Debate Over Prop. 187

“Prop. 187 Is Sore Subject for Illegal Immigrant Students” (Sept. 17) hits the nail right on the head. If for no other reason, Prop. 187 must be defeated for the scholastic assassinations it would inflict on innocent children of undocumented residents and the disruption that would ensue in the education of our youth.

The U.S. Supreme Court has firmly established that laws denying education to classes of children in the U.S. are unequivocally unconstitutional.

California has severe problems, to be sure, but to enact racist, xenophobic and misdirected legislation as a political remedy will never serve this state. Prop. 187 would turn teachers and health-care providers into secret police, forcing them to look at a child’s skin color and accent, instead of looking into the mind. No less cruel, Prop. 187 would force innocent children to learn to lie in order to protect their family’s existence.

CLARK D. LEDGER

San Diego

*

The Times writers who wrote this article know very well that the students they interviewed will have graduated and presumably illegally obtained jobs by the time Prop. 187 is resolved in court, should it pass. It is the as-yet-unarrived illegal immigrant students who may not get a free education.

There is no doubt that the provisions in Prop. 187 will cause hardship to illegal aliens. That is its intent. It is hoped that it is the first of many propositions that will make life much, much harder for them, thereby discouraging others.

Prop. 187 may not be humane or generous. The humane and generous policies of past decades didn’t work.

MICHAEL GREENWALD

San Diego

*

All I had to do was read the photo caption, “Belmont High School, with about 2,000 illegal immigrant students, could be hard-hit by Proposition 187,” to realize that Prop. 187 must pass.

REID CAMPBELL

Culver City

*

Regarding the commentary “Make it ‘SOS’ for Snake-Oil Salesmen” by Carl Shusterman (Commentary, Sept. 15):

I am again baffled by the argument that immigration laws should be enforced by sanctions against private employers spending their own money to hire workers without adequately investigating their immigration status, while government employees spending taxpayers’ money should be free from this burden.

If we expect private citizens to enforce the immigration laws by verifying legal residence before hiring people, why shouldn’t our government exercise the same diligence when dispensing taxpayer supported services?

JOSEPH AREEDA

Los Angeles

*

Consider the following: (1) The district is forced to hire special teachers (ESL) to teach the non-English speaking illegal immigrants; (2) Each one of these students may qualify for free or reduced price meals while at school; (3) The tax money used to pay for all this must come from somewhere. Any wild guesses? (4) With all the emphasis given to these “non-English speaking students,” what about the concern for the remaining students?

FRANK P. LEWIS

Diamond Bar

*

As the first-generation son of immigrant parents, with four children in the LAUSD, I was deeply disturbed in reading James Coleman’s commentary, “Illegal Immigrants Are, by Definition, Criminals” (Sept. 12). For him to relegate a whole segment of the children, whom he is responsible for in some official of semiofficial capacity, to the category of the “criminal class” was itself criminal. Are those who have helped dig a financial hole for the school district now looking for a scapegoat? He seemed to be keen with his selective use of historical analogies, but he forgets that the Nazis of the ‘30s used Jews, leftists and homosexuals as the reason for Germany’s economic weakness during the world Depression, much like their modern brethren use the Turkish immigrants as scapegoats for the shrinking German bounty.

He calls any historical claim to the Southwest territories as counterproductive, citing that “humanity has seen the ownership of land change hands countless times,” yet forgets that humanity has historically migrated from country to country, continent to continent.

“Criminal” is the new code word for “those who are expendable.” Why should “criminals” receive emergency health care allowing more “criminals” to be born in our country? Why give these young “criminals” an education? Why should real Americans feed these “criminals” by letting them work? With the use of this one word Coleman tried to strip a whole group of people of their humanity, but it seems he only succeeded in exposing his own moral and political decay.

JESUS MANUEL DELGADILLO

Los Angeles