Perspectives on Propostion 187 : Don’t Vote for a Fix That Won’t Work : Work and family, not public services, draw Mexicans here illegally, and the same ties will keep them here.

Even if they are not persuaded by the many legal, fiscal, moral and civil-libertarian arguments that have been marshaled against it, Californians should vote no on Proposition 187 for one simple, pragmatic reason: It won’t work.

Indeed, it can’t work because it is based on totally unrealistic, wrong-headed assumptions about why people behave as they do, and what can be done to change the behavior.

It would do nothing to alter the behavior of the vast majority of would-be illegal entrants, nor of illegals (and their legal-resident relatives) who are already living in California, nor that of the citizens who employ immigrants irrespective of their legal status or because they can accept false documents from job applicants with negligible risk of prosecution.

First, Proposition 187 is based on a fundamentally mistaken notion of why people migrate to California from Mexico and other Third World countries, and why they stay here.

The proponents of Proposition 187 would have us believe that the availability of health services, free public education and other social services is a powerful magnet for prospective illegal border crossers--perhaps not as powerful as jobs, but still a significant incentive.

Having spent the past 20 years studying Mexican migrants to California, most of whom entered illegally, I have yet to encounter a single one for whom getting access to some tax-supported service was the principal reason for coming here.

In my own studies, as well as those of dozens of other researchers, only 2% to 5% of would-be migrants or those interviewed on U.S. soil mentioned social services as even a secondary or contributing factor in their decisions to migrate. In all extant studies, the availability of higher-paying jobs and family ties with immigrants already living in this country were the overwhelming incentives.

It is always possible for an enterprising reporter to find anecdotal evidence that illegal aliens are using public services, including some to which they are not entitled by law. There are enough disgruntled bureaucrats trying to balance their budgets, frustrated anti-fraud investigators and others eager to supply the horror stories that make such compelling reading. And it is always possible to shine the investigative spotlight on the big publicly supported hospital in a city like Los Angeles or San Diego whose obstetrical service is overburdened by births to illegal immigrant mothers.

But the anecdotes fly in the face of a huge body of scientifically reliable evidence indicating that the social services magnet is vastly overrated.

The inferential leaps required to justify Proposition 187 in this way are truly breathtaking. Are we to assume, for example, that Mexican mothers giving birth in a Los Angeles hospital are doing so there, rather than in their place of origin, because they were attracted to California by high-quality, free obstetrical care, and/or because they want their babies to have U.S. citizenship?

Mexicans who give birth in California do see U.S. citizenship as a plus. But the main reason why they give birth on this side of the border is that they and, often, their closest relatives and friends--their support system at such times--live and work here on a year-round basis.

Advocates of Proposition 187 also argue that if denial of certain public services does not deter illegal immigrants from coming here, it will make life so miserable for those already here that they will go home. This “immiseration” hypothesis is equally nonsensical.

It is inconceivable that an immigrant family, in many cases containing at least some members who are here legally, a family that is already permanently settled in California, with at least one member of the household regularly employed, would pack up and return to a place where they have no viable economic options and no possibility of attaining anything remotely resembling even a modest U.S. standard of living.

Migrants who have children often say that seeing them through school here is a disincentive to go back. The majority of those children are U.S. citizens, born here. Proposition 187 doesn’t apply to them. And it takes cynicism of the most repugnant sort to think that such children will report their parents’ illegal status to school authorities, as envisioned by the initiative.

If serious research is any guide, the vast majority of undocumented immigrants and their children who have been living continuously in California for five years or more will stay here, whether or not Proposition 187 is approved. Restricting their access to education and health care will only generate higher long-term costs for the California economy and society--not just for the immigrants.

Californians may feel compelled to vote for Proposition 187 to “send a message” to Washington about the need to clamp down harder on illegal immigration. But if they believe that cutting off access to basic human services to illegals will hasten a solution, they will be sorely disappointed with the results.

We are dealing here with a knee-jerk, don’t-bother-me-with-the-facts, inordinately costly and ultimately ineffectual approach to immigration control. If nothing else, common sense dictates that Proposition 187 should be rejected.