Thread: History of the ruling that paved way for crisis

It is believed by many that the nation's current crisis of illegal immigration had its way paved by the ruling of one judge, Mariana R. Pflaezer, in California in 1997. It is also believed that politicians of the time allowed it to happen due to their inaction.

I post these articles now and again for the purpose of learning through the mistakes of history.

http://www.ccir.net/REFERENCE/187-History.html

History of Proposition 187

Prop 187 was passed by the voters on Nov. 8, 1994 to deny public benefits to illegal aliens in California.

The next day several lawsuits were filed in California state court (Mexican-American Legal Defense/Education Fund (MALDEF), League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC), ACLU, and others.

On Nov. 11, 1994 a "temporary restraining order (TRO)" was issued by Federal Judge Matthew Byrne (it was filed in Federal Judge Marianna Pfaelzer's court, but she was out (vacation?), so Byrne did the TRO.

An answer was filed by Attorney General Dan Lungren in state court.

Judge Pfaelzer came back and issued a permanent injunction pending trial. Her rationale was essentially a case in Texas in the 1980's (Plyler v. Doe). Texas tried to deny public education to illegal aliens. The Supreme Court ruled for the illegals, based on two pillars:

1) there were supposedly not enough illegal aliens students in Texas public schools to be a financial burden to Texas, and

2) Congress was contemplating an amnesty for illegal aliens in the U.S. (that occurred in 1986), and illegal alien students who were to be made legal would not be educated. Neither of those conditions existed in 1994.

The cases were consolidated into Judge Pfaelzer's court in 1995.

There were hearings, filings, hearings, filings ...

In 1996 California (Att'y Gen. Dan Lungren) said that Prop 187 was not in conflict with federal law.

In September 1996 federal immigration law was enacted, and in 1997 Lungren asked Judge Pfaelzer for a summary dismissal. (The 1996 federal law included Sec. 133 - that local law enforcement can cooperate with the INS)

Judge Pfaelzer said NO to summary dismissal and ruled for plaintiffs; Lungren said he'll appeal.

Lungren appealed in 9th District Circuit Court in late 1997. FOR SIX MONTHS LUNGREN TOOK NO ACTION - IT SAT THERE. HE SHOULD HAVE MOVED THE CASE ALONG!

Then came the gubernatorial campaign of 1998, and Gray Davis was elected in November. The appeal process was still sitting silently in court because Lungren had not moved it along.

Davis was elected. The plaintiffs requested "mediation" in the 9th District Court, the court agreed to "mediation".

We know what happened then - Davis (who vehemently opposed Prop 187) "represented" FOR Prop 187. Neither the proponent of Prop 187 nor anyone else who co-sponsored Prop 187 was allowed in the bogus "mediation".

Governor Davis refused to allow the appeal to proceed and dropped the appeal, essentially KILLING PROP 187 against the will of the voters. This after having promised to support the appeal during his campaign.

Even the most vocal plaintiffs against Prop 187 said they were afraid that if it went to the U.S. Supreme Court it would be held to be constitutional, reversing Plyler v. Doe.



http://www.humnet.ucla.edu/humnet/lingu ... /LAT23.htm

Los Angeles Times
Saturday, November 15, 1997

Prop. 187 Found Unconstitutional by Federal Judge
Law: Decision means anti-illegal immigration measure won't be implemented, barring appeal. But initiative's supporters condemn outcome, plan plea to higher court.
By PATRICK J. MCDONNELL, Times Staff Writer

A federal judge in Los Angeles ruled Friday that Proposition 187, the divisive 1994 ballot initiative targeting illegal immigrants, violates both the Constitution and last year's sweeping congressional overhaul of welfare law.
The ruling effectively means that, barring a successful appeal, the controversial measure that focused attention nationwide on the problem of illegal immigration will never be fully implemented.
"Proposition 187, as drafted, is not constitutional on its face," Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer declared in a 32-page opinion.
Although observers had long anticipated the finding, much of the judge's decision turned on a relatively new law--last year's sweeping congressional reform of the federal welfare system, known as the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Proposition 187 served as a catalyst for many of that law's far-reaching restrictions on benefits for immigrants, those here legally as well as illegal residents.
The 1996 welfare statute, the judge ruled, "serves to reinforce" her prior finding that Proposition 187 is a "scheme" designed to regulate immigration, an exclusively federal domain. State officials seeking to restrict immigrant access to benefits must live by the guidelines outlined in the new federal law, she ruled.
"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration," Pfaelzer said. "It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."
The judge cited as unlawful the initiative's major sections--those barring illegal immigrants from receiving publicly funded education, social services and health care--along with provisions mandating that local law enforcement authorities, school administrators, social workers and health care aides turn in suspected illegal immigrants.
However, the judge did let stand two less controversial sections that establish state criminal penalties for the manufacture and use of false documents to conceal immigration status.
The judge requested that attorneys submit additional motions by Nov. 28, but lawyers on both sides of the issue said the decision clearly signals that she will soon issue a permanent injunction to replace the existing temporary ban. The final order could come by the end of the year, attorneys said.
At that point, the battle surrounding the disputed measure will move to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, where Gov. Pete Wilson and other Proposition 187 supporters are expected to seek a rebuke of Pfaelzer's ruling. Most expect the matter to end up in the Supreme Court, possibly as soon as next fall.
"This is the tombstone for Proposition 187," said Mark Rosenbaum of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, co-counsel in the case against the initiative.
Although they condemned the judge's ruling, proponents of Proposition 187 were relieved that the matter finally seemed to be leaving the courtroom of Pfaelzer, whom Proposition 187 supporters have excoriated as a biased jurist who sat on the case for more than three years in a delaying tactic. Wilson even took the unusual step of filing papers with the U.S. Court of Appeals this week demanding that the judge take action--a move that anti-187 activists called a publicity stunt.
"We're free at last!" exclaimed Ron Prince, the Orange County accountant who rose to national prominence as a co-author of Proposition 187 and an advocate of tighter controls on illegal immigration.
But he, Wilson, state Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren and other supporters of the ballot initiative were highly critical of Pfaelzer's decision to invoke last year's federal welfare overhaul as a major rationale for throwing out Proposition 187. California authorities had argued the exact opposite: that Proposition 187 was consistent with the federal legislation.
The passage of the welfare law last year prompted some in the governor's office to predict that it opened the way for the implementation of much of Proposition 187.
"I find that Judge Pfaelzer's interpretation of Congress' intent when drafting the federal welfare law defies all logic," said Lungren, a former ranking House Republican on immigration matters.
Added Wilson: "Her analysis of Proposition 187 is as flawed and error-prone as the 1962 New York Mets. We look forward to this measure going to a higher court that has a better understanding of the law." But those fighting the ballot measure said the judge's ruling was on target and would probably resist arguments on appeal.
"The judge has vindicated the principle that we can't have 50 immigration policies, we can only have one," said Thomas Saenz, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Other opponents delighted in the irony of Pfaelzer using the federal welfare overhaul--a law championed by Wilson and Republican leaders--as a legal battering ram against Proposition 187, which also had strong GOP backing.
"Gov. Wilson has been hoisted on his own petard," said Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.
Proposition 187 differs substantially from the new federal welfare law passed last year. The California measure is more restrictive in some respects and less stringent in others.
A major difference involves education. Proposition 187 would have barred illegal immigrants from attending public schools, in clear violation of the Supreme Court's landmark 1982 Plyler vs. Doe decision. The federal law contained no such ban.
In other arenas, Proposition 187 would have made illegal immigrants ineligible for all publicly funded, nonemergency medical treatment. The federal welfare law allows access to immunizations and treatment of infectious diseases. Also, the federal law does not mandate that local health care workers, educators and police inform on suspected illegal immigrants.
But, in some ways, the federal welfare law went further. Proposition 187 focused only on illegal immigrants, while the new federal statute makes many legal noncitizens ineligible for a host of public benefits, including disability payments and food stamps. And the federal law generally bars state and local governments from providing nonemergency aid to "not qualified" noncitizens--a broad category that encompasses both illegal immigrants and many categories of temporary legal residents.
Responding to that federal mandate, the Wilson administration is proceeding with new rules that will eventually make illegal immigrants ineligible for hundreds of state services, from prenatal care to business contracts to fishing licenses. Once in place, those restrictions may represent one of the lasting legacies of Proposition 187, which arose from the suburbs of Los Angeles at a time when massive immigration, especially from Mexico and Central America, was drastically altering the region's demographic makeup.
The movement was born in 1993 as the Save Our State campaign, garnering support at the grass-roots level and receiving technical assistance from a former commissioner and Western states chief for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. But Proposition 187 did not take off in the public consciousness until the Republican Party pumped money into a flagging signature-gathering effort and Wilson, then in the midst of what seemed a tough reelection effort, made it a keystone of his campaign.
Soon, Proposition 187 had galvanized voters statewide and had gained more notoriety outside the state than any California ballot initiative since the tax-cutting Proposition 13. Backers framed the movement as a kind of salvation from rampant illegal immigration, while critics denounced it as a racist effort to scapegoat immigrants, especially Latinos. Three weeks before the election, more than 70,000 opponents, mostly Latinos, marched through downtown Los Angeles in one of the largest protests in city history.
On Nov. 8, 1994, California voters approved the ballot measure by 59% to 41%, with substantial support from virtually all groups except for Latinos and Jews. Federal judges soon blocked its implementation. Subsequent efforts to launch copycat measures in Florida, Arizona and Washington state never got off the ground, but the message of Proposition 187 reverberated in 1996 in Congress, where lawmakers passed several laws cracking down on illegal immigrants and their access to public benefits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition_187

I haven't posted the atricle from Wikipedia, but if you read it, note the comment from State Senator Art Torres who referred to it as "the last gasp of White America in California."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I notice Washington State mentioned at the bottom of the article. That was Washington State then , this is now.



News
Press Release of Senator Cantwell
Cantwell Defends Children's Health Bill on Senate Floor
Congress Must Act Fast Despite President's Veto Threat


Wednesday, August 01,2007




WASHINGTON, DC – Wednesday, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor on the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) reauthorization bill being debated this week. The bipartisan plan to renew the program will ensure all 6.6 million CHIP-covered kids keep their health insurance, and will reach 3.2 million more uninsured children in America’s working families. President Bush has already announced he will veto the bill if passed in Congress.

In 2002, Cantwell worked with the Senate Finance Committee to allow Washington to use a portion of its allocation to cover children from Medicaid-eligible families living at or below 200 percent of the poverty level. Before this fix, Washington was only able to use a small portion of its CHIP funds and was forced to return millions in funding.

[Cantwell’s remarks, as delivered on the Senate floor Wednesday, follow below]

“Mr. President, I also rise to talk about the children's health initiative program and why we need to reauthorize the program that is about to expire in September.

“But I want to thank Senators Baucus, Grassley, Rockefeller and Hatch for their countless hours of meeting before the Senate finance committee met to mark up this bipartisan package. Fact that this bill passed out of committee with such a bipartisan effort shows that people are working on both sides of the aisle to make children's health care a priority.

“And while my colleagues have talked a lot about what the administration has threatened to do in vetoing this legislation, in fact, as my colleague from Iowa just mentioned on the floor, the president's own budget request does not put enough money on the table to take care of those currently enrolled in the children's health care program in a bipartisan effort here in the United States Senate, we are working across the aisle to say, yes, we want to do more, we want to cover about 3.2 million more children. So I thank my colleagues for those hours of meetings and I thank their staff for coming up with this comprehensive solution in moving us a little further down the way in covering more children in America and why it's such a priority.

“Some of my colleagues have mentioned why this is such an important timing and many have mentioned the fact that the bill and authorization is expiring in September. I think there's a more important reason, and the important reason is that we are seeing the cost of health care continue to rise. The fact that premiums have doubled probably in the last five to six years, the fact that insurance now is somewhere between $12,000 and $14,000 a year. A family who is at an income of $40,000 a year for a family of four is finding it very hard to keep pace. Those premiums may have doubled but I guarantee you their wages and salaries have not doubled. So more and more people are finding themselves in the unfortunate situation of not being able to provide health care for their children.

“And I can tell now talking to people from all over Washington State, there is nothing more concerning to a parent than the health of their child. And nothing more scary to think that they may not -- may not -- be able to get the health care attention their child needs. So for us, we have a choice, a very smart choice. This is a cost-effective bill. If you think about the cost of providing children's health insurance under this proposal, we are taking those on incomes who can't afford private insurance or can't find it available in the marketplace or maybe their employer is not providing it. They now under this program, with state and federal matching dollars, can provide health insurance for roughly $2,000 a year per child. Maybe a little more, a little less in some instances from those who are currently on the program to the new enrollees, but somewhere around $2,000 a year.

“Now, think about that. Think about the fact that if you don't have health insurance and now a child either delays that health care or basically waits until the last minute and has to go into an emergency room, I guarantee you the cost of a child's visit to an emergency room is probably going to be at least $3,000. So the fact that we can make this prudent investment for 3.2 million more American children, not only is this about the safety and health of their future but it is about a plan that helps us in making sure we have an efficient health care system and giving those children their due need.

“Now, too many families, as I said, are being forced to go out without this coverage. And what does that mean? You know, we talk about preventive care. We talk about maintenance care. But it means that these children are going without regular checkups, that they're missing more school than other children and that they have to wait in the emergency room to get an answer about something that is a basic illness. And it means that simple infections of something like an ear infection or cavities or asthma or diabetes goes untreated, that they spiral out of control. And that child may fall further and further behind in their academic career and in school. I believe, Mr. President, no child should be forced into a special education program just because their health care needs haven't been provided for.

“And so this bill does step up with better coverage so that we can treat things like injuries and infections and detect far worse things like chronic illnesses and to make sure that we are managing those conditions of children before they get out of control. And I know that it's upsetting to my colleagues to read things like uninsured children are five times more likely to delay their health care or that uninsured children are four times more likely to go without a doctor visit for two years, or that uninsured children admitted to hospitals due to injuries are twice as likely to die while in the hospital as their insured counterparts. That is a horrible statistic that points to the dilemmas of not providing health care coverage for children.

“Now, I know my colleagues have been out here on the floor and have been debating this issue as it relates to fairness and it relates to geography, but I tell you no child knows that they are somehow prohibited from getting access to health insurance because of geography. Nor should the United States Senate make the mistake in thinking that we are making geographic choices. This bill is about flexibility. And it starts with the flexibility of individual states, because this is a partnership between the states and federal government in deciding what percentage of the federal poverty line they are going to cover. You can see that the states in white have been more aggressive in covering a higher percentage of the federal poverty line and those in the yellow-gold color are obviously below the 200% of the federal poverty line. Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why certain states are more aggressive or more active in covering this area. I would say that if you look at the cost of living in these areas, they are challenged by what it takes to maintain a household, to put their children in school, to take care of their health care needs.

“For example, there are parts of the country -- I know the presiding officer, he -- you know, if you look at what it takes to provide the same goods and services in New Jersey and compare that with someplace like -- like Arkansas, you're talking about a $13,000 difference in what it costs to provide the same services. In little rock, it might cost $30,000 for that -- those services, those goods, those products, and it costs you $43,000 in New Jersey. That is why that this flexibility is so important in the program and the fact that we allow states to turn -- to determine and we match that on a federal dollar. Now, the second thing that I think we haven't focused enough on is the fact that we also have disparity in insurance costs. If you look at what it costs to provide insurance, and as I said, it's expensive in Seattle. We think of it as expensive.

“We think of it as a challenge to provide health care insurance. But you can provide health care insurance in Seattle for $13,000 but if you look at New York, it's $16,542. So this notion that somehow New York or New Jersey are getting a better deal because they live in a high-expense area of the United States and somehow even with that extra cost of insurance we should prejudice legislation from serving those children, I say that's a mistake. Because every child that America that is covered by this health insurance program will be healthier. And every child that is covered and healthier will be not only a more contributing citizen to our society but also we are going to reduce our own health care costs in the future.

“So this is a wide and prudent plan that we have such a diversity in this proposal. And I would ask my colleagues to -- before they come out and look at formulas and try to offer amendments that basically cut states from having the flexibility in these formulas, that they should consider the geographic disparity and the challenges that those individuals -- that those individual states face. I really do believe, Mr. President, the children's health care program provides a critical backstop to families. They would rather be in a situation where they could provide the health care I’m sure for themselves, and I have certainly met Washingtonians who have given up their own health insurance just to provide health insurance for their children. We need to prevent the number of uninsured children in this nation from growing and this bill, the children's health care program, should be reauthorized, expanded to make sure that we do stop the number from growing and attach our principles of covering at least 3.2 million now and as we see brighter budget days, coming back and covering the rest of children in America.â€

After the splendid speech she came home and announced this. The locations of these centers are the most illegal alien infested cities in Washington state and all of this she does without saying the word , immigration , illegal or other wise.

The way they put it together if any one speaks out about encouraging illegal immigration via such freebies in the state they are quickly attacked for being a racist.
Looks like organized crime or something.

These centers are designed to tell illegal aliens how to tie into the system for food stamps and finacial aid on the backs of legal citizens. They will help the few legal citizens that walk in the door but there really won't be many.

It is a disgrace.

KNDO/KNDU Tri-Cities, Yakima, WA | U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell Supporting a Local Resource Center



U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell Supporting a Local Resource Center





PASCO, Wash. - U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell today launched the making of five Parent Information Resource Centers to be developed in our area.

She made the announcement at a meeting in Pasco joined by the Educational Service District.

The centers are being established in all states nationwide to provide training and support to parents and education agencies.

Senator Cantwell says parents need to take advantage of these resources. "There are so many resources to parents about the school districts, the health programs that are available in the community, accessing information about the health of there children. Knowing that there are resources there on any subjects that people can talk about is really important."

Here is a listing of Parent Resource Centers throughout the region.

WA-PIRC Site in Pasco: Kurtzman Park Building. 333 Wehe Street. Pasco, Wa. 99301. Phone: 545-3486.

WA-PIRC Site Walla Walla. Blue Ridge Elementary School. 1150 W. Chestnut. Walla Walla, Wa. 99362. Phone: 527-3066

WA-PIRC Site in Connell. WSMC building. Palouse Junction Alternative High School. 110 N. Chelan, Connell, Wa. 99326. (no current phone number)

WA-PIRC Site in Othello. Location to be determined.

WA-PIRC Site in Basin City. Basin City Elementary School Portable. 303 Bailie Blvd. Mesa, Wa. 99343. (no current phone number)

The centers are set to open by October 1st.







http://www.kndo.com/Global/story.asp?S=6904850