Decade Later, Prop. 187 Has an Echo in Arizona

PHOENIX —  A decade after Proposition 187 roiled California’s political landscape, a move to block illegal immigrants from receiving some public services is alive in Arizona.

Proposition 200, in some ways, reprises the California campaign, but the legacy of Proposition 187 has guided how the ballot measure was drafted -- and how opponents fight it.

The Nov. 2 ballot initiative is favored by a majority of Arizonans in several polls, despite opposition from the state’s political heavyweights, including Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano and Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain.

Proposition 200 -- started by Arizonans describing themselves as “just plain old everyday citizens” -- would require proof of immigration status when applying for child care, housing assistance and other benefits.

It also would require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

State workers would be required to report to federal authorities any illegal immigrants trying to receive welfare services. Workers who did not could be jailed.

The campaign is taking place against the chaotic backdrop of Arizona’s border with Mexico, now the busiest illegal immigration corridor into the U.S.

Fueling the initiative’s popularity, some experts say, have been TV ads that portray Arizona as a state overrun by immigrants who swell welfare rolls and drive up crime rates.

Reminiscent in spirit to a Proposition 187 ad that declared, “They keep coming,” a frequently aired Proposition 200 ad containing images of border jumpers and crime scenes ends with: “Arizona is sick and tired of illegal immigration.”

Some supporters are transplanted Californians like Sandra Crehore, who said she relocated to Scottsdale after her daughter was attacked by a Latino gang in Westwood. “I moved from Los Angeles because of illegal immigration,” she said. “Now the problems are following us to Arizona.”

Opponents call such views shortsighted.

“The only ones this hurts are the Americans themselves,” said Hector Cabrera, who helps negotiate rates at a day-labor hiring hall. “We’re helping build Arizona with our cheap labor.”

Views like Cabrera’s draw little sympathy from some people here.

The initiative has grown from a volunteer effort with people walking door-to-door for signatures to a statewide campaign funded largely by the Washington, D.C.-based Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The initiative’s framers crafted a scaled-back version of Proposition 187, which was easily passed by California voters in 1994 but thrown out by the courts in part because it conflicted with federal laws.

The Arizona initiative attempts to block only some local and welfare benefits, not federally mandated programs such as emergency healthcare. It would not prohibit children from attending school.

Illegal immigrants are already banned from receiving services such as welfare and food stamps. But Arizona law varies on which programs require proof of citizenship or legal residency. The measure would make such proof mandatory across the board and, proponents say, cut down on fraud.

Opponents claim that under Proposition 200, residents would have to prove citizenship for things as mundane as hunting licenses and library visits.

And firefighters and paramedics oppose the measure because they believe they would have to ask for documents before treating some accident victims.

If passed, the proposition could still face legal challenges because it does not clearly define what public services would be affected, according to some legal experts and Think AZ, a Phoenix-based think tank.

Opponents, fearing the kind of backlash that some believe propelled Proposition 187 to victory, have been careful not to label Proposition 200’s supporters racists and have avoided displays of Mexican nationalism.

When Proposition 187 was on the ballot, opponents staged teach-ins and classroom boycotts. At many demonstrations, including a massive march from East Los Angeles to downtown Los Angeles, protesters waved Mexican flags, sparking complaints that the protests were un-American.

“One of the reasons why a lot of people in hindsight think that Proposition 187 passed was because of that type of activity,” said Hector Preciado, a spokesman for the Greenlining Institute, a San Francisco Bay Area-based public policy institute that has provided advice for the groups opposed to Proposition 200.

The opposition campaign in Arizona decided to try to curb such activities, he said.

Also keeping tensions in check, say some experts, is the fact that most of Arizona’s political leaders have joined Latinos and church groups in opposing the measure. Arizona’s Proposition 200 does not have a supporter as prominent as then-Gov. Pete Wilson, who endorsed Proposition 187.

“In Arizona, there is a feeling that the establishment is on the right side, and that they’re working hard to stop this,” said Tamar Jacoby of the Manhattan Institute, who writes about immigration.

Arizona’s immigration situation traces back to the federal crackdown on illegal immigration in California in the mid-1990s. After Operation Gatekeeper sealed much of the California-Mexico border with additional fencing, stadium lighting and a bolstered Border Patrol presence, the flow of illegal immigrants moved east to the deserts of Arizona.

Though Arizona is a pass-through state for most immigrants, some experts estimate that as many as 350,000 have stayed. Proponents say 500,000 of the state’s 5.1 million people are here illegally.

Many live in working-class areas of Tucson and Phoenix, in once predominantly white neighborhoods. Many schools in such areas are now predominantly Latino, and Spanish-language signs are commonplace.

At the Macehualli Work Center, a shaded, open-air hiring hall behind a row of strip malls here, Mexican men and women play dominoes and sing boleros while waiting to board the vehicles of contractors and soccer moms seeking $8-an-hour labor.

The drive-up facility, featuring a makeshift flowered shrine to the Virgin of Guadalupe, was built two years ago with city money and is now privately funded. If Proposition 200 passes, similar centers would probably not be built with taxpayer dollars.

The immigrants, mostly Mexican, say society benefits because they take jobs that Americans would not. Many are skilled carpenters and landscapers whose affordable labor rates, they say, helped fuel a housing boom in the Phoenix area.

Proposition 200, say some immigrants, has heightened an ugly mood.

Virgilia Garcia said that before she gave birth this month to her son Brando, a hospital worker scolded her for making taxpayers foot the $6,000 bill. “I felt judged,” said Garcia, who came to Arizona four years ago after a four-hour walk through the desert.

The mother of four said she worked for years at a garment factory, where income taxes were withheld from her wages. “I’ve paid taxes too,” she said.

Accurate figures on the costs of illegal immigration are hard to come by. Proponents say illegal immigrants cost Arizonans $1.3 billion annually, mostly in healthcare and welfare costs. But opponents dispute the numbers, saying they don’t account for the taxes paid by immigrants.

Polls show that Proposition 200 is ahead, though support appears to be slipping. A survey this month by Northern Arizona University showed that 42% of likely voters support the measure while 29% oppose it. Twenty-nine percent of likely voters are undecided, according to the poll.

Though Democrats might hope the measure could, as it did in California, motivate Latinos to go to the polls, it’s not clear that the measure will have a major impact in this presidential election year. Voter interest is already high, and polls in recent weeks show Arizona leaning toward President Bush. And even though most Latinos voted against Proposition 187 in California, exit polls showed that support for the measure crossed party lines and ethnicity.

One thing most people agree on is that the federal government’s immigration enforcement effort in Arizona -- which includes 2,400 Border Patrol agents -- has failed to control the 375-mile border with Mexico.

Opponents say backers are playing to residents’ legitimate concerns.

“We agree with that frustration ... we believe something needs to be done,” said Steve Roman, a spokesman for No on 200, an opposition group. “We also know that the only place it can be fixed is on a federal level.”

About 200 people at a recent debate at Arizona State University met the face of Arizona’s anger toward illegal immigrants. Kathy McKee, a middle-aged former Sunday school teacher, drew both applause and criticism during her fiery defense of the measure she drafted with her group, Protect Arizona NOW.

McKee, who said she moved here from the Midwest five years ago, told the mostly student audience that many illegal immigrants are not coming to Arizona to work.

“Some come for crime. Some come for welfare. Some come for a good, cheap education. We are trying to take away the incentives,” said McKee, who used the analogy of taking away cheese from a mouse.

McKee, whose advisory board includes a woman who critics say espouses a white separatist ideology, denied that the initiative is racially motivated.

Some people were not convinced. When one student accused McKee of racism, many students erupted in applause.

Others came to McKee’s defense. Many concede the measure won’t stop illegal immigration, but say its passage would pressure federal lawmakers to step up enforcement at the border.

“Come on. Wake up,” said Cindy Billings during her turn at the microphone. “We have to do something. ‘Illegal’ means it’s against the law, and we need to enforce it. It’s not racist.”

*

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

Propositions at a glance

A look at Arizona’s Proposition 200 and California’s Proposition 187, which was approved by voters in 1994 but thrown out by the courts.

Proposition 200

All Arizonans would have to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

All Arizonans applying for welfare benefits would have to present proof of citizenship or legal residency.

State and local government workers would have to alert federal immigration officials to suspected undocumented immigrants seeking public benefits. Workers who didn’t would be potentially subject to four-month jail terms and a $750 fine.

The proposition would not bar undocumented children from attending schools.

Proposition 187

Undocumented children would have been barred from all public schools and colleges.

Nonemergency public healthcare would have been denied to those who could not prove legal status, including prenatal and postnatal service.

State, city and county police agencies would have been obligated to question arrestees about their citizenship or immigration status and report suspected illegal immigrants to federal immigration authorities and the state attorney general.