olicy, and political issues surrounding Proposition 187 and the immigration issue generally. The former two dimensions, social ethics and public policy, are related but not identical. Anyone who regards Proposition 187 as unjust would be unlikely to regard it at the same time as sound policy. On the other side of the question, however, is a body of opinion which holds that, even if Proposition 187 is justified in principle, it constitutes bad public policy. (It must be admitted that these policy critics are probably opposed to the measure on principle as well.)
The argument made by this group of critics is that Proposition 187 will not cause illegal immigrants to go away and that denying them public services will simply lead to increased costs in the long run. Patients who are denied inexpensive vaccines and other primary care will instead end up in emergency rooms, where treatment is much more expensive (Cowley and Murr, 1994, pp. 34). Moreover, a population largely denied medical care forms a breeding ground for infectious diseases, which once established may not remain confined to it; thus, the health-care denial provisions of Proposition pose a potential public health hazard that extends beyond the illegal immigrant population itself (Ziv and Lo, 1995, pp. 1096-98).
Parallel arguments can be made regarding the denial of public education to the children of illegal immigrants. On the one hand, these children will not receive the education that might permit them to achieve their full potential and so contribute more to the California economy in the future. On the other hand, if these children are not in school, they will presumably be on the streets, exposed to the enticements of gangs, drugs, and crime. As suggested above, while these public policy arguments are logically independent of the broader moral questions raised by Proposition 187, these arguments probably have been raised only by those who are opposed to the...