🚀 go-pugleaf

On November 8, 1994, Prop 187 will be less of a joke. Repost away;
like Bill Bennett and Barry Goldwater and Jack Kemp and Ron Unz I am a
conservative, and have been relatively so in the newsgroups line, in
observance of netiquette to the end (I haven't visited AOL, CIS, etc.,
either). This message is brought to you by the efforts of 25 concerned
people from around the world, the letter B, and the number 3.

pls@alumni.caltech.edu (Paul Springer) writes:

>Whether they admit it or not, the L. A. Times is surely against 187.
>Almost every day they have a front page article with a slant against 187.

Now, why would they?

[this in response to my identification of major newspapers (*all*,
 including the very Republican Wall Street Journal and San Diego Union)
 and nonpartisan organizations (just about all, including the American
 Association of Retired Persons, the American Medical Association, the
 faculty and student bodies of all major Universities, and all
 major religions, which don't generally get along) opposed to
 the millenarianly-named "Save Our State" California Proposition 187,
 and my unchallenged listing of only three nebulous single-issue
 partisan organizations in favor of 187, which has captured the public
 imagination to command a narrow lead in the polls...]

More:

The Teamsters and the AFL-CIO have adopted a wait-and-see attitude. It
is clear that their leaders would oppose 187, but the rank & file in
California certainly support it, and the position of the union
membership in other States is unknown -- probably slightly for 187,
despite the barrage of world opinion. The ability of the Teamsters
to enforce a strike/boycott that their rank & file do not support is
admittedly unclear -- either Budweiser or Coors was boycotted a while
back, and not many people noticed.

I would also add that Mexico is preparing a resolution for the United
Nations and a disparate impact claim under the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA), should Proposition 187 pass (under NAFTA,
Mexico can choose either NAFTA or a multilateral forum like GATT, but
I think they could make their case most easily bilaterally). I believe
the General Assembly resolution would pass overwhelmingly, but economic
sanctions would likely be vetoed in the UN Security Council by the
United States. It is unclear whether other allied nations would join
the US veto.

I discuss the dispute resolution provisions of NAFTA at length in my
thesis published at file://quixote.stanford.edu/www/paper.html. Note
that NAFTA article 2011(1) specifies that in dispute resolution
proceedings, the parties must follow the "you cut, I pick" approach,
i.e., Mexico picks two Americans, and the United States picks two
Mexicans. I would think that it would be rather more difficult for the
US respondent to identify two qualified Mexicans who agree with 187
than it would be for the Mexican plaintiff to identify two qualified
Americans who oppose 187. Of course, California could choose to secede
from the Union.

This is not a racial or party politics issue. 187 imposes major costs
and inconveniences on everyone, and risks 150 times more in Federal
funding than it claims to save. It is so Unconstitutional and ugly
that most of the backers shy away from it; Pete Wilson's exact words
at the Governor's debate were, "That wouldn't necessarily happen
because the education provisions are Unconstitutional. But it's a way
to send a message..."

World political and religious opposition was nowhere near as universal
concerning certain moderate-sounding political maneuverings 60-some
years ago. Must be the Information Age and CNN.

It is said that every good USENET flame war ends with a reference to
Nazism. Why do I no longer find this so funny?

-rich,
 Internet Against 187
 FAQ at http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~llurch/Prop187.html
 or email faq187@quixote.stanford.edu