Ruling Voiding Proposition 187

With the recent decision by a federal judge to throw out major portions of Proposition 187, the stage has been set for a massive voter rebellion that will engender more anger and hatred than ever.

While critics of Proposition 187 are no doubt popping champagne corks and dancing in the streets thinking that they won some sort of victory, they also fail to realize that the majority of people who voted for passage of the controversial measure will not take this lying down. Having our will defied by liberal judges and whining special-interest groups will only serve to strengthen the resolve of those who support 187. As critics vowed to defy provisions of 187 had they become enacted, so shall supporters of the measure defy its overturning.

MICHAEL WHITE

Fullerton

Though the courageous ruling of Judge Mariana Pfaelzer striking down large portions of Proposition 187 has been excoriated by 187 supporters as “flouting the will of the people,” the fact remains that Pfaelzer has done no more than what our constitutional system demanded. Where the “will of the people”--which is a transitory thing easily manipulated by politicians and demagogues--conflicts with the clear mandate of the Constitution, the “will of the people” must give way if our democracy is to survive. While no law can ever hope to eradicate private prejudice, we can insist that our state statutes not advance anunconstitutional agenda of racism and bigotry.

Californians have unfortunately had a deplorable history of abusing the ballot box to write into law prejudice and discrimination against immigrants.

We need the courts, therefore, to exercise vital correctives to dangerous and unconstitutional policies enacted in fluxes of immediate popular sentiment. Without the courts, and without judges like Pfaelzer, there is safety neither for majority nor for minority, neither for native nor newcomer, or for any of us.

PAUL S. MARCHAND

West Hollywood

We’ve got our very own “Catch-22” in California: It’s illegal for a person to enter this country without going through the proper channels, but once that person is here illegally, it then becomes illegal to deny him/her all the free government goodies that he/she wants.

Illegal-immigrant advocates who claim that illegals come here for jobs must not have seen the latest statistics out of County-USC Hospital: Close to 70% of all births there are to illegal immigrants, and more than 40% of those babies immediately exercise their “rights” as U.S. citizens and are signed up for the cradle-to-grave government goodie bag known as welfare.

The judge who shot down Prop. 187 said that it violated federal law, so I guess that means it’s time to change the federal law. There are already several bills floating around Washington that have been dubbed “federal versions of Prop. 187.” I think it’s time for Congress to get serious about these bills, if they plan on getting reelected.

ANNIE CAROLINE SCHULER

West Hollywood

The cries of foul by Proposition 187 adherents demonstrate that we need not despair about today’s schools. Even people who graduated from high school 40 years ago do not remember their basic civic lessons. We live in a constitutional democracy where even the majority does not have the right to overturn the Constitution.

I remember my high school civics class very well, and so should Harold Ezell. We had the same excellent teacher at Banning High School (Ginerva Drown). It really doesn’t make any difference what all those millions of voters did: We still (thank God) have a Constitution.

GEORGE H. MORRIS

Upland

All that is required to “save” Proposition 187 is for the current Republican congressional majority to enact a law stating that one of the purposes of the federal immigration code is to protect scarce state resources and to further provide that the individual states have the option to deny the same to illegal aliens.

The fact that such legislation did not exist before in the original Texas case, Plyler vs. Doe, and does not exist now, is what required the U.S. Supreme Court in 1981 and Judge Pfaelzer in 1995 to strike down the state laws restricting immigrants as improper uses of state power. With federal-enabling legislation, the fundamental defect would be cured and 187 could be upheld as a reasonable exercise of state power granted by Congress.

Instead of scapegoating “liberal” judges, Republicans should shoulder the responsibility of either passing the necessary changes in federal immigration law or admitting their hypocrisy.

HYATT SELIGMAN

Orange

Nobody should be surprised at the recent ruling. Everyone knew in the weeks and months before the vote in November, 1994, that this measure was unconstitutional as written. This was a poorly written measure that was doomed from the start. Now that we have wasted all this time and money on court time and lawyers, how about if we end illegal immigration. To do this, you don’t throw schoolchildren out of class and sick people out of the hospital. You seal the borders. If you want to stop illegal immigration, don’t let them in in the first place.

Get the boys from Pendleton and all the rest of the military bases around this country on those borders, shoulder to shoulder if necessary.

BRYAN HAYS

Saugus

Pretty amazing! Start with an amendment to the Constitution written 130 years ago to assure newly freed slaves equal treatment under the law. Next, apply this amendment out of context to illegal Mexican immigrants wanting to attend school in Texas. Get it enshrined as a 5-4 Supreme Court decision. Presto! The constitutional grounds have now been clearly established whereby we must tax ourselves to provide benefits to the entire world population, contingent on travel to California.

Having mastered common sense legal reasoning, I believe I am qualified for a seat on the federal bench.

PIERRE BIERRE