Go back to front pageAs voters go to the polls today, surveys show Prop. 187 -- California's most controversial ballot proposition -- in a virtual dead heat after a barrage of criticism from high-profile conservatives and newspaper editorials.
The initiative, once supported in polls by a large majority of voters, has been under heavy attack recently by a diverse group of critics who say the proposal is unenforceable and discriminatory.
"Most of the elite opinion -- except for (Gov.) Wilson -- have come out against it. And that includes you guys, in the newspaper industry," said Bruce Cain, a University of California at Berkeley political scientist. "People are questioning the wisdom of it now."
Win or lose in today's election, Prop. 187 has opened up a Pandora's box of questions about the future of illegal immigration.
Will economic recovery in California help soften the state's clamor to halt illegal immigration? How will California make a transition from an economy that relies, in part, on the undocumented? Will the crisis here result in more pressure for guest-worker programs in the future that restrict the rights of foreign workers?
Prop. 187 proponents have argued throughout the campaign that citizens and legal immigrants would take jobs that many undocumented workers now perform for low wages. But Richard Kiley, spokesman for the Prop. 187 campaign, now says that foreign workers should be allowed in as temporary guest workers -- as long as they don't bring families or have access to public schools or services.
"Guess what the next step is around the corner: a 'bracero' program," said Kiley, referring to the federal program that imported Mexican workers for more than 20 years to perform California agricultural labor. The program was phased out in the early 1960s under pressure from labor unions and churches, who argued it exploited Mexican workers and divided families.
In an attempt to limit illegal immigration into California, Prop. 187 would bar undocumented children from public schools. It would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving nonemergency public health care. And it would obligate schools, public health facilities and police to report "suspected" illegal immigrants -- a provision that has sparked widespread criticism from Hispanic Californians who believe Latinos would be subject to extra scrutiny.
Prop. 187 was supposed to be about a narrow issue: illegal immigration. But instead, it has also spotlighted discomfort with multiculturalism, bilingualism and Latino influence in California.
When 70,000 marched in Los Angeles last month to protest the measure, Prop. 187 proponent Bette Hammond of Marin County was prompted to comment: "There wasn't a Caucasian face among them."
She said she thought the majority of marchers were Mexicans, not U.S. citizens. Other supporters -- particularly older Anglo Californians -- have questioned the loyalty of Latino activists because protestors have waved Mexican flags at marches and rallies.
But Victor Marquez, an attorney with La Raza Centro Legal in San Francisco, said a majority of Latinos in recent polls rejected Prop. 187 because they view the problem of illegal immigration as more complex. Many know people who came north to escape war or poverty, he said. Many reject the idea that cutting off public schools or health care will really deter the undocumented from seeking jobs here.
"Latino leaders say you have to look at illegal immigration from a human rights perspective," Marquez said. "Prop. 187 does not address what to do to prevent immigration. It's taking a very inhumane approach."
If Prop. 187 wins today, both sides agree, it is headed straight for court. Opponents have vowed to fight it, and have legal precedent on their side. In 1985, a U.S. Supreme Court decision found it unconstitutional -- and questioned the public benefit -- of barring illegal immigrants from public schools.
The uncertainty of Prop. 187's legal viability may have given some voters pause, even if they are very concerned about stopping illegal immigration, political scientist Cain said.
While some polls showed Prop. 187 had more than 70 percent support a few months ago, a survey of voters released last week by KNBC television station showed the measure leading by only one point: 45 percent to 44 percent, with 11 percent undecided.
Opponents of Prop. 187 have been smart to focus on the part of the measure that would bar children from public schools, said Larry Berg, a University of Southern California political scientist. "A lot of people have started thinking, "It's just not fair to kids,'" he said.
Berg said that if Prop. 187 passes by only a slim margin, the message voters send is "definitely muted."
But 187 proponent Kiley said he's undaunted by the slip in polls, as well as criticism ranging from teachers' associations and churches to conservative Republican leaders such as Jack Kemp and William Bennett.
"I've been in this business since 1976," said Kiley, who modeled the Prop. 187 campaign after Prop. 13, the landmark property-tax rollback measure. "Pollsters are like weathermen. They never have to be right. They just have to explain why they were wrong."
Kiley expects a silent-majority style surge in support today from voters who want to send a message. "This is a whisper campaign," he said. "Once the religious people got involved (supporters) went underground."
Kiley said Prop. 187 has already won a victory by capturing the attention of President Clinton and federal officials, who have beefed patrols along the Mexican border recently.
The border, Berg said, is probably where most Californians would rather have the line drawn over illegal immigration.
"The political system should have been able to deal with this before it got so explosive. (Former president) Bush never did a damn thing about it," Berg said. "In terms of illegal immigration, that has really got to be dealt with on the federal level."
But short-term solutions won't determine how California will face its addiction to cheap immigrant labor in the future, Berg said. "It is an issue that's going to continue to plague this country."
Go back to front page