Politics
Column: California Latinos have become more skeptical of undocumented immigrants. What changed?
For the last quarter century, Democratic politicians in California have operated under the maxim that the more laws enacted to protect people in this country without legal status, the better.
Legislators in Sacramento passed bills that allowed undocumented immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses, pay in-state tuition at public universities and receive Medi-Cal. They declared California a “sanctuary state,” prohibiting local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration agents. School districts have approved extending voting rights to parents without papers. Cities and counties have contributed municipal funds to help residents caught up in deportation proceedings.
This is the legacy of Proposition 187, the 1994 ballot measure overwhelmingly passed by California voters that sought to make life miserable for undocumented immigrants. It never went into effect because a federal judge declared it unconstitutional — but it forever changed the Golden State and demonstrated the political power of Latinos.
Proposition 187 was so hated by Latinos that an L.A. Times exit poll showed only 23% of us voted for it, compared with 63% of whites. Those of us who came of age during that time swore off the Republican Party and doubled down on creating a kinder state. We helped transform California from politically purple to bluer than Lake Tahoe. We taught activists in other states how to fight the GOP anti-immigrant template that spread across the country and went all the way to the Trump White House.
Academics, activists and politicos still cite Proposition 187 as a cautionary tale for underestimating Latino power. But there’s a risk in transposing the past to the present. That’s why Democrats should worry about polls showing that in California, Latino support for undocumented immigrants and measures to help them has steadily eroded over the last two decades.
Demonstrators rally in support of undocumented students in the University of California system outside a meeting of the UC Board of Regents meeting in 2023.
(Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)
As far back as 2001, a Public Policy Institute of California survey showed that the gap between whites and Latinos on whether illegal immigration was a “problem” was nearly half the gap between the groups on Proposition 187. In 2012, an L.A. Times poll asking whether Californians would support the return of Proposition 187 found that a third of Latinos said yes — just 18 percentage points fewer than whites. In a 2019 Public Policy Institute of California survey, 75% of Latinos thought illegal border crossings, at a time of much-publicized migrant caravans, were either a “crisis” or a “serious problem” — more than the 70% of whites who felt the same way.
And the shift continues. A December survey by UnidosUS, formerly known as National Council of La Raza, of more than 3,000 Latinos in eight states showed that California Latinos were more open to “increasing border security” than Latinos in Georgia, Nevada and North Carolina. We tied with Florida for last place in wanting the government to provide a path to citizenship for so-called Dreamers. Of all the states, we least wanted to increase legal immigration or allow an amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Asked in the UnidosUS poll to rank their top three issues, California Latinos rated immigration sixth, behind cost of living, lack of affordable housing and crime.
Last month, a UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies poll on border security, co-sponsored by The Times, found that 63% of Latinos in California consider undocumented immigrants to be a “burden,” compared with 79% of whites. On the nation’s asylum laws, 33% of Latinos described them as too lenient, compared with 39% of whites. Latinos were slightly more likely than whites to say that tighter laws would be “effective” in reducing the number of migrants claiming asylum. On nearly every question, there was little gap between Latinos who are English-dominant and Latinos who prefer Spanish — a stand-in of sorts for the native-born and immigrants.
In this 30th anniversary year, as Californians reflect on the legacy of Proposition 187, it’s important to pay attention to these polls. Arrests for unauthorized crossings from Mexico reached an all-time high in December. Even President Biden is vowing to shut down the border instead of rolling out the proverbial welcome mat. That Latinos in California — whose growth was mostly due to immigration, legal and not — are becoming almost as skeptical of unchecked illegal immigration as their white neighbors is a sad, if inevitable milestone.
Migrants walk past large buoys being used as a floating border barrier on the Rio Grande in 2023 in Eagle Pass, Texas.
(Eric Gay / Associated Press)
This won’t automatically translate into more Latinos voting Republican. It does mean that California’s open-borders era is beginning to wind down. Last month, the UC Board of Regents declined to move forward with a long-promised policy to hire undocumented students without work permits. Over boos and cries of “cowards,” the regents heeded the advice of President Michael V. Drake, who warned of the legal risks.
That might not have been the outcome when Donald Trump was in power, when the lords of California tripped over themselves to challenge his administration over anything involving illegal immigration.
This hardening by Latinos doesn’t surprise me one bit. In a state where an estimated 83% of Latinos are of Mexican heritage, according to census data analyzed by UCLA’s Latino Politics and Policy Institute, the changing faces of illegal immigration are drawing less and less empathy. I’ve seen this within my own family.
When the undocumented immigrants were my uncles and aunts, we hailed them as heroes. They told stories of facing off against la migra, as if they were in a Benny Hill skit. To this day, decades after becoming a U.S. citizen, my dad proudly calls himself a mojado — a wetback. But when the Mexicans started coming from southern states with larger Indigenous populations, my relatives saw them as shiftless flojos — lazy people — who weren’t like our Mexicans.
When tens of thousands of unaccompanied Central American minors entered this country in the last decade or so, sympathy for them among my family members went hand in hand with grumblings about who would have to take care of them. Now, Venezuelan migrants are on everyone’s mind. At a recent family party, a distant cousin who came to this country without papers as a young man railed about Venezuelans supposedly getting free food and lodging in New York with all the xenophobic bloviating of a Fox News host.
He said this even as the community center that hosted our party made us close the doors because the tubas and trombones of the banda sinaloense were too loud.
Since the battle over Proposition 187, Latinos have considered ourselves the moral conscience of California. We still exhibit flashes of kindness toward undocumented immigrants, of course — especially the political class, so many of whom came of age in an era of bigotry. Advocates continue to demonize white people who oppose illegal immigration as uncaring racists.
But one day — sooner, rather than later — Latinos will be indistinguishable from them on this question that has split us apart for so long.
And then what?
WASHINGTON — Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass and L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger met privately with President Trump and administration officials Wednesday to press for federal support and yet-unpaid wildfire recovery funding as the region continues to rebuild from the 2025 fires.
“This afternoon we met with President Trump and Administration officials to advocate for families who lost everything,” Bass and Barger said in a statement. “We had a very positive discussion about FEMA and other rebuilding funds as well as the support of the President to continue joining us in pressuring the insurance companies to pay what they owe — and for the big banks to step up to ease the financial pressure on L.A. families.”
Barger said the two leaders had a “high-level discussion” with the president in the Oval Office, sharing stories about what fire survivors are experiencing day to day. She added that “we left details behind with the President,” but did not specify whether Trump made any funding or policy promises during the meeting.
“First and foremost, today’s meeting was to thank the President for his initial support of infusing federal resources to expedite debris removal, as well as his recent tweet about insurance companies, which have already proven fruitful,” she said in a statement provided to The Times.
Bass was similarly reserved about the discussions, telling reporters that “we will follow up with the details,” but signaled progress is being made on federal support.
“I think what’s important is that we certainly got the president’s support in terms of, you know, what is needed, and then the appropriate people were in the room for us to follow up. And that was Russ Vought, who is the head of the Office of Management and budget,” Bass told KNX on Wednesday.
The meeting comes on the heels of a yearlong standoff between California leaders and the Trump administration over wildfire recovery funding, disaster response and whether the federal government should have a say in local rebuilding permitting.
California leaders, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom, have accused the Trump administration of withholding billions in critical wildfire aid, prompting a lawsuit over stalled recovery funds. Officials allege political bias in the delay of billions of dollars from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Newsom visited Washington in December. When he made his rounds on Capitol Hill, he met with five lawmakers, including three who serve on the Senate and House appropriations committees, to renew calls for $33.9 billion in federal aid for Los Angeles County fire recovery.
But the governor said he was denied a meeting with FEMA and would not say whether he had attempted to meet with Trump to discuss the issue.
Bass, meanwhile, appears to have found a path to the president on a subject that has been paramount for her community.
The fruitful meeting comes after Trump lobbed insults at the mayor at a news conference earlier this year, where he called her “incompetent” for how she handled last year’s wildfire recovery efforts. He alleged that under Bass’ leadership, the city’s delay in issuing local building permits will take years when it should have taken “two or three days.”
California officials, including Newsom, have urged the Trump administration to send Congress a formal request for the $33.9 billion in recovery aid needed to rebuild homes, schools, utilities and other critical infrastructure destroyed or damaged when the fires tore through neighborhoods more than 15 months ago.
What Bass and Barger’s meeting with the president ultimately produces remains to be seen.
The billions in recovery aid have not yet materialized, but the meeting could potentially give those discussions new momentum.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request seeking comment about the meeting.
Earlier this month, Trump criticized insurance provider State Farm on Truth Social for its handling of the devastating Los Angeles County wildfires. He accused the insurance giant of abandoning its policyholders when tragedy struck.
“It was brought to my attention that the Insurance Companies, in particular, State Farm, have been absolutely horrible to people that have been paying them large Premiums for years, only to find that when tragedy struck, these horrendous Companies were not there to help!” Trump wrote.
But the rebuke didn’t come out of the blue. It stemmed from a controversial February visit to Los Angeles by Trump administration officials.
Trump tapped Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin in an effort to strip California state and local governments of their authority to permit the rebuilding of homes destroyed in the Eaton and Palisades fires.
Within the week, Zeldin was in Los Angeles, bashing Newsom and Los Angeles officials at a roundtable with fire victims and reporters, saying that residents were suffering from “bureaucratic, red tape delays and incompetency” and that leadership was “denying them … the ability to rebuild their lives”.
During the trip, officials heard direct complaints from local leaders and fire victims about insurers being slow, restrictive and insufficient with their claim payouts.
After these meetings, Trump directed Zeldin to investigate the insurers’ responses. State Farm, facing roughly $7 billion in fire-related claims, is also under formal investigation by California’s insurance commissioner over its handling of the crisis.
Despite tensions with the administration, Bass and Barger appeared confident that progress was being made on the insurance and funding issues.
“Our job is to fight for our communities,” their joint statement concluded. “When it comes to this recovery, our federal partners are essential, and we are grateful for the support of the President.”
Navy Secretary John Phelan was fired on Wednesday after months of infighting with senior Pentagon leaders and disagreements over how to revive the Navy’s struggling shipbuilding program.
Mr. Phelan is leaving the Pentagon and the Trump administration effective immediately, wrote Sean Parnell, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, in a terse statement.
In his role leading the Navy, Mr. Phelan had championed the “Golden Fleet,” a major investment in new ships including a “Trump-class” battleship. But Mr. Phelan’s leadership was marred by feuds with senior leaders in the Pentagon, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, Pentagon and congressional officials said.
Mr. Phelan is the first service secretary to leave the administration, though he is the second one to clash with the defense secretary. Mr. Hegseth also has butted heads with Army Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll over promotions and a host of other issues. Mr. Hegseth fired the Army’s chief of staff, Gen. Randy George, earlier this month.
The Navy secretary has no role overseeing deployed forces, and Mr. Phelan’s firing is not likely to have significant implications for the conduct of the Iran war or U.S. Navy operations to blockade Iranian ports or open the Strait of Hormuz. As the Navy’s top civilian leader, his main responsibility is to oversee the building of the future naval and Marine Corps force.
But the tumult could make it harder for the Navy to replenish its stock of Tomahawk missiles and high-end air defense systems, which have been in heavy use in Iran.
Tensions had been simmering for months between Mr. Phelan and his two bosses — Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Feinberg — over management style, personnel issues and other matters.
Mr. Feinberg, in particular, had grown increasingly dissatisfied with Mr. Phelan’s handling of the Navy’s major new shipbuilding initiative, and had been siphoning off responsibility for the project from him, said the congressional official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss personnel matters.
Mr. Phelan, a White House appointee, also had a contentious relationship with his deputy, Under Secretary Hung Cao, who is more aligned with Mr. Hegseth, especially on some of the social and cultural battles that have defined the defense secretary’s tenure, the officials said.
A senior administration official said that Mr. Hegseth informed Mr. Phelan before the Pentagon’s official announcement that he and President Trump had decided that the Navy needed new leadership.
A spokeswoman for Mr. Phelan referred all questions on Wednesday evening to the Defense Department.
Last fall, Mr. Hegseth fired Mr. Phelan’s chief of staff, Jon Harrison, who had clashed with senior officials throughout the Pentagon. The unusual move highlighted the broader tensions between Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Phelan.
Still, the timing of Mr. Phelan’s firing caught some Pentagon and congressional officials off guard. On Wednesday, Mr. Phelan was making the rounds on Capitol Hill, talking to senators about his upcoming annual hearing with lawmakers to discuss the Navy’s budget request and other priorities.
“Secretary Phelan’s abrupt dismissal is troubling,” Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Wednesday night. “In the midst of President Trump’s war of choice in Iran, at a moment when our naval forces are stretched thin across multiple theaters, this kind of disruption at the top sends the wrong signal to our sailors and Marines, to our allies, and to our adversaries.”
Mr. Phelan also had a close relationship with Mr. Trump. In December, Mr. Phelan appeared alongside Mr. Trump at his Mar-a-Lago resort to announce the “Golden Fleet” and the new class of battleships bearing Mr. Trump’s name.
“John Phelan is one of the most successful businessmen in the country — in our country,” Mr. Trump said. “He’s been a tremendous success.”
Before joining the Trump administration, Mr. Phelan ran a private investment fund based in Florida.
“He’s taken probably the largest salary cut in history, but he wanted to do it,” Mr. Trump said at the December press conference. “He wants to rebuild our Navy. And you needed that kind of a brain to do it properly.”
But Mr. Trump’s effusive praise masked deeper tensions with Mr. Phelan’s Pentagon bosses.
Bryan Clark, a naval analyst at the Hudson Institute, said that Mr. Phelan was “driving the Navy in a different direction” than what Mr. Hegseth and Mr. Feinberg wanted.
“He was championing initiatives like the battleship and frigate that don’t align with where the D.O.W. leadership is taking the military, which is toward submarines, stealth aircraft, unmanned systems and software-driven capabilities like electronic warfare and cyber,” Mr. Clark said in an email, using the abbreviation for Department of War, as the administration calls the Defense Department.
Mr. Phelan also clashed with Mr. Hegseth over personnel issues in the Navy and Marine Corps, a former senior military official said. Mr. Hegseth has directed service secretaries to scrub the social media accounts of general- and admiral-level promotion candidates to ensure they are not deemed too “woke” by Mr. Hegseth’s standards, the official said.
Maggie Haberman and Eric Schmitt contributed reporting.
Politics
Manhattan DA’s office employee charged with sexual abuse after alleged incident on Queens subway
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
An analyst with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office was arrested Tuesday on allegations that he sexually abused a woman while off duty, police told Fox News Digital Wednesday.
Tauhid Dewan, 28, is accused of inappropriately touching a 40-year-old woman’s private area during a late-afternoon rush-hour subway ride in Queens, according to local outlet PIX11.
The victim was reportedly a random woman, the outlet added, citing sources who said she and the suspect were strangers.
A spokeswoman for the office told Fox News Digital that the staffer has since been suspended.
MAN ARRESTED IN NYC STRANGULATION DEATH OF WOMAN FOUND OUTSIDE TIMES SQUARE HOTEL
Tauhid Dewan, 28, was arrested in New York City Tuesday following allegations that the Manhattan DA staffer innapropriately touched a woman during a subway ride (LinkedIn)
According to the New York Police Department, Dewan was arrested around 5 p.m., possibly after returning from work.
PIX11 added that the arrest occurred minutes after the incident, which allegedly took place on a No. 7 train near the Junction Boulevard station.
He was subsequently arrested by the NYPD Transit Bureau and is facing multiple charges, including forcible touching on a bus or train, third-degree sexual abuse, and second-degree harassment involving physical contact.
He was also charged with acting in a manner injurious to a child under the age of 17, suggesting a minor may have been nearby and either witnessed the alleged conduct or was placed at risk by it.
ERIC SWALWELL FACES MANHATTAN SEX ASSAULT PROBE AFTER ENDING CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR CAMPAIGN AMID ALLEGATIONS
Tauhid Dewan is an employee of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, which is led by DA Alvin Bragg. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
Law enforcement sources said Dewan has no prior arrests, local outlets reported.
According to city records, Dewan has worked at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office as a senior investigative analyst for nearly four years, since July 10, 2022.
People board a train at a subway station in New York City on Aug. 1, 2025. (Gary Hershorn/Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
His arraignment in Queens Criminal Court was scheduled for Wednesday, according to state records.
-
Sports5 minutes agoWWE to hold premium live event in Saudi Arabia amid Iran ceasefire
-
Technology11 minutes agoToyota’s CUE7 robot shoots hoops using AI
-
Business17 minutes agoMrBeast company sued over claims of sexual harassment, firing a new mom
-
Entertainment23 minutes agoDataland, the world’s first museum of AI arts, sets opening date and first exhibition
-
Lifestyle29 minutes agoThe New Rules for Negotiating With Multibrand Retailers
-
Politics35 minutes ago
Bass, Barger meet with Trump to push for L.A. fire recovery funds
-
Science41 minutes agoContributor: Regulate the ‘Enhanced Games’ as a medical experiment and a marketing stunt
-
Sports47 minutes agoAre you still hoping to buy Olympic tickets? LA28 shares terms for second ticket drop