Proposition 187 and the Law of Unintended Consequences : Anti-immigrant initiative would deny medical care, roil schools and make snoops out of teachers; is this what California wants?

Illegal immigration to America is obviously a significant problem, especially in California. But how Californians react to it can either produce thoughtful policy that can be a model for the nation or a half-baked approach that could actually have dangerous consequences.

What will it be?

THE CONTEXT: The issue of illegal immigration has reached a fever pitch here for three reasons. One is simply that the number of illegal immigrants is large. The second is that the gubernatorial campaign has dwelt on the issue. And the third is the looming presence of statewide ballot Proposition 187, to be voted on Nov. 8. We strongly recommend a “no” vote.

This measure proposes to prohibit state and local governments from providing education, health care or other social services to illegal immigrants. Proponents claim that state and local governments’ services and benefits aggravate the problem by enticing many people into entering the country illegally and that social tensions resulting from immigration will only worsen unless California does a dramatic about-face.

Proposition 187 supporters admit that some of the measures are Draconian--for instance, state and local agencies would be required to report “apparent illegal aliens” to immigration authorities. But they argue that more moderate, intermediate measures--minor congressional reforms and local patch jobs--are not enough.

Proposition 187 has a parallel to Proposition 13, the controversial 1978 statewide ballot measure limiting property taxation, in that it is one of those thunderbolt, send-’em-a-message ballot measures. But, also like Proposition 13, it would surely produce many unintended bad results. Proposition 187’s understandable appeal is based on the assumption that we have to do something about illegal immigration. We certainly do. And this proposition would certainly Do Something. But what it would do is not something California should want to happen.

DECIMATE THIS STATE’S LOW-WAGE LABOR POOL?

Is illegal immigration only a negative force? Of course not. What about the economic benefits that accrue from all recent immigrants, even those who are here illegally, such as low-wage but highly productive labor? Think of all the work--from home repair to garment manufacturing--that keeps marginal businesses profitable and allows new small firms to open. Think what the world-famous California economy would be like without the many thousands of tiny businesses and service firms that depend on low-cost labor. Guess who’s picking the crops for the California agribusiness that is the envy of the world?

Remember: There are powerful economic factors at work here. Reputable experts disagree over how many new immigrants this state can absorb without severe consequence and over whether they are a net plus or a negative for the economy. But the experts are virtually unanimous on what draws most immigrants here: The lure is jobs, however ill-paid, not welfare. The United States and Mexico should work out a sensible arrangement that recognizes the reality of this powerful job magnet and minimizes the exploitation of these workers while also discouraging illegal resettlement in the United States.

DENY PEOPLE BASIC MEDICAL CARE?

To refuse to provide fundamental health care is downright dangerous to the public interest. If Proposition 187 passes, and is upheld in the courts, people here illegally would be denied basic health care even if their medical problems were serious, even if they had communicable diseases, even if a low-cost dose of preventive medicine could nip a potentially costly problem in the bud.

A major and vital goal of public health care is to keep the problems of even the sickest and most destitute individuals from becoming a danger to the rest of the population. Say an illegal immigrant with an infectious disease like tuberculosis is turned away from a public clinic. Health professionals worry that he is less likely to return to his homeland than to become a potential health threat to those he comes in contact with in this country. Is the public interest better served by treating the disease or turning the carrier away?

THROW KIDS OUT OF SCHOOL?

Though based on a longer-term definition of the public good, the argument for educating the children of illegal immigrants is similar. First, studies have shown that even children born abroad who are raised here by immigrant parents are more likely to remain in the United States than go home, even if their parents eventually return to their countries of origin. So it is in the public interest to make sure they become well-educated and acculturated to American life. At least then they will be likely to be productive members of society as adults. It’s no wonder so many law-enforcement officials are vigorously campaigning against Proposition 187. By tossing kids out of school it’s virtually an unintended but effective gang-recruitment tool.

TURN TEACHERS INTO SPIES?

The immigrant education issue is extremely complicated. Many, perhaps most, of the children born to illegal immigrants are born in the United States and thus are U.S. citizens entitled to a public education. Yet Proposition 187 would literally force a school district to question young Americans about their parents’ immigration status and report to authorities any parents suspected of being here illegally. That’s the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s job, not the schools’ job. Imagine requiring a teacher to quiz a pupil about whether her parents are illegal--what an ugly outrage. Teachers are stressed out enough without having this added to their list of duties.

The “Big Brother” aspects of this approach to immigration law enforcement are obvious. Less obvious are the unintended consequences such as illegal immigrants pulling their children out of public schools in huge numbers. State education officials estimate that school enrollment could drop by 300,000 if every illegal-immigrant parent did so, and that could cost California up to $2.8 billion in federal education aid. Some shortfall would have to be made up by state taxpayers because the exodus wouldn’t yield $2.8 billion in savings.

SEND A MESSAGE THAT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE?

Another fundamental flaw of Proposition 187 is the facile assumption that a single state can actually do something about an international phenomenon like the migration of people from countries as close as Mexico or as far away as China. That assumption is legally tenuous, for the courts have traditionally held that immigration is a federal, not state, responsibility. On that basis alone, any sections of Proposition 187 that contradict federal laws or procedures may wind up being nullified by the courts.

Despite that possibility, some supporters of 187 urge a vote for the initiative to “send a message” to a federal government that has ignored its responsibility to deal with the immigration issue. But while there may once have been value in sending even a very crude message such as 187, Washington is certainly not ignoring the immigration issue these days. Under pressure from California Democrats like Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Republicans like Gov. Pete Wilson, both Congress and the Clinton Administration have been made acutely aware that illegal immigration is a major issue in California and other states with large immigrant populations. And President Clinton has made regaining control of the nation’s borders a priority for the Justice Department, designating money in the recently passed federal crime bill for hiring 1,000 new Border Patrol agents and reimbursing California and other states for the cost of imprisoning illegal immigrants who commit crimes.

And a recent study commissioned by White House chief of staff Leon E. Panetta, himself a Californian, verified that California pays far more in educating and helping immigrants than it gets back in federal immigration aid. That will provide ample ammunition in pressing Congress for more immigration-related funds.

RISK LOSING FEDERAL AID?

Perhaps no single argument against Proposition 187 makes its proponents so uneasy as what their initiative could wind up costing California taxpayers. According to the state legislative analyst, lost federal aid to schools, public hospitals and clinics could add up to $15 billion. How can Proposition 187 proponents sell it as a tax-saving initiative in the tradition of Proposition 13? They really can’t, and when pressed on 187’s costs, the initiative’s authors change strategy and confess that they don’t really expect 187 to go into effect right away, even if it wins. They then acknowledge their real goal: pushing the state into what is sure to be a long, costly lawsuit against the federal government--a suit that the state could well lose. The legal question here centers on the Supreme Court’s Plyler vs. Doe decision of 1982, which held that immigrant children are entitled to public education. In effect, Proposition 187’s authors would gamble with your tax money in the hope of winning a dubious legal fight they should pay for on their own.

So while Proposition 187 purports to offer a simple answer to a complex phenomenon, it really is no answer at all. If state voters enact this measure they will not only not end illegal immigration, they will drag California into bitter lawsuits and political battles that could hurt the state far more than illegal immigration does.

One need only ponder the divisive campaign waged over 187, with its overtones of hostility against Latinos, Asians and other state residents who look or sound like “apparent illegal aliens,” to get a sense of how difficult ethnic relations could become in the aftermath of the initiative’s approval. In an era when California businesses increasingly look to Asia and Latin America for new markets, this state doesn’t need such ethnic division. Vote “no” on Proposition 187.