TRANSCRIPT: AMERICAN PATROL ON RECALL DAVIS
American Patrol Report Opening music: "American Patrol" by Glenn Miller This is Glenn Spencer with the American Patrol Report, a production of Voice of Citizens Together. On August 19, 1999, California Governor Gray Davis was served with a notice on intent to recall him. It was signed by 74 citizens. This American Patrol report focuses on that recall. It is estimated there are more than more than 2,000,000 illegal aliens in California and more than 400,000 illegal aliens in our schools. The cost to California taxpayers exceeds $4 billion annually, or about $2,000 per illegal alien. That's not surprising considering the fact that it costs about $7,000 for each non-English speaking student in our schools. In 1994, after one of the most debated issues in our history, the people of California approved Proposition 187. They did so by an overwhelming 6 to 4 margin. Proposition 187 barred illegal aliens from receiving any taxpayer-paid benefits and services, including schools and colleges, and it directed state agencies to cooperate with federal law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws. Proposition 187 was immediately challenged as unconstitutional by advocacy groups such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, The League of Latin American Citizens, the ACLU and well known lawyer Peter Schey. Peter Schey is an interesting fellow. Listen to this clip from a TV interview.
Yes he was. We'll talk about Plyler v. Doe later and when we do, remember that Peter Schey argued the Plyler v. Doe case before the U.S. Supreme Court. Also remember that Schey, a South African native, is a member of the National Lawyers Guild, once described by Congress as the legal bulwark of the Communist Party in America. At its 40th Convention in 1978, they passed the following resolution:
Schey is closely aligned with the movement to grant amnesty to illegal aliens and has described Proposition 187 as the end of Manifest Destiny. This fellow is really out after the sovereignty of the United States. But back to Proposition 187 187 was drafted with the aid of the late Alan Nelson former Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Peter Nuñez, a former United States Attorney. These lawyers knew it would be tested before the Supreme Court, especially the provision which barred illegal aliens from California school, but they were confident of ultimate victory. After a delay of nearly four years, Federal District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer finally ruled, to no one's surprise, that Proposition 187 unconstitutional. She said that, among other things, it violated a 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler versus Doe. Let's look at this Supreme Court Decision In Plyler versus Doe, the court decided that the state of Texas had to pay for the education of illegal aliens because of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The court said the 14th amendment gave illegal aliens the same protection under the law as legal residents. Plyler versus Doe was a split decision with five Justices saying Texas must pay for illegals and four saying they shouldn't have to. The four justices who said they shouldn't included Chief Justice Burger, the current Chief Justice Rhenquist and Justice Sandra Day O'conner, who sits on the court today. This is some of what they said in their dissenting opinion.
The Los Angeles Daily Journal is the newspaper of the legal profession in Los Angeles. On December. On December 18, 1995, it carried an article entitled "A Decision Under Fire." It was written by Allan Favish, Attorney At Law. In it, Favish attacks the decision by United States District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer was unconstitutional. On December 9, 1999, I spoke with Allan Favish and asked him why he disagreed with Judge Pfaelzer. PHONE CONVERSTATION BETWEEN SPENCER AND FAVISH- 12/9/99 Allan Favish (rhymes with lavish) What is says is that there is a difference between being legally here and being here illegally. And although the equal protection clause [of the 14th amendment] directs that persons similarly circumstanced, as the court said, shall be treated alike, the clause does not require things which are different to be treated in law as though they were the same. And the court recognized that children who are legally here are not similarly situated with children who are illegal aliens, because the later are in violation of federal law, a distinction that the court itself says is not a constitutional irrelevancy. And then the court went on to analyze what the state of Texas
was doing in prohibiting illegal aliens from attending public
schools. And this is one of the more bizarre aspects of Plyler,
and this is a 1982 case. The courts said that there is no evidence
in the record suggesting that illegal entrants imposed any significant
burden on the state's economy. There was an analysis back in 1994 when Proposition 187 was on the ballot that the State Legislative Analyst said that the provision of Prop. 187 denying public education to illegal aliens could save the state up to one point two billion dollars, billion with a "b", billion dollars annually. And governor Pete Wilson had a study that said that the figure was higher, one point five billion. And that was followed up by a government accounting office analysis that basically supported Wilson's higher figure. So under Plyler versus Doe, if a state can show that it's costing a lot of money to educate people who are illegally here, then that is a good enough reason to deny them that benefit. Glenn Spencer: Allan Favish:
Glenn Spencer: Allan Favish: And then, like I said earlier, they actually said, quote, there is no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the state's economy, close quote, at page 228. So for some bizarre reason, the state of Texas did not introduce factual evidence showing the huge cost involved in educating illegal aliens. But California has that evidence, it's at least 1.2 billion dollars, that they could have shown apparently, and was prevented from doing that by Judge Pfaelzer. Glenn Spencer: Allan Favish: Glenn Spencer Allan Favish: Glenn Spencer: Allan Favish: Plyler versus Doe would have allowed that, it's just that Texas failed to make the factual showing. So you don't even have to overrule Plyler versus Doe for Prop 187 to survive. However I think there are some good reasons for overruling a lot of the language of Plyler versus Doe but it is not necessary in order to have a successful vindication of Proposition 187. Glenn Spencer:
So they were frightened that you were right. Allan Favish: Glenn Spencer Allan Favish: Glenn Spencer: The court said that there was no indication that the presence of illegal aliens affected the overall quality of education in Texas. The Los Angeles Unified School District is more than 70% Hispanic, due mainly to illegal immigration, past and present. Listen to Los Angeles School Board member Tokofsky as he spoke last summer . (Clip of Tokofsky speaking at official school board function, July 1, 1999)
Gray Davis said that Proposition 187 was passed by the people in a process designed to go over the head of governors like himself. He said that as a governor he is not a judge and he promised to uphold laws passed by the people. People interpreted that as saying he would support Proposition 187 and defend it. Proposition 187 was scheduled to be heard by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals at the about the same time Gray Davis became governor. Instead of allowing it to proceed through the appeals process on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Davis, according to recall advocates, devised a scheme to derail it. He performed what some are calling a partial birth abortion on Proposition 187. He called it mediation. Mediation is designed to bring two sides of an issue together to try to reach an out of court settlement, thus saving everyone time and money. In this mediation, however, only opponents of Proposition 187 were invited. Writing in the Los Angeles Times on May 6, 1999, Norman Brand a San Francisco based mediator observed
But that didn't stop Gray Davis and the mediation process continued. On May 19, 1999, the President of Mexico visited Los Angeles. The following is from a TV report of the visit. Gray Davis can be seen sitting next to the President of Mexico.
So Gray Davis made a commitment to the President of Mexico to stop Proposition 187.
Writing in the San Francisco Examiner on July 8, David Stirling of the Pacific Legal Foundation observed:
And that is exactly what happened. On July 26, Governor Gray Davis announced that the mediators had decided not to appeal Proposition 187. He had killed it. Some called it assassination by mediation According to one of the lawyers who sat in on the mediation, Gray Davis killed proposition 187 because he feared it would be found constitutional by the Supreme Court. Carlos Holguin, the man who spilled the frijoles, works for National Lawyers Guild member Peter Schey, the man who, according to some, has dedicated himself to the destruction of the United States of America. The man who sat down with Gray Davis to decide the future of California. On August 4, 1999, the front page of the Los Angeles Times carried a color photograph of Assembly speaker Antonio Villaraigosa with Mexican President Zedillo applauding the defeat of Proposition 187. In the accompanying story, Villaraigosa is quoted as follows:
Villaraigosa failed to pass the California bar examination three times. He is not a lawyer.
Who is this man who says the will on the people is null and void? Antonio Villaraigosa was once head of a chapter of Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan or MEChA, a separatist Chicano organization that believes the Southwest, a place they call Aztlan, was stolen from Mexico. He was once the head of the Southern California ACLU. He has worked to get driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
"That's right. The man who worked with the President of Mexico to kill Proposition 187, the man who wants to give driver's licensees to illegal aliens, wants to be mayor of Los Angeles."
Villaraigosa is right about crime in Los Angeles. Between 1979 and 1994 there 7,288 gang killings in Los Angeles, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. When he killed Proposition 187, Gray Davis also killed a provision which would have required local police, to cooperate with the INS and the Border Patrol. Proponents of the move to recall Gray Davis claim that his decision to kill proposition 187 threatens the California initiative process. Writing in the Los Angeles Times on May 24, 1999, Dave Stirling of the Pacific Legal Foundation said that it was "entirely possible that the voters will lose the privilege of controlling their destiny through the initiative process." The backers of the initiative to recall Gray Davis were well aware of the facts which surrounded his decision to kill 187. They knew the legal issues and that the players such as Peter Schey and Antonio Villaraigosa were really antagonistic toward America's sovereignty. Proponents of the recall say that armed with these facts and knowing that Gray Davis had joined foreign power which is antagonistic toward the United States to deprive California voters the rule of law, they had no choice but to challenge him and to seek his recall. Gray Davis was served with the Notice of Intent to recall him on August 19, 1999. According to state law he had the option of filing an answer which would have to appear on the petition. Most said he wouldn't dignify the recall effort with an answer. They were wrong. Gray Davis dignified the recall effort and filed an answer with the California Secretary of State on September 2. 1999. His answer begins as follows:
Estimates of the costs of illegal immigration to California taxpayers range from 3.4 billion to more than $7 billion per year. As a former controller of the state, Gray Davis is well aware of these figures. What is most puzzling however, is the fact that Gray Davis himself signed a bill, AB 1107, which specifically provides taxpayer paid benefits to illegal aliens. With overwhelming facts to the contrary which are known to most Californians, Davis' answer to the notice to recall him can only be describe using an ugly word: It is a lie. Backers of the recall effort say Davis' egregious disqualify him from holding the office of governor of California. They say these acts include: 1. The misuse of the mediation process, thus threatening mediation
and the constitution; The Recall Davis Committee has until February 23, 2000 to collect
one million six thousand signatures. Right now they have about
300,000. If they succeed a recall election will be held in May
or June, 2000 to decide whether the governor should be recalled
and who should replace him. We're glad you joined us for this American Patrol Report. We hope to be making more such reports in the future. American Patrol may be reached by calling 818-501-2061 or by logging on to www.americanpatrol.com. That's 818-501-2061 or americanpatrol.com. This is Glenn Spencer saying good-bye for American Patrol and thanks for listening.
|