immgrtn_and_immgrnt_integrtn_CA_Garcia_Martin-00[1]

immgrtn_and_immgrnt_integrtn_CA_Garcia_Martin-00[1] - ),...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
), R~:SEARCH S ERVI N G CALI FOR N IA Vol. 12, No.6 October 2000 Manuel Garda y Griego and Philip Martin California's population of 34 million makes up about 12% of U.S. residents, but includes about 33% of u.s. immigrants and 40% of unauthorized for- eigners. One-fourth of California residents are for- eign-born, another one-fifth are native-born with at least one foreign-born parent, and over half of California's children have at least one parent who is an immigrant. Since 1990, immigration has accounted for a third of the state's annual popula- tion growth, a rate likely to continue indefinitely; Clearly, immigration and immigrant integration are among the most important policy issues facing California. After Propositions 187 and 227 Propositions 187 (approved by California voters in 1994) and 227 (adopted in 1998) bracketed a debate about immigration and the role of state gov- ernment in the integration of immigrants-and by implication, a debate regarding the state's role as provider of services and education that can enhance or diminish the prospects of its immigrants. Proposition 187 is remembered for the restrictions it would have imposed on the access of unautho- rized immigrants to public health care and to K-12 education. Proposition 227 aimed to deal with an immigration-related issue--how best to teach non- English-speaking children in K-12 classes-by lim- iting bilingual education. Both propositions encouraged Californians to assume that certain problems of social policy-public deficits or the shortcomings of public education--could be sig- nificandy ameliorated by changing the rules which govern certain state-funded services, and that those rule changes would be implemented at litde social cost. Opponents viewed 187 and 227 as anti- immigrant efforts in intent and tone. Immigration is the arrival in the u.s. of people born abroad, and integration the process by which they are incorporated into the state's economy and society. The presence of large numbers of immi- grants in California raises difficult policy ques- tions, given that immigration policy is decided in Washington. What should the State of California do to integrate newcomers? How should state government respond to the presence of large numbers of unauthorized foreigners who are like- ly to remain here? How should the state take immigrants and their children into account when making policies that affect their integration, including in education? We aim to reframe the debate over the issues that led to voter approval of 187 and 227 and ask what a new framework would mean for immigrant inte- gration policy in California. In the 1990s' debates in Congress and California, policymakers acted as if there were an implicit trade-off between the num- ber of immigrants and their social 'C" " rights. Since reducing the number of ,";""C'- immigrants seemed to be politically J infeasible, reducing access to social ser- :j vices-from the point of view of con- ~ With these questions in mind, we completed a
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 09/23/2011 for the course USP 480 taught by Professor Staff during the Spring '11 term at S.F. State.

Page1 / 4

immgrtn_and_immgrnt_integrtn_CA_Garcia_Martin-00[1] - ),...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online