Talk:1994 California Proposition 187

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SeyeongMin, Caroline Siegel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

THis statement is unclear
"On October 15, 1994, one week after Proposition 187 was passed, more than 70,000 people marched in downtown Los Angeles against the measure, one of the largest protests in memory." Exactly how long is "in memory"? The source cited for this is also a 404 error. --76.85.173.34 (talk) 06:57, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the phrase ", one of the largest protests in memory".
 * http://www.transad.pop.upenn.edu/downloads/ADS%20Rumbaut%20commentary.pdf, does not, in fact, generate a 404. Dlabtot (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

[No heading given: Query]
can someone better explain how this law died? Kingturtle 03:59, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, he gave up fighting it.

Error on the page. Fixed it.
Whites, Asians and blacks overwhelmingly supported Prop. 187, contrary to the view put forth by the person who wrote the article. 

Prop. 187 was killed by Governor Grey Davis, who entered into a bogus "arbitration" to prevent the matter from going before the Supreme Court. As this would have likely caused the unconstitutional decision that Texas must provide free educations to the children of illegals to be overturned, pro-Illegal Davis wanted anything but. Sixpackshakur 02:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * According to this site:
 * The Los Angeles Times reported that 70% of whites voted for Proposition 187, while 78% of Latinos, 56% of African Americans and 54% of Asians voted against it.
 * The Field Poll (actually an average of the Times poll and another poll) found the Blacks and Asians to be split:
 * White non-Hispanic voters favored Prop. 187 by a 28-percentage point margin, and white men supported it by 38 points. On the other hand, Latinos voted No by a 46-point margin. Blacks and Asians were about evenly divided, with 52% of each group voting Yes and 48% voting No. 
 * Since the sources are equivocal, I think the assertion should be removed until we can calrify the matter. -Willmcw 06:26, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Since all sources point to the fact that the initiative won with the overwhelming approval of the voters in California, I believe this should be put into the summary. --Nomad spirit 17:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree and have added a sentence to the introduction to state that it passed w/ 59% but was overturned. Thanks, -Willmcw 19:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

so when you say it died, it means that it no longer has effect in california legislation. correct? meaning, it's as if it never happened? how does this relate to prop 227?


 * It was overturned by a judge and the decision was never appealed. -Willmcw 05:36, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Final Sentence should be Removed?
The final sentence of the article reads:
 * "For illegal immigrant children in inner-city slums who saw people committing "187's" around them, and then learned that another law called "187" was about to be used to deny them access to government services, the number came to have a doubly unpleasant connotation."

These seems NNPOV and irrelevant as a subjective view that may or may not have existed. If anyone has any thoughts on why this should be here, toss it up here. Otherwise, I'd think about removing it in a week or so. James 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Projected State Budget Savings?
Curious if anyone had the numbers on what was to be the projected cost-benefits to the State of California as a result of this law, had it been upheld? I remember the numbers being pretty considerable and worth noting in the article. James 00:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC) I don't have data from the time, but this article, authored by anti-immigrant advocacy group FAIR from 12/2004 puts the cost of illegal immigration in California at $10.5 billion per year. Very hefty numbers indeed, but hardly credible considering the politicized source.

I wish to challeng the objectivity of this article
"While its prominent advocates were political conservatives, some libertarians (such as Los Angeles-based radio talk-show host Tom Leykis) also favored it, on the grounds that making life more difficult for illegal immigrants might result in fewer of them entering the state, creating labor shortages which could drive up wages for the lowest-paid workers."

No 'libertarians' support this type of legislation. Tom Leykis is NOT libertarian. (Many people seem to think they are libertarian and have authoritarian ideas such as this--the libertarian position is that the entitlements illegal immigrants are "stealing" should not exist.)

Thus, I am editing the absurd statement to remove the allegations that "libertarians" support this type of legislation. I encourage you to support this removal in the name of objectivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.31.221 (talk • contribs)


 * It said "liberals" until this afternoon, when someone changed it to "libertarians". Let's just revert it back to what it was earlier today. -Will Beback 04:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he does describe himself as a "liberal libertarian", for what it's worth. And the anon is wrong -- at least some people who describe themselves as libertarian supported 187. Big-L Libertarians, even. Always struck me as somewhat inconsistant with what I understood of libertarian philosophy. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He's not Rush Limbaugh, but he sure doesn't fall under the "liberal" category. Can we get a better example of a "liberal" than Tom Leykis. Downchuck 06:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Templates due to inadequate documentation, lack of source citations
Improper formatting; began a clean up--needs further work by other editors--see top templates added to this talk page as well for guidance re: WP:CITE and WP:NOR and other related WP and guidelines. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Going overboard with "citation needed"
Yeah, this is stupid. All you've done is add "citation needed" after practically every sentence and put so many banners to that effect in every section that it's cluttered the whole article up almost to the point of being unreadable. Certain Wikipedia pages seem to get that way - usually the ones concerning controversial subjects - and mostly, it seems to be a tool that people use to vent their frustration about something that didn't work out the way they wanted to. I have no idea why people think they're actually doing a service or improving the quality of the article whatsoever.

Therefore, as someone who lived through this and can see that the article is generally accurate and factual, I am removing the excess "citation needed" tags. ALL of them. This should improve the general usefulness of the article. Facts are facts, regardless of whether they are provided along with a convenient link to some other source on the Internet. In fact, for events like this one that happened around the time the Internet was still getting off the ground and have since faded into relative obscurity, expecting such an abundance of links is pretty absurd.

Disputing the neutrality if you don't like the subject? Fine. Please don't junk up the whole article by calling every single fact into question needlessly. --User:bradrules 9:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the original research in this article were to be deleted, there would be nothing left, and I frankly question whether the original research is even accurate. Right now, this article is the raw opinion of whoever drafted it.  The fact tags are preferable to simply stubbing the article, but I'll stub the article if you prefer.  THF (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

factual mess
Federal courts do not "rescind" state propositions. Governor Davis colluded with an anti-187 set of organizations to avoid litigating the constitutionality of a measure he opposed. Article needs a complete rewrite. THF (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding a claim that you yourself dispute.
I'm not sure I understand this. Wouldn't it make more sense to do the research first, find the source that verifies this statement, or satisfy yourself that it is not verifiable? It seems a rather extraordinary claim, at least in reference to Feinstein. I'm not familiar with the other person. Dlabtot (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. We should find sources first, then summarize what they say. Adding something and then noting that no sources can be found for it is putting the cart before the horse. Regarding the comment above, Beilenson was a proponent of immigration reform, but it's not clear that his support was an outcome of Prop. 187. That's why we need sources, not speculation.   Will Beback    talk    20:53, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like more background information
I would like to know the background of 187 and why they felt it needed to be put into effect (besides just being plain racsist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.245.235.129 (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It was opposed by a small margin majority of Mexican Americans out of fear it will return the state to the pre-civil rights era, when ethnic or racial discrimination was legal and tolerated. For a state public service to ask a Hispanic/Latino to prove their citizenship is like to ask a Jewish person if they're "Jews"...or say to a black person "we don't serve your kind here". Opponents even compared Prop. 187 to measures taken against California's Asian Americans (notably laws excluded the Chinese from citizenship in the 1880s and acts to put the Japanese into military internment camps during WWII) that indeed violated their civil rights. Prop. 187 would been abused by racists, nativists or xenophobes who don't like Mexicans/Hispanics and may sour the US' diplomatic relations with Mexico or Latin America, where the source of immigration was caused by economic problems and how the American people reacts to ones' suffering. + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Why California voters and leadership felt it needed to be put into effect The climate surrounding Prop 187 was largely guided by the immigration debates of the later 1980's, including that around the restrictive Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The text of Prop 187 itself justifies the law by first explaining that the people of California find illegal immigrations as the cause of "economic hardship," "personal injury and damage." Thus, according to the law, because California citizens "have a right a to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully," a state-run system that would verify the legal status of all people seeking public benefits is necessary. Governor Pete Wilson advocated for the law as a measure that would both deter illegal immigrants from entering the state, and motivate them to leave. --Kennethphsu (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

When you look for a 'reason' for something while simultaneously declaring that you won't consider the most commonly accepted 'reason', you are setting yourself up for failure. Otoh I reject the commonly held notion that everything has to have a 'reason'. Dlabtot (talk) 06:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

illegal vs undocumented
They don't really mean the same thing. For example I was born in NYC and I am a US citizen, but I don't at this time have any valid form of identification. Therefore I am 'undocumented' although there is nothing illegal about my residency.

Prop 187 had absolutely nothing to do with people like me who were simply 'undocumented' - it was about people who were illegally residing in the United States.

Hopefully we won't have an edit war about this. Dlabtot (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dlabtot. All of the sources cited by the article say "illegal."  An editor changing this to "undocumented" is inserting his or her own personal POV, misrepresenting the sources, and making the article inaccurate.  There's nothing "racist" about calling something illegal "illegal." THF (talk) 05:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In years past there were big fights over the terms. It's quieted down. Dlabtot is arguing from logic which, while often valid, is best avoided on Wikipedia. Instead, we should be arguing from authorities. The sentence in question:
 *  Others expressed fear that the costs of a state-run citizenship screening system and the potential loss of federal funds would off-set any savings of denying public benefits to undocumented immigrants.
 * Refers to a specific view. In the context of this sentence, we should use whichever term the source uses. I don't feel like spending $12 to see what that is. Does anyone have free access?   Will Beback    talk    10:48, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't a forum, so it's inappropriate for me to engage in a discussion just for the sake of it. That said, the law did require everyone to provide proof of citizenship before receiving public services. See element #4. Theoretically, an undocumented U.S. citizen could have had more trouble getting services than a non-citizen with forged documents, and even citizens with documents could have urgent services delayed while finding their documents. While "undocumented" is used as a euphemism in some contexts, it's actually appropriate here because the law required documentation.    Will Beback    talk    10:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should use the language of the source. The text of the proposition said it was aimed at "illegal aliens." Every source I've double-checked so far--including the most stodgy law review articles opposed to the proposition--used the term "illegal immigration" or "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien." The fringe claim that there is something "racist" about the phrase and that it must be replaced with "undocumented immigrant" (which is an inaccurate description, since that phrase includes legal immigrants who have lost their papers) is a very recent development. The New York Times and Los Angeles Times used the adjective "illegal" in headlines years after the proposition passed. THF (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "Fringe claim" according to whom? I don't know how common the "racist" epithet was. However, think a moment on how such a law would be administered in practice. If I was a harried admitting nurse in a community that's 95% white and 5% latino, who would I ask for proof of citizenship? Everybody? Or only those who seem less likely to be citizens, perhaps just because of their skin color? Anyway, we're not here to refight a 16-year old battle. We agree that the content should follow the sources. So far as this sentence, I don't care which term is used until we establish which is used by the source.   Will Beback    talk    11:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, Prop 187 explicitly applied to "illegal aliens", so you have your answer. Wikipedia has an article called illegal immigration. I disagree with your "think a moment" argument, but WP:NOT and it would be inappropriate to have that discussion irrelevant to the article, since neither my personal opinion nor your personal opinion matters. Please strike the argument that is about the topic and not about the article (and feel free to strike these last two sentences when you do). THF (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposition may use "alien", but this thread is about a sentence concerning a particular article, so that's what matters in this context.   Will Beback    talk    19:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? This thread is about a new editor insisting on taking out every instance of the word "illegal," though the problem seems to be moot now, unless you also want to buck the stable version of the article. The article itself is about a proposition that explicitly applies to illegal aliens, so I don't understand why you objected to my citation to the proposition that the article is about. I don't know what you're proposing now. THF (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking about this edit, and the author in question is Suàrez-Orozco.   Will Beback    talk    20:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean the author of the article that uses the term "illegal aliens" on the ungated front page? Hence my confusion. THF (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes that author. The only place I see "aliens" on that page is in a quotation from the proposition.   Will Beback    talk    23:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Right. This article is about California Proposition 187, which concerned illegal aliens. The PC-speak euphemism 'undocumented aliens' wasn't even in usage back in 1994, afaik. Will Beback, are you proposing some edit to the current text? If so, what edit are you proposing? If not, I'm not sure what you are arguing about. Dlabtot (talk) 23:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm proposing, for this sentence, that we use whichever term the author uses most commonly. Until we discover that, I don't care which term we use.   Will Beback    talk    00:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

New discussion on the subject
Per this discussion, I am restoring the term "undocumented immigrant", which is by far the more commonly used term. Wikipedia guidelines favor word choices according to the language of today, not the language as of the time of the sources. For example, we do not refer to women as "the fairer sex", African Americans as "negroes", etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion is close to eight years (c)old and did not arrive to the conclusion you're drawing now. Richard 08:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, so either the discussion is stale and the terminology should reflect modern usage, or the discussion is not stale and it endorses modern usage. Either way we should not continue to use an outdated term that, to state the obvious, is not neutral and is racially charged. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Ilegal alien" is widely described as a pejorative term in RS. It's racially incendiary and dehumanizing. If bills and laws use terms such as the n-word, mongrel, wetbacks etc., Wikipedia should not use those terms in Wiki-voice. You're seriously edit-warring to introduce this pejorative term to the article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, 'alien' is a legal term that is in current use. Richard 10:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? Should we also refer to "immigrants" as "wetbacks" in the Operation Wetback article and "greasers" in the Greaser Act article? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unlike 'greaser' and 'wetback', I don't perceive 'alien' as offensive. You obviously do, but that is your point of view. Or is it the term 'illegal' that bothers you? 'Alien' is neither racist nor dehumanizing. Sting sang a song about a legal alien and an American citizen residing in another country could be referred to as an alien as well. Race has nothing to do with it. Richard 11:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Multiple style guides refer to "illegal alien" as a pejorative. The term is commonly used by racists and far-right publications precisely because it's a racially charged dehumanizing pejorative. Why are you so attracted to this term? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Who says I'm attracted to the term? It's the term used in the proposal and I see no reason not to use it. Richard 11:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You're edit-warring to keep this term, for which far more common synonyms without pejorative attachments exist, in the article. A fringe term which is overwhelmingly used by racists and far-right figures and publications. Why, I do not know. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That racists use a term, and that others use a different term to distantiate themselves from those racists, does not make the term racist. Richard 14:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: as for 'greasers': the article on that act is called 'Greaser Act' and not 'Anti-Vagrancy Act'. That last name is not even used for a redirect page. Richard
 * I have no idea what you're trying to say. Should we refer to immigrants as "greasers" in the Wikipedia article in question? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that. It only shows that the term is used in the description and in the page title. Richard 11:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)


 * This was brought up in July 2017 by Snoogans here at WP:NPOVN and closed in October 2017. PackMecEng (talk) 13:49, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Where the 'rough consensus' was to not ban the term. Richard 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct, the argument was it was a derogatory term and should be banned. Consensus found that was not the case, I brought it up since the argument was made here that it was a pejorative term. PackMecEng (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Richard 14:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Do I really need to start a RfC on whether we should use the term "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There was not a consensus that the term was not derogatory. There was a rough consensus on not issuing a blanket ban on the term. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment I have introduced a new subheading for this renewed discussion. And I just want to caution you all: this change has been introduced into the article three times and reverted three times. You all know better than to edit war like that. Per BRD, the change was introduced; it was reverted; it's time for discussion. (I have no opinion or comment on the substance of this discussion.) --MelanieN (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Richard, it's a legal term. We should not be using euphemisms. – Lionel(talk) 00:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

plyer v Doe
Plyer v Doe is referenced under legal challenges.:

"In November 1997, Pfaelzer found the law to be unconstitutional on the basis that it infringed the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to immigration, similar to the Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe.[20]"

While it might be relavent to Prop 187, Plyer v Doe rests on the 14th amendment. and not the supremacy clause. Also, citation 20 refers to a Los Angeles Times article that does not refer in any way to Plyer v Doe. I will remove the reference to Plyer v Doe if no one objects. I would be interested in a reference to the injunction itself, which would clarify any connection between the Pfaelzer ruling and Plyer v Doe.

99.90.121.151 (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

fixed. 173.196.196.93 (talk) 17:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

– California Proposition 187 redirects here and California Proposition 209 redirects there. In both circumstances the disambiguator is incorrect as there aren't other 187 and 209 proposals. Unless there is something to disambiguate the disambiguator is not helpful, per WP:PRECISION, WP:NATURAL or DAB, because there is no ambiguity. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  23:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * California Proposition 187 (1994) → California Proposition 187
 * California Proposition 209 (1996) → California Proposition 209
 * Support. The title should be the common name of the subject and nothing more, whenever that is technically possible. RevoltingHomoBoy (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Subsequent developments: Eagle Forum
In the Subsequent developments section, I'm having trouble integrating Eagle Forum's opinion with the NPOV tone of the article. Cutting closer to the source's own words (immigrants "want bigger government") would clarify how Eagle Forum defines American liberalism, but those words also entail a heavy conservative POV. Maybe Eagle Forum isn't the best source to be using? Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Corrected section title. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on California Proposition 187. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520052453/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110520052453/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/1994-general/1994-general-sov.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: "Illegal aliens" vs. a synonym
Should this article use the term "illegal aliens" in Wiki voice rather than synonyms such as "illegal immigrants", "unauthorized immigrants" or "undocumented immigrants"? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose - The term "illegal aliens" is a contentious label (WP:LABEL) that is widely considered by reliable sources to be pejorative. The term is one of affinity to racists and far-right publications. The term is not frequently used in reliable sources, certainly not more so than the synonyms "illegal immigrants", "unauthorized immigrants" and "undocumented immigrants". Major news org style guides prohibit use of the term, such as the Associated Press, The Washington Post and the New York Times. The term does occur in law, but according to PolitiFact, the term only occurs in "scattered mentions" and does not refer to all illegal immigrants (in other words, the legal term "illegal alien" is different from conventional use). This is the summary of the PolitiFact piece on the term: "The term appears--yet scarcely--in federal law. Best we can tell, though, no law defines the term as referring to all individuals living in the U.S. without legal authorization. Where the term does appear, it’s undefined or part of an introductory title or limited to apply to certain individuals convicted of felonies." I do not see why Wikipedia should use a contentious value-laden term that reliable sources characterize as pejorative when there are readily available synonyms. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Snooganssnoogans. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is no reason not to. Snooganssnoogans obviously has a problem with this terminology; s/he has tried to get a blanket ban on its use, that did not work out and now s/he is trying to get rid of it another way. However:
 * "Illegal alien" is the term used in California Proposition 187;
 * "Alien" is a legal term in use today;
 * and, as I said earlier, that racists use a term, and that others use a different term to distantiate themselves from those racists, does not make the term racist. The term can apply to people of all colors and ethnical backgrounds.
 * As to his/her quotations: Associated Press focuses more on the term 'illegal' than on the term 'alien' and the combination 'illegal alien' is only used once (it is not to be used except in direct quotations). The New York Times handles two issues: the use of 'illegal' as a noun instead of as an adjective (which does not apply in this case) and the use of '(illegal) alien'. On that, it is cited "I checked the NYT style book, and found the guidance not terribly helpful. The entry is not explicit on “illegals.” It says only this: “Illegal immigrant is the preferred term, rather than the sinister-sounding illegal alien. Do not use the euphemism undocumented.”" and quoted that "our practice is to avoid “illegals” as well as “illegal aliens,” and on the other hand, to also steer clear of the euphemistic “undocumented workers.”" So yes, they try to avoid the term (they do not prohibit it) but they also say that using 'undocumented' is not the way to do so. As for PolitiFact: "We recognize, though, that "illegal alien" persists. The term showed up 80 times in our May 2018 Google search of the PolitiFact website with "illegal aliens" popping up 5,620 times." Aside from the fact that we don't have to follow internal guidelines from press agencies and the like, deducing from the given pages that they 'prohibit use of the term' is, in my opinion, wishful reading. Richard 08:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: Illegal immigrants is the more commonly understood term globally, so I would be happier if that were used in the article. However, there could be a bigger problem here. The article quotes the proposition as stating "That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal immigrants in this state", but Wikisource has that as "That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal aliens in this state". Which is correct? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When first added, the quote used "illegal aliens". This appears to be correct. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Quote should certainly always be exact. I've fixed it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes. Illegal alien is a proper legal term. It might sound (E.T.) odd (on the other hand - red state California (pre-92) is funky as well) - but this is the proper lingo. We don't replace legal terms and the language used in a proposition due to terminological preferences - and news org style guides (as evident in the NPOV/n discussion a while back) differ on usage here.Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. per Icewhiz. Illegal alien IS a legal term (See the 14th amendment), and though I agree that it can be contentious, it isn't Wikipedia's place to appeal to every single group. We should strive to meet the standard whenever possible. ThadeusOfNazereth (talk)
 * Yes Not only the text of the proposition, but every contemporaneous source used in the article uses the term illegal alien. It's not our job to rewrite history. Dlabtot (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I checked one source at random: the 2006 APSR study and it does not use the term "illegal aliens". Your statement is therefore verifiably false and you should strike it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've edited my comment for clarity. PC-speak didn't even exist when the Prop 187 was passed. Dlabtot (talk) 05:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes - Summoned by bot. "Illegal alien" is the legal term used in the proposition. Meatsgains (talk) 22:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Use illegal immigrant, illegal alien only with intext attribution based on my reading of WP:LABEL: "Value-laden labels...are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Also it seems to be the term of consensus at the much larger pages Illegal immigration and Illegal immigration to the United States. I find the "yes" comments above unconvincing: the article Martin Luther King Jr. doesn't describe him as a Negro (despite contemporaneous sources describing him as such); no one cried that we rewrote history. Language changes. Just because contemporaneous sources used one particular term doesn't mean we are locked into it for all time, especially when current writing style disfavors it. And that current writing style dispreffers "illegal aliens" is clear. Our article on the concept, linked in the lead of this article, is entitled Illegal immigration to the United States; the page Illegal aliens redirects to Illegal immigration; as linked above, contemporary style manuals obviously disfavor if not outright prohibit use of "illegal alien"; its use in the federal code is not-uniform; the Library of Congress began to remove it from subject headings in 2016; California Governor Jerry Brown in 2015 removed the term from the state labor code; I doubt anyone would sincerely say that in the United States "illegal alien" is not a "value-laden label" per WP:LABEL so there is even reason to believe our own style manual disprefers it (just because something is a legal term doesn't mean it is value-neutral, the New York Times literally described "illegal" in this context as "value-laden"). The yes comments above entirely fail to take into account wider consensus on this issue, both on Wikipedia and in external style guides (consider WP:MOS: "Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with modern editions of other guides to style and usage, which may cover details not included here."). Now obviously "illegal alien" is used in the text of the proposition and in sources of that same period: in quoting them and describing them we should follow WP:LABEL and attribute where that language comes from. But in generally talking about the concept of unauthorized immigration into the United States outside of in-text-attributed quotations and attributed historic descriptions, we should follow prevailing practice in dispreferring "illegal alien".While my preferred choice is "unauthorized immigrant" or better "people who illegally immigrated", given the article titles and usage in Illegal immigration and Illegal immigration to the United States I think "illegal immigrant" is the consensus on Wikipedia. Wugapodes [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 19:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Illegal immigrant per Snooganssnoogans and Wugapodes. That illegal alien is an official term should have no bearing - wikipedia does not strive to use the "official" term, but the term used by high quality sources and that most comports with WP:NPOV - which is clearly "illegal immigrants" per a simple google scholar search, which finds that (addendum: academic) sources clearly use "illegal immigrant". That news style guides are against the use of "illegal aliens" bolsters the case for "illegal immigrant" per WP:LABEL Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This RFC was closed 31 July 2018. Richard 11:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * RFC are like any other discussion - they don't automatically stop thirty days after they start, rather one can comment until someone closes them, which I don't see has happened. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. I thought this edit was about that, but I'm probably mistaken. Richard 12:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Immigrant, not alien There's a reason why every Wikipedia article on illegal immigration refers to it as immigration and those that immigrate as immigrants. "Alien" quite easily fails WP:LABEL. Immigrant is the more commonly used term both worldwide, in the US, and in sources. This isn't even a question. It's not contentious to use the word immigrant. Anyone can think what they want about illegal immigrants, but they'll still use the term "illegal immigrants" regardless of their thoughts on the matter, which is kind of the point of WP:NPOV. Brendon the Wizard  ✉️ ✨ 15:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Improper and premature closure of RfC: "Illegal aliens" vs. a synonym
There was clearly no consensus prior to the closure of this RFC. The non-admin closure by User:The_Gnome is prefaced: The responses in this RfC are numerically tied but a decision can be taken on the basis of the strength of each side's arguments and on Wikipedia policy. In other words this user just took it upon his or herself to simply decide that their opinion was correct rather than wait for consensus. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Dlabtot (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Dlabtot. It should not surprise you that I find your description of how the RfC was closed to be misleading and incorrect. If, in any case, you feel the closure is somehow wrong, you are encouraged to take it up on appeal. Look up WP:ACD. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Simply stating that something is incorrect, obviously is not an example of engaging in discussion. Please do take this opportunity to talk to me. If you feel your position is so weak that your only defense is an administrative one, I will eventually engage in that long, boring process. As an alternative, I suggest we work together as allies to make this encyclopedia article the best that it can be. Are you open to a collaborative discussion? Dlabtot (talk) 09:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, seriously, I am someone who lived in California at the time, I voted against the proposition, I have no axe to grind, I simply believe that the article should accurately reflect the reality of the proposition and how the sources described it. Dlabtot (talk) 09:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, pretending that any essay, which by definition is the opinion of one person, is in some way the same as a consensus is a self-refuting argument. Dlabtot (talk) 09:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the closure might have been erroneous, even though I stand by it, but your objection to it amounts to broad-brush coloring and nothing more. I provided a rather extended explanation and presented in detail the reasoning behind the closure, a reasoning founded on the quality of the arguments presented and Wikipedia's rules; and not based on "my opinion." I find no evidence that could support your characterization (i.e. the closer "just took it upon his or herself to simply decide that their opinion was correct"). I have no idea how to address this except to invite you to re-read the text of the closure. And invite other editors to comment here, as well, if they feel like doing so. Going back and forth on the basis of "I like it", "Well I don't like it" is a dead end. Better let others chime in, at this point. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * [EDIT CONFLICT] I posted the above in response to the first of the three messages preceding it. I now see you added an objection about using essays as the basis for the closure (or for any other decision in Wikipedia, I take it). Again, I fail to see the relevance. Checking back on the text, you will see that all the cited rules are policies or guidelines: WP:MOSLEAD, WP:RS WP:VULGAR are guidelines; and WP:NPOV is a policy. -The Gnome (talk) 09:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I regret your unwillingness to engage in an honest and frank discussion. But since you are unwilling to do so, I will, in due course, invoke the tedious and very not-enjoyable administrative procedures that Wikipedia has in place for resolving disputes when editors are not interested in reaching a good faith consensus. As they said in The Village, 'be seing you'. Dlabtot (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that my responses have not been "honest and frank," Dlabtot. You asked me to "work together as allies to make this encyclopedia article the best that it can be" and if I'm "open to a collaborative discussion." But it takes specifics to have a discussion. It should be clear that I responded to the only specific point you made, i.e. that I used a Wikipedia essay as the basis of the decision. Apart from that, I fail to see any other specific point you made to which I could reasonably respond. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 13:33, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have the energy for a WP:BATTLE. It really is wrong to replace the original language as reflected in the sources with pc-speak from decades later, but so be it, you win.  Unwatching.  Dlabtot (talk) 07:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Obviously I'm biased having articulated a position in line with the closure, but The Gnome's closure is quite obviously a good one. Firstly, the RfC was opened in July and closed two months later in September. RfCs typically run for 30 days, so saying a closure after 60 days is "premature" is quite ludicrous. Secondly, per the 3rd point at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, RfCs can be closed by any uninvolved editor in good standing, not just administrators, so pointing out that it's a "non-admin closure" has nothing to do with the quality of a close. Thirdly, in claiming the closer ignored the numerical tally, you seem to forget the literal first paragraph of WP:CONSENSUS: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote". Discussions are closed based upon the weight of policy based rationales offered in support of positions, not how many people voted one way or the other. If you genuinely think the close was bad, request a review of the close at WP:AN, but The Gnome is correct in stating that you've given nothing to discuss so far. Your objections so far just show an ignorance of how discussions are run and closed, and I don't blame them for not engaging further here. Wugapodes [thɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 23:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Addition of Reaction from Minority Groups
I feel that adding reactions from different minority ethnic groups from California could be useful to note the different responses from this time. Not every Latino, Asian or African American individual reacted in uniform, with interest groups rising together and formalizing coalitions in response against prop 187. There are many unique responses from various Eastern Asian groups that I will be contributing to in particular. I believe that including the narrative of these groups and how they came together can be one venue that explains California's shift to blue. SeyeongMin (talk) 03:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS
— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)