A law license for García

The case of Sergio García is an example of the unfairness of an antiquated, dysfunctional immigration system.

García was brought to the U.S. from Mexico by his parents when he was a child. In 1994, when he graduated from high school, his father formally applied to obtain Sergio’s legal residency from immigration officials. Ever since, García has worked hard, managing to graduate from law school. However, when it came time for him to obtain his state license to practice law, the state Supreme Court refused to grant it because García is still undocumented.

Federal law prevents undocumented immigrants from receiving benefits. And the federal government is arguing that obtaining a state license is a benefit.

The California Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday from two sides: those who say this is a federal issue of immigration and others who, like State Attorney Kamala Harris, think that issuing this type of license is a state matter.

Once again, an issue is trapped in an immigration framework that is out of step with reality. In this case, the one getting hurt is an individual, the son of someone who is now an American citizen–a young man for whom deferred deportation came too late because of his age.

We believe that García did everything needed to earn his law license. Something that can be debated are hypothetical scenarios about what a law graduate, someone whose legal residency has been pending for more than a decade after the request was filed, could end up facing.

That is a discussion about practicing law, not about obtaining a law license, where what actually matters is passing the state bar, like García did.

García’s situation is another example of many that show the need for comprehensive immigration reform. While we wait for that law, the courts must recognize the abilities that García has demonstrated in California–and the potential benefit of him practicing his profession–over federal restrictions.