Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : Do We Need U.S. Version of Prop. 187?

Recently, a federal judge gutted the key terms of Proposition 187, California’s landmark immigration initiative that was overwhelmingly approved by voters last year.

The measure was to have required school and health officials to determine the immigration status of students and clients and deny care to illegal immigrants. But U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer ruled, “The authority to regulate immigration belongs exclusively to the federal government, and state agencies are not permitted to assume that authority.”

The decision set off a fiery debate between supporters, who called it the best option since it would deny the benefits that may draw illegal immigrants to this country, and opponents, who called it a racist measure that would have targeted minorities.

If it is not the state’s job to regulate illegal immigration, the question is:

Should there be a federal version of Proposition 187?

Jerry Curry, president of the United Chambers of Commerce of the San Fernando Valley:

“I think clearly this is a federal issue and should be addressed on the federal level. I think what we saw was a failure of the federal government to deal with the issue and then California tried to do something about it on its own. . . . I think that what Proposition 187 did was send sort of a clarion call to Washington, including Clinton, that California is very concerned about this issue.”

San Fernando City Councilman Doude Wysbeek:

“I look at America--being an immigrant myself--as being more a humane nation and should not be doing something against innocent children. If we can get them an education, even if we send them back, it’s much better than spending it on foreign aid. . . . I don’t believe in Big Brother watching. I think our nation was created on an honor system of human treatment for everyone. We spend our money on other things that are less justifiable.”

Glenn Spencer, president of Voice of Citizens Together:

“The passage of Proposition 187 gave the federal government the political will to begin to take action, to take steps to solve California’s serious problems with immigration, especially illegal immigration. I’m not convinced, however, that even the vote on 187 is strong enough a message to overcome the powerful interest groups who have the ear of congressmen inside the Beltway.”

Encino attorney Ron Tasoff, former chairman of the Southern California chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Assn.:

“Similar to the unconstitutional state version, a federal Proposition 187 would do nothing to stop illegal immigration, and any monetary savings which might accrue in the short run would be far outweighed by the long-term costs and human suffering. The law is not as black and white as most people think when it comes to legal immigration status. Due to quota restrictions and INS delays, many undocumented aliens will eventually become lawful residents and U.S. citizens. To deprive these people, especially their children, of an adequate education and health services will only result in an illiterate and impoverished underclass for future generations to deal with.”