Hubbry Logo
1994 California Proposition 1871994 California Proposition 187Main
Open search
1994 California Proposition 187
Community hub
1994 California Proposition 187
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
1994 California Proposition 187
1994 California Proposition 187
1994 California Proposition 187
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Proposition 187
November 8, 1994 (1994-11-08)
Illegal Aliens. Ineligibility for Public Services. Verification and Reporting. Initiative Statue.
Results
Choice
 Votes %
Yes 5,063,537 58.93%
No 3,529,432 41.07%
Valid votes 8,592,969 96.54%
Invalid or blank votes 307,663 3.46%
Total votes 8,900,632 100.00%
Registered voters/turnout 14,723,784 60.45%
Source: 1994 Statement of Vote

California Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State (SOS) initiative) was a 1994 ballot initiative to establish a state-run citizenship screening system and prohibit undocumented immigrants from using non-emergency health care, public education, and other services in the State of California. Voters enacted the proposed law at a referendum on November 8, 1994. The law was challenged in a legal suit the day after its passage, with almost all provisions found unconstitutional by a federal district court on November 11.[1] In July 1999, Governor Gray Davis halted state appeals of this ruling, effectively killing the law.[2]

The enactment of Proposition 187 reflected state residents' concerns about illegal immigration to the United States. Opponents cited the specter of "totalitarianism", finding the initiative unfairly targeted "children and would turn tens of thousands of adults into government informants",[3] while being motivated by bigotry against people of Hispanic or Asian origin; supporters maintained that their concerns were economic: that the state could not afford to provide social services for so many people who had entered the country undocumented or overstayed their visas.[4] The California Legislative Analyst's Office later said that the cost of verification would be greater than any fiscal benefits of the ballot measure.[5] As the state's demographics have shifted to include more immigrants, the reversal of Proposition 187 has been cited as a reason for the decline of the California Republican Party.[6]

Background and passage

[edit]

In 1994, California had an estimated 1.3 million undocumented immigrants. Some residents were increasingly concerned about the costs of providing services to undocumented families.[7]

The Republican assemblyman Dick Mountjoy of Monrovia introduced Proposition 187 to the state legislature as the "Save Our State" (SOS) initiative. It gained enough signatures to be placed on the ballot as a statutory initiative during the general election on November 8, 1994. Originally one of several immigration reform bills placed before the California legislature in the early 1990s, polls surveying community responses showed that Proposition 187 began with widespread support—a 37-point lead in July 1994, and 62–29% lead among likely voters by September 1994.[8] Proponents of the bill estimated that California spent $3 billion per year on services for undocumented immigrants, about half of which provided education to children of undocumented immigrants.[9]

Governor Pete Wilson, a Republican, was a prominent supporter of Proposition 187, which ultimately became a key issue during his 1994 re-election campaign against Democratic opponent Kathleen Brown. After facing record low approval ratings during his first term, Wilson trailed Brown in opinion polls by more than 20% early during the gubernatorial campaign. Commentators considered his aggressive support of the Proposition 187 as crucial to his re-election.[10] In the days leading up to the election, Wilson said that he would require all state and local government employees to report suspected undocumented immigrants to the Attorney's General Office if Proposition 187 passed. State Attorney General Dan Lungren, also running for re-election, agreed to enforce emergency regulations to implement the law immediately after the election.[11]

During the United States Senate election in California, 1994 campaign, the incumbent Senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican challenger Michael Huffington both adopted tough policies against undocumented immigration. The candidates each revealed that they had previously hired undocumented immigrants for housekeeping and childcare. Unlike Feinstein, Huffington had hired a housekeeper who was an undocumented immigrant after the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which made it illegal to knowingly hire undocumented immigrants. Feinstein was narrowly re-elected.[12]

President Bill Clinton urged Californians to reject Proposition 187 as an impediment to federal policy on immigration. After stating that "it is not wrong for you Californians to want to reduce illegal immigration," Clinton asked voters to allow the federal government to "keep working on what we're doing."[12] In November 1994, Clinton publicly criticized the ballot measure, stating that it "is not the answer" to the issues stemming from undocumented immigration.[13] In the days leading up to the ballot measure vote, Latino students organized large protests of Proposition 187 across the state, including a mass boycott of high schools. Their protests often included waving the Mexican flag, a controversial symbol that was described by opponents as counterproductive.[12]

On November 8, 1994, California voters approved the proposition by a wide margin: 59% to 41%.[14] According to the Los Angeles Times exit polls, 63% of non-Hispanic white voters and 23% of Latino voters voted for Proposition 187; African-American and Asian voters were closely divided between those voting for and against the law. Although non-Hispanic whites comprised 57% of California's population at the time, they represented 81% of voters in the 1994 general election. Latinos totaled 8% of voters, although they comprised 26% of the state's population.

Among those who voted on the initiative, 78% of Republicans and 62% of independents voted for it, while 64% of Democrats opposed it.[15]

Section 1 of Proposition 187 provides this introduction:

The People of California find and declare as follows:

That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal aliens in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.[16]

Key elements of Proposition 187

[edit]

Proposition 187 included the following key elements:[8]

  1. All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate the detainee's immigration status, and if they find evidence of illegality they must report it to the attorney general of California, and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They must also notify the detainee of his or her apparent status as an alien.
  2. Local governments are prohibited from preventing or limiting the fulfillment of this requirement.
  3. If government agents suspect anyone applying for benefits of being illegal immigrants, the agents must report their suspicions in writing to the appropriate enforcement authorities.
  4. People shall not receive any public social services until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
  5. People shall not receive any health care services from a publicly funded health care facility until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
  6. A public elementary or secondary school shall not admit or permit the attendance of any child until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
  7. By 1996, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolled within the district and the legal status of each parent or guardian of each child.
  8. A child who is in violation of the requirements above shall not continue to attend the school 90 days from the date of notice to the attorney general and INS.
  9. The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.
  10. The manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of false citizenship or residency documents is a state felony punishable by imprisonment or fine.

Opposition

[edit]
Protesters of Proposition 187 in Fresno, California in 1994

Activists on campuses, churches, and ethnic communities in California and across the country rallied to express opposition to Proposition 187. Critics argued that the measure was xenophobic and discriminated against ethnic minorities, especially those of Latino origin. Others were fearful that the costs of a state-run citizenship screening system and the potential loss of federal funds would off-set any savings of denying public benefits to unlawful residents.[17] The day after the law was approved, an alliance of Latino and civil rights groups, including Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and American Civil Liberties Union, filed lawsuits against the measure in state court.[18][19] Multiple local governments outside California, including the city of Denver, Colorado, threatened to boycott the state altogether. Latino organizations announced that they would not hold conventions in California and urged a boycott by their members and supporters of Disneyland, a major tourist attraction.[20]

In the weeks leading up to the election, opponents of Proposition 187 led a series of demonstrations. These events gathered several thousands of people. One of the largest protests of the proposition, as well as one of the largest protests in Los Angeles history, was held on October 16, 1994, when an estimated 70,000 people marched through the downtown area.[21] The line of demonstrators stretched at least a mile long.[21] 2 weeks later, 7,000 people participated in another rally against Proposition 187 that took the form of a concert in which dozens of musicians and speakers performed.[22] Young people, particularly Hispanic students, organized their own protests. Most often, these involved campus walkouts. Students as young as middle schoolers participated.[23] In one of the largest student-led demonstrations against Proposition 187, more than 10,000 young people walked out from more than 30 campuses in the Los Angeles Unified School District.[24] The protest was held without endorsement by any official groups; instead, students had been encouraged to stay in school and stage sit-ins as an alternative.[24]

Due to Proposition 187's statutes requiring children and their parents or legal guardians to prove their legal status, the California State Parent-Teacher Association joined in opposing the bill.[25] The Democratic gubernatorial candidate, Gray Davis, who succeeded Wilson, campaigned against Proposition 187. Proposition 187 was widely supported by conservatives. However, some prominent conservatives, including former Congressman and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Jack Kemp, former Secretary of Education William Bennett, and unsuccessful Republican gubernatorial candidate Ron Unz, publicly opposed the initiative.[26][27] The Mexican president, Carlos Salinas de Gortari, decried the law as xenophobic and harmful to the human rights of migrant laborers. One week after the bill was approved, Salinas proposed cross-border discussions to develop a "guest worker" program that would permit non-resident Mexicans to work legally in the United States.[28] Such a program had been in place during World War II.

Ethnic minority reactions

[edit]

Reactions against the proposition varied between and within different ethnic minority groups. Latino communities are cited as having been the most active; Hispanic students in particular were marked as they marched in the streets with Mexican flags. Some sources claim that this reaction might have caused indecisive voters to vote in favor of the proposition.[29] After the election, Harold Ezell, the former Immigration and Naturalization Service Director who helped author Proposition 187, maintained that the "biggest mistake the opposition made was waving those green and white flags with the snake on it. They should have been waving the American flag."[30] When Hispanic students were criticized for waving Mexican flags during demonstrations in Los Angeles, community leaders responded to the controversy by saying that it was "a symbolic clinging to self-pride".[31] But some movement leaders did attempt to address these criticisms. As the election drew near, organizers sold thousands of American flags at their demonstrations against Proposition 187.[32]

Asian communities in particular were divided, with an overall majority of 57% supporting the proposition.[29] As the bill became more visible, some Asian communities became increasingly active politically, with the Los Angeles Times reporting "massive organizing among California's communities of color, particularly the Latino and Asian communities".[33] In fact, the largest organized group in support of Proposition 187 in October 1994 was the Asian Americans for Border Control in Sylmar, which had only ten members. On the other hand, Chinese, Japanese, Cambodian, Thai and Korean alliances and coalitions banded to form the Asian Pacific Islanders Against Proposition 187 which consisted of hundreds of members.[34] Significantly, many consider the strong reactions by some Asian voters against Proposition 187 to be the first time such numbers of Asian Americans had come together, with around 60 organizations joining forces.[34]

[edit]

The constitutionality of Proposition 187 was challenged by several lawsuits. On November 11, 1994, three days after the bill's passage, Federal Judge W. Matthew Byrne issued a temporary restraining order against institution of the measure, which was filed by State Attorney General Dan Lungren.[35] After Judge Mariana Pfaelzer issued a permanent injunction of Proposition 187 in December 1994 [36], blocking all provisions except those dealing with higher education and false documents, multiple cases were consolidated and brought before the federal court. In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed on the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration.[37] Pfaelzer also explained that Proposition 187's effect on the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, the congressional overhaul of the American welfare system, proved that the bill was a "scheme" to regulate immigration:

"California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate immigration. It is likewise powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits."[38]

Governor Wilson appealed the ruling, which brought the case to the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But in 1999, the newly elected Democratic Governor Gray Davis had the case brought before mediation.[39] His administration withdrew the appeal before the courts in July 1999, effectively killing the law.[2]

The unenforceable sections of Proposition 187 remained on the books until 2014. In September of that year, California passed a bill, SB 396, that removed those sections from California's education, health and safety, and welfare codes, as a symbolic act after the overturn of Prop.187. Bill author Kevin de León said this "closes a dark chapter in our state's history, and brings dignity and respect to the national immigration debate."[40][41]

Legacy

[edit]

Noting a rapid increase in the number of Latinos voting in California elections, some analysts cite Wilson and the Republican Party's embrace of Proposition 187 as a cause of the subsequent failure of the party to win statewide elections.[42][43] A 2006 study published in the American Journal of Political Science found that Republican support of Proposition 187 and two later state ballot initiatives—Proposition 209 in 1996, which ended affirmative action at governmental institutions, and Proposition 227 in 1998, which limited bilingual education in public schools—shifted both white and Latino voters in California away from identifying with the Republican Party and toward the Democratic Party.[6] The authors of the study said that the "results raise serious questions about the long-term efficacy of racially divisive strategies for electoral gain."[6] Studies published in 2001 and 2011 also show that Proposition 187 mobilized Hispanic voters for the Democratic Party.[44][45] A 2016 article by pro-immigration researcher Alex Nowrasteh came to the same conclusion.[46] However, a 2018 study questioned the conventional wisdom that Proposition 187 led to an abrupt realignment in Latino voters' political preferences.[47]

Conservative group Eagle Forum instead argues that immigration, whether legal or not, made California's electorate more liberal.[48] Fred Bauer of National Review concurs, adding that Democrats have usually controlled both branches of the California state legislature since the 1960s and that the Democratic Party has had consistently strong support among both white and Hispanic voters in California.[49] Bill Whalen, a former aide to Wilson, in an article for Forbes, noted that Proposition 187 was popular among voters and that Republican struggles in California are partly due to women gradually moving away from the party for other reasons, particularly reproductive rights.[50] Whalen also cited Arnold Schwarzenegger's re-election as governor in 2006, in which he won 39% of the votes cast by Latinos, as evidence that Proposition 187 did not harm Republicans' chances of being elected in California.[50] Writing after Schwarzenegger's 2003 recall election victory, Debra J. Saunders of The Weekly Standard noted that he won the election despite voting for Proposition 187, which other publications had claimed would seriously jeopardize his bid.[51]

Between 1995 and 2004 the following states passed similar ballot initiatives or laws: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma and Texas.[52]

During Donald Trump's 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, his use of "anti-immigrant tactics" drew comparisons from media members to Wilson and California Proposition 187.[53] Seema Mehta of the Los Angeles Times wrote, "Many have had a visceral reaction to Trump's proposals that include deporting 11 million people and building an enormous border wall. Protests greet Trump whenever he holds rallies in California."[53]

Exit poll

[edit]
Demographic Subgroup Support Oppose % of
Total Vote
All Voters 59 41 100
Counties
Los Angeles 56 44 24
San Diego and Orange 67 33 23
Bay Area 45 55 17
Central Valley 66 34 15
Inland Empire 70 30 8
Central Coast 60 40 7
North Coast 68 32 6
Party ID
Republican 76 24 40
Democrat 40 60 40
Independent 61 39 20
Political Ideology
Conservative 76 24 37
Moderate 56 44 45
Liberal 32 68 18
Sex
Male 62 38 49
Female 56 44 51
Ethnicity
White 64 36 78
White (Men) 69 31 38
White (Women) 59 41 40
Latino 27 71 9
Black 52 48 7
Asian 52 48 6
Age
18-29 49 51 14
30-49 58 42 43
50-59 59 41 17
60+ 66 34 26
Income
Under $20,000 53 47 15
$20,000-$40,000 60 40 25
$40,000-$60,000 59 41 24
Over $60,000 58 42 36
Religion
Protestant 69 31 48
Catholic 49 51 27
Jewish 45 55 5
Other 53 47 8
No Preference 48 52 12
Residency
1st/2nd Gen Citizen 52 48 25
3rd Gen or more 60 40 75

Results

[edit]
County[54] Yes No Total
# % # %
Alameda 160,367 40.37% 236,910 59.63% 397,277
Alpine 449 65.17% 240 34.83% 689
Amador 9,194 71.14% 3,730 28.86% 12,924
Butte 47,518 69.79% 20,571 30.21% 68,089
Calaveras 11,166 71.18% 4,521 28.82% 15,687
Colusa 3,878 77.24% 1,143 22.76% 5,021
Contra Costa 154,462 51.90% 143,152 48.10% 297,614
Del Norte 5,136 68.87% 2,322 31.13% 7,458
El Dorado 38,445 70.63% 15,988 29.37% 54,433
Fresno 116,977 65.95% 60,395 34.05% 177,372
Glenn 6,044 76.76% 1,830 23.24% 7,874
Humboldt 25,291 53.20% 22,245 46.80% 47,536
Imperial 14,905 62.87% 8,802 37.13% 23,707
Inyo 5,427 74.82% 1,826 25.18% 7,253
Kern 109,710 72.78% 41,040 27.22% 150,750
Kings 15,528 68.97% 6,986 31.03% 22,514
Lake 13,152 67.15% 6,434 32.85% 19,586
Lassen 5,979 73.52% 2,154 26.48% 8,133
Los Angeles 1,145,622 56.04% 898,500 43.96% 2,044,122
Madera 20,151 75.06% 6,694 24.94% 26,845
Marin 43,284 41.27% 61,606 58.73% 104,890
Mariposa 5,251 73.10% 1,932 26.90% 7,183
Mendocino 16,054 53.82% 13,774 46.18% 29,828
Merced 27,531 70.20% 11,685 29.80% 39,216
Modoc 2,788 72.08% 1,080 27.92% 3,868
Mono 2,396 67.86% 1,135 32.14% 3,531
Monterey 55,205 60.27% 36,386 39.73% 91,591
Napa 24,031 56.67% 18,373 43.33% 42,404
Nevada 26,462 69.67% 11,519 30.33% 37,981
Orange 510,651 67.10% 250,416 32.90% 761,067
Placer 52,330 69.12% 23,380 30.88% 75,710
Plumas 6,189 73.04% 2,285 26.96% 8,474
Riverside 243,880 70.88% 100,210 29.12% 344,090
Sacramento 207,010 59.35% 141,774 40.65% 348,784
San Benito 6,933 59.02% 4,813 40.98% 11,746
San Bernardino 237,880 68.80% 107,862 31.20% 345,742
San Diego 508,803 67.37% 246,457 32.63% 755,260
San Francisco 69,313 29.27% 167,473 70.73% 236,786
San Joaquin 81,525 64.55% 44,782 35.45% 126,307
San Luis Obispo 54,500 62.89% 32,155 37.11% 86,655
San Mateo 101,786 47.36% 113,134 52.64% 214,920
Santa Barbara 76,628 58.04% 55,388 41.96% 132,016
Santa Clara 212,054 47.99% 229,795 52.01% 441,849
Santa Cruz 43,261 47.22% 48,351 52.78% 91,612
Shasta 40,316 74.94% 13,482 25.06% 53,798
Sierra 1,160 70.65% 482 29.35% 1,642
Siskiyou 13,159 72.29% 5,043 27.71% 18,202
Solano 56,075 57.42% 41,575 42.58% 97,650
Sonoma 79,063 49.40% 80,988 50.60% 160,051
Stanislaus 67,292 67.51% 32,388 32.49% 99,680
Sutter 16,623 75.09% 5,515 24.91% 22,138
Tehama 13,914 75.13% 4,605 24.87% 18,519
Trinity 3,740 69.05% 1,676 30.95% 5,416
Tulare 55,579 71.26% 22,418 28.74% 77,997
Tuolumne 13,624 69.71% 5,921 30.29% 19,545
Ventura 143,111 65.52% 75,321 34.48% 218,432
Yolo 24,398 49.33% 25,057 50.67% 49,455
Yuba 10,337 73.57% 3,713 26.43% 14,050
Totals 5,063,537 58.93% 3,529,432 41.07% 8,592,969

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

1994 California Proposition 187

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Proposition 187, known as the "Save Our State" initiative, was a voter-approved ballot measure enacted on November 8, 1994, that sought to restrict undocumented immigrants' access to public , non-emergency , and K-12 public while mandating immigration status verification by schools, hospitals, and welfare agencies, with reporting requirements to state and federal authorities. The proposition declared that imposed significant economic hardships on taxpayers, estimating billions in annual costs for services provided to undocumented individuals and their children. It also proposed amending the Penal Code to classify the manufacture, distribution, or possession of false documents as felonies. Approved by 59% of voters during a period of state budget deficits and rising concerns over illegal immigration's fiscal burden, Proposition 187 represented a direct attempt to enforce federal at the state level and reduce incentives for unlawful entry. Proponents, including , argued it would save taxpayer funds strained by an estimated 1.5 million undocumented residents utilizing services without contribution, amid California's . However, the measure sparked intense controversy, with opponents decrying it as discriminatory and predicting social division, leading to widespread protests and legal challenges immediately after passage. Federal courts ultimately blocked most provisions, ruling them preempted by federal immigration authority and violative of constitutional equal protection guarantees, with key sections enjoined by U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer in 1995 and 1998. In 1999, incoming Governor chose not to appeal further, effectively nullifying the initiative despite its popular mandate and influencing subsequent national debates on and state-federal dynamics. Certain reporting mechanisms for persisted in limited form, but the proposition's core aims remained unimplemented, highlighting tensions between voter-driven policy and judicial oversight.

Historical and Economic Context

California's Immigration Inflows and Fiscal Pressures in the Early 1990s

In the , California saw substantial inflows of undocumented immigrants, comprising between 22% and 31% of the state's new residents during that decade, with average annual population increases of approximately 100,000 undocumented individuals. This surge was amplified by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which granted amnesty to around 2.7 million undocumented immigrants nationwide, many in , facilitating subsequent and continued border crossings from amid economic disparities. Inflows peaked in the late , driven by labor demand in , , and services, before beginning a decline in the early as the state's reduced job opportunities, with net undocumented arrivals dropping sharply by 1993. Despite the slowdown, the cumulative undocumented population in remained substantial, estimated at over 1.5 million by the mid-, representing a significant share of the state's overall , which was increasingly reliant on international migration to offset domestic out-migration. These demographic shifts coincided with acute fiscal strains in during the , which lasted from 1990 to 1994 and resulted in the loss of over 800,000 jobs by early , particularly in defense and sectors following the War's end. State revenues plummeted as and sales taxes declined amid high rates exceeding 9%, while expenditures rose due to increased demand for public services. The 1992-1993 fiscal year closed with a multibillion-dollar deficit, forcing deferred payments to schools and cuts in higher education funding by hundreds of millions, with projections for 1993-1994 indicating further shortfalls exceeding $2 billion absent major reforms. The influx of immigrants, including a large undocumented segment ineligible for federal benefits yet accessing state-funded , healthcare, and welfare programs for U.S.-born children, intensified these pressures by expanding the beneficiary base during a period of revenue contraction. California's K-12 enrollment surged by over 400,000 students between and , with a disproportionate share tied to immigrant families, straining budgets already facing structural imbalances from Proposition 13's 1978 limits and volatile economic cycles. This combination of sustained immigration-driven service demands and recessionary fiscal contraction fueled perceptions of unsustainable costs, setting the stage for policy responses aimed at restricting benefits to non-citizens.

Empirical Costs of Public Services to Undocumented Immigrants

A 1994 study by Senate Republicans estimated the net fiscal impact of undocumented immigrants on state services at $2.7 billion for fiscal year 1994-95, after subtracting taxes paid, with major costs attributed to , , and incarceration. This figure focused on state-level expenditures and drew from Immigration and Naturalization Service population estimates of approximately 1.6 million undocumented immigrants in as of April 1994. A contemporaneous by Pete Wilson's administration pegged the annual cost at around $2.3 billion for services including K-12 , , and corrections. Education represented the largest category, with state estimates indicating $2.35 billion spent in September 1994 on elementary and secondary schooling for undocumented immigrant children, alongside and adult incarceration. Per-pupil costs for undocumented immigrant students averaged $5,481 in the 1993-1994 school year, exceeding typical district averages due to higher needs in language support and remedial programs. These expenditures stemmed from federal mandates requiring free public regardless of immigration status, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe (1982), contributing to California's per capita K-12 spending burden amid a statewide budget deficit exceeding $2 billion in 1993. Health care costs for undocumented immigrants added significant strain, particularly through services and uncompensated care in public hospitals. A 1993 Los Angeles County study, using fiscal 1990-91 data, found undocumented immigrants accounted for $159.5 million—or nearly one-third—of the county's budget, primarily in indigent care programs. Statewide, outlays for undocumented immigrants and their eligible U.S.-born children were estimated at hundreds of millions annually by 1994, though federal restrictions limited direct eligibility, leading to indirect costs via provisions. Welfare and social services usage was more limited due to federal ineligibility rules under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, but costs arose from administration, food assistance programs open to mixed-status families, and public assistance for U.S.-born children. A 1993 estimate placed net welfare-related burdens at part of the broader $5 billion total fiscal cost across all government levels, though specific breakdowns highlighted lower direct access compared to and . Incarceration added further expenses, with undocumented felons comprising a disproportionate share of state populations; California's 1994 budget sought $422 million in federal reimbursement for supervising undocumented offenders.
CategoryEstimated Annual Cost (1993-1994)Source Notes
Education$2.35 billion (statewide K-12, , incarceration combined; education dominant)California state estimate, September 1994
Health Care$159.5 million (LA County alone)County study, fiscal 1990-91 data
Net Fiscal Impact$2.7 billion (state level, after taxes)Senate Republicans' Romero et al. study, FY 1994-95
Estimates varied widely due to methodological differences, such as inclusion of U.S.-born children's costs or indirect service usage, with the U.S. Government Accountability Office noting in 1995 that national net cost figures for undocumented immigrants ranged from minimal to billions, reflecting challenges in population enumeration and revenue attribution. Taxes paid by undocumented immigrants were estimated at $732 million in 1994, covering about 1.7% of California's total collections but insufficient to offset the 4.6% population share's service demands. These fiscal pressures, amid a and limitations from Proposition 13 (1978), underscored arguments for Proposition 187's service restrictions to alleviate state burdens.

Development and Provisions of the Proposition

Origins, Sponsorship, and Drafting Process

Proposition 187 originated in the early amid California's severe budget deficits, exacerbated by the 1990-1991 and estimates of significant public expenditures on services for undocumented immigrants, which state officials pegged at over $2 billion annually by 1994. The initiative was conceived by , a retired from Huntington Beach, Orange County, who became alarmed by reports of fiscal burdens from and sought to restrict access to non-emergency public benefits for non-citizens lacking legal status. , lacking prior political experience, approached husband-and-wife political consultants Barbara and David Kiley in to help develop the measure, forming the core of what became the "Save Our State" (SOS) committee. The drafting process involved collaborative efforts by the SOS committee, a group of political novices including Prince and the Kileys, who refined the initiative's language to mandate verification of immigration status by public agencies and denial of services like welfare, , and to undocumented individuals. The committee submitted the proposed initiative to the California Attorney General's office in late 1993 for title and summary preparation, a standard step for ballot measures under state law requiring at least 5,000 valid signatures for circulation. Drafting emphasized mechanisms for reporting suspected undocumented persons to federal authorities, drawing on existing federal laws while aiming to compel state cooperation without direct enforcement powers. Sponsorship was primarily grassroots through the SOS committee, which raised initial funds and gathered approximately 514,000 valid signatures by the deadline, qualifying the measure for the November 8, 1994, ballot on June 23, 1994. While the committee handled qualification, Governor , facing reelection amid similar fiscal concerns, provided high-profile endorsement starting in September 1994 at the state Republican convention, amplifying its visibility but not initiating its creation. The Republican Party of California also backed the effort, contributing to campaign financing that exceeded $3 million by election day.

Core Elements and Intended Mechanisms

Proposition 187 declared undocumented immigrants ineligible for public , with exceptions limited to emergency medical care necessary to protect life or prevent significant health risks. It also barred access to non-emergency care services and public at elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels funded by the state. These restrictions applied to state-funded programs, aiming to curtail expenditures estimated by proponents at approximately $200 million annually in savings after initial implementation costs. Public entities were required to verify an individual's immigration status before providing any covered services, using systems or methods designated by the state. For public schools, verification of each child's and parent's status was mandated by January 1, 1996, with denial of enrollment for undocumented children thereafter; postsecondary institutions faced similar checks at the start of each term beginning January 1, 1995. Health care facilities and social service agencies had to confirm status prior to non-emergency aid, while personnel were obligated to verify the status of arrested individuals reasonably suspected of being undocumented. A key enforcement mechanism involved mandatory reporting: public employees and agencies discovering or suspecting undocumented status during verification were required to report details to the California Attorney General within 45 days, who would maintain centralized records and transmit them to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). The proposition further criminalized the manufacture or use of false or documents, imposing penalties of up to five years and $75,000 fines for production, or $25,000 fines for possession or use. These provisions were designed to deter by eliminating state-provided benefits as pull factors, compelling undocumented individuals to either regularize their status, depart voluntarily, or face exclusion from . By integrating state agencies into verification and reporting, the measure sought to supplement federal enforcement efforts, fostering cooperation between local entities and INS to identify and remove violators, thereby reducing undocumented population pressures on California's public resources. Proponents projected that such mechanisms would not only achieve fiscal relief but also signal stricter state-level adherence to federal laws, potentially curbing inflows through demonstrated resolve.

Campaign Dynamics and Public Debate

Arguments from Supporters Emphasizing and Fiscal Responsibility

Supporters of Proposition 187 argued that undocumented immigration imposed a severe fiscal strain on California's state and local budgets, with official estimates placing the annual cost of public services at $2.35 billion for the 1994-95 , including $1.53 billion for K-12 , $395 million for , and $424 million for adult incarceration. These figures, derived from state agency data amid debates over methodological variances and limited demographic tracking, highlighted net burdens after accounting for tax revenues estimated between $500 million and $1.4 billion, as undocumented immigrants contributed minimally to sales and property taxes but consumed disproportionate resources in mandatory programs like under federal precedents such as (1982). Proponents, including Governor , maintained that denying non-emergency public benefits—such as non-emergency , welfare, and public education—would yield substantial savings, with campaign claims projecting over $1.4 billion in annual statewide reductions by eliminating incentives for illegal residency and reducing service delivery to an estimated 1.7 million undocumented individuals. This approach, they asserted, addressed California's early-1990s recessionary pressures, where budget deficits exceeded $2 billion and spending on services for undocumented residents outpaced that for citizens, prioritizing fiscal accountability over subsidizing federal enforcement failures. On grounds, advocates emphasized that Proposition 187 would compel state compliance with federal statutes by requiring public employees to verify eligibility for services via the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and report suspected violations, thereby ending California's de facto facilitation of illegal presence. They contended this mechanism deterred further unlawful entries—citing border apprehensions rising to over 1.2 million annually by 1994—and restored sovereignty by shifting the burden back to federal authorities negligent in , framing non-enforcement as an abdication that eroded legal order and public trust in government. Wilson and allies portrayed the initiative as a necessary state-level corrective to uphold constitutional frameworks, arguing that providing benefits without status checks incentivized law-breaking and undermined the principle that residency must follow legal channels. Opponents of Proposition 187 argued that denying public education to children of undocumented immigrants would perpetuate cycles of poverty and illiteracy, contravening the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Plyler v. Doe (1982), which held that states cannot exclude such children from schools due to their parents' immigration status. They contended this provision would harm innocent minors, foster dropout rates, and increase future societal costs from uneducated youth susceptible to crime and welfare dependency, as articulated by advocacy groups like the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF). Similarly, barring non-emergency healthcare was criticized for endangering public health by deterring immigrant families from seeking preventive care, potentially spreading untreated diseases and straining emergency systems, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Humanitarian concerns extended to community-wide fear and family disruption, with opponents claiming the mandatory reporting of suspected undocumented status by service providers would drive families underground, discouraging crime reporting and cooperation with , thus undermining public safety efforts. MALDEF emphasized that such measures scapegoated immigrants for broader economic woes, exacerbating ethnic tensions and violating principles of human dignity by treating vulnerable populations as fiscal burdens rather than community members contributing through labor and taxes. Legally, opponents asserted that Proposition 187 usurped federal authority over immigration under the , as states lack power to enforce interior immigration controls independently, a position later validated in federal court rulings striking down the initiative. The verification and reporting mandates were challenged for violating equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by imposing discriminatory burdens without rational basis, particularly through vague criteria for identifying undocumented individuals that invited of Latinos. Additionally, conflicts with federal statutes like the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) were highlighted, as school reporting requirements would breach student privacy protections, risking loss of federal education funding. Critics, including legal scholars, warned of jeopardizing billions in federal aid for programs serving legal residents, such as , due to entangled eligibility verifications. Supporters of Proposition 187, led by Governor , mobilized voters through aggressive advertising campaigns emphasizing fiscal burdens and border security, including a widely aired television ad depicting migrants crossing the U.S.- border with the narration "They keep coming," which tied the measure to Wilson's reelection bid. Grassroots efforts by organizations like the California Coalition for Immigration Reform focused on door-to-door canvassing and town halls in areas affected by economic strain, framing the initiative as essential for restoring and reducing taxpayer costs estimated at $2-3 billion annually for services to undocumented immigrants. Opponents, including immigrant rights groups, labor unions, and the , countered with large-scale protests and student walkouts; on October 12, 1994, over 10,000 high school students in walked out, followed by a march of 70,000 in the city on October 17, galvanizing Latino communities and increasing drives among naturalized citizens. These efforts contributed to heightened turnout among Latino voters, who opposed the measure at a 3:1 per exit polls, though overall voter participation reached 60.5% statewide. Media coverage was extensive and polarized, with mainstream outlets like the Los Angeles Times reporting on the initiative's economic arguments alongside humanitarian critiques, though Spanish-language media, bolstered by a $100,000 contribution from Univision, ran ads portraying the measure as discriminatory and funded opposition campaigns. National networks amplified the debate, often highlighting protests and Wilson's ads, which drew accusations of fear-mongering from opponents but resonated with voters citing empirical data on service costs; coverage reflected institutional tendencies toward framing immigration restrictions as nativist, potentially underemphasizing fiscal evidence from state audits showing undocumented immigrants' net drain on public resources. Conservative talk radio and outlets like the Orange County Register provided counter-narratives supporting enforcement, contributing to the measure's visibility in suburban and rural areas where support was strongest. Polling trends showed consistent majority support, with a Los Angeles Times survey on October 15, 1994, indicating a 2-to-1 lead for yes votes amid rising public concern over as a top state issue. Earlier surveys, such as those from the Field Institute in mid-1994, pegged approval around 60%, holding steady despite opposition mobilization, as voters prioritized causal links between unchecked inflows and fiscal pressures over legal or ethical objections raised in debates. Exit polling confirmed racial divides, with white voters favoring passage 2:1 and Latinos opposing 3:1, yet the measure secured 59% approval on November 8, 1994, reflecting broader empirical sentiment on immigration's costs rather than shifting trends from media or protests.

Election Results and Immediate Reactions

Ballot Outcome and Demographic Voting Patterns

Proposition 187 passed on , 1994, with 59 percent of voters approving the measure and 41 percent opposing it. The initiative received approximately 5.02 million yes votes out of over 8.5 million total ballots cast, reflecting a of about 60 percent in the . Support for the proposition varied significantly across demographic groups, as captured by exit polls conducted by Voter News Service and reported contemporaneously. White voters backed the measure at a rate of 63 percent, providing the largest bloc of yes votes given their share of the electorate. Black voters also supported it, with 57 percent in favor, aligning with perspectives on economic competition and public in urban areas. Asian American voters showed divided opinions, with roughly 50 percent approval. In contrast, Latino voters opposed the proposition overwhelmingly, with only 23 percent voting yes and 77 percent no, amid concerns over family separations and community impacts. These patterns underscored divisions along ethnic lines, with non-Hispanic white and black voters driving passage despite strong Latino opposition, which constituted a growing but still minority share of the electorate at the time. Post-election analyses attributed the overall majority to high mobilization among Republican-leaning voters focused on fiscal and enforcement issues, though the measure's passage intensified ethnic in subsequent cycles.

Post-Election Public and Political Responses

Governor , a key proponent of Proposition 187, celebrated its passage on November 8, 1994, as a mandate for addressing illegal immigration's fiscal burdens, tying it to his own re-election victory with 55.5% of the vote. Supporters, including Republican leaders, viewed the 58.9% approval as public endorsement of state-level enforcement absent federal action, with initial polling post-election showing sustained majority backing among non-Latino voters. Opponents, including civil rights organizations like the ACLU and MALDEF, immediately condemned the measure as discriminatory and filed lawsuits on November 10, 1994, seeking injunctions against its provisions. Latino advocacy groups and Democratic figures, such as state party chair Art Torres, decried it as an attack on immigrant communities, predicting it would galvanize Latino political mobilization against Republicans. Public responses included widespread protests, with thousands marching in Los Angeles and other cities shortly after the results, organized by immigrant rights activists decrying the proposition's denial of services to undocumented individuals. These demonstrations, often featuring calls for federal , highlighted deep divisions, though empirical data indicated the measure's popularity stemmed from documented costs exceeding $2 billion annually in public services for undocumented immigrants.

Initiation of Lawsuits and Preliminary Injunctions

On November 9, 1994, one day after voters approved Proposition 187, the of , along with co-plaintiffs including the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and individual undocumented immigrants, filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California challenging the measure's constitutionality. The suit, titled Gregorio T. v. Wilson and consolidated with LULAC v. Wilson, argued primarily that Proposition 187 was preempted by federal immigration law under the , violated the of the Fourteenth Amendment, and interfered with federal authority over and alienage. Additional lawsuits followed swiftly, including actions by California teachers' unions and local governments such as and , which contested the proposition's mandates for public employees to report suspected undocumented immigrants, claiming they conflicted with existing state and federal obligations. These filings sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent enforcement, emphasizing that the measure's reporting requirements would create a state immigration enforcement system duplicating and undermining federal processes under the Immigration and Nationality Act. On November 11, 1994, U.S. District Judge Matthew Byrne Jr. issued a temporary (TRO) blocking immediate implementation of most provisions, including denial of public and non-emergency services to undocumented immigrants, pending a full hearing.) This TRO effectively halted the proposition's effective date, originally scheduled for November 21, 1994, when Governor planned to sign it into law despite the legal challenges. The case was reassigned to Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer, who on December 14, 1994, extended the restraints through a preliminary against key sections, finding a likelihood of success on preemption grounds and potential irreparable harm to plaintiffs from disrupted access to . This prohibited enforcement of reporting mandates and service denials, preserving the status quo while litigation proceeded, with the court noting the proposition's vagueness in defining "illegal alien" status verification could lead to erroneous denials affecting U.S. citizens and legal residents.

Key Judicial Rulings and Preemption by Federal Law

On November 15, 1995, U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer issued a preliminary injunction in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson (908 F. Supp. 755, C.D. Cal. 1995), blocking enforcement of most of Proposition 187's provisions, including requirements for public entities to verify immigration status and report suspected undocumented immigrants to state and federal authorities. The court held that these sections (1 and 4 through 9) were preempted by federal law under the Supremacy Clause, as they constituted a state regulatory scheme over immigration—a field occupied exclusively by the federal government—extending beyond permissible state regulation of employment as established in De Canas v. Bica (424 U.S. 351, 1976). Pfaelzer reasoned that the proposition's mandatory reporting and status verification mechanisms created a parallel immigration enforcement system that conflicted with federal statutes governing alien entry, apprehension, and removal, such as the Immigration and Nationality Act. Section 7, which sought to deny public elementary and secondary education to undocumented children, was separately enjoined on equal protection grounds, consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's prior holding in Plyler v. Doe (457 U.S. 202, 1982) that states cannot withhold K-12 education based on immigration status. The ruling preserved only limited provisions unrelated to core enforcement, such as data collection on immigration status for state reports, but these too faced ongoing scrutiny. Pfaelzer's decision emphasized that while states retain authority over non-federal benefits, Proposition 187's design to "prevent illegal aliens from remaining in the state" intruded on federal control over who enters and remains in the country, rendering it field-preemptive. The state appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but proceedings stalled amid further district court findings. In 1997, Pfaelzer issued additional rulings incorporating post-1994 federal laws like the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, reinforcing preemption for welfare and health restrictions tied to . On July 29, 1999, newly elected Governor announced he would not pursue the appeal, entering a settlement with plaintiffs that permanently enjoined all remaining provisions, effectively nullifying the initiative without full appellate review. This outcome hinged on the state's concession that barred implementation, prioritizing avoidance of prolonged litigation costs over defending the measure's .

Implementation Efforts and Measurable Effects

Attempts at Partial Enforcement Before Full Invalidation

On November 9, 1994, the day after its passage by voters, Governor issued an directing state health care providers to immediately discontinue non- prenatal services and new admissions to long-term programs for undocumented immigrants, projecting annual savings of $84 million and $6 million, respectively. The order also instructed state agencies to prepare regulations to implement Proposition 187's citizenship verification requirements without discrimination, while preserving public health measures for communicable diseases. This initial push encountered swift resistance, as multiple lawsuits were filed on the same day challenging the proposition's constitutionality, leading to a San Francisco Superior Court judge issuing a temporary that afternoon barring the exclusion of children from public schools. Local authorities varied in compliance; for instance, Orange County school administrators pledged not to report suspected undocumented students to officials, and the voted 10-3 to postpone enforcement pending legal resolution. Federal District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer issued a preliminary injunction in December 1994, halting enforcement of most provisions, including the and restrictions, on grounds of and equal protection concerns, though the state appealed and some administrative preparations continued amid ongoing litigation. Proposition 187's effective date of November 9 allowed only a narrow window—mere days—for these partial measures before judicial intervention effectively suspended broader implementation.

Empirical Assessments of Impacts on Immigration Flows, Economy, and Communities

Proposition 187, passed on , 1994, aimed to deter undocumented by denying access to public services, but its core provisions were enjoined by federal court on November 11, 1994, limiting to minimal periods before full invalidation in 1998. Empirical assessments of its effects on flows remain constrained by the brevity of and confounding factors such as national conditions and federal shifts, with undocumented estimates in rising from approximately 1.5 million in 1990 to 2.2 million by 2000 despite the proposition's passage. Border Patrol apprehension data from the Southwest sector, which includes , showed no immediate decline post-passage, with nationwide apprehensions increasing from 1.2 million in fiscal year 1993 to 1.3 million in 1996 amid broader expansions like Operation Gatekeeper. Some analyses attribute a partial deterrent effect to the proposition's rhetoric and initial verification efforts, potentially influencing location choices among prospective Mexican migrants, though causal evidence is indirect and tied more to sentiment than policy enforcement. California's overall immigrant population growth decelerated from 80% in the to 37% in the , coinciding with 187, but this slowdown aligns with national trends in undocumented inflows slowing from 350,000 annually in the due to factors beyond state-level measures, including U.S. economic and heightened federal controls. No peer-reviewed studies conclusively quantify a net reduction in undocumented inflows attributable to the proposition, as population estimates reflect continued growth amid legal uncertainties. Economically, the California Legislative Analyst's Office projected annual state and local savings of about $200 million from reduced service provision to undocumented immigrants, primarily in and , but these were not realized due to the halting verification requirements. Partial early enforcement in some localities led to temporary drops in non-emergency service utilization, potentially averting short-term fiscal outlays estimated at tens of millions, though broader economic analyses suggest minimal net gains given undocumented immigrants' contributions to and labor markets without full access to benefits. Long-term assessments indicate no measurable boost to California's competitiveness or reduction in budget deficits directly linked to the , as undocumented workforce participation sustained sectors like amid the 1990s recession. In communities, the proposition's announcement and brief implementation phases produced a on service-seeking, with 51% of clinic directors reporting perceived declines in visits by undocumented patients persisting for weeks to months post-election, even influencing behavior in neighboring states like . This deterrence extended to schools, where initial verification attempts heightened fears among families, though federal precedents like (1982) preserved K-12 access and no statewide enrollment data show sustained drops attributable to the measure. outcomes faced risks from deferred care, as evidenced by surveys indicating 39% of undocumented immigrants avoided services due to status-related fears amplified by the proposition, potentially exacerbating vulnerabilities in high-immigrant areas. Community tensions rose temporarily, with reports of increased isolation among Latino populations, but these effects waned without sustained enforcement. Overall, empirical data highlight behavioral adaptations to perceived risks rather than structural shifts, underscoring the measure's limited causal reach amid legal barriers.

Long-Term Legacy and Reassessments

Shifts in California Political Alignment and Latino Voter Behavior

The passage of Proposition 187 on November 8, 1994, with 59% voter approval under the endorsement of Republican Governor , triggered a profound backlash among California's Latino population, fostering widespread perceptions of Republican hostility toward immigrants. This sentiment spurred intensive mobilization efforts by advocacy groups, such as drives and campaigns, which dramatically accelerated acquisition; applications in surged 554% from 1993 to 1996, far outpacing the national increase of 269%. Latino voter registration and turnout subsequently escalated, elevating their share of the electorate from 9% in 1990 to 14% by 2000 and awakening what observers termed the "sleeping giant" of Latino political participation. Partisan preferences shifted decisively, with identification as Democrats rising 11 percentage points by 1998 and support for Republican candidates collapsing from 47% in 1990 to 17% in 1998, as measured by contemporaneous Field Polls. By 1996, over 70% of Latinos identified with the Democratic Party, a trend that persisted and amplified their electoral influence. These dynamics accelerated California's partisan realignment, eroding Republican dominance—evident in prior gubernatorial and presidential wins—and enabling Democratic supermajorities in the by the early , alongside consistent victories in statewide offices after Arnold Schwarzenegger's 2006 reelection. The Latino electorate's growth and Democratic tilt directly contributed to this transformation, with GOP congressional seats in declining from 50% of the total in to 28% by 2013. Increased Latino representation in followed, as the number of Latino state legislators rose from 11 in to 33 by 2019. While broader demographic expansion played a role, empirical analyses attribute a 7.1% shift among Hispanics toward Democrats specifically to Proposition 187's polarizing effects. The passage of Proposition 187 on November 8, 1994, with 59 percent voter approval, underscored fiscal and public safety concerns over undocumented , pressuring federal policymakers amid perceptions of inadequate national enforcement. This state-level initiative highlighted the limitations of federal exclusivity in matters, as California's estimated annual costs for services to undocumented immigrants—projected at $2-3 billion by proponents—amplified calls for benefit restrictions and verification systems nationwide. Its emphasis on denying non-emergency public services and mandating status reporting by state agencies prefigured federal responses, including the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which barred most non-citizens from welfare benefits, directly addressing Proposition 187's core rationale of reducing incentives for illegal entry. Proposition 187's framework for local enforcement cooperation influenced the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of September 30, 1996, which expanded deportable offenses to include minor crimes, introduced expedited removal at borders without hearings, and funded tripled Border Patrol staffing and fencing expansions, such as in . IIRIRA's Section 287(g) delegated federal authority to qualified local officers, mirroring Section 4 of Proposition 187, which required to verify and report status—provisions that spurred over 100 subsequent state and local measures by encouraging over non-cooperation. These reforms reflected a causal response to Proposition 187's demonstration of voter demand, as federal inaction had shifted burdens to states, leading to allocate $300 million more for enforcement in IIRIRA alone. Post-IIRIRA enforcement trends evidenced heightened activity: formal removals climbed from 69,000 in 1996 to 189,000 by 2001, driven by mandatory detention expansions for over 100,000 annual detainees and operations like , which concentrated resources on high-traffic corridors. Border apprehensions, while fluctuating, averaged over 1.6 million annually through the late , correlating with IIRIRA's deterrence mechanisms amid sustained illegal crossings estimated at 300,000-500,000 net yearly. However, critics from groups argued these measures disproportionately affected long-term residents without reducing inflows durably, though empirical analyses link them to shifted migration patterns toward less-patrolled areas rather than overall declines. Proposition 187's legacy thus embedded state-initiated pressures into federal policy, fostering a paradigm prioritizing deterrence and local involvement that persisted into subsequent administrations.

Contemporary Evaluations of the Proposition's Rationale and Outcomes

Supporters of Proposition 187's rationale have pointed to empirical estimates of the fiscal burdens imposed by undocumented immigrants on taxpayers in the early , including state costs for K-12 exceeding $1.4 billion annually for children of undocumented parents, expenditures of approximately $631 million (with significant state shares), and incarceration costs around $125 million, as documented in federal audits that highlighted net drains after accounting for limited tax contributions. These figures underpinned the proposition's aim to deny non-emergency public services, , and benefits to undocumented individuals, thereby discouraging residency and reducing state expenditures estimated in the billions. Contemporary reassessments, informed by updated analyses of similar dynamics, affirm that first-generation undocumented households impose net fiscal costs due to higher service usage relative to taxes paid, with organizations like the calculating ongoing annual burdens in approaching $25 billion when including , healthcare, and . Such evaluations contrast with academic narratives often minimizing these impacts, attributing discrepancies to methodological choices that overlook long-term costs or undercount undocumented populations. The proposition's outcomes remain debated due to federal court injunctions issued shortly after its November 8, 1994, approval, which preempted full enforcement and limited measurable effects to signaling and partial compliance efforts. Preliminary data indicated short-term deterrence, with reporting a net enrollment decline of over 30,000 students—predominantly —in the 1994-1995 school year, linked by district officials and contemporaneous reports to undocumented families removing children amid fears of mandatory reporting under the measure's provisions. However, the undocumented population in continued to grow through the late 1990s, influenced by economic recovery and federal policy failures, though analysts argue that sustained implementation could have amplified self-deportation and reduced inflows, akin to observed declines in unauthorized migration following stricter enforcement in states like post-2010. Recent policy discussions in the , amid national border surges, have revived arguments that Proposition 187's benefit-denial mechanism addressed root incentives for illegal entry more directly than subsequent policies, potentially averting escalated costs if not judicially nullified. Empirical challenges persist, as non-implementation confounds causality, but causal analyses emphasize that access to services acts as a pull factor, validating the proposition's logic despite political backlash.

References

  1. https://dof.ca.gov/budget/initiatives-and-ballot-propositions/
  2. https://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/gna/Quellensammlung/12/12_proposition187_1994.htm
  3. https://www.sos.ca.gov/administration/news-releases-and-advisories/2019-news-releases-and-advisories/25-years-after-passage-prop-187-secretary-state-alex-padilla-launches-digital-exhibit-impact-prop-187
  4. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/53-4_Johnson.pdf
  5. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-95-133/html/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-95-133.htm
  6. https://guides.loc.gov/latinx-civil-rights/california-proposition-187
  7. https://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1391_0_2_0
  8. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/53-4_Saenz.pdf
  9. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/facscholar/1432/
  10. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/report/R_996HJR.pdf
  11. https://www.ppic.org/press-release/undocumented-immigration-to-state-fell-sharply-in-early-1990s-study-suggests/
  12. https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/content/pubs/cacounts/CC_800HJCC.pdf
  13. https://www.ucdavis.edu/news/californias-budget-woes
  14. https://fronteranorte.colef.mx/index.php/fronteranorte/article/download/1494/937
  15. https://lao.ca.gov/1993/Overview_Gov_Budget_170_0193.pdf
  16. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA340218.pdf
  17. https://www.gao.gov/assets/hehs-95-133.pdf
  18. https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2103&context=ca_ballot_props
  19. https://www.recordnet.com/story/news/1994/12/01/illegal-immigration-real-costs/50875111007/
  20. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-95-22/pdf/GAOREPORTS-HEHS-95-22.pdf
  21. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/5516/chapter/3
  22. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-08-31-mn-29722-story.html
  23. https://cis.org/Report/Costs-Immigration
  24. https://lao.ca.gov/analysis_1995/chd5240c.html
  25. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-09-15-mn-38733-story.html
  26. https://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_17_4/tsc_17_4_romero.shtml
  27. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-06/proposition-187-timeline
  28. https://www.ocweekly.com/the-prop-187-effect-20-years-laters-8571232/
  29. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-12-14-mn-8899-story.html
  30. https://latinocaucus.legislature.ca.gov/news/june-23-2014-prop-187-recalled-lesson-unification
  31. https://www.npr.org/2019/11/08/777466912/californias-prop-187-vote-damaged-gop-relations-with-immigrants
  32. https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/Document/Icb8fed61232d11dcae6ca5857e93b628/View/FullText.html
  33. https://www.maldef.org/2019/10/proposition-187-the-grand-daddy-of-anti-immigrant-measures/
  34. https://cis.org/Kammer/Prop-187s-Anniversary-Sarcastic-Tribute-LA-Times
  35. https://www.edweek.org/education/judge-rejects-prop-187-bans-on-calif-services/1995/11
  36. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/cas-anti-immigrant-proposition-187-voided-ending-states-five-year-battle-aclu-rights
  37. https://scholarship.libraries.rutgers.edu/view/pdfCoverPage?instCode=01RUT_INST&filePid=13680073610004646&download=true
  38. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-10-15-mn-50380-story.html
  39. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/how-anti-immigrant-ballot-initiative-mobilized-latinos-turned-california-blue-n1078361
  40. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-10-07-me-47714-story.html
  41. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/november-8/anti-immigrant-prop-187-approved-in-california
  42. https://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=492
  43. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/archives/53/4/proposition-187-and-legacy-its-law-enforcement-provisions
  44. https://www.jstor.org/stable/449247
  45. https://latinocaucus.legislature.ca.gov/news/november-01-2019-californias-latino-voters-helped-turn-state-blue-will-others-catch-wave
  46. https://www.alexnowrasteh.com/p/proposition-187-and-gop-nativism
  47. https://www.hoover.org/research/twenty-five-years-after-proposition-187-effects-are-still-felt-and-debated
  48. https://www.cato.org/blog/proposition-187-turned-california-blue
  49. https://www.edweek.org/education/approval-of-prop-187-spurs-suits-protests/1994/11
  50. https://latinodecisions.com/blog/prop187effect/
  51. https://projects.laist.com/2019/prop-187/prop-187.html
  52. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/908/755/1457586/
  53. https://clearinghouse.net/case/45341/
  54. https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/97-543.html
  55. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2449&context=faculty-articles
  56. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1995-11-21-mn-5597-story.html
  57. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1999-jul-29-mn-60700-story.html
  58. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-11-10-mn-61147-story.html
  59. https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1995/11/21/judge-strikes-down-parts-of-anti-immigrant-law/
  60. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/1493/The_Message_of_Proposition_187.pdf?sequence=2
  61. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/46376/411425-The-Characteristics-of-Unauthorized-Immigrants-in-California-Los-Angeles-County-and-the-United-States.PDF
  62. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/sites/default/files/publications/mpi-border-history-report-2024_final.pdf
  63. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w32818/w32818.pdf
  64. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/60621/410589-The-Dispersal-of-Immigrants-in-the--s.PDF
  65. https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/unauthorized-immigration-united-states-fact-sheet
  66. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4074451/
  67. https://jilp.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15346/files/2024-05/1UCDavisJIntlLPoly179.pdf
  68. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9074334/
  69. https://edsource.org/2019/a-quarter-century-on-schools-in-california-now-a-welcoming-place-for-undocumented-students/619463
  70. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1257&context=mjrl
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4318326/
  72. https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/sites/g/files/dgvnsk15026/files/media/documents/53-4_Abrajano_Garcia_Bedolla.pdf
  73. https://calmatters.org/politics/2019/03/proposition-187s-last-impacts/
  74. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/context/faculty_publications/article/1506/viewcontent/Su_TheFirstAntiSanctuaryLaw.pdf
  75. https://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-twenty-years-iirira/
  76. https://wol.iza.org/articles/enforcement-and-illegal-migration/long
  77. https://unidosus.org/blog/2024/05/21/history-in-the-blind-spot-the-failure-of-enforcement-policies-in-the-post-iirira-era/
  78. https://www.fairus.org/sites/default/files/2017-09/California-Cost-of-Illegal-Immigration.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.