Hard Line On Illegals A GOP Loser? Not In View Of An Old GOP Winner
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 7/6/2007

No sooner had immigration reform died in the Senate than dire warnings went out from its defeated supporters: Republican opponents risk political oblivion if they alienate Latinos, the nation's fastest-growing demographic, by continuing to take a hard line on illegal immigration.


As usual, the warnings included references to the immigration battle in California in 1994. In that year's general election, voters approved a ballot initiative, Proposition 187, to prohibit the expenditure of state tax money to provide services to illegal immigrants.

The most high-profile supporter of Proposition 187 was Republican Gov. Pete Wilson. He had long pressed the federal government for reimbursement of state costs for such services, as well as to control the border and enforce immigration laws.

Proposition 187 passed with 58.8% of the vote, only to be nullified by a stipulation entered into by Wilson's Democratic successor, Gray Davis, and opponents of 187. The conventional political wisdom was that Wilson's strong support marked the end of Republican viability in a state in which Hispanics were rapidly becoming the majority.

Editorializing on the current U.S. Senate's "grand failure" on immigration reform, the Los Angeles Times cited a poll showing Latinos gravitating to the Democratic Party — "just as they had abandoned the Republican Party in California after . . . Wilson pushed a mean-spirited, anti-immigrant agenda."

"Conservatives should ponder that history before they play the 'amnesty' card again," the Times cautioned.

But was Proposition 187 really that unpopular with Latinos, and do Republicans face years in the political wilderness unless they adopt a more pro-immigrant agenda?

IBD asked Wilson himself, who served two terms (1991-99) as California's governor after eight years as U.S. senator, 11 as mayor of San Diego and five as state assemblyman.

Q: Are fears of backlash against Republicans justified?

A: Hell, no. It is cherished liberal mythology that the (pro-187) stance taken by me and other Republicans has proved perilous to Republicans in the future. But the election results don't substantiate the mythology, however fervently the opponents wish to believe it and even more fervently seek to make others believe it.

As it turned out, Proposition 187 passed by almost 60%, and I'm sure — though there's no way to prove it — that a great many Latino Californians voted for it, but voted for it without saying so. Many people are intimidated by exit polls and either refuse to respond, as is their right, or don't respond honestly. The pressure on Latino California voters by the opponents of 187 was enormous.

Q: Did you feel it too? You were up for re-election that year.

A: In fact, I was urged by my advisers not to take a position on 187. My opponent, Kathleen Brown, was a telegenic, attractive, articulate and feisty candidate. When the race began, I was 24 points behind.

But Kathleen's managers were convinced that victory lay in a strategy of attacking me on two issues: crime and my efforts to turn around California's job-creation environment and anti-jobs image. In short, they kept attacking me in my strength.

It was a serious mistake, and a disservice to a very good candidate. By early September 1994, I was nine points ahead in the public polls and by an even greater margin in our own private polls.

Still, several advisers urged caution and begged me just to remain silent on 187 in spite of my feelings that we needed to send a strong message to Congress and the White House.

I decided I simply could not fail to take a position on an issue of such enormous importance when all our other appeals to Washington had fallen on deaf ears.

Q: Weren't you also motivated by a belief that 187 presented an opportunity to change the law in a way Congress and the White House could no longer ignore?

A: Absolutely. I viewed 187, which I was sure would be immediately challenged in court by the pro-amnesty lobby, as a vehicle that would force the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on whether it was the responsibility of states to pay the cost of public education for immigrant children residing in the U.S.

I was convinced that a very different, far more strict constructionist U.S. Supreme Court would accept our appeal and overturn the weak Brennan 5-4 decision in Plyler v. Doe that imposed a $1.5 billion cost on California.

Q: Even so, weren't your advisers right to urge caution? You yourself have said you've never seen such a media barrage laid down against an issue as that against 187. But you not only endorsed it; you also spent some of your own campaign money to pass it. Did that help or hurt you in the end?

A: You're absolutely right about the barrage of hostile reporting, editorials, columns and ads attacking 187 and me. It was because of the massive media campaign and the dishonesty of its characterization of 187 as "anti-immigrant" — which was code for "racist" — that I felt we had to answer the attack.

As it turned out, Proposition 187 was a popular measure. But I didn't dare leave it to chance, because the media and the other opponents of 187 were trying desperately every day for two months before the 1994 general election to create the false impression that 187 was aimed at all immigration — legal as well as illegal — and was aimed at Latinos.

The campaign against Proposition 187 was some of the ugliest demagoguery I have ever seen. It proved that those who lightly hurl the accusation of racism are too often vicious and irresponsible practitioners of it.

Q: How was the campaign money used?

A: We spent about a million dollars on a TV ad in the latter days of the campaign that showed an actual naturalization ceremony in San Diego. I would guess that more than a third of the 100-plus people who were being naturalized were wearing the uniform of the U.S. armed forces. The theme of the ad was:

There's a right way and a wrong way to come to the USA.

I'm convinced the ad helped 187 by making clear that the real issues were the rule of law, fairness to those who'd chosen naturalization, and assimilation of new citizens to be full participants in American life rather than just permanent legal resident aliens without the rights or duties of Americans.

Q: But the popular interpretation was that the ad and your involvement in the campaign for 187 rescued a failing campaign for your re-election.

A: The real issues in the gubernatorial race were crime and the economy, and as I mentioned, we were already nine points ahead, according to the Los Angeles Times and other public polls, when we endorsed 187 and took the lead in campaigning for its passage.

Q: So you believe the ad helped bolster the margin by which 187 finally won?.

A: Yes. It won by nearly 20 points. I think I helped 187, and in doing so probably picked up some Democratic voters who felt as strongly as I did about the issue.

Q: But weren't pro-187 Republicans (Dan Lungren and Bill Simon) beaten in the gubernatorial races in both 1998 and 2002 by the anti-187 Gray Davis?

A: If you believe all the stories in the press, the reason Davis swamped Lungren was the awakening of the sleeping giant of Latino voters.

But according to an Associated Press analysis of secretary of state statistics, Davis got only 170,000 more Latino votes against Lungren than had Kathleen Brown against me.

Yet Davis swamped Lungren by 20 points, of which that 170,000 vote increase in Latino votes amounted to less than one-eighth of the 20-point landslide by which Davis won.

Q: So it wasn't the Hispanic vote that defeated Lungren?

A: According to that Associated Press analysis, it was the moderate and women's vote. Davis never missed an opportunity in a TV debate or speech or interview to point out that he was pro-choice and that Lungren was pro-life. The AP analysis said, "Had Lungren been as successful as Wilson in 1994 at courting women and moderate voters, he would have beaten Davis."

I would also point out that on the same 1998 ballot, there was a proposition (227) to prohibit bilingual education. I was the only statewide Republican to support it, and Lungren was opposed. It won; he lost. And it won with a lot of Latino parents who were smart enough to recognize that if their children didn't become fluent in English, they were consigned to second-class citizenship.

Dan Lungren and Bill Simon are nice men who ran disastrous campaigns. Ironically, the man who did support 187, and who also made an issue of denying driver's licenses to illegal immigrants (in a special recall election of 2003) was the man who defeated Davis — Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Q: How would you characterize Latino voters, then and now, and especially with respect to their willingness to vote Republican?

A: I got about 25% of the Latino vote in '94, and if you look at the statistics over the years, there's generally a solid 25%. And they are the 25% who are second-generation businesspeople and professionals. It's very much a function of economic achievement and education.

In reality, the Latino Republican voter is very much like Republican voters overall. They are in favor of limited government and lower taxes, they are opposed to regulatory excess that makes American business owners less competitive in a global economy, they are tough on crime and they believe in a strong defense.

Q: So you don't think there's reason for Republicans to regret their support for Proposition 187, or for tougher immigration laws now?

A: Good God, no. Some Republicans are intimidated by charges of racism. But this is not about racism. It's about the law and assimilation and the need to support the cherished institutions on which this nation was built.

The people who are now talking about a "path to legalization" without a guarantee that we will act to prevent ongoing massive illegal immigration ignore the clear warning sounded by Father Theodore Hesburgh, president of Notre Dame, in 1981, when he chaired a presidential commission on illegal immigration:

"In order to keep open the front door of legal immigration, we must close the back door of illegal entry."

http://www.investors.com/editorial/edit ... 2209588547