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?
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
He wasn’t on the ballot, but President Donald Trump was a winner in Louisiana’s GOP Senate runoff election.
That’s because Trump-backed Rep. Julia Letlow defeated state Treasurer John Fleming to capture the Republican nomination, The Associated Press reported on Saturday.
Six weeks after denying Trump-targeted GOP Sen. Bill Cassidy a third six-year term in the Senate, a majority of Republican voters in the solidly red Gulf Coast state backed Letlow. Her victory in the runoff is seen as another victory for Trump as he works to fill the halls of Congress with loyal lawmakers for his final two years in the White House. And it’s another sign of the power of a Trump endorsement in Republican primaries.
Five years after he voted to convict Trump in his second impeachment trial, Cassidy was sent packing.
WATCH: CASSIDY DETAILS NEW BEHIND CLOSED DOORS CLASH WITH TRUMP
Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana fist bumps a supporter during a campaign stop at a gun retailer and firing range in Baton Rouge on May 15, 2026, the eve of the state’s Senate primary. (Paul Steinhauser/Fox News)
Trump reacted to Letlow’s victory in a Truth Social post, calling Saturday’s result “great news.”
“Julia Letlow WON in Louisiana, beating conclusively a very strong and smart opponent,” Trump wrote. “Congratulations to Julia. She will be a truly GREAT Senator!”
Letlow, who was backed by Trump even before she entered the race in January, finished first in the primary, double digits ahead of Fleming, with Cassidy in third place. Since no candidate cracked 50% of the vote, Letlow and Fleming advanced to the runoff for the Republican nomination and Cassidy became the first elected Republican senator to lose renomination since Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana in 2012.
Trump, celebrating Cassidy’s defeat, said on social media that “it’s nice to see that his political career is OVER!”
Cassidy, in a speech to supporters after conceding, took a jab at Trump, saying, “When you participate in democracy, sometimes it doesn’t turn out the way you want it to. But you don’t pout, you don’t whine. You don’t claim the election was stolen… You don’t manufacture some excuse.”
President Donald Trump stands with Rep. Julia Letlow during the Congressional Ball at the White House Grand Foyer in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 11, 2025. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Letlow, who was backed by Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, a top Trump ally, won her congressional seat in 2021, after her husband, Luke Letlow, died five days before being sworn into the U.S. House after his 2020 election victory for the seat she now holds. She highlighted her support from Trump throughout her Senate campaign.
Fleming, who spent eight years in Congress before serving as a White House deputy chief of staff during Trump’s first term, argued he was the most conservative candidate in the GOP Senate primary.
DEMOCRACY ’26: STAY UP TO DATE WITH THE FOX NEWS ELECTION HUB
Letlow will be considered the clear frontrunner in the midterm election against either farmer Jamie Davis or Navy veteran Gary Crockett, who are facing off in the Democratic Party runoff.
The brute force of the president’s endorsement power has been on display in GOP primaries over the past two months, with his candidates ousting incumbents he targeted in showdowns in Indiana, Kentucky and Texas, as well as the Louisiana primary.
But Trump’s endorsement streak in statewide and congressional Republican primaries was snapped three weeks ago when his last-minute endorsement of Republican Rep. Randy Feenstra of Iowa in the race to succeed retiring GOP Gov. Kim Reynolds wasn’t enough to propel the three-term congressman to victory.
Feenstra was narrowly edged by Zach Lahn, a businessman, farmer and former political strategist who was backed by the political wings of MAHA — the acronym for the Make America Healthy Again movement aligned with Trump’s Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — and Turning Point USA, the powerful conservative organization co-founded by the late Charlie Kirk.
Zach Lahn raises his fist in celebration after defeating his primary opponent in Iowa’s GOP gubernatorial race on Tuesday, June 2, 2026. (Zach Lahn for Governor via Facebook)
The president rebounded three weeks ago in South Carolina, as Trump-backed Lt. Gov. Pam Evette finished first in the GOP gubernatorial primary and longtime Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham won a majority of the vote in the Republican Senate primary, and avoided a runoff.
Graham, who was endorsed by Trump, was facing primary challenges from five candidates, including conservative businessman Mark Lynch, who took aim at the senator over his support for the war in Iran. Lynch was backed by some MAGA leaders who have been critical of the president.
Two weeks ago, Trump-backed candidates won two of the three top races in Georgia and Alabama, with the one setback coming against a billionaire businessman who shelled out over $100 million of his own money to boost his campaign.
Rep. Barry Moore, a House Freedom Caucus member and longtime Trump supporter who was endorsed by the president, comfortably defeated rival Jared Hudson, a former Navy SEAL sniper who was supported by some top names on the right, in solidly red Alabama’s GOP Senate runoff.
In battleground Georgia’s Republican Senate runoff, an 11th-hour endorsement by Trump helped boost Rep. Mike Collins, a MAGA champion, to victory over former college football coach Derek Dooley, who was backed by popular conservative Gov. Brian Kemp.
TRUMP’S ENDORSEMENT FAILS TO SAVE MAGA CANDIDATE AS BILLIONAIRE ADVANCES IN KEY GOVERNOR RACE
Collins will face Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff in the general election in a race that’s among a handful that will likely decide if the GOP holds its slim majority in the chamber in the midterms.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
But in Georgia’s GOP gubernatorial runoff, the candidate Trump backed, Lt. Gov. Burt Jones, who was also endorsed by Kemp this past weekend, was defeated by billionaire businessman Rick Jackson, who ran as an outsider.
On Tuesday, Trump-backed first-time candidate Anthony Constantino, a businessman and former boxer, defeated Robert Smullen, a retired Marine Corps colonel and New York Assembly member who had the backing of the state party, in the upstate New York race to succeed retiring GOP Rep. Elise Stefanik.
Meanwhile, in South Carolina’s Republican gubernatorial runoff, Trump couldn’t lose.
That’s because, besides backing Evette, he also gave a last-minute endorsement to state Attorney General Alan Wilson, who ended up winning the showdown in a landslide.
WASHINGTON — Asylum seekers may be turned away without a hearing at the southern border, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday in a historic retreat from the promise of relief for those who say they are fleeing persecution.
The justices split over whether this was a simple dispute over legal wording or a moral question involving desperate families.
Siding with the Trump administration, the court’s conservatives said the Refugee Act of 1980 offers a right to seek asylum to migrants who “arrive in the United States” but not those who are turned back when they approach a border crossing or a port of entry.
“This case presents a straightforward question” that turns on the word “in,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. “In ordinary speech, no one would say that a person ‘arrives in’ a place — for example, a house, a city, or a country — before the person enters that place.”
The liberal dissenters agreed with immigration rights lawyers who saw this as a nonsensical reading of the law.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the asylum law arose from the “international moral reckoning that followed the Holocaust and World War II.”
She cited the infamous voyage of the MS St. Louis in 1939. More than 900 Jewish refugees attempted to flee persecution in Nazi Germany by setting sail aboard the ship, which was turned away from Cuba and the United States.
Most of the passengers were returned to Europe, and several hundred died in the Holocaust, she said.
“Congress passed the Refugee Act in 1980 because it did not want this country to repeat the mistakes of its past. Yet if the refugees on the M.S. St. Louis were to walk up to a port of entry on our southern border today, the majority’s interpretation would allow immigration officers to refuse even to consider their asylum applications by physically blocking them from stepping foot onto U.S. soil,” Sotomayor wrote.
Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed.
The decision upholds a turn-back policy that began in 2016 as an emergency response to a surge of Haitian immigrants at the San Ysidro border crossing.
The Department of Homeland Security said these asylum seekers must wait on the Mexican side of the border until they could return for a scheduled interview. The policy was extended to other border crossings, but it was challenged as illegal in federal court in San Diego.
Last year, a divided 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that those restrictions were illegal if they prevented migrants from applying for asylum.
“To ‘arrive’ means ‘to reach a destination,’” wrote Judge Michelle Friedland. “A person who presents herself to an official at the border has ‘arrived.’”
She said the “government’s reading would reflect a radical reconstruction of the right to apply for asylum because it would give the executive branch vast discretion to prevent people from applying by blocking them at the border.”
The 2-1 decision upheld a federal judge’s ruling in San Diego for migrants who had filed a class-action suit and said they were wrongly denied an asylum hearing.
But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to review and reverse the appellate ruling, noting 15 judges of the 9th Circuit joined dissents that called the decision “radical” and “clearly wrong.”
The administration argued federal immigration law “does not grant aliens throughout the world a right to enter the United States so that they can seek asylum.”
From abroad, they may “seek admission as refugees,” Sauer said, but the government may enforce its laws by “blocking illegal immigrants from stepping on U.S. soil.”
Defenders of the asylum system denounced the decision.
“We believe that today’s ruling violates international law, as well as the express intent of Congress,” said Erika Pinheiro, executive director of the migrant support organization Al Otro Lado, which led the legal fight. “For decades, the United States has allowed individuals and families who are fleeing persecution, torture and death to ask for protection at U.S. borders.”
“Cruelty is not a substitute for real solutions. Blocking people from seeking asylum at official ports of entry will do nothing to fix our broken immigration system,” said Rebecca Cassler, senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council. “It only makes things more chaotic and dangerous for vulnerable families.”
The Federation for American Immigration Reform applauded the decision.
“Our immigration laws are written to be pro-enforcement, not anti-enforcement,” said Christopher J. Hajec, deputy general counsel of FAIR. “Because of this, courts that hamstring enforcement are often forced to violate basic logic, as the 9th Circuit did here. We are pleased the Supreme Court saw that the lower court’s reading would make immigration law incoherent, and reversed.”
Politics
Jeffries welcomes Democratic Socialists into the fold as critics warn party is revealing ‘exactly who it is’
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries publicly embraced a new crop of congressional nominees Saturday, including three Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates whose primary victories have fueled fresh debate over the Democratic Party’s leftward shift ahead of the 2026 midterms.
The powerful New York lawmaker’s post highlights the challenge facing the top House Democrat as he works to unite his party ahead of the general election. If Democrats take back the House in November, Jeffries is expected to become the next speaker. That means he’ll likely be leading a Democratic caucus with more self-described Democratic Socialists than ever before. So far, more than a dozen Democratic Socialists of America-backed candidates have won or advanced in primaries across the country this election cycle.
In a post on X, Jeffries wrote, “Congratulations to our Democratic nominees,” before listing the party’s congressional candidates from across New York. Among those recognized were Brad Lander, Claire Valdez and Darializa Avila Chevalier, all of whom are affiliated with or backed by the Democratic Socialists of America and secured victories in closely watched Democratic primaries last week.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has called Trump official Bill Pulte a “malignant clown.” (Aaron Schwartz/Bloomberg)
“From public servants to union organizers to community activists, the path is different but the work is the same,” Jeffries wrote. “We must decisively address the affordability crisis and crush far-right extremism!”
RISING SOCIALIST STARS ON TRACK TO CONGRESS: WHO ARE DARIALIZA AVILA CHEVALIER, BRAD LANDER AND CLAIRE VALDEZ?
Lander, Chevalier and Valdez all received backing from New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose endorsements helped cement the growing influence of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing in New York politics. Lander and Chevalier defeated Jeffries-endorsed incumbents Reps. Dan Goldman and Adriano Espaillat in their respective Democratic primaries. Jeffries did not endorse in the race won by Claire Valdez, which was an open seat.
Now, as Democrats turn their attention to the general election, he appears to be rallying behind the party’s nominees as they try to win back the House in November.
The socialist candidates have also faced scrutiny over resurfaced social media posts, support for defunding the police and anti-Israel rhetoric, positions that have put them at odds with many in the Democratic Party.
Socialist New York congressional nominees Darializa Avila Chevalier (L), Claire Valdez (C) and Brad Lander. (Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images; Michael Nagle/Bloomberg via Getty Images; Adam Gray/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
Chevalier has faced scrutiny over resurfaced social media posts, including one in which she called to “literally abolish the border.”
She has also faced renewed scrutiny over past social media posts targeting leading Democrats, including calling former President Joe Biden a “war criminal,” attacking former Vice President Kamala Harris and rebuking Sen. Bernie Sanders over Israel.
Like Chevalier, Valdez and Lander, who is Jewish, share her sentiment that Israel is committing “genocide” in Gaza.
LIBERAL MS NOW WRITER CALLS MAMDANI PRIMARY SWEEP A ‘GENUINELY SCARY NIGHT FOR NEW YORK CITY JEWS’
Jeffries’ decision to publicly congratulate the three nominees quickly drew criticism.
The Republican Jewish Coalition blasted Jeffries’ congratulatory message, warning Jewish voters that these candidates are not the Democrat “fringe” but the new faces of the party.
“To Jewish Democrats: your party is telling you EXACTLY who it is,” the Coalition wrote. “These future members of Congress, who @hakeemjeffries is welcoming with open arms, want to: Abolish prisons and borders. Defund the police. Downplay 9/11,” rattling off other serious controversies stemming from the candidates.
Jamie Metzl, a former National Security Council and State Department official and lifelong Democrat, blasted Jeffries for congratulating the nominees.
New York City Mayor Mayor Zohran Mamdani speaks at a news conference Thursday in Manhattan. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
“When I first read this post, I assumed it was from a spoof account. I am deeply concerned that it appears to be all too real,” Metzl wrote. “To welcome these nominees without acknowledging and criticizing their self-declared sympathies for U.S.-designated terrorist organizations, their calls to abolish the police, their stated desire to dismantle Western civilization, and their blatant anti-Americanism is to sacrifice the core principles of the Democratic Party.”
Metzl accused Jeffries of putting his bid to become House speaker ahead of the Democratic Party’s principles.
“I understand your ambition to become Speaker should Democrats retake the House, but you should not sacrifice the principles of our party to advance your own political aspirations,” Metzl wrote.
Democratic leadership has been in the hot seat this week facing questions from the media about how to reconcile support for the New York slate of socialist candidates, particularly after Valdez’s supporters were seen shouting “you’re next” at a television screen showing Jeffries on Tuesday night.
“They’re gonna eat you next Congressman – and replace you with one of their own,” conservative commentator Meghan McCain posted on X.
“This is funny,” conservative commentator Robby Starbuck posted on X. “Hakeem still doesn’t realize that the communists are going to eat him alive. Clearly not a student of history. Bless his heart.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
In a CNN appearance on Friday, Jeffries said, “I think that what happens in a handful of primaries in one of the bluest cities in the country is not in any way indicative of what needs to happen in November, where we need to reelect every single frontline Member, common sense Democrats, authentically committed to making life better for the American people, opposing these extreme Republicans who have been nothing but a reckless rubber stamp for Donald Trump’s agenda.”
“And at the same period of time, make sure that we flip red seats blue, including in New York-17, where we have a combat veteran, incredibly patriotic American Cait Conley, who came out of a primary on Tuesday as well and is an incredibly strong candidate. She will defeat Mike Lawler in New York in November.”
-
News38 seconds agoThree firefighters killed on Colorado-Utah border as wildfires intensify
-
Los Angeles, Ca1 hour ago6 members of suspected South American burglary crew arrested by Irvine police
-
Detroit, MI2 hours agoDetroit Tigers seek split in home series vs Houston Astros on Sunday
-
San Francisco, CA2 hours agoPeople’s Budget Coalition Claims Victory After San Francisco Budget Restores Most Proposed Service Cuts – Davis Vanguard
-
Dallas, TX2 hours agoDallas weather: June 28 morning forecast
-
Miami, FL2 hours agoWhere to watch Miami Marlins vs St. Louis Cardinals: TV channel, start time, streaming for June 28
-
Boston, MA2 hours agoPolice: Man killed in crash caused by wrong-way driver on I-93 in Boston – Boston News, Weather, Sports | WHDH 7News
-
Denver, CO2 hours ago
Even without extension talks, Nikola Jokic has reiterated his desire to stay long-term in Denver
