Daily Bruin

Dawn Mabalon graduated in June with a B.A. in history, a
specialization in Asian American studies and an attitude. She is
director of SPEAR (Samahang Pilipino Education and Retention
Project). Her column will appear on alternate Wednesdays.

You’ve heard it all already. Proposition 187 would cost
taxpayers more than $15 billion. It violates federal privacy laws.
It requires teachers and health professionals to weed out supposed
undocumented persons. More than 400,000 children will be denied
education. It would cause the spread of disease by denying
immunization to millions of people.

All of this is true, yet I’m offering a different perspective –
I’m against Proposition 187 because it singles out people of color
and presupposes that whites have a right to mandate who can enter
the United States.

It is an initiative which grew out of the "establishment’s"
selfish, ignorant and racist fears of a brown America. I will
further say that any Pilipino or Asian American who believes that
the "Save Our State" initiative is beneficial to the state is
fooling him or herself about immigration, race politics,
California’s economy and the motives driving the authors of
Proposition 187.

Even put simplistically, any move on the part of white
Californians to exclude immigrants is, at the very least,
historically hypocritical. It is ironic that the descendants of
immigrants who displaced and dispossessed the indigenous brown
people of the Americas would now aggressively exclude Latino and
Asian immigrants.

However, it makes sense when viewed in the context of our
racist, capitalist society. The so-called "winners" can now remake
the rules of the game, and exclude whoever they wish from land that
wasn’t theirs less than 100 years ago.

It is especially important for the Pilipino community,
especially the college-age community, to critically analyze the
immigrant backlash. It is easy for Pilipinos who grew up
comfortably to forget their immigrant roots and the struggles of
their grandparents and parents. More than half of the Pilipino
student population at UCLA is foreign born. Those who were born in
the United States were mostly second-generation, which means that
their parents were first-generation immigrants.

The reason the Pilipino community is the largest Asian group in
the state, and fastest growing nationwide, is solely because of
immigration from the Philippines. Between 1965 and 1986, only
Mexico sent more immigrants to the United States. I would not be
generalizing to assume that we in the Pilipino community all have
uncles, aunts, cousins and close family who have immigrated here
within the last 20 years. We all know Pilipinos who are
undocumented, working hard to save money to bring their families
over. In our striving to be oh-so-American, we sometimes forget our
immigrant roots.

The Asian-American community has a long history of racist and
exclusionary immigration policy imposed upon it. The first major
law to impact Asian exclusion was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act,
which prohibited the entry of Chinese to the United States. To fill
the void of Chinese labor, contractors and big business began
targeting Japanese labor. The influx of Japanese families proved
too much for nativist whites, who then pushed the passage of the
1924 National Origins Act.

The act, one of the most offensive ever passed by our
government, decreed that all those ineligible for citizenship
(read: those who are not white) would be ineligible to enter the
United States. The irony is bitter; the descendants of immigrants
who entered North America with no one’s permission feel they now
have the right to regulate immigration.

Throughout the rabid anti-Asian sentiment of the late 1800s and
early 1900s, Pilipinos, who were considered nationals and not
aliens because the U.S. government had taken control of the
Philippines in 1898, were able to enter the U.S. freely. This ended
in 1934 with the Tydings McDuffie Act, which allowed only 50
Pilipinos per year entry to the United States. Additionally, the
act turned all foreign-born Pilipinos into aliens and disqualified
them from public relief. My grandfather distinctly remembered the
fear he and his kababayan (countrymen) felt at that point: "We were
scared we would be sent back home at any time."

In 1935, the government added another slap: It offered Pilipinos
in America boat fare back to the Philippines through the
Repatriation Act. Pilipinos who took up the offer had to agree to
one condition: They could never come back. Prior to 1967, Pilipinos
were not allowed to marry whites and own property. During the 1920s
and 1930s, hatred of Pilipinos and Pilipino labor fueled
anti-Pilipino race riots and public hysteria. Nativists accused
Pilipino laborers (who numbered more than 100,000 by 1929) of
taking away jobs, contaminating the white race by intermarrying and
of lowering wages by taking substandard wages for backbreaking jobs
working in the agricultural fields or in salmon canneries.

The anti-immigrant hysteria has always been a reality for
Pilipinos and other Asian communities, and it is more real than
ever right now. Those Pilipino immigrants who came prior to 1965
were never given credit for their hard work and contributions to
the present society, just as we are not giving enough recognition
to recent immigrants for their labor and sweat. It wasn’t until
1965 that immigration laws, which had previously heavily favored
Europe and literally excluded Asia and Central and South America,
were amended.

Perhaps those of us in the Asian-American community who believe
Proposition 187 has nothing to do with us have been
tricked/lulled/drugged into a sense of complacency regarding our
identity as immigrants, or as the children and grandchildren of
immigrants. Maybe we think that the authors of Proposition 187 were
only talking about Latino immigrants, or those who are illegal
immigrants and aliens.

Wake up. They are also talking about us, our families, our
friends. With the anti-immigrant backlash and Proposition 187, all
of us who are not white are singled out. Whether we are
fifth-generation Chinese or immigrant Pilipino, because our eyes
are brown and our hair is black, we are still foreigners,
immigrants, outsiders to the status quo. With the implementation of
187, those of us even suspected of being illegal immigrants will be
subject to scrutiny. And who are most likely to be suspected of
being non-citizens? Those of us who are not white.

To be brutally honest, I don’t enjoy voting. The lines, the
stuffy little cardboard booths, the funny old ladies in polyester,
squinting at the lists of names. But if there was ever a good time
for the Pilipino and Asian-American community to vote, that time
would be now. The last day to register to vote in the Nov. 8
elections is Oct. 11. To get involved in the campaign to stop
Proposition 187, go to the teach-in on Thursday from 11 a.m. to 1
p.m. at the Bear in Westwood Plaza.

Jonathan Lopez is a sophomore majoring in
geography/environ-mental studies.

I am writing in response to Jeanene Harlick’s article on
premarital sex (Oct. 3, "Sex before marriage: Why we should wait").
I want to make it clear that I am not in any way knocking those who
wish to save themselves for marriage. However, I find fault and
take offense to many of Harlick’s arguments for the abolition of
pre-marital sex.

Harlick, I agree with you wholeheartedly in the beginning of
your column when you discussed the sacredness of making love and
your disdain for those who take sex lightly. However, you lost me
when you went off the deep end and said that, "If you have sex
before marriage, sex no longer has any special significance. It is
just another physical activity." You are saying that if I have sex
with someone I truly love and care about, but not my wife, when I
do get married the act of making love will have been forever
cheapened into "just another physical activity." I find that line
of thinking appalling.

Who are you to make that determination? You are not a factor in
my relationship with my wife. How in the world can you know that
our lovemaking does not have all the significance and meaning it
should – and more? It is true that the first time having sex has a
special meaning for everyone, but that does not diminish or lessen
the significance of making love when it is done with someone else
later in life. What if, for the sake of argument, I did abstain
until marriage and I then got divorced, or my wife died. Are you
really trying to tell me that if I should meet someone else, when
we make love it will be just another physical activity without any
meaning?

In a monogamous relationship, when two people are deeply and
seriously in love, making love is still the ultimate symbol of how
the two people feel about one another. The act of making love is
not cheapened just because I may have had another serious
relationship in my life and sex was involved. It would be
cheapened, however, if I was not loyal and had sex with other women
while I was in that relationship.

In addition, you stated that if one participates in pre-marital
sex it "makes it harder to form a special bond with your spouse."
Well, as far as I’m concerned, if you are married, you should
already have that special bond. Making love is a symbol of that
bond – not a factor in forming it. Furthermore, I don’t believe you
have to be married to have that special bond, just in love and
monogamous.

What irks me most is your comment that "if you’ve done it with
different people in the past, what’s to prevent you from moving on
to another person like you’ve done before?" This argument may apply
to nymphomaniacs, those who believe in multiple partners or
one-night stands, but don’t be so hasty as to lump everyone who
believes in pre-marital sex together. How dare you question the
loyalty of someone just because they may have had sex with someone
in the past? Are you saying that the divorcee or widower will
forever be promiscuous, even if they remarry, on the grounds that
they have had sex before marrying their present spouse? Moreover,
just because I may have had sex in my last monogamous relationship
does not have any relevance or impact on my loyalty to whomever I
may fall in love with in the future. In my view, sex is a symbol of
loyalty to one another, not a sign that infidelity is near.

Harlick, your article does not seem so much as an article
against pre-marital sex as it does an article saying we are all
destined to be with only one person in this world; and we should
save ourselves for that person. However, if we should make a
mistake in choosing that person, all the intimacy and meaning of
making love is forever cheapened, and is now just a "physical
activity" to our new mate. I, for one, cannot see into the future
to find out who my perfect mate is, and will not sit silently by
while you try to diminish the deep significance many people who are
not married feel when they make love to their partners.

Jonathan Lopez is a sophomore majoring in
geography/environ-mental studies.

John Du John Du is an third-year undeclared
student who works in the external vice president’s office.

Those of you who were on campus Monday morning at around 9
probably had to evacuate the building you were in because of power
failure. Unfortunately, I was stuck in an elevator with another
person for about 20 minutes not knowing when the elevator doors
would pry open. The thought of suffocation raced through my mind
briefly, but I knew that paranoia resulted from the stories I heard
as a kid.

Then it hit me that I was completely helpless. I was blind and
had not a clue as to how I would get out. I had to depend on people
outside the elevator, who also had no clue how to open the doors.
Frustration and anger began to settle in and I started cussing in
my mind at the people outside. How could they be so stupid and
unprepared? What if this was an earthquake and we really were
suffocating?

Ever felt angry because you were helpless and blind in a
situation? You know that feeling, right? You know … when you get
all pissed off because you can’t do anything about somebody except
cuss at the people you think are responsible.

How about this. Ever gotten angry at a politician? Pretty stupid
question, huh? Well, I can recall countless occasions where I used
every foul word in my vocabulary to curse Gov. Wilson and his
posterity. I accomplished nothing except the realization that my
anger is futile unless it is channeled into something
constructive.

Recently, I have been infuriated by the Wilson campaign’s
political strategies. Yes, I am talking about Proposition 187,
which would prevent immigrants from receiving health care and
access to education. If passed, Proposition 187 would jeopardize
$15 billion of federal funding that California receives mainly for
health care and education.

The purpose of writing this article is not to get into the
details of the issue, however. The basis for this article is to
challenge all of you to take a step back from your busy schedules
to first realize that you are being played by politicians, and
secondly to organize against Proposition 187.

The politicians in power want you to think that they are not
responsible for the economic problems facing California, even
though they are the policymakers who have influence and resources.
Instead, they want you to think that undocumented immigrants are
the source of the problems. Here’s a reality check.

According to a 1992 INS study of undocumented immigrants, less
than 0.5 percent of undocumented immigrants received food stamps of
AFDC and about half of the undocumented immigrants had private
health insurance. In addition, immigrants over their lifetime pay
$15,000 to $20,000 more in taxes than they receive in government
benefits (Julian Simon, The Economic Consequences of Immigration,
University of Maryland, 1989).

Apparently, Proposition 187 proponents anticipate that voters
will not know enough about the initiative’s inherent fiscal and
social ramifications. Fundamentally, the ratification of this
proposition will depend upon our ignorance, fears and
prejudices.

It is imperative that we organize to educate those who are not
familiar with Proposition 187 with the issues surrounding it. On
Thursday, Oct. 6 from 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., the October Student
Movement in conjunction with the Californians United Against
Proposition 187 is holding a rally at Schoenberg Quad to educate
students on the initiative’s implications.

This event is one of the few statewide student-spearheaded
rallies in history that will bring together groups from all facets
of life. Students (both high school and college), student advocacy
groups, faculty, community leaders and public officials will speak
on why all Californians – not just immigrants – would be affected
by Proposition 187. The idea is to counter the scare tactics by
educating the public in order to make an informed choice instead of
a choice shrouded by prejudices and fears.

An integral part of this Oct. 6 rally will involve a massive
push to register students to vote. Many students feel that they
don’t make a difference and that one vote doesn’t count.

In the last election, Gov. Wilson won by 250,000 votes. There
are 35,000 students at UCLA and 160,000 students in the UC system.
In all, there are 2 million higher education students in
California. Why are these numbers important? Well, if students vote
as a block we can determine the next governor – literally. If this
sounds like rhetoric to you, just look at the numbers.

Although many of us have strong convictions against racism,
scapegoating and Proposition 187; we as Californians, and
especially as students, have much to lose if Proposition 187
passes.

If you do not know much about Proposition 187, I challenge you
to come to the rally Oct. 6 to educate yourself. Listen to speakers
break down the issues and explain Proposition 187’s possible
effects on the economy, the community and Californians in general.
By the way, remember to register to vote!