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?
U.S. military forces stopped and boarded a second sanctioned tanker carrying oil from Iran in the Indian Ocean, the Pentagon said on Thursday, ramping up pressure on Tehran as the Trump administration seeks to resume negotiations to end the war.
A naval boarding team roped down from hovering helicopters and fanned out on the vessel, the M/T Majestic X, according to a Pentagon statement that included a 17-second video of the operation.
The military said the boarding was part of a “global maritime enforcement to disrupt illicit networks and interdict vessels providing material support to Iran, wherever they operate.”
Earlier this week, Navy SEALS boarded another ship in the Indian Ocean, the M/T Tifani, after the Pentagon said it was carrying oil from Iran.
Navy destroyers are also shadowing several other Iranian vessels, including the Dorena and Sevin, which had left from the Iranian port of Chabahar before the U.S.-imposed blockade began on April 13, a U.S. military official said. The Navy is directing those ships to return to an Iranian port, the official said.
With the M/T Tifani and M/T Majestic X now at least temporarily in the custody of the military, a U.S. military official said it was up to the White House to decide what to do with the sanctioned vessels and their cargo. The administration previously seized several tankers carrying illicit oil from Venezuela after a U.S. commando raid there in January that seized Nicolás Maduro, the country’s president.
“International waters cannot be used as a shield by sanctioned actors,” the Pentagon said in its statement on Thursday, adding that the department would “continue to deny illicit actors and their vessels freedom of maneuver in the maritime domain.”
Gen. Dan Caine, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hinted last week that the U.S. military would likely commence boarding operations like the ones this week. He said that U.S. military commanders elsewhere in the world, and especially in the Indo-Pacific region, would “actively pursue any Iranian-flagged vessel or any vessel attempting to provide material support to Iran.”
The U.S. Navy has turned back at least 31 ships trying to enter or exit Iranian ports since an American blockade outside the contested Strait of Hormuz began about a week ago, U.S. Central Command said late Wednesday.
Last Sunday, a Navy destroyer disabled and seized the Touska, an Iranian cargo ship, after it tried to evade the blockade. It was the first time a vessel was reported to have tried to evade the U.S.-imposed blockade on any ship entering or exiting Iranian ports since it took effect last week.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained why President Donald Trump does not consider Iran’s seizure of two ships in the Strait of Hormuz a violation of the ceasefire agreement.
Leavitt made the statement during an interview with Fox News’ Martha McCallum on Wednesday just hours after Iran captured the Greek and Mediterranean-flagged vessels.
“Does the seizure of two ships — as we said, they were Greek and Mediterranean-owned ships with cargo on them, and the reports are that Iran basically seized them and then moved them into Iranian waters. We don’t know what’s going to happen to these crews. We’re not sure where all of this is going. Does the president view that as a violation of the ceasefire?” McCallum asked.
“No, because these were not U.S. ships. These were not Israeli ships. These were two international vessels,” Leavitt responded.
US FORCES ATTEMPTING TO BOARD SANCTIONED RUSSIAN-FLAGGED OIL TANKER IN NORTH ATLANTIC, SOURCES SAY
Karoline Leavitt, White House press secretary, conducts a press briefing. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“And for the American media, who are sort of blowing this out of proportion to discredit the president’s facts that he has completely obliterated Iran’s conventional Navy, these two ships were taken by speedy gunboats. Iran has gone from having the most lethal Navy in the Middle East to now acting like a bunch of pirates. They don’t have control over the strait,” she continued.
“This is piracy that we are seeing on display. And the naval blockade that the United States has imposed continues to be incredibly effective. And, to be clear, the blockade is on ships going to and from Iranian ports. And the point of this is the economic leverage that we maintain over Iran now. While there’s a ceasefire with respect to the military and kinetic strikes, Operation Economic Fury continues, and the crux of that is this naval blockade,” she added.
The Iranian made ‘Seraj’ a high-speed missile-launching assault boat on display in Tehran on August 23, 2010, as Iran kicked off mass production of two high-speed missile-launching assault boats the ‘Seraj’ (Lamp) and ‘Zolfaqar’ (named after Shiite Imam Ali’s sword) speedboats which will be manufactured at the marine industries complex of the ministry of defense. (YALDA MOAIERY/AFP via Getty Images)
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said the vessels, identified as the MSC Francesca and the Epaminondas, were operating without proper authorization and had tampered with navigation systems, accusations that could not be independently verified. The ships had earlier reported coming under fire near the strait, underscoring the increasingly volatile conditions in one of the world’s most critical shipping lanes.
US ‘LOCKED AND LOADED’ TO DESTROY IRAN’S ‘CROWN JEWEL’ ‘IF WE WANT,’ TRUMP WARNS
The Guard attacked a third ship, identified as the Euphoria, which had become “stranded” on the Iranian coast, Iranian media reported. It did not seize that vessel.
Ships and tankers in the Strait of Hormuz off the coast of Musandam, Oman, April 18, 2026. (Reuters)
Both the U.S. and Iranian sides have targeted commercial and cargo vessels as part of a broader pressure campaign tied to stalled negotiations. U.S. forces have also moved to seize at least one Iranian-linked vessel in the region, with each side accusing the other of violating the terms of a fragile ceasefire.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
The Strait of Hormuz is a vital artery for global oil shipments, with roughly 20% of the world’s supply passing through it. Traffic has slowed dramatically as ships reroute or avoid the area amid gunfire, seizures and conflicting directives from both militaries.
Fox News’ Morgan Phillips contributed to this report.
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.”
-
New Jersey6 minutes agoWhen do hummingbirds return? See the migration map
-
New Mexico12 minutes agoState Police investigate shooting involving US marshals in Deming
-
North Carolina18 minutes ago
Halifax County man wins $209 million in Powerball drawing
-
North Dakota24 minutes agoNorth Dakota Lands All-Conference ATH Brady Lee Out of Wisconsin
-
Ohio30 minutes agoNew mail-in ballot deadline as Ohio changes impact primary election
-
Oklahoma36 minutes agoBojangles announces events, giveaways planned for opening of OKC location
-
Oregon42 minutes agoThere’s Good News: A beaver birthday celebration at the Oregon Zoo!
-
Pennsylvania48 minutes ago93 animals living in ‘deplorable conditions’ rescued from Pennsylvania home