San Francisco: The first trial of Proposition 187 has begun—on paper—with “economists, immigrants, immigration experts and educators dueling over the impact of barring undocumented immigrants from public schools. In proceedings before a San Francisco Superior Court judge, 42 witnesses, including the last four state school superintendents, have submitted their first round of written statements as a substitute for courtroom testimony. Each will now be questioned by opposing lawyers, and a few witnesses may appear in court this ‘fall. The case, which involves only Proposition 187’s ban on public education of undocumented immigrants, has been noteworthy so far for a striking difference in the approaches taken by immigrants’ rights ups and the slate. ~ State officials defending the initiative, ‘Ted by Governor Wilson, have devoted their entire case to the testimony of nine economists on the costs of illegal immigration to California and its schools. The 33’ witnesses presented by opponents of the measure are far more varjed—immigrant parents, local and state school officials, immigration scholars, a ‘police officer. They seek to put a human face on the issue while also offering their ‘own statistics, such us the costs of expelling more than 300,000 schoolchildren, The outcome of the trial is not in much “doubt, at Ieast at this level. Superior Court Judge Stuart Pollak ordered school officials not to enforce Proposition 187, after it passed in November, relying on a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that required Texas to maintain public education for all residents regardless of immigration status. He is unlikely to lift his order, despite the state’s argument that undocumented immigrants are a far greater burden on California’ schools than they were in Texas.
But Pollak’s factual conclusions, based on the testimony, could be crucial for Wilson’s hopes of ultimately persuading the high court to overturn its ruling and uphold the California ban. The J982 ruling found that Texas had not shown a severe financial burden or any other legitimate justification for denying education to undocumented immigrants.
Nearly all of Proposition 187 is being blocked while court is considering its legality. Bans on social services and nonemergency health care, and a requirement to report suspected undocumented immigrants to federal authorities, face a federal court hearing Wednesday in Los Angles that could strike them down without a trial, a ban on publicly financed college education for undocumented immigrants is awaiting trial in Pollak’s court.
Written testimony against the public school ban includes statements by state school Superintendent Delaine East in and her three immediate predecessors, Willjam Dawson, Bill Honig and Wilson Riles, all of whom argue that the mass expulsions would be bad for children and the state. A decision to limit the education of our children is a decision to limit the productivity of your own society,” said Eastin, a former teacher and Democratic assemblywoman who was elected superintendent in November.
She said barring undocumented immigrants from school would be likely to Cause a lack of shared values and greater hostility” and would cost the state more in the long run, in crime and social ills, than any short-term savings in school expenses.
Excluded children would lose “the academic, moral, social and health benefits of attending school,” said Sidney Thompson, superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, one of several local school officials testifying against 187. He said the investigations of student and parent immigration status required by the initiative would alienate parents and make it harder to recruit teachers.
“A rise in the number of young people no longer in school would tend to cause an increase in rime,” said Bayan Lewis, assistant chief of the Los Angeles Police Department.
Clare Brindis, director of the Center for Reproductive Health Policy Research at the University of California at San Francisco, warned of a health disaster if undocumented immigrant children are denied preschool immunizations and in school tuberculosis screening.
Defense witnesses focused more narrowly, on the costs to the state of educating undocumented immigrants, The figures varied somewhat $1.289 billion a year, in a September 1994 study by the Urban Institute, and $1.7 billion from the state Finance Department.
The department’s chief deputy director, Theresa Parker, observed that the state “provides services lo illegal immigrants at a cost to all legal residents,” Among ‘other things, she said, $1.7 billion would pay for 318,000 preschool students, buy 20 million tutoring hours and put a compiler on the desk of every fifth grader.
“It is reasonable to assume that Proposition 187 reduces the incentives of households with children to migrate illegally to the United States” and that it will encourage many undocumented immigrants to leave, said George Borjas, a UC San Diego economics professor who has written more than 60 works on immigration, He said the state should save substantial educational costs.
But anti187 witness Leo R. Chavez, an associate professor of anthropology at UC Irvine who has written widely on immigration, said his 1986 swdy of 592 undocumented immigrants found that only 14 percent reported they had come because of education.
Chavez offered another striking statistic from the same study: 79.4 percent of undocumented immigrants accompanied by children said at least one member of their immediate family was a U.S. citizen or Legal permanent resident.
That figure, which has undoubtedly increased because of the availability of amnesty in a 1986 immigration law, indicates that most undocumented immigrant students “probably will find a way to Legalize,” Chavez said.
Article extracted from this publication >> August 4, 1995
