California offers a glimpse 20 years into the future

The rise of Latino power in California began with Proposition 187, a 1994 ballot initiative that sought to deny services to unauthorized immigrants.

Lucy Nicholson/Reuters/File
A volunteer (right) looks to register new voters in a Latino neighborhood on Sept. 27, 2016, ahead of the presidential election that year.

As this week’s cover story writer, Francine Kiefer, will tell you, there was one source about the history and future of California who was always atop the must-call list. When I was our Northern California correspondent in the 2000s, Kevin Starr was that rarest of interviews: someone who could succinctly and reliably blow your mind – using his remarkable depth of knowledge to see sweeping trends in original ways.

This is the one comment from him that I have never forgotten: California is dealing with developing-world challenges in a first-world context.

Francine’s cover story brings back that memory today. Her story is about the long-anticipated rise of Latino power in California and what that could presage for the country. And the crux of her story is Proposition 187. The ballot initiative, passed overwhelmingly in 1994, sought to deny public services to unauthorized immigrants.

Though it was eventually struck down by the courts, Proposition 187 planted the seeds for a new era of Latino advocacy. It was seen as an attack on Latino dignity and humanity, and it played no small part in bringing down the Republican establishment that supported it. In California state government, Republicans are such a minority today that they are essentially irrelevant.

Fear played an important role in Proposition 187. The idea of an immigrant wave taking over the country remains potent and present in politics across the United States. But the late Mr. Starr’s comment years ago has always forced me to consider a different perspective, too.

Illegal immigration put strains on the Golden State’s public services. For many people who grew up in the era of the California Dream during the 1950s, California used its state largesse to build the best roads and the best universities, and to undertake water projects of awesome (and environmentally devastating) scope. Its financial might was used to create something approaching a middle-class Utopia.

A large part of that middle class saw Proposition 187 as a last-ditch attempt to save that vision – to make California great again, if you will. Was that group overwhelmingly white? Did societal structures make it hard for people of color to share that dream? Yes and yes. But illegal immigration was also far, far greater than it is today. It was reshaping California. While Proposition 187 was tinged with racial fears, it also had roots in other widely held concerns. To use Mr. Starr’s words: how to stem the developing-world challenges that are significantly fueled through an illegal process.

The past 25 years have proved an insightful epilogue. A quarter of the state Legislature is now Latino. California remains America’s most powerful economic engine, the world’s fifth-largest economy. And a majority of both Republicans and Democrats in the state now view immigrants as a net positive. 

California has long been a glimpse of the nation 20 years in the future. At this moment of division over immigration, that is perhaps more poignant than ever.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.