Governor Wilson ran full-page ads in the major California newspapers, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, to launch his anti-immigrant based re-election campaign. The ads were in the form of a letter to President Clinton, demanding that he halt illegal immigration to the State of California as well as reimburse the state for the cost of federally mandated health, education, welfare services, and the incarceration of undocumented immigrants. Remarkably, Governor Wilson was able to narrow the complex political and economic conditions besieging California. It proved to be a politically astute move. In doing so, Wilson obfuscated the causes ofCalifornia’s economic and fiscal problems and redirected them to the immigration issue. Heargued that federally mandated services provided a magnet which attracted immigrants toCalifornia’s generous social services, thus imposing an impossible burden that bankrupted thestate’s economy. The ads introduced to the nation the philosophical basis of Wilson’s re-electioncampaign and subsequent endorsement of Proposition 187. Co-authored by two former INS officials, Alan Nelson and Harold Ezell, Proposition 187 was the culmination of the work of a loose network of newly formed local grass-roots organizations that tapped into real public fear and discontent with the declining quality of life in California. The network used inflammatory terms such as “invasion” and “takeover” tinged with a racist patina. They capitalized on the fear and discontent by focusing the public’s angst towards new immigrants, primarily targeting Latinos, particularly those from Mexico. The movement was aided and abetted by their government spokesman, Republican state assemblyman RichardMountjoy. The assemblyman, who faced a difficult re-election in 1992, had sponsored 10(mostly unsuccessful) immigration bills in the state legislature which set the stage for Proposition 187 (Kadetsky 1994). In addition to Nelson and Ezell, the attendees at the meeting that spawned the initiative, included Ronald Prince, Republican Assemblyman Richard L. Mountioy, political consultants Robert Kiley and Barbara Kiley (mayor of Yorba Linda), and police employee Barbara Coe. Nelson and Ezell had become full-time activists in the immigration reform movement, forming a national organization, Americans Against Illegal Immigration (AAII), which later assisted the coalition of grassroots groups that supported Proposition 187. Seed money for AAII came from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Butcher, Forde and Mollrich, the political consulting firm that successfully directed the Proposition 13 campaign that limited California property taxes in 1978 (Mendel 1994: A3). Coe, along with former INS border agent Bill King, led a network of grassroots political groups (Citizens for Action Now) that worked on various conservative causes. After the October meeting, Coe and Prince formed the California Coalition for Immigration Reform, which proved to be instrumental in the drive to punish “aliens” and foreign workers Ironically, the group chose the name “SOS” (Save Our State) for the campaign, while eating at a Mexican restaurant (Stefancic and Delgado 2001). Proposition 187 was endorsed by numerous influential people and groups, including California Governor Pete Wilson, the California Republican Party, United Organizations of Taxpayers, Inc., Ross Perot’s United We Stand America of California, Federation for American Immigration eform (FAIR), Americans Against Illegal Immigration (AAII), California Coalition for Immigration Reform, Stop the Out-of-Control Problems of Immigration Today (S.T.O.P.I.T.), and two-time GOP presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan (Alvarez and Butterfield 2000). Although Governor Wilson did not create Proposition 187 nor place it on the ballot, in the words of one political analyst, he “hitchhiked on it his genius has been knowing which [issues] will be good for a long ride” (Schrag 1995). That “ride” included a difficult re-election campaignafter four years of recession, budget shortfalls, economic restructuring, and the loss of hundredsof thousands of jobs in the defense and aerospace industries. Immigration provided Wilson witha visceral issue to ignite and regain electoral support. Wilson’s endorsement provided Proposition 187 the legitimization it needed, especially with its prior association to fringe grass-roots organizations. Most importantly, Wilson’s advocacy of Proposition 187 allowed him to mobilize the voters’ fears and resentment with him and not against him.
We argue that voter support for Proposition 187 is an example of cyclical nativism and that the impetus for this nativism was the sagging California economy. Previously, the relationship between economic cycles and nativist sentiment has been examined only by comparing an aggregate economic insecurity measure or immigration policy with national unemployment and GNP trends (Alvarez and Butterfield 2000: 169-72). Wilson’s support of Proposition 187 represents a fairly extraordinary political turnaround. As Mayor of San Diego, Wilson was a moderate centrist Republican who supported slow-growth and affirmative action programs. Facing a $14 billion deficit during his first year as governor,Wilson's tax increase and compromised budget cut raised taxes by $7 billion and reducedautomatic yearly increases in social welfare benefits. He also called for a “revenue saving”government of “prevention” not remediation. His plan focused on expanding early childhoodeducation programs such as Head Start and preventative health services, especially for drug addicted mothers (Alvarez and Butterfield 2000: 171). Ironically, as far back as 1978, Wilson had opposed California’s controversial Proposition 13, which experts now concur was a direct and major contributor to California’s fiscal problems, not immigration.
In another ironic twist, as a United States Senator representing California, Wilson assisted one of the state’s major coalitions - agribusiness - in their demand for cheap labor. Wilson sponsored federal legislation to permit large numbers of undocumented seasonal farm workers into the country. Although the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) did not includeWilson’s guest worker program, his lobbying efforts were not futile. The IRCA bill did includethe seasonal agricultural worker provision (SAWs) which legalized over one millionundocumented workers. According to a 1992 conclusion of the Federal Commission onAgricultural Workers, “The legalization program appears to have formed the foundation forcontinued illegal immigration.” It also cited the now acknowledged unintended effect of theIRCA on newly legalized immigrants - an “anchor” for their family members as well as otherundocumented immigrants (Schrag 1995). Perhaps most surprising, Wilson’s traditional support base and California’s most crucial political and economic coalition - agribusiness - remained, with some important exceptions, remarkably silent during the Proposition 187 campaign. In addition, other major employees of cheap,undocumented labor in the garment, construction, hotel and restaurant industries also kept their distance from the debate. However, their lack of participation in the Proposition 187 discussion should not be interpreted as the absence of self-interest. A major California employer, requesting anonymity, expressed the contradictory position Proposition 187 put major users ofundocumented labor in, “It’s a no win situation. If we come out for 187 it looks bad; if we comeout against, it looks bad” (Gibbs 1994). Other leading business leaders in California,however, were more forthright in expressing their anti-Proposition 187 sentiment. Harry Kubo,President of the Nisei Farmers League in California, went on record in calling “undocumentedimmigrants . . . a necessary and vital part of the agricultural work force.” Spokesperson RussWilliams of Agricultural Producers, one of the largest trade associations representing growers and processors in California and Arizona, put the interest question more boldly, “Who benefits by having (undocumented workers in California?). You benefit, I benefit, we all benefit”(Gibbs 1994). Yet once Wilson endorsed Proposition 187, it sent a signal to business interests notto oppose the initiative. In fact, Wilson pressured potential business donors, who understood thepotential stakes and costs involved, into not contributing to the anti-Proposition 187 campaign(Schrag 1994). There were several points of argument in favor of Proposition 187. First, undocumentedimmigrants not only take jobs from other workers, they also lower the standards of labor throughtheir willingness to work for lower wages and endure harsher working conditions than legalresidents. They also undermine unions by being employed by non-union employers. Second,since they earn low wages, undocumented immigrants do not contribute much in taxes. Also, theundocumented immigrants’ consumption of publicly funded social services exceeds their taxpayments. They are over-represented as users of public schools and hospitals, hence responsiblefor draining public coffers. Third, immigrants come from cultures that are unattractive to white,middle class Americans. They often come from rural areas in their native countries. Theimmigrants marry at young ages and have a high birthrate. They often come with little formal education and do not know nor care to Iearn English. They have “traditional” culturalcharacteristics that keep them backward. Fourth, immigrants bring social problems with them,such as gangs and graffiti. They participated in the riots of 1992 and are a disruptive element inthe community. And fifth, by definition of their citizenship status, the immigrants are engaged inan illegal act. The citizens of the United States have elected a representative government that hasdemocratically developed immigration law and policy. In short, undocumented immigrants arebreaking the law, thus their illegal intrusion should not be rewarded. Wilson’s political opportunism was matched by his cynical use of Proposition 187.
Demagoguing the issue for an entire year before the election, Wilson ran a relentless mediacampaign championing Proposition 187. He used television ads, shot in grainy black and white,depicting nighttime pandemonium at the Tijuana-San Diego border checkpoint withundocumented immigrants running across the border. A split screen counterpoised images of theStatue of Liberty. “American citizenship is a treasure beyond measure,” stated the voice-over,“but now the rules are being broken. There’s a right way and there’s a wrong way . . . PeteWilson has had the courage to say enough is enough, and to stand up for Californians who workhard, pay taxes and obey the laws” (Mendel 1994). Stepping up his rhetoric, one of Wilson’smany anti-immigration suits against the federal government, argued that immigration constituteda foreign invasion of California, “against which the United States is obligated to protectCalifornia according to the United States Constitution’s tenth amendment.” Denying that thelawsuit was intended to inflame the political debate on illegal immigration, officials in the Wilson administration defended this outlandish move as an attempt to make sure the court was convinced of the problem. Wilson’s defense of Proposition 187 in his oft repeated campaign battle cry, “it sends a message” to the federal government, became his protective cloak against charges that the initiative was punitive and racist in character as well as constitutionally questionable. Proposition 187 violated the United States Supreme Court’s 1982 Plyler vs. Doe decision, guaranteeing public education to all children in the United States ((Alvarez and Butterfield 2000: 174). It also breached the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, confidentiality laws, professional ethics and oaths surrounding education, social service and health provisions, such as the physician’s directive of above all do no harm. When asked during a televised gubernatorial debate about how he would enforce the draconian aspect of Proposition 187, i.e. kicking undocumented children out of school, Wilson stated that he would not have to, given the federal court suits that would be filed by the measure’s opponents to stop its implementation. As the Associate Editor of the Sacramento Bee put it, “Which is to say that Wilson claims that the only reason he threatens to boot 300,000 kids out of school, play chicken with their future and further jeopardize that state’s public health and safety is to win a battle with the Feds. What a shabby dodge” (Schrag 1994). An analysis of Proposition 187’s development must highlight the substantial gap between the perceptions and reality of an immigrant’s relationship to the economy. Much of the publicconfidently presumes that immigrants are a fiscal burden to the government Yet, economic dataillustrates that immigrants, even undocumented immigrants, actually generate a positive impacton the economy. The mis-perception may help explain the reason a majority of the United Statespublic now supports the enactment of new restrictionist measures and favor politicians who usethe issue as a calling card. Early 1993 placed more than 20 restrictionist bills before the California legislature. Several of the provisions passed, including one that bars undocumented people from receiving drivers’ licenses. (Bailey and Morain 1993:A4). Proposition 187 initiative was among the most extreme of the restrictionist measures to gain All of the major provisions of Proposition 187 have been put on hold by the courts untilnumerous constitutional challenges are resolved. Nonetheless, the measure has already had asignificant impact, legitimizing hostility and discrimination toward immigrants, causingwidespread fear in immigrant communities. According to a report in The Christian ScienceMonitor (Munoz 1994:19), Already a fifth grade teacher in one California school district has assigned her students to report their own immigration status and that of their parents. And a school security guard in Atherton, California, the day after the election, told two American-born Latinas, “We don't have to let Mexicans in here anymore.” Other reports of discrimination include; a McDonald’s worker who insisted on seeingimmigration documents before serving a customer, a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for someone they suspected was undocumented, a customer at a restaurant who asked the cook for his green card, adding “It’s a citizen’s duty to kick out illegals,” and a hotel owner who called the police when a United States citizen would not show immigration documents when registering for a room (Munoz 1994: 19). Pregnant women are reportedly afraid to seek prenatal care for fear of deportation. In at least one case, the death of a child has been linked to such fear, when the parents of a severely ill eight-year-old postponed seeing a doctor. There was some impetus to seek a federal version of Proposition 187 in spite of the damaging consequences and the substantial legal challenges already posed. Immediately after the election, California Governor Wilson called on Congress to pass a federal variant of the proposition (Martin 1995). The United States Commission on Immigration Reform – a bipartisan federal commission established by Congress in 1990 - proposed substantial cuts in the benefits received by undocumented immigrants, but stopped short of recommending their exclusion from public schools. While undocumented immigrants are already ineligible for most forms of public assistance, the commission recommended withholding all remaining assistance except emergency medical care. The denial of emergency medical care was one of the major provisions of Proposition 187. A Time Magazine poll of 800 adult Americans in September 1994 revealed that 55 percent favored a proposal to stop providing government health benefits and public education to undocumented immigrants and their children (Gibbs 1994: 47). A sponsor of Proposition 187 reported that “organizers in Florida, Washington, New York, and Texas are already calling us” asking advice on how to get similar measures passed in their states (Gibbs 1994:47).. The movement to cut services to undocumented immigrants draws on a set of anxieties that typify the struggling blue-collar and middle classes. While some of the “blue chip” Republican organizations and spokespersons declined to endorse the mean-spirited nativist sentiments that fuel the movement, the Republican Party primarily endorsed immigration reform. The party had little difficulty raising funds from the smaller and more ideological think tanks and foundations on the political right, as well as from many small individual donors, including the retired (Stefancic & Delgado 2001). The coalition of activists who successfully pressed for English-only reforms included many that endorsed immigration reform when the first campaign proved successful. In addition, many of the same constituencies that donated money for the first cause went on to contribute to the second. Many in the English-only and anti-immigration movements share a common set of concerns: fear of being engulfed by waves of immigrants; a dislike of foreigners; and a sense that the nation’s unity is threatened when too many cultures, languages, and experiences enter the American mix too rapidly. The movement successfully tapped into economic anxieties that the middle and working classes feel more acutely than do those in the upper economic brackets. It is the middle and working classes who fear that immigrants will take jobs, require too many services thus increasing the tax burden for United States workers, and English, the great binding tie, will diminish in importance. Conservatives cogently pressed Proposition 187 and linked restrictionist campaigns with notable success. They manipulated citizens’ fears and then adroitly solicited funds from the newly insecure. They capitalized on economic dislocations to scapegoat immigrants, who, by and large, are hard working and self-supporting. As with the official English campaign, conservativesselected their targets carefully and spent money where it would count. They made good use ofpersonnel, deployed hard-hitting shock troops. The liberal opposition was disorganized, sporadic,and largely ineffectual, countering mainly with despairing rhetoric and an occasional lawsuit
Bibliography
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Tara L. Butterfield. "The resurgence of nativism in California? The case of Proposition 187 and illegal immigration." Social Science Quarterly (2000): 167- 179..
Bailey, Eric & Dan Morain “Anti-Immigration Bills Flood Legislature : Rights: Republicans see the measures as a way to help the state cut costs. Critics see the move as political opportunism.” The Los Angeles Times. May 3. (1993).
Delgado, Richard, and Jean Stefancic. Critical race theory: An introduction. NYU Press, 2001.
Feldman, Paul, and Rich Connell. "Wilson acts to enforce parts of Prop. 187."LA TIMES, Nov 10 (1994).
Garcia, Ruben J. "Critical race theory and Proposition 187: The racial politics of immigration law." Chicano-Latino L. Rev. 17 (1995): 118.
Kazdetsky, E. "" Save Our State" Initiative: Bashing Illegals in California."NATION- NEW YORK- 259(1994): 416-416.
Martin, Philip. "Proposition 187 in california." The International Migration Review 29, no. 1 (1995): 255-263.
Mendel, Ed. “Immigration Control Could Zoom Into Law. - If Its Time Has Come” The San Diego Union Tribune. Aug. 1 (1994): A1
Munoz, Cecilia. “Harassment in the Wake of Proposition 187.” Christian Science Monitor, December 27, (1994): 19
Schrag, Peter. "Son of 187." The New Republic 212 (1995): 16-17. Print.
Ono, Kent A., and John M. Sloop. Shifting borders: Rhetoric, immigration, and California's Proposition 187. Temple University Press, 2002.
