Ruling fair for illegal immigrants
As the clock struck midnight on Jan. 1, a new year also meant a new opportunity for 36-year-old Sergio Garcia. On Jan. 2, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a Mexican immigrant can be licensed as a lawyer, even if he or she doesn’t have a green card, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Born in Mexico, Garcia came to the United States with his parents when he was a teenager to pick almonds on a farm. His father was a permanent legal resident and attempted to sign a petition to receive an immigrant visa for his son in 1994. Due to the volume of applications filed by immigrants from Mexico at the time, Garcia never received a visa number.
Garcia went on to law school and passed the California State Bar Exam. California state law, however, prohibited undocumented immigrants from being granted professional licenses from government agencies or with the use of public funds. State lawmakers in Sacramento crafted a law that permits illegal immigrants to receive licenses for situations similar to Garcia’s.
Despite now having a license, it is unclear where Garcia can practice law, as he is still barred from being hired at law firms or any company because of his undocumented status. The court stated, however, that he could practice law in California on a pro bono basis.
It is surprising to see the struggle it took Garcia to receive his rightfully deserved law license in California, given the state’s record of progressive reform. Even the White House opposed his case. The Obama administration, which has supported immigrants in the past with measures such as the Dream Act, took the surprising position citing a 1996 federal law similar to the one in California.
Ostensibly, it is easy to see why the state of California shouldn’t grant a professional law license to an illegal immigrant. They are in this country illegally and should therefore not be granted the rights and privileges given to citizens. Such a narrow view of the issue, however, fosters this perpetual cycle that Garcia’s case brings to the foreground — -that of vital immigration reform and a discussion on how immigrants are treated in this country.
Garcia went to college, earned an undergraduate degree, then went to law school and passed the bar on his first attempt. That’s more than what a fifth of test-takers who fail their first time can say. The argument that Garcia’s undocumented status precludes him from practicing law is muted when one considers his extraordinary achievements. As such, the court recognized that Garcia “possesses the requisite good moral character” to be admitted to the state bar.
Garcia did not arrive to the United States on his own accord. Like millions of others, he was brought here by his parents in search of a better life, a philosophy that built this country and that is deeply rooted and interwoven into the fabric of the American creed. Garcia’s case should be viewed as a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the immigration system in America, both at the federal and state level.
The mechanisms of the immigration system are highly outdated and convoluted and, as a result, inhibit the path to citizenship that many desire. Talk of amnesty and deportation fail to muster support when considering systemic flaws. Why should those already present in the state be penalized? A point of no return has already been reached and a massive deportation effort would be unfeasible at best. Border control must be made potent yet simplified. State and federal agents need to cooperate in order to more effectively guard the nation’s borders.
Laws that discriminate against minority groups, such as Arizona’s controversial immigration law passed in 2010, exacerbate the issue rather than solve it. The discourse on immigration reform needs to center on how to manage undocumented immigrants within the border already, how to prevent further illegal immigration through border control, a simplified path to citizenship and a more concerted effort by federal and state officials to work together to enforce policy.
2014 marks the next round of midterm elections and it is unlikely that California will see any change in immigration policy. In today’s deeply polarized and hyper-pluralized political image, legislative agendas are not dictated by priority or need, but rather by political opportunity and gain. Cases similar to Garcia’s, however, offer a glimmer of hope that judicial policymaking might be an effective avenue to exact change in immigration.
Athanasius Georgy is a freshman majoring in biological sciences.