Siskind Susser

Green Card LotteryABCs of ImmigrationHiring A LawyerHealth Care Info CenterImmigration SitesFashion, Arts & / Sports Newsletter

Siskind Immigration Bulletin Request Consultation Ask Visalaw Client Login
About the Firm
Our Offices
Our Team
In the News
Practice Areas and Services
Scheduling a Consultation
ABCs of Immigration
Requests For Proposals
Press Room


Immigration Forms
Government Processing Times
State Department Visa Bulletin
Siskind's Immigration Professional
Working in America
Washington Updates
Publications
The Visalaw Blog

MEMBER OF THE
AMERICAN
IMMIGRATION
LAWYERS
ASSOCIATION


LAUNCH CHAT

< back

Click for more articlesCALIFORNIA GOVERNOR WEIGHS DEFENSE OF PROPOSITION 187

In 1994, Proposition 187 was passed by 59% of California voters. Among the provisions of the law was a ban on illegal immigrants receiving non-emergency medical care, public education, and many other social benefits. The law also required local law enforcement officials to turn suspected illegal immigrants over to the INS, and required public employees, including teachers, to report suspected illegal immigrants.

In March 1998 a federal district court judge ruled that the primary provisions of the law were unconstitutional, for two reasons. First, the law interfered with the exclusive federal control over matters relating to immigration, and second, because the law violated a Supreme Court case holding that a state cannot deny access to public education to illegal immigrant children. California Governor Pete Wilson filed an appeal of this decision in the Ninth Circuit. In November 1998, he lost to Gray Davis, who opposed Proposition 187. Now Governor Davis must decide whether he wants to pursue the appeal of a law he does not support, and possibly alienate his core supporters, or drop the appeal and anger those who voted for the law.

At a hearing before the Ninth Circuit on April 5, 1999, attorneys for both sides of the controversy requested an additional 30 days before Gov. Davis is required to make a decision on whether to proceed. The Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the authors of the law, asked the court to reject any attempt by Gov. Davis to drop the appeal.

Davis has tried to avoid his difficult choice by relying on a provision of the California State Constitution. The provision requires state agencies to enforce state laws, and could be interpreted to require Davis to continue the legal defense of the law.

For now, Davis has asked the Ninth Circuit to resolve the conflict through closed-door mediation. If mediation fails, Davis will again face the decision of whether to continue the defense of the law.

Davis’ decision has strained relations with Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamante, one of the highest ranking Hispanic government officials in the country. Bustamante, a Democrat like Davis, is the first Latino elected lieutenant governor in 128 years. Bustamante has vocally criticized the Governor and many are saying the rift between the two is wider than between any governor and lieutenant governor in recent memory. This is even more surprising when one considers the fact that Davis and Bustamante are the first governor and lieutenant governor from the same party in California in 24 years (Californians, unlike residents in other states, elect their lieutentant governors instead of having them appointed by the governor).

Gov. Davis has pledged to uphold two other controversial initiatives, Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action, and Proposition 227, which ended bilingual education in California’s public schools.

Click for more articles

Siskind Susser Bland
1028 Oakhaven Rd.
Memphis, TN 38119
T. 800-343-4890 or 901-682-6455
F. 901-682-6394
Email: info@visalaw.com

Home | Immigration Bulletin | Green Card Lottery Center | ABCs of Immigration | Hiring A Lawyer
Hot Topics | Health Care Info Center | Immigration Sites | Search



This is an advertisement. Certification as an Immigration Specialist is not currently available in Tennessee. Siskind Susser Bland limits its practice strictly to immigration law, a Federal practice area, and we do not claim expertise in the laws of states other than where our attorneys are licensed. Siskind Susser Bland does not retain clients on the strength of advertising materials alone but only after following our own engagement procedures (e.g. interviews, conflict checks, retainer agreements). The information contained on this site is intended to educate members of the public generally and is not intended to provide solutions to individual problems. Readers are cautioned not to attempt to solve individual problems on the basis of information contained herein and are strongly advised to seek competent legal counsel before relying on information on this site. Siskind Susser Bland and its advertisers are independent of each other and advertisers on this site are not being endorsed by Siskind Susser Bland by virtue of the fact that they appear on this page. Site is maintained by Siskind Susser Bland's Memphis, TN office and overseen by Gregory Siskind. Copyright © 2003-2006 Siskind Susser Bland. All rights reserved.