State to Ask Federal Judge to Allow Some Prop. 187 Provisions

Citing the recently enacted federal welfare reform bill, California authorities said Thursday that they will ask a federal court to allow implementation of Proposition 187 directives requiring law enforcement authorities to interrogate “suspected” illegal immigrants and report their presence to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

State lawyers plan to file papers within two weeks asking U.S. District Judge Mariana R. Pfaelzer in Los Angeles to modify her injunction against the 1994 ballot initiative, said John H. Sugiyama, the senior assistant attorney general who is handling the state’s case.

Proposition 187 placed numerous restrictions on government assistance to illegal immigrants. But Pfaelzer last year blocked implementation of most provisions, ruling that the ballot measure usurped federal preeminence in immigration law.

Sugiyama said the state plans to cite language in the new welfare law requiring states to report the names of illegal immigrants to the INS at least four times annually. Another relevant section of the welfare law, Sugiyama said, bars state and local governments from restricting certain cooperation with the INS.

Thomas Saenz, a lawyer who supported the lawsuit against Proposition 187, took issue with Sugiyama. He said the federal welfare law language was “very different.” He said the law requires the reporting of illegal immigrants, not Proposition 187’s broader call to target “suspected” violators of immigration law.

The state’s anticipated action is the latest indication of how California is moving rapidly to implement the new welfare law’s edicts on illegal immigrants.

On Tuesday, Gov. Pete Wilson issued an executive order directing agencies to comply “as expeditiously as reasonably practicable” with the welfare overhaul’s ban on state aid for illegal immigrants in arenas from health care to licenses.

Sugiyama said the state will not ask the federal judge to modify her injunction against Proposition 187’s most controversial provision: barring illegal immigrant youngsters from attending public elementary and secondary schools. Such schooling, guaranteed to all by a 1982 Supreme Court decision, was not addressed in the welfare law.