"Give Me Your Tired, Your Poor..." and Your Attorneys!

Reuters recently published a story that should, to reasonable people, seem exceedingly strange, if not particularly surprising.

Apparently, in it's infinite and august wisdom, the California State legislature has sent a bill to Governor Brown for his signature, which would allow the State to issue law licenses to those not legally present in the United States.

Why should reasonable people find this strange? Put quite simply: It is not reasonable to misuse statutory law to legitimize or encourage otherwise unlawful acts. It is not reasonable to confer upon a person a license to represent others in the legal system in California, when such a person is, himself, in open and admitted violation of the law.

Regardless of how one feels about illegal immigration or our current federal and state laws and policies intended to prevent and control it, it is an undeniable fact that entering or remaining in the United States in any manner other than those specifically prescribed by law is, in fact, illegal.

As with California's recent passage of a bill that grants driver licenses to illegal immigrants, AB 1024 only legitimizes the unlawful acts of some in California and encourages others to violate federal immigration law as well.

These two State laws -and many other laws, policies, and practices- have rapidly transformed California into a de facto sanctuary state, where most have come to understand that illegal immigration is not only tolerated by most State and many local legislators, but actually encouraged through the passage of laws, like these, which lend legitimacy to those present, or remaining, in the country illegally.

The majority of California State legislators in both houses passed AB 1024 and sent it to Governor Brown, who has already indicated he will sign it.

One wonders how these legislators and the Governor can reconcile AB 1024 with another State law, California Business and Professions Code Section 6068(a), which states:

"It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state..."

How can Sacramento permit the licensing of a person to practice law in the state when that person is so obviously not meeting his or her "duty" to support the laws of the United States? Are not our federal immigration codes considered "laws of the United States"? Does not "supporting" the laws of the United States also include abiding by them?

Further, one wonders how these legislators and the Governor can reconcile AB 1024 with yet another State law, California Penal Code section 834b(a), which states:

"Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws."

Do California's legislature and Governor hold themselves to different legal standards from those it purports to hold every law enforcement agency in the state?

LA Almanac.com informs us that, according to the US Department of Homeland Security, as of 1990 there were an estimated 1.5 million illegal immigrants in California. Ten years later that number had jumped to 2.5 million. In 2011, that number rose again, to 2.83 million. Almost one quarter of the entire nations illegal immigrant population is believed to reside in California. I think laws like AB 1024 are a big part of why that is the case.

State laws that provide law licenses and driver licenses to those present in the country illegally contribute significantly to the continuing increase in the illegal immigrant populations of States like California and of the nation as a whole.

We are, allegedly, a nation of laws. Regardless of how unfortunate Mr. Sergio Garcia's personal circumstances may be, the fact remains that he, as a legal adult, has made a conscious choice to remain in the U.S. illegally. According to the Reuters story, Garcia applied for a Visa (temporary permission to enter and/or remain) when he turned 18 but, some 18 years later, he has yet to receive that permission.

If a person applies for a license to drive, but does not receive one, should he or she drive anyway? If a business applies for a license to operate in a community, but does not receive one, should that business open and operate anyway?

In plain language, then, Mr. Garcia is not present in the country legally and apparently has not been since he became a legal adult. If, as an adult, Mr. Garcia had been truly serious about respecting U.S. immigration law, he would have voluntarily returned to his home nation until such time as he received his Visa, but he apparently did not do that.

Instead, Mr. Garcia made a conscious decision to remain in the U.S. illegally and now he will no doubt directly benefit from AB 1024, as may many others in the same or a similar situation.

Some may have no difficulty with this. Others...those who believe we still are, or should be, a nation of laws...myself included, have a different opinion.

What is yours?

The author is a Long Beach native and retired public safety employee who currently resides in the Pacific Northwest.