Bilingual Ban Could Override Proposition 187
The June 1998 California ballot will contain a proposition that will significantly reduce the extent of bilingual education in California public schools. However, virtually unnoticed is that this âEnglish for the Childrenâ proposition also will override Proposition 187âs prohibition on public elementary and secondary school education for children who are illegally present in the United States.
The California Education Code section created by Proposition 187 states: âNo public elementary or secondary school shall admit or permit the attendance of any child who is not a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident or a person who is otherwise authorized under federal law to be present in the United States.â
But the âEnglish for the Childrenâ proposition will add a section to the education code to say: âWhereas the government and the public schools of California have a moral obligation and a constitutional duty to provide all of Californiaâs children, regardless of their ethnicity or national origins, with the skills necessary to become productive members of our society, and of these skills, literacy in the English language is among the most important.â
A subsection does not say âall of Californiaâs children who are legally entitled to attend public elementary or secondary school,â but broadly says âall of Californiaâs children,â which necessarily includes those who are here illegally.
The chief sponsor and author of âEnglish for the Childrenâ is Ron Unz. When he ran against Pete Wilson in the 1994 Republican gubernatorial primary, he opposed Proposition 187. While it is unclear whether the overriding of Proposition 187âs ban on public education for illegal aliens was deliberately intended by Unz, it is clear that the day after âEnglish for the Childrenâ passes, you can expect Proposition 187âs opponents to be in court arguing that its key provision has been overridden.
Many people support Proposition 187âs ban on publicly financed education for illegal immigrants and believe that eventually it will be upheld by the courts. We also support the significant reduction, if not the elimination of bilingual education and wish that Unz had written his initiative without overriding any part of Proposition 187. I will vote against âEnglish for the Childrenâ because it repeals the key portion of Proposition 187.
Corrective action is possible. As noted by the California Supreme Court in 1975 in White vs. Davis, when courts interpret a law enacted through the initiative process, the ballot pamphlet arguments for the initiative are part of the âlegislative historyâ that guide their interpretation.
Therefore, the ballot pamphlet arguments for âEnglish for the Childrenâ should expressly say that the initiative is not intended to extend public education to illegal aliens and the intent is to leave that area of law undisturbed.
I hope Unz can make âEnglish for the Childrenâ something I can support.
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.