Prop. 187 is poorly conceived. The proposition states that the school will “provide 90 days of additional instruction to a suspected illegal immigrant student in order to accomplish an orderly transition to a school in the student’s country of origin.” Did the authors of 187 seriously think that the immigrant students would go back to Mexico? Not likely. Their families endured plenty of hardships to get here and wouldn’t be leaving unless forcibly removed. Yet Prop. 187 makes no provisions whatsoever for deportation. My greatest fear is that the “unlucky half” of my class will become the next generation’s permanent underclass.

I believe Prop. 187 is morally wrong because innocent children will be punished for a crime in which they had no part. In my 20 years of teaching in the Latino community, every immigrant parent I ever met wanted his/her child to learn English as quickly as possible, do well in school, and become a productive American citizen. I find it hard to condemn parents for acting upon that dream.

JULIE ALEXANDER

Santa Ana

* Re Wayne A. Cornelius’ article opposing Prop. 187, Commentary, Oct. 28:

If during Cornelius’ 20-year study of Mexican migrants to California, he has yet to “encounter a single one for whom getting access to some tax-supported service was the principal reason for coming here,” why is he objecting to a law that would merely codify the expectations of those same people? Prop. 187 would, if Cornelius is correct, not give illegals what they don’t want. So what’s the problem?

PATRICK BATES

Woodland Hills

* Two headlines (Oct. 22) point up why California needs to pass Prop. 187.

Los Angeles School Board President Mark Slavkin projects 10,000 teachers will lose their jobs if Prop. 187 passes. If each teacher represents about 30 students, the projected teacher firing accounts for 300,000 illegals or roughly 50% of the LAUSD student population. How can LAUSD survive when half of the enrollment are illegals and growing at an alarming rate!

The other headline reports on a UCLA study declaring taxpayer-financed health programs in L.A. County are in danger of collapse. Free health service to illegals is a major contribution to L.A. County’s fiscal problems.

JAY KARELIUS

Granada Hills

* Look a child in the eye and say, “Too bad if you get measles. You don’t deserve an immunization.” Tell another child, “Sorry if you want to learn. You can’t go to school.” Or say to a pregnant woman, “So what if your baby is born with complications? You’re not entitled to see a doctor.” If you can do these things, then go ahead and vote yes on Prop. 187. But don’t tell me you’re “sending a message to Washington.” The only message you are sending is to thousands of your fellow human beings: “My money is more important to me than your lives.”

If you support Prop. 187, then be honest with yourself. And sleep well.

GEORGE T. BENTLEY

La Puente

* Again we hear Cardinal Roger Mahony tell us it is our “moral obligation” to oppose Prop. 187 (Commentary, Oct. 25). He tells us it is an insult to ethics and goodwill. Well, where was the good cardinal while illegal immigrants were taking thousands of construction and other jobs away from American citizens? Why didn’t the cardinal talk about goodwill then? Why didn’t he say anything about protecting the children of men and women who lost their jobs to illegals? Instead he talked about the illegals only taking jobs that Americans didn’t want.

Is it also our moral obligation to feed and clothe illegals, to give them free medical and social services while our own senior citizens and multiple thousands of our homeless are without these services? And is it also our moral obligation to spend twice the amount of money on illegal students than we do on our own kids?

I believe it is our moral obligation to vote yes on Prop. 187--to put our own citizens first.

DAN KLINGE

Huntington Beach

* As one of an estimated 150,000 persons who according to CNN participated in the Oct. 16 Downtown Los Angeles march against Prop. 187, I am dismayed by initiative backers who denigrated that event as a nationalistic or separatist rally because so many Mexican flags were in evidence.

For Latinos, that march was reminiscent of the 1960s civil rights movement. Moreover, it was a glimpse into the future. Most marchers were young people who more accurately reflect what Los Angeles is and will increasingly become--youthful and ethnically diverse. These people are the prototype of what the majority of voters in our community will look like in the next few generations.

Ironically, as more and more of them participate in the political process it will become more difficult for cynical politicians such as Gov. Pete Wilson to ride the wave of cultural and racial backlash at the polls.

RICARDO F. ICAZA

President, UFCW Local 770

President, Los Angeles County

Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO

* We have Prop. 13 because of irresponsible, non-functioning government. Now we have Prop. 187 for the same reason.

J. N. THRAILKILL

West Hills

* The backers of Prop. 187 should get on their knees every night and thank God that the various Indian tribes 200-plus years ago didn’t unite, pass their own version of Prop. 187 and run all our illustrious, illegal forefathers out of the country.

JAMES C. WALSH JR.

Palm Springs