Talk:California Proposition 187 (1994)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

can someone better explain how this law died? Kingturtle 03:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, he gave up fighting it.

Contents 1 Error on the page. Fixed it. 2 Final Sentence should be Removed? 3 Projected State Budget Savings? 4 I wish to challeng the objectivity of this article

[edit] Error on the page. Fixed it.

Whites, Asians and blacks overwhelmingly supported Prop. 187, contrary to the view put forth by the person who wrote the article. [1]

Prop. 187 was killed by Governor Grey Davis, who entered into a bogus "arbitration" to prevent the matter from going before the Supreme Court. As this would have likely caused the unconstitutional decision that Texas must provide free educations to the children of illegals to be overturned, pro-Illegal Davis wanted anything but. Sixpackshakur 02:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

According to this site: [2]

The Los Angeles Times reported that 70% of whites voted for Proposition 187, while 78% of Latinos, 56% of African Americans and 54% of Asians voted against it.

The Field Poll (actually an average of the Times poll and another poll) found the Blacks and Asians to be split: [3]

White non-Hispanic voters favored Prop. 187 by a 28-percentage point margin, and white men supported it by 38 points. On the other hand, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin. Blacks and Asians were about evenly divided, with 52% of each group voting Yes and 48% voting No.

Since the sources are equivocal, I think the assertion should be removed until we can calrify the matter. -Willmcw 06:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Since all sources point to the fact that the initiative won with the overwhelming approval of the voters in California, I believe this should be put into the summary. --Nomad spirit 17:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree and have added a sentence to the introduction to state that it passed w/ 59% but was overturned. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

so when you say it died, it means that it no longer has effect in california legislation. correct? meaning, it's as if it never happened? how does this relate to prop 227?

It was overturned by a judge and the decision was never appealed. -Willmcw 05:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Sentence should be Removed?

The final sentence of the article reads:

"For illegal immigrant children in inner-city slums who saw people committing "187's" around them, and then learned that another law called "187" was about to be used to deny them access to government services, the number came to have a doubly unpleasant connotation."

These seems NNPOV and irrelevant as a subjective view that may or may not have existed. If anyone has any thoughts on why this should be here, toss it up here. Otherwise, I'd think about removing it in a week or so. James 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Projected State Budget Savings?

Curious if anyone had the numbers on what was to be the projected cost-benefits to the State of California as a result of this law, had it been upheld? I remember the numbers being pretty considerable and worth noting in the article. James 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't have data from the time, but this article, authored by anti-immigrant advocacy group FAIR from 12/2004 puts the cost of illegal immigration in California at $10.5 billion per year. Very hefty numbers indeed, but hardly credible considering the politicized source.

[edit] I wish to challeng the objectivity of this article

"While its prominent advocates were political conservatives, some libertarians (such as Los Angeles-based radio talk-show host Tom Leykis) also favored it, on the grounds that making life more difficult for illegal immigrants might result in fewer of them entering the state, creating labor shortages which could drive up wages for the lowest-paid workers."

No 'libertarians' support this type of legislation. Tom Leykis is NOT libertarian. (Many people seem to think they are libertarian and have authoritarian ideas such as this--the libertarian position is that the entitlements illegal immigrants are "stealing" should not exist.)

Thus, I am editing the absurd statement to remove the allegations that "libertarians" support this type of legislation. I encourage you to support this removal in the name of objectivity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.124.31.221 (talk • contribs).

It said "liberals" until this afternoon, when someone changed it to "libertarians". Let's just revert it back to what it was earlier today. -Will Beback 04:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Well, he does describe himself as a "liberal libertarian", for what it's worth. And the anon is wrong -- at least some people who describe themselves as libertarian supported 187. Big-L Libertarians, even. Always struck me as somewhat inconsistant with what I understood of libertarian philosophy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 04:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
    • He's not Rush Limbaugh, but he sure doesn't fall under the "liberal" category. Can we get a better example of a "liberal" than Tom Leykis. Downchuck 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)