To the Editor:
In “A Guide to Schwarzenegger Country” [December 2003], James Q. Wilson misdiagnoses the fevers of his fellow Californians. This is especially apparent when he describes Proposition 187, the 1994 ballot measure restricting benefits for illegal immigrants, as “clearly unconstitutional (and wrong-headed).” As Mr. Wilson must know, the arrival of 4 to 5 million illegal aliens, combined with an econo-mic downturn and the mismanagement of state resources, broke the California bank. The benefits afforded to illegal aliens by the state’s welfare system only attracted more takers. (Remember Milton Friedman’s dictum: you get more of what you subsidize.)
Proposition 187 was supported by nearly 60 percent of California’s electorate, but a district-court judge ruled that immigration was a federal matter and struck down the initiative, issuing an injunction against some aspects of its enforcement. The injunction was due to be appealed early in Gray Davis’s first term as governor (beginning in 1998), but Davis, who had originally backed the proposition, prevented the appeal from going forward. On what basis, then, does Mr. Wilson claim that Proposition 187 was “clearly unconstitutional,” given that it was tested only at the lowest tier of the federal courts?
Mr. Wilson fails to consider, too, that the influx of illegal immigrants—along with the economic distress he describes—is what brought Democrats and Republicans together to oust Davis in 2003. During his campaign Arnold Schwarzenegger pledged that one of his first steps as governor would be to rescind Davis’s decree to allow illegal immigrants to hold drivers’ licenses.
Vincent Chiarello
Reston, Virginia
_____________
James Q. Wilson writes:
Proposition 187 was clearly unconstitutional because the U.S. Supreme Court held in 1982 (Plyler v. Doe) that it was unconstitutional for Texas to withhold funds from local school districts that admitted children of illegal aliens. To do so was a violation of the equal-protection clause. Though education is not a “fundamental right,” the Court has ruled that denying the children of illegal aliens access to schools serves no rational, and hence legally defensible, position because how these children are treated can affect neither the conduct nor the legal status of their parents. That decision has never changed, and it is surprising to me that Mr. Chiarello thinks that a lower federal court, asked to interpret the same provision of Proposition 187, could have decided the matter any differently.
The Constitution confers rights on persons, not on citizens. First Amendment rights apply to aliens equally with citizens. In other areas, the Court has allowed government to make some reasonable distinctions among persons: for example, states can limit certain jobs, such as police officer or schoolteacher, to citizens and can bar aliens from serving on juries.
Mr. Chiarello is correct to say that the flood of illegal immigrants into this country, and especially into California, is a major problem. But to deal with those who are already here, it is not enough to pass laws denying them benefits, even if a way could be found to make the denial constitutional. More important, I suspect, is to direct the police to question the immigration status of persons already suspected of serious offenses and to ensure that they are deported. Heather Mac Donald has recently pointed out that the Los Angeles police are now denied that authority; if she is right, the policy should change. No doubt there are other measures that could be undertaken. But telling a six-year-old girl that she cannot enter the first grade is not one of them.
_____________
