ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



Immigration Daily


The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
© 1995-
Immigration LLC.

Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Article: Why is the Obama Administration Arguing that Undocumented Immigrants Should

  1. #1

    Article: Why is the Obama Administration Arguing that Undocumented Immigrants Should

    Why is the Obama Administration Arguing that Undocumented Immigrants Should Not Practice Law?


    Legal Action Center


    Today, the California Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that asks whether an undocumented immigrant may receive a license to practice law in California. The Committee of Bar Examiners – the entity charged with deciding who qualifies for a law license in California – supports admitting Sergio Garcia to the bar. So do some 48 organizations and 53 individuals who signed on to “friend of the court” briefs submitted to the California Supreme Court. Of the three opposing arguments filed, two came from individuals but the other came from an unexpected source: the Department of Justice. Not only did DOJ voluntarily weigh in with a hypertechnical argument that is tone deaf to the current debate over undocumented status in this country, but it  took the same position in a Florida case involving a lawfully present and work-authorized recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Jose Godinez-Samperio. Even if there was a good legal argument for opposing admission of an unauthorized immigrant to the bar, the rationale makes little sense in the context of an individual who is a DACA beneficiary. In both cases, however, the result DOJ seeks would lead to less socio-economic inclusion of the very immigrants the Obama administration seeks to protect.

    Garcia is precisely the type of person the Obama Administration has been urging deserves an opportunity to obtain lawful status and get on a path to citizenship.

    Garcia’s story has all the earmarks of the classic immigrant success story. His parents, both farmworkers, brought Garcia to the United States from Mexico as a toddler and he spent his early childhood here. In 1994, at age 17 and after living for a period in Mexico, his parents again brought him to the United States. He has remained here ever since. His father, who by then was a lawful permanent resident, filed a visa petition on his behalf. For the last 18 years, since his petition was approved, Garcia has been waiting for a visa to become available so that he can apply for a “green card.” While waiting, he completed high school and paid his way through college and law school. Now 35, he has been self-employed since 2004, pays his taxes, and has no criminal record. He satisfied the requirements for admission to the bar, having passed the California bar examination the first time he took it and having received a “positive moral character determination” from the State Bar Committee.

    In short, Garcia is precisely the type of person the Obama Administration has been urging deserves an opportunity to obtain lawful status and get on a path to citizenship. So why would DOJ oppose his application for a law license?

    DOJ argues that obtaining a law license is a public benefit and thus falls within a 1996 federal ban that bars unauthorized immigrants from receiving certain public benefits. The argument itself, however, is both unsound and simplistic and relies on a provision of the 1996 law that defines public benefits to include professional licenses that are provided by appropriated funds of a state government. DOJ argues that because a state court must issue an order granting the law license and because the court is funded by appropriations from the state, the law license qualifies as a public benefit.

    The answering brief of the Committee on Bar Examiners explains why the DOJ argument is wrong. The issuance of law licenses in California is entirely paid for by application fees. No state funds – appropriated or otherwise – are involved. DOJ’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would render a law license a “public benefit,” even if state appropriations were limited to paying the court’s overhead expenses. This argument strains credibility.  Moreover, as the California Attorney General explained in her brief in support of Garcia, if admitted to the California Bar, Garcia would pay an annual fee, thus subsidizing – rather than draining – the state Bar’s resources.

    It is disappointing that DOJ chose such a short-sighted – and ultimately, confusing – position in this case. It is positively baffling that DOJ staked out this same position with respect to lawfully present DACA recipients who have work authorization. Permitting these individuals to practice law is not only legally sound but it also makes sense, ensuring that individuals with something to contribute to this country have the chance to do so irrespective of their current legal status.

    Photo Courtesy of CarbonNYC.

    Originally published on American Immigration Council Immigration Impact by Legal Action Center. Reprinted with permission.

    About The Author

    The Legal Action Center (LAC) of the American Immigration Council advocates for fundamental fairness in U.S. immigration law. To this end, the LAC engages in impact litigation and appears as amicus curiae (friend of the court) before administrative tribunals and federal courts in significant immigration cases on targeted legal issues. We also provide resources to lawyers litigating immigration cases and serve as a point of contact for lawyers conducting or contemplating immigration litigation. The LAC also works with other immigrants’ rights organizations and immigration attorneys across the United States to promote the just and fair administration of our immigration laws.

    The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) alone and should not be imputed to ILW.COM.

  2. #2
    Absolutely on point! The addition of this applicant to the bar as a lawyer is ITSELF a BENEFIT TO THE PUBLIC, not the other way around.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-12-2013, 03:03 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 01:07 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-18-2012, 01:29 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-17-2012, 01:42 PM
  5. Obama Administration Full of Tax CHEATS
    By a9b3h5 in forum Immigration Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-31-2009, 09:32 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: