Proposition 187 Cut Education To Which Of The Following Groups?

0 Comments

Proposition 187 Cut Education To Which Of The Following Groups
Proposition 187 Cut Education To Which Of The Following Groups Caravan of emigrants for California (Crossing the great American desert in Nebraska). Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division. On November 9, 1994, California’s voters passed Proposition 187 (also known as the Save Our State referendum), a ballot initiative proposed by anti-immigrant organizations, which restricted undocumented immigrants from the state’s public services, including access to public education and healthcare.

In addition, the proposition directed teachers and healthcare professionals to report any individuals suspected of being undocumented to the Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) or the California Attorney General. Lack of guidelines on how to suspect if someone was undocumented led many to argue that Proposition 187 would target and profile individuals who possessed certain physical attributes categorized as foreign.

Proposition 187 was approved during a turbulent period of economic recession in California, urging many citizens to view undocumented immigrants as scapegoats. Upon the proposition’s passage, Governor Pete Wilson advocated for the referendum’s immediate implementation, ordering healthcare facilities and school districts to deny services to undocumented individuals.

Several organizations promptly challenged the proposition, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (CHIRLA), who argued that the proposition violated Plyler v. Doe (1982) and that immigration is a federal rather than a state issue.

A few weeks from the referendum’s passage, a federal judge ruled an injunction against Proposition 187 until a legal review could be executed, leading to disputes between each side and demonstrations in California’s colleges and universities. Ultimately, the state could not enact Proposition 187 after courts found it unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment, which protects any individual regardless of citizenship status.
View complete answer

What was California’s Proposition 187 designed to do?

Key elements of Proposition 187 – Proposition 187 included the following key elements:

  1. All law enforcement agents who suspect that a person who has been arrested is in violation of immigration laws must investigate the detainee’s immigration status, and if they find evidence of illegality they must report it to the attorney general of California, and to the federal Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). They must also notify the detainee of his or her apparent status as an alien.
  2. Local governments are prohibited from preventing or limiting the fulfillment of this requirement.
  3. If government agents suspect anyone applying for benefits of being illegal immigrants, the agents must report their suspicions in writing to the appropriate enforcement authorities.
  4. People shall not receive any public social services until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
  5. People shall not receive any health care services from a publicly funded health care facility until verified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
  6. A public elementary or secondary school shall not admit or permit the attendance of any child untilverified as a United States citizen or as a lawfully admitted alien.
  7. By 1996, each school district shall verify the legal status of each child enrolled within the district and the legal status of each parent or guardian of each child.
  8. A child who is in violation of the requirements above shall not continue to attend the school 90 days from the date of notice to the attorney general and INS.
  9. The attorney general must keep records on all such cases and make them available to any other government entity that wishes to inspect them.
  10. The manufacture, distribution, sale, or use of false citizenship or residency documents is a state felony punishable by imprisonment or fine.

View complete answer

What did California’s Proposition 187 sought to do in 1994 quizlet?

Proposition 187, approved by California voters in 1994: denied illegal immigrants and their children access to welfare and education. Bill Clinton’s foreign policy centered on: elevating human rights to a central place in international relations.
View complete answer

What was the purpose of California’s Proposition 187 quizlet?

Proposition 187 was a controversial punitive law voted in by Californian voters in 1994. Essentially, Proposition 187 denied illegal immigrants from receiving welfare and public services such as health care and education.
View complete answer

What was the most important outcome of California’s Proposition 187 quizlet?

What was the purpose of California’s Proposition 187? It barred unauthorized immigrants from receiving most public services.
View complete answer

What is the California Proposition explained?

Amends California Constitution to expressly include an individual’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which includes the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.
View complete answer

Which group was not permitted to immigrate to the United States?

Chinese Exclusion Act (1882) The Chinese Exclusion Act was approved on May 6, 1882. It was the first significant law restricting immigration into the United States. In the spring of 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed by Congress and signed by President Chester A. Arthur. This act provided an absolute 10-year ban on Chinese laborers immigrating to the United States.

  1. For the first time, federal law proscribed entry of an ethnic working group on the premise that it endangered the good order of certain localities.
  2. The Chinese Exclusion Act required the few non-laborers who sought entry to the United States (such as diplomatic officers) to obtain certification from the Chinese government that they were qualified to immigrate.

But this group found it increasingly difficult to prove their status because the 1882 act defined laborers as “skilled and unskilled.and Chinese employed in mining.” Thus very few Chinese could enter the country under the 1882 law. The 1882 exclusion act also placed new requirements on Chinese who had already entered the country.

If they left the United States, they had to obtain certifications to re-enter. Congress, moreover, refused state and federal courts the right to grant citizenship to Chinese resident aliens, although these courts could still deport them. When the exclusion act expired in 1892, Congress extended it for 10 years in the form of the Geary Act.

This extension, made permanent in 1902, added restrictions by requiring each Chinese resident to register and obtain a certificate of residence. Without a certificate, they faced deportation. The Geary Act regulated Chinese immigration into the 20th century.

With increased immigration following World War I, Congress adopted new means for regulation: quotas and requirements pertaining to national origin. Congress shifted its attention to limiting immigration from a wider variety of countries, including many in Southern and Eastern Europe and all of Asia. The Immigration Act of 1924 (also known as the Johnson-Reed Act and the National Origins Act) established the 1890 census as the basis for determining how many immigrants would be admitted — the limit for each nationality was 2 percent of that nationality already living in the United States and recorded by the census takers.

In 1943, when China was a member of the Allied Nations during World War II, Congress repealed all the exclusion acts. However, quotas remained, leaving a yearly limit of 105 Chinese immigrants. Foreign-born Chinese also won the right to seek naturalization.

  • The so-called national origin system, with various modifications, lasted until Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1965.
  • Effective July 1, 1968, a limit of 170,000 immigrants from outside the Western Hemisphere could enter the United States, with a maximum of 20,000 from any one country.
  • Skill and the need for political asylum determined admission.

The Immigration Act of 1990 provided the most comprehensive change in legal immigration since 1965. The act established a “flexible” worldwide cap on family-based, employment-based, and diversity immigrant visas. The act further provides that visas for any single foreign state in these categories may not exceed seven percent of the total available.

In 2011-2012, Congress condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed a commitment to preserve civil rights and constitutional protections for all people: the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 201 in 2011; and the House of Representatives unanimously passed House Resolution 683 in 2012. SEC.2.

That the master of any vessel who shall knowingly bring within the United States on such vessel, and land or permit to be landed, any Chinese laborer, from any foreign port or place, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars for each and every such Chinese laborer so brought, and maybe also imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.

SEC.3. That the two foregoing sections shall not apply to Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November, eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and who shall produce to such master before going on board such vessel, and shall produce to the collector of the port in the United States at which such vessel shall arrive, the evidence hereinafter in this act required of his being one of the laborers in this section mentioned; nor shall the two foregoing sections apply to the case of any master whose vessel, being bound to a port not within the United States, shall come within the jurisdiction of the United States by reason of being in distress or in stress of weather, or touching at any port of the United States on its voyage to any foreign port or place: Provided, That all Chinese laborers brought on such vessel shall depart with the vessel on leaving port.

SEC.4. That for the purpose of properly identifying Chinese laborers who were in the United States on the seventeenth day of November eighteen hundred and eighty, or who shall have come into the same before the expiration of ninety days next after the passage of this act, and in order to furnish them with the proper evidence of their right to go from and come to the United States of their free will and accord, as provided by the treaty between the United States and China dated November seventeenth, eighteen hundred and eighty, the collector of customs of the district from which any such Chinese laborer shall depart from the United States shall, in person or by deputy, go on board each vessel having on board any such Chinese laborers and cleared or about to sail from his district for a foreign port, and on such vessel make a list of all such Chinese laborers, which shall be entered in registry-books to be kept for that purpose, in which shall be stated the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, physical marks of peculiarities, and all facts necessary for the identification of each of such Chinese laborers, which books shall be safely kept in the custom-house.; and every such Chinese laborer so departing from the United States shall be entitled to, and shall receive, free of any charge or cost upon application therefor, from the collector or his deputy, at the time such list is taken, a certificate, signed by the collector or his deputy and attested by his seal of office, in such form as the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe, which certificate shall contain a statement of the name, age, occupation, last place of residence, persona description, and facts of identification of the Chinese laborer to whom the certificate is issued, corresponding with the said list and registry in all particulars.

In case any Chinese laborer after having received such certificate shall leave such vessel before her departure he shall deliver his certificate to the master of the vessel, and if such Chinese laborer shall fail to return to such vessel before her departure from port the certificate shall be delivered by the master to the collector of customs for cancellation.

The certificate herein provided for shall entitle the Chinese laborer to whom the same is issued to return to and re-enter the United States upon producing and delivering the same to the collector of customs of the district at which such Chinese laborer shall seek to re-enter; and upon delivery of such certificate by such Chinese laborer to the collector of customs at the time of re-entry in the United States said collector shall cause the same to be filed in the custom-house anti duly canceled.

SEC.5. That any Chinese laborer mentioned in section four of this act being in the United States, and desiring to depart from the United States by land, shall have the right to demand and receive, free of charge or cost, a certificate of identification similar to that provided for in section four of this act to be issued to such Chinese laborers as may desire to leave the United States by water; and it is hereby made the duty of the collector of customs of the district next adjoining the foreign country to which said Chinese laborer desires to go to issue such certificate, free of charge or cost, upon application by such Chinese laborer, and to enter the same upon registry-books to be kept by him for the purpose, as provided for in section four of this act.

SEC.6. That in order to the faithful execution of articles one and two of the treaty in this act before mentioned, every Chinese person other than a laborer who may be entitled by said treaty and this act to come within the United States, and who shall be about to come to the United States, shall be identified as so entitled by the Chinese Government in each case, such identity to be evidenced by a certificate issued under the authority of said government, which certificate shall be in the English language or (if not in the English language) accompanied by a translation into English, stating such right to come, and which certificate shall state the name, title or official rank, if any, the age, height, and all physical peculiarities, former and present occupation or profession, and place of residence in China of the person to whom the certificate is issued and that such person is entitled, conformably to the treaty in this act mentioned to come within the United States.

You might be interested:  What Are Running Records In Education?

Such certificate shall be prima-facie evidence of the fact set forth therein, and shall be produced to the collector of customs, or his deputy, of the port in the district in the United States at which the person named therein shall arrive. SEC.7. That any person who shall knowingly and falsely alter or substitute any name for the name written in such certificate or forge any such certificate, or knowingly utter any forged or fraudulent certificate, or falsely personate any person named in any such certificate, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor; and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned in a penitentiary for a term of not more than five years.

SEC.8. That the master of any vessel arriving in the United States from any foreign port or place shall, at the same time he delivers a manifest of the cargo, and if there be no cargo, then at the time of making a report of the entry of the vessel pursuant to law, in addition to the other matter required to be reported, and before landing, or permitting to land, any Chinese passengers, deliver and report to the collector of customs of the district in which such vessels shall have arrived a separate list of all Chinese passengers taken on board his vessel at any foreign port or place, and all such passengers on board the vessel at that time.

Such list shall show the names of such passengers (and if accredited officers of the Chinese Government traveling on the business of that government, or their servants, with a note of such facts), and the names and other particulars, as shown by their respective certificates; and such list shall be sworn to by the master in the manner required by law in relation to the manifest of the cargo.

Any willful refusal or neglect of any such master to comply with the provisions of this section shall incur the same penalties and forfeiture as are provided for a refusal or neglect to report and deliver a manifest of the cargo. SEC.9. That before any Chinese passengers are landed from any such line vessel, the collector, or his deputy, shall proceed to examine such passenger, comparing the certificate with the list and with the passengers ; and no passenger shall be allowed to land in the United States from such vessel in violation of law.

SEC.10. That every vessel whose master shall knowingly violate any of the provisions of this act shall be deemed forfeited to the United States, and shall be liable to seizure and condemnation in any district of the United States into which such vessel may enter or in which she may be found. SEC.11. That any person who shall knowingly bring into or cause to be brought into the United States by land, or who shall knowingly aid or abet the same, or aid or abet the landing in the United States from any vessel of any Chinese person not lawfully entitled to enter the United States, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, on conviction thereof, be fined in a sum not exceeding one thousand dollars, and imprisoned for a term not exceeding one year.

SEC.12. That no Chinese person shall be permitted to enter the United States by land without producing to the proper officer of customs the certificate in this act required of Chinese persons seeking to land from a vessel. And any Chinese person found unlawfully within the United States shall be caused to be removed therefrom to the country from whence he came, by direction of the President of the United States, and at the cost of the United States, after being brought before some justice, judge, or commissioner of a court of the United States and found to be one not lawfully entitled to be or remain in the United States.

SEC.13. That this act shall not apply to diplomatic and other officers of the Chinese Government traveling upon the business of that government, whose credentials shall be taken as equivalent to the certificate in this act mentioned, and shall exempt them and their body and house- hold servants from the provisions of this act as to other Chinese persons.

SEC.14. That hereafter no State court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship; and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed. SEC.15. That the words “Chinese laborers”, wherever used in this act shall be construed to mean both skilled and unskilled laborers and Chinese employed in mining.
View complete answer

Which group was not permitted to immigrate to the United States until the 1940s?

Repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act, 1943 NOTE TO READERS “Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations” has been retired and is no longer maintained. For more information, please see, In 1943, Congress passed a measure to repeal the discriminatory exclusion laws against Chinese immigrants and to establish an immigration quota for China of around 105 visas per year.

  1. As such, the Chinese were both the first to be excluded in the beginning of the era of immigration restriction and the first Asians to gain entry to the United States in the era of liberalization.
  2. The repeal of this act was a decision almost wholly grounded in the exigencies of World War II, as Japanese propaganda made repeated reference to Chinese exclusion from the United States in order to weaken the ties between the United States and its ally, the Republic of China.

The fact that in addition to general measures preventing Asian immigration, the Chinese were subject to their own, unique prohibition had long been a source of contention in Sino‑American relations. There was little opposition to the repeal, because the United States already had in place a number of measures to ensure that, even without the Chinese Exclusion Laws explicitly forbidding Chinese immigration, Chinese still could not enter. More controversial than repeal was the proposal to go one step further and place the Chinese on a quota basis for future entry to the United States. By finally applying the formulas created in the 1924 Immigration Act, the total annual quota for Chinese immigrants to the United States (calculated as a percentage of the total population of people of Chinese origin living in the United States in 1920) would be around 105.

  1. In light of the overall immigration to the United States, at first glance the new quota seemed insignificant.
  2. Yet, those concerned about an onslaught of Chinese (or Asian) immigration and its potential impact on American society and racial composition believed that even this small quota represented an opening wedge through which potentially thousands of Chinese could enter the United States.

Because migration within the Western Hemisphere was not regulated by the quota system, it seemed possible that Chinese residents in Central and South America would re-migrate to the United States. Moreover, if the Chinese of Hong Kong were to apply under the vast, largely unused British quota, thousands could enter each year on top of the number of available Chinese visas.

  • Fears about the economic, social, and racial effect of a “floodtide” of Chinese immigrants led to a compromise bill—fears that mirrored the xenophobic arguments that had led to Chinese Exclusion in the first place, some sixty years previously.
  • Under this bill, there would be a quota on Chinese immigration, but, unlike European quotas based on country of citizenship, the Chinese quota would be based on ethnicity.

Chinese immigrating to the United States from anywhere in the world would be counted against the Chinese quota, even if they had never been to China or had never held Chinese nationality. Creating this special, ethnic quota for the Chinese was a way for the United States to combat Japanese propaganda by proclaiming that Chinese were welcome, but at the same time, to ensure that only a limited number of Chinese actually entered the country.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt threw the weight of his office behind the compromise measure, connecting the importance of the measure to American wartime goals. In a letter to Congress, Roosevelt wrote that passing the bill was vital to correcting the “historic mistake” of Chinese exclusion, and he emphasized that the legislation was “important in the cause of winning the war and of establishing a secure peace.” The repeal of Chinese exclusion paved the way for measures in 1946 to admit Filipino and Asian-Indian immigrants.

The exclusion of both of these groups had long damaged U.S. relations with the Philippines and India. Eventually, Asian exclusion ended with the 1952 Immigration Act, although that Act followed the pattern of the Chinese quota and assigned racial, not national, quotas to all Asian immigrants.
View complete answer

What issue did Proposition 13 in California deal with?

Limit the tax rate for properties – Section 1. (a) The maximum amount of any ad valorem tax on real property shall not exceed one percent (1%) of the full cash value of such property. The one percent (1%) tax to be collected by the counties and apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.
View complete answer

What is the California cigarette proposition?

ARGUMENTS – PRO Yes on 31 protects kids by ending the sale of candy-flavored tobacco, including e-cigarettes and minty-menthol cigarettes.80% of kids who’ve used tobacco started with a flavored tobacco product. A YES on 31 vote will save lives and save taxpayers money by preventing tobacco related healthcare expenses.

  • CON Prop.31 is adult prohibition.
  • It is ALREADY illegal to sell any tobacco products—including vapes—to anyone under 21.
  • Prop.31 costs taxpayers $1 billion over four years, while criminal gangs benefit by controlling increased smuggling and underground markets, leading to more neighborhood crime.
  • Prohibition never works.

Vote No on Prop.31.
View complete answer

What was the purpose of the California Civil Rights initiative?

Scholarship and commentary –

  • Heriot, Gail (2001). University of California Admissions under Proposition 209: Unheralded Gains Face an Uncertain Future, NEXUS: A Journal of Opinion 6:163.
  • Jamison, Cynthia C. (2004). The Cost of Defiance: Plaintiffs’ Entitlement to Damages Under the California Civil Rights Initiative, Southwestern Univ. Law Review 33:521.
  • McCutcheon, Stephen R., Jr., & Travis J. Lindsey (2004). The Last Refuge of Official Discrimination: The Federal Funding Exception to California’s Proposition 209, 44 Santa Clara Law Review 457.
  • Myers, Caitlin Knowles (2007). A Cure for Discrimination? Affirmative Action and the Case of California’s Proposition 209, Industrial & Labor Relations Review 60:379.

View complete answer

Why is California’s Proposition 11 2008 significant?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parts of this article (those related to initial selection and current status of the district boundary commission) need to be updated, Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. ( November 2010 )

Proposition 11 of 2008 (or the Voters FIRST Act ) was a law enacted by California voters that placed the power to draw electoral boundaries for State Assembly and State Senate districts in a Citizens Redistricting Commission, as opposed to the State Legislature.

To do this the Act amended both the Constitution of California and the Government Code, The law was proposed by means of the initiative process and was put to voters as part of the November 4, 2008 state elections, In 2010, voters passed Proposition 20 which extended the Citizen Redistricting Commission’s power to draw electoral boundaries to include U.S.

House seats as well.
View complete answer

What was an unintended result of California’s Proposition 2009 quizlet?

What was an unintended result of California’s Proposition 209? Minority enrollment in state colleges sharply decreased.
View complete answer

Why did massive numbers of immigrants pour into California?

Chinese Immigrants and the California Gold Rush By Cindy Grigg

1 On January 24, 1848, gold was discovered in California at Sutter’s Mill. By 1849, people were coming to California from all over the world to look for gold. The California gold rush caused a huge increase in California’s population. That year about 80,000 gold-seekers came to California, hoping to strike it rich.

These migrants were known as “forty-niners.” Nearly eighty percent of these were Americans from the east. The others came from all over the world. Many of them came from countries that had had few people move to the United States in the past.2 At that time, war, famine, and a poor economy in southeastern China caused many Chinese men to come to America.

Most of them hoped to find great wealth and return to China. Between 1849 and 1853, about 24,000 young Chinese men immigrated to California.3 Chinese immigrants soon found that many Americans did not welcome them. In 1852, California placed a high monthly tax on all foreign miners.

  • Chinese miners had no choice but to pay this tax if they wanted to mine for gold in California.
  • Chinese workers were also the targets of violent attacks in the mining camps.
  • The legal system offered little protection.
  • It often favored Americans over Chinese and other immigrants.4 Many Chinese immigrants continued working in the gold mines despite such treatment.

Some looked for different jobs, and many opened their own businesses. Many Chinese opened their own restaurants and laundries. The largest and oldest Chinese community in the United States is the Chinatown area of San Francisco.5 San Francisco, California, grew more rapidly than any other city in the world at the time.

  • Its population jumped from about 800 in March 1848 to more than 25,000 by 1850.
  • In a very short time, business growth, gold mining, and trade changed California’s economy.
  • As the gold rush faded, frontier society became more stable.
  • Great wealth became more difficult to achieve, but with luck and hard work, immigrants could build good lives for themselves in the West.

After the gold rush ended, many Chinese immigrants worked as farm laborers, in low-paying industrial jobs, and on railroad construction.6 As more Americans moved west, the need to send goods and information between the East and West increased. The federal government passed the Pacific Railway Acts of 1862 and 1864.

  1. These acts gave railroad companies loans and land grants.
  2. The railroads hired many immigrants, many of them Chinese.
  3. Chinese workers were paid less than white laborers.
  4. They were also given the most dangerous jobs and longer working hours.
  5. However, Chinese workers could earn much more money working for the railroads than in China.7 Chinese immigrants continued to come to America between the years of 1849 and 1882.
You might be interested:  How Long Does Interior Design School Take?

In that year, the U.S. government passed a law stopping their immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Act stopped almost all Chinese immigration for nearly a century. This was the first immigration law passed in the United States that was against a specific national or ethnic group.

Name _ Date _

Chinese Immigrants and the California Gold Rush

1. What event sent people from all over the world to California in 1848-1849?

/td>

2. People who came to California after this event were called: Forty-niners Illegal aliens Gold rushers

/td>

3. Most of these people who came to California came from: The eastern United States China Canada

/td>

4. What was happening in China that caused many people to emigrate from there? War Famine Poor economy All of the above

/td>

5. What did California do to discourage foreigners from mining for gold? Wouldn’t give them jobs Taxed them Wouldn’t give them a place to live

/td>

6. What kind of businesses did many Chinese men open for themselves? Restaurants and laundries Factories and railroads Hotels and grocery stores

/td>

7. Where is the oldest and largest Chinese community in the United States? Chinatown in San Francisco Chinatown in Los Angeles Chinatown in New York City

/td>

8. After the gold rush ended, what type of jobs did many Chinese immigrants hold? Farm laborers Low-paying industrial jobs Railroad construction All of the above

/td>

table>

Name _ Date _

Chinese Immigrants and the California Gold Rush

9. Why did the Chinese stay in America even though conditions were not the best?

/td>

10. What happened in 1882 that stopped almost all Chinese immigrants from coming to America? A federal law was passed excluding them. There was a war in the United States. The railroads stopped hiring them.

/td>

table>

Name _ Date _

Chinese Immigrants and the California Gold Rush Did the railroads treat Chinese workers fairly? Why or why not?

Name _ Date _

Chinese Immigrants and the California Gold Rush Do you think that the Chinese Exclusion Act was fair or unfair? Please explain.

Chinese Immigrants and the California Gold Rush – Answer Key

1 gold was discovered 2 Forty-niners 3 The eastern United States 4 All of the above 5 Taxed them 6 Restaurants and laundries 7 Chinatown in San Francisco 8 All of the above 9 They could earn more than in China.10 A federal law was passed excluding them.

Chinese Immigrants and the California Gold Rush

View complete answer

What were the results of the passage of California Proposition 209?

Contracting and Workforce – An analysis of the impact of affirmative action programs on self-employment in the construction industry “The main findings of this paper are that despite the existence of various affirmative action programs designed to improve the position of women and minorities in public construction, little has changed in the last twenty-five years.

  • We present evidence showing that where race conscious affirmative action programs exist they appear to generate significant improvements: when these programs are removed or replaced with race-neutral programs the utilization of minorities and women in public construction declines rapidly.
  • We show that the programs have not helped minorities to become self-employed or to raise their earnings over the period 1979-2004, but have improved the position of white females.

There has been a growth in incorporated self-employment rates of white women in construction such that currently their rate is significantly higher than that of white men. The data are suggestive of the possibility that some of these companies are ‘fronts’ which are actually run by their white male spouses or sons to take advantage of the affirmative action programs.” Blanchflower, D.G., & Wainwright, J.

  • 2005). An analysis of the impact of affirmative action programs on self-employment in the construction industry.
  • National Bureau of Economic Research, working paper 11793.
  • Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.‌net/publication/5136106_An_Analysis_of_the_Impact_of_Affirmative_Action_Programs_on_Self-Employment_in_the_Construction_Industry Affirmative action, major choice, and long-run impacts “Prior studies of the medium-run outcomes of universities’ race-based affirmative action (AA) policies have been challenged by highly-censored data availability.

This study analyzes a novel highly-detailed database of University of California (UC) applications in the years before and after its AA policy ended in 1998, linked to national degree attainment, state earnings records, and five universities’ complete student transcripts.

First, I show that ending AA caused substantial and persistent educational and labor market deterioration among URM UC applicants: each of UC’s 10,000 annual URM freshman applicants’ likelihood of earning a Bachelor’s degree declined by 1.3 percentage points, their likelihood of earning any graduate degree declined 1.4 p.p., and their likelihood of earning at least $100,000 in each year between ages 30 and 37 declined by about 1 p.p.

per year. These results imply that affirmative action’s end decreased the number of age 30-to-34 URM Californians earning over $100,000 by at least 2.5 percent. Second, I show that ending AA did not improve URM students’ relative performance or persistence in core physical, biological, or mathematical science courses, within or across impacted universities.

  • These findings suggest that state prohibitions on university affirmative action policies have modestly exacerbated American socioeconomic inequities.” Bleemer, Z. (2019).
  • Affirmative action, major choice, and long-run impacts.
  • Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3484530 The impact of Proposition 209 on California’s MWBEs: One billion in contract dollars lost annually by businesses owned by women and people of color due to Proposition 209 “This study attempts to quantify the impact by measuring the loss in contract dollars to those businesses.

Proposition 209 caused the state and local governments to end their race-conscious contracting programs, resulting in a loss of $1 billion to $1.1 billion annually for minority and women business enterprises.” Lohrentz, T. (2015). The impact of Proposition 209 on California’s MWBEs: One billion in contract dollars lost annually by businesses owned by women and people of color due to Proposition 209.

  • Oakland, CA: Equal Justice Society.
  • Retrieved from https://equaljusticesociety.org/2015/02/24/one-billion-in-potential-contract-dollars-lost-annually-by-businesses-owned-by-women-and-people-of-color-due-to-proposition-209/#:~:text=‌Proposition%20209%20not%20only%20ended,previously%20been%20collecting%20that%20data How costly is affirmative action? Government contracting and California’s Proposition 209 “Despite the magnitude and controversial nature of affirmative action programs in contracting, surprisingly little is known about the cost they may impose on the government.

This paper uses California’s Proposition 209, which prohibited the consideration of race or gender in state-funded contracts, to investigate the effect of disadvantaged business enterprise subcontractor participation goals on the winning bids for highway construction contracts.

  • After Proposition 209, the prices on state funded contracts fell by 5.6 percent relative to federally funded projects, for which preferences still applied.
  • While the subcontractor requirements are found to distort the contractor’s make-versus-buy decision, most of the decline in costs after Proposition 209 results from the productivity of subcontractors employed.

This seems to arise not from productivity differences between minority and non-minority firms in the same location, but from the higher costs of firms located in high-minority areas. Lastly, I provide evidence that short-run barriers to entry and expansion for minority- and women-owned firms may increase the cost of affirmative action.” Marion, J.

(2009). How costly is affirmative action? Government contracting and California’s Proposition 209. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91 (3), 503-522. Retrieved from https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/rest.91.3.503?journalCode=rest#authorsTabList Free to compete? Measuring the impact of Proposition 209 on minority business enterprises “In 2006, the Discrimination Research Center (DRC) set out to measure the impact of Proposition 209 on businesses that were certified as minority business enterprise in 1996.

Free to Compete? intends to clarify how Caltrans’ race-conscious affirmative action program affected transportation construction companies owned by people of color both before and after Proposition 209.” Morris, M.W., Thanasombat, S., Sumner, M.D., Pierre, S., & Borja, J.Z.

2006). Free to compete? Measuring the impact of Proposition 209 on minority business enterprises. Berkeley, CA: Discrimination Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/thcsj/Free_to_Compete.pdf A cure for discrimination? Affirmative action and the case of California Proposition 209 “Proposition 209, enacted in California in 1996 and made effective the following year, ended state affirmative action programs not only in education, but also for public employment and government contracting.

This paper uses CPS data to gauge the labor market impacts of ending affirmative action programs. Employment among women and minorities dropped sharply, a change that was nearly completely explained by a decline in participation rather than by increases in unemployment.

This decline suggests that either affirmative action programs in California had been inefficient or that they failed to create lasting change in prejudicial attitudes.” Myers, C.K. (2005). A cure for discrimination? Affirmative action and the case of California Proposition 209. ILR Review, 60 (3), 379-396.

Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/001979390706000304 Proposition 209 and public employment in California: Trends in workforce diversity “Passed in 1996, Proposition 209 ended most forms of traditional affirmative action in public education, employment, and contracting.

We investigated trends in public employment since 1990, in order to analyze the impact of Proposition 209 on workforce diversity in public employment. In California, initial evidence suggests that Proposition 209 may have limited workforce diversity for people of color and women statewide.” Sumner, M.D.

(2008). Proposition 209 and public employment in California: Trends in workforce diversity. Berkeley, CA: Thelton E. Henderson Center for Social Justice, Berkeley Law. Retrieved from https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/‌Proposition-209-and-Public-Employment-Workforce-Diversity.pdf
View complete answer

What California proposition is education funding?

K-12 Education – K-12 Proposition 98 Funding Increases Nearly 19 Percent. The budget plan contains $95.5 billion in Proposition 98 funding for K-12 education in 2022-23—$15 billion (18.6 percent) more than the 2021-22 Budget Act level. This increase—combined with the upward revision to the 2021-22 guarantee and various other adjustments—provides almost $33 billion for new K-12 spending.

Ongoing
Additional LCFF increase above COLA $4,320
Expanded Learning Opportunities Program 3,000
New LCFF adjustment for declining attendance in school districts 2,816
LCFF growth and COLA (6.56 percent) 772
School transportation 637
Transitional kindergarten expansion 614
Child nutrition reimbursement rate increase 612
Universal school meals implementation 596
Special education base rate increase 500
Transitional kindergarten lower staffing ratios 383
COLA for select categorical programs a 360
State Preschool rate increase for three‑year olds 240
Annualization of State Preschool rate increases 166
After school program rates b 149
COE LCFF increase above COLA 101
Classified School Employee Summer Assistance Program 90
State Preschool adjustment factor for students with disabilities 73
Special education extraordinary cost pools 14
California College Guidance Initiative 9
California Newcomer Education and Wellbeing (CalNEW) 5
Seal of Civic Engagement 5
Special education technical assistance leads 2
Agricultural vocational education 2
COE support for charter schools in differentiated assistance 2
Single‑district COE base grants for differentiated assistance 1
Standardized Account Code Structure system replacement project 1
Subtotal ($15,470)
One‑Time
Learning Recovery Emergency Block Grant $7,936
Arts, Music, and Instructional Materials Discretionary Block Grant 3,634
Green school bus grants 1,500
Community schools 1,133
School kitchen upgrades 700
Golden State Pathways Program 500
LCFF adjustment for declining attendance in charter schools 413
Pre‑kindergarten planning and implementation 300
Teacher and counselor residency programs 250
Literacy coaches and reading specialists 250
Inclusive Early Education Expansion Program 250
Dual enrollment access 200
Community Engagement Initiative 100
Math and science professional development 85
EWIG for English learners and students with disabilities 35
Classified School Employee Summer Assistance Program 35
Charter School Facility Grant Program 30
Teacher residency technical assistance center 20
Reading and literacy supplementary authorization grant 15
Model curricula development 14
State Preschool family fee waivers 11
Anti‑bias grants 10
California College Guidance Initiative 4
Center on Teaching Careers 2
Extended hold harmless for Paradise Unified 2
Wildfire‑related property tax backfill 2
Special education inclusive practices resources 2
Other c 1
Subtotal ($17,433)
Total $32,904
a Applies to the Foster Youth Program, American Indian Early Childhood Education, Special Education, Preschool, Child Nutrition, and K‑12 mandates block grant. b Backfills rate increases for After School Education and Safety Program and 21st Century Community Learning Centers programs, which were provided in 2021‑22 with one‑time federal funds. c Includes funding for Medi‑Cal billing resource lead, a study of English Language Proficiency Assessments, and support for the administration of the physical fitness test.
LCFF = Local Control Funding Formula; COLA = cost‑of‑living adjustment; COE = county office of education; and EWIG = Educator Workforce Incentive Grant.

View complete answer

What is California’s Proposition 13 Why has it created problems for the state budget?

What got us into this mess? – Without a doubt, Proposition 13, passed by voters in 1978, is a major part of the problem. While it provided much-needed relief for many California homeowners, it also instituted a vastly unequal system of tax loopholes for many commercial property owners, including some of the richest corporations in the world.

California loses an estimated $8 billion every year in commercial property tax revenues – monies that could help hire more teachers for classrooms, more police and fire protection, expand our libraries and more. Proposition 13 also instituted a requirement that most tax increases need a two-thirds vote from the legislature or voters.

This has made it extremely difficult to generate new revenues for the state treasury, leaving drastic budget cuts as the only alternative. This has led to a wide range of band-aid solutions, like, for instance, raising debt, regressive taxes, piecemeal budgeting.
View complete answer

What proposition allows discrimination in California?

Official arguments –

Official arguments from California State Voter Guide

In support In opposition
YES on Prop.16 means EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools. Despite living in the most diverse state in the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front lines of the COVID-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacrifices. Women should have the same chance of success as men. Today, nearly all public contracts, and the jobs that go with them, go to large companies run by older white men. White women make 80¢ on the dollar. The wage disparity is even worse for women of color and single moms. As a result, an elite few are able to hoard wealth instead of investing it back into communities. Prop.16 opens up contracting opportunities for women and people of color. We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Yet, Main Street businesses owned by women and people of color lose over $1,100,000,000 in government contracts every year because of the current law. We need to support those small businesses, especially as we rebuild from COVID-19. Wealth will be invested back into our communities. YES on Prop.16 helps rebuild California stronger with fair opportunities for all. YES on Prop.16 means:

  • Supporting women and women of color who serve disproportionately as essential caregivers/frontline workers during COVID-19
  • Expanding access to solid wages, good jobs, and quality schools for all Californians, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity
  • Creating opportunities for women and people of color to receive public contracts that should be available to all of us
  • Improving access to quality education, both K–12 schools and higher education, for all of California’s kids
  • Taking action to prevent discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for all
  • Rebuilding an economy that treats everyone equally
  • Investing wealth back into our communities as opposed to continuing to allow the rich to get richer
  • Strong anti-discrimination laws remain in effect
  • Quotas are still prohibited

We live in the middle of an incredible historic moment. In 2020, we have seen an unprecedented number of Californians take action against systemic racism and voice their support for real change. At the same time, our shared values are under attack by the Trump administration’s policies. We are seeing the rise of overt racism: white supremacists on the march, the daily demonization of Latino immigrants, Black people gunned-down in our streets, anti-Asian hate crimes on the rise, women’s rights under attack, and COVID-19 ravaging Native communities. By voting YES on Prop.16, Californians can take action to push back against the Trump administration’s racist agenda. By voting YES on Prop.16, Californians can take action to push back against racism and sexism and create a more just and fair state for all. Equal opportunity matters. Yes on Prop.16. VoteYesOnProp16.org CAROL MOON GOLDBERG, President League of Women Voters of California THOMAS A. SAENZ, President Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund EVA PATERSON, President Equal Justice Society

The California Legislature wants you to strike these precious words from our state Constitution: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Don’t do it! Vote NO. Those words—adopted by California voters in 1996 as Proposition 209—should remain firmly in place. Only by treating everyone equally can a state as brilliantly diverse as California be fair to everyone. REPEAL WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD Discrimination of this kind is poisonous. It will divide us at a time we desperately need to unite. Politicians want to give preferential treatment to their favorites. They think they can “fix” past discrimination against racial minorities and women by discriminating against other racial minorities and men who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Punishing innocent people will only cause a never-ending cycle of resentment. The only way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating. HELP THOSE WHO REALLY NEED IT Not every Asian American or white is advantaged. Not every Latino or black is disadvantaged. Our state has successful men and women of all races and ethnicities. Let’s not perpetuate the stereotype that minorities and women can’t make it unless they get special preferences. At the same time, our state also has men and women—of all races and ethnicities—who could use a little extra break. Current law allows for “affirmative action” of this kind so long as it doesn’t discriminate or give preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. For example, state universities can give a leg-up for students from low-income families or students who would be the first in their family to attend college. The state can help small businesses started by low-income individuals or favor low-income individuals for job opportunities. But if these words are stricken from our state Constitution, the University of California will again be free to give a wealthy lawyer’s son a preference for admission over a farmworker’s daughter simply because he’s from an “under-represented” group. That’s unjust. GIVE TAXPAYERS A BREAK Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, California and many local governments maintained costly bureaucracies that required preferential treatment in public contracting based on a business owner’s race, sex or ethnicity. The lowest qualified bidder could be rejected. A careful, peer-reviewed study by a University of California economist found that CalTrans contracts governed by Proposition 209 saved 5.6% over non-209 contracts in the two-year period after it took effect. If the savings for other government contracts are anywhere near that, repealing this constitutional provision could cost taxpayers many BILLIONS of dollars. EQUAL RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL Prohibiting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin is a fundamental part of the American creed. It’s there in our Constitution for all of us.,now and for future generations. Don’t throw it away. VOTE NO. WARD CONNERLY, President Californians for Equal Rights GAIL HERIOT, Professor of Law BETTY TOM CHU, Former California Constitution Revision Commissioner

View complete answer

Which groups were least likely to support restrictions on immigration?

Which groups were least likely to support restrictions on immigration? Employers. The best explanation for the end of free immigration in the 1920s is _. the fear that America would be flooded by immigrants fleeing the war devastated economies of central and eastern Europe.
View complete answer

What were the 3 main groups of European immigrants who came to America?

Colonial era – In 1607, the first successful English colony settled in Jamestown, Virginia, Once tobacco was found to be a profitable cash crop, many plantations were established along the Chesapeake Bay in Virginia and Maryland, Thus began the first and longest era of immigration, lasting until the American Revolution in 1775; during this time settlements grew from initial English toe-holds from the New World to British America,

It brought Northern European immigrants, primarily of British, German, and Dutch extraction. The British ruled from the mid-17th century and they were by far the largest group of arrivals, remaining within the British Empire, Over 90% of these early immigrants became farmers. Large numbers of young men and women came alone as indentured servants.

Their passage was paid by employers in the colonies who needed help on the farms or in shops. Indentured servants were provided food, housing, clothing and training but they did not receive wages. At the end of the indenture (usually around age 21, or after a service of seven years) they were free to marry and start their own farms.
View complete answer

What is the California smoking proposition?

Main Provisions of Proposition 31 (SB 793) – Bans Most Sales of Flavored Tobacco Products and Tobacco Product Flavor Enhancers. Proposition 31 (SB 793) prohibits in-person stores and vending machines from selling most flavored tobacco products or tobacco product flavor enhancers.

The proposition does not ban shisha (hookah) tobacco sold and used at the store, certain cigars, or loose-leaf tobacco. Defines Flavored Tobacco Products. Proposition 31 defines flavored tobacco products as those that have a flavor, apart from the regular tobacco flavor. For example, the flavor could include fruit, mint, menthol, honey, chocolate, or vanilla.

The proposition defines a tobacco product flavor enhancer as a product that creates a flavor when added to a tobacco product. Charges a $250 Penalty for Each Violation. Proposition 31 charges a $250 penalty against stores and vending machine owners for each violation of the requirements described previously.
View complete answer

What is the California cigarette proposition?

ARGUMENTS – PRO Yes on 31 protects kids by ending the sale of candy-flavored tobacco, including e-cigarettes and minty-menthol cigarettes.80% of kids who’ve used tobacco started with a flavored tobacco product. A YES on 31 vote will save lives and save taxpayers money by preventing tobacco related healthcare expenses.

  • CON Prop.31 is adult prohibition.
  • It is ALREADY illegal to sell any tobacco products—including vapes—to anyone under 21.
  • Prop.31 costs taxpayers $1 billion over four years, while criminal gangs benefit by controlling increased smuggling and underground markets, leading to more neighborhood crime.
  • Prohibition never works.

Vote No on Prop.31.
View complete answer

What is the California Anti Discrimination Proposition?

Official arguments –

Official arguments from California State Voter Guide

In support In opposition
YES on Prop.16 means EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL CALIFORNIANS. All of us deserve equal opportunities to thrive with fair wages, good jobs, and quality schools. Despite living in the most diverse state in the nation, white men are still overrepresented in positions of wealth and power in California. Although women, and especially women of color, are on the front lines of the COVID-19 response, they are not rewarded for their sacrifices. Women should have the same chance of success as men. Today, nearly all public contracts, and the jobs that go with them, go to large companies run by older white men. White women make 80¢ on the dollar. The wage disparity is even worse for women of color and single moms. As a result, an elite few are able to hoard wealth instead of investing it back into communities. Prop.16 opens up contracting opportunities for women and people of color. We know that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. Yet, Main Street businesses owned by women and people of color lose over $1,100,000,000 in government contracts every year because of the current law. We need to support those small businesses, especially as we rebuild from COVID-19. Wealth will be invested back into our communities. YES on Prop.16 helps rebuild California stronger with fair opportunities for all. YES on Prop.16 means:

  • Supporting women and women of color who serve disproportionately as essential caregivers/frontline workers during COVID-19
  • Expanding access to solid wages, good jobs, and quality schools for all Californians, regardless of gender, race, or ethnicity
  • Creating opportunities for women and people of color to receive public contracts that should be available to all of us
  • Improving access to quality education, both K–12 schools and higher education, for all of California’s kids
  • Taking action to prevent discrimination and ensure equal opportunity for all
  • Rebuilding an economy that treats everyone equally
  • Investing wealth back into our communities as opposed to continuing to allow the rich to get richer
  • Strong anti-discrimination laws remain in effect
  • Quotas are still prohibited

We live in the middle of an incredible historic moment. In 2020, we have seen an unprecedented number of Californians take action against systemic racism and voice their support for real change. At the same time, our shared values are under attack by the Trump administration’s policies. We are seeing the rise of overt racism: white supremacists on the march, the daily demonization of Latino immigrants, Black people gunned-down in our streets, anti-Asian hate crimes on the rise, women’s rights under attack, and COVID-19 ravaging Native communities. By voting YES on Prop.16, Californians can take action to push back against the Trump administration’s racist agenda. By voting YES on Prop.16, Californians can take action to push back against racism and sexism and create a more just and fair state for all. Equal opportunity matters. Yes on Prop.16. VoteYesOnProp16.org CAROL MOON GOLDBERG, President League of Women Voters of California THOMAS A. SAENZ, President Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund EVA PATERSON, President Equal Justice Society

The California Legislature wants you to strike these precious words from our state Constitution: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Don’t do it! Vote NO. Those words—adopted by California voters in 1996 as Proposition 209—should remain firmly in place. Only by treating everyone equally can a state as brilliantly diverse as California be fair to everyone. REPEAL WOULD BE A STEP BACKWARD Discrimination of this kind is poisonous. It will divide us at a time we desperately need to unite. Politicians want to give preferential treatment to their favorites. They think they can “fix” past discrimination against racial minorities and women by discriminating against other racial minorities and men who are innocent of any wrongdoing. Punishing innocent people will only cause a never-ending cycle of resentment. The only way to stop discrimination is to stop discriminating. HELP THOSE WHO REALLY NEED IT Not every Asian American or white is advantaged. Not every Latino or black is disadvantaged. Our state has successful men and women of all races and ethnicities. Let’s not perpetuate the stereotype that minorities and women can’t make it unless they get special preferences. At the same time, our state also has men and women—of all races and ethnicities—who could use a little extra break. Current law allows for “affirmative action” of this kind so long as it doesn’t discriminate or give preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. For example, state universities can give a leg-up for students from low-income families or students who would be the first in their family to attend college. The state can help small businesses started by low-income individuals or favor low-income individuals for job opportunities. But if these words are stricken from our state Constitution, the University of California will again be free to give a wealthy lawyer’s son a preference for admission over a farmworker’s daughter simply because he’s from an “under-represented” group. That’s unjust. GIVE TAXPAYERS A BREAK Prior to the passage of Proposition 209, California and many local governments maintained costly bureaucracies that required preferential treatment in public contracting based on a business owner’s race, sex or ethnicity. The lowest qualified bidder could be rejected. A careful, peer-reviewed study by a University of California economist found that CalTrans contracts governed by Proposition 209 saved 5.6% over non-209 contracts in the two-year period after it took effect. If the savings for other government contracts are anywhere near that, repealing this constitutional provision could cost taxpayers many BILLIONS of dollars. EQUAL RIGHTS ARE FUNDAMENTAL Prohibiting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin is a fundamental part of the American creed. It’s there in our Constitution for all of us.,now and for future generations. Don’t throw it away. VOTE NO. WARD CONNERLY, President Californians for Equal Rights GAIL HERIOT, Professor of Law BETTY TOM CHU, Former California Constitution Revision Commissioner

View complete answer

What is the California Firefighter Proposition?

Who’s Against It? – Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes closing the exploited tax loophole that would fund public safety and protect seniors, the disabled and wildfire victims from unfair taxes that often trap them in their non-functional homes.
View complete answer