For all intents and purposes, California has obliterated the distinction between legal and illegal aliens. Last Thursday, the California Supreme Court ruled that 36 year old Sergio Garcia, whose parents brought him into the country illegally – twice – can obtain a license to practice law. The unanimous ruling illuminates the essence of progressive thinking: since Garcia has been living in the United States for 19 years, it is unlikely that immigration officials would pursue sanctions against him. "Under these circumstances, we conclude that the fact that an undocumented immigrant’s presence in this country violates federal statutes is not itself a sufficient or persuasive basis for denying undocumented immigrants, as a class, admission to the State Bar,“ the court said in a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye. In other words, continually violating the law is an insufficient reason to deny someone a license to practice it.

According to court documents, Garcia was first bought here illegally by his parents in 1978 when he was 17-months old. His parents returned to Mexico in 1986. At the age of 17, Garcia once again came across the border illegally with parents, although his father had obtained permanent resident status in the United States. In 1994, Garcia’s father filed a petition on behalf of his son seeking an immigration visa. Federal immigration officials accepted it in 1995, but due to the huge backlog of applications from Mexicans, Garcia never received a visa number. Nineteen years later, the visa has yet to be granted. Garcia applied for citizenship in 1994, and says he is working towards that eventuality. He is on track to get a green card in 2019.

In 2009, Garcia got a law degree from Cal Northern School of Law and passed the bar exam that same year. He became an attorney for two weeks, until the state notified him that his admission to the bar was in error. Garcia turned to the state court system, buttressed by support from California Attorney General Kamala Harris. "Admitting Garcia to the bar would be consistent with state and federal policy that encourages immigrants, both documented and undocumented, to contribute to society,” she wrote in a 2012 brief.

When the Court reviewed the case last September, it appeared they would not grant Garcia a license. The U.S. Justice Department noted that federal law limits the granting of law licenses to U.S. citizens – unless a state passes a law that specifically allows it.

That in and of itself is a remarkable assertion, when one recalls that the same DOJ filed suits against Arizona and Alabama for crafting invalid immigration law. In the Alabama case, the DOJ’s court filing claimed a state cannot set its own immigration policy or pass such statues in conflict with federal immigration laws. This sudden accommodation for the state of California reeks of the selective law enforcement that has become the trademark of the Obama administration, and its ethically-challenged Attorney General Eric Holder.

California was more than willing to take advantage of that accommodation. On Oct. 5, Governor Jerry Brown signed a law allowing illegal aliens to obtain law licenses. The law which allows the bar to admit “an applicant who is not lawfully present in the United States (who) has fulfilled the requirements for admission to practice law,” went into effect beginning this year. In a letter sent to the clerk of the California Supreme Court dated Nov. 12, the DOJ indicated they would no longer pursue the matter. Yet the letter noted that “employment authorization is distinct from possession of a law license, and is determined solely by reference to federal law.”

That’s a curious assertion. Federal law prohibits the hiring of illegal aliens. Thus, it would appear the DOJ is saying one of two things: either Garcia can have a law license, but he can’t practice; or, one who is self-employed is exempt from the law.

As of now it’s apparently an irrelevance. The DOJ has abandoned its opposition, and the law signed by Gov. Brown cleared the decks of any opposition by the California Supreme Court.

Furthermore, as noted above, the ruling applies, not just to Garcia, but to illegal immigrants as a “class.” According to Víctor Nieblas, an immigration attorney based in Southern California, that “class” will undoubtedly get much larger, as there are hundreds of other “young professionals” seeking the same treatment.

And not just in California. In Florida, 26 year old Jose Manuel Godinez-Samperio petitioned the state Supreme Court in 2011, asking whether “undocumented immigrants” are eligible for admission to the Florida Bar. In New York, City University of New York law graduate Cesar Vargas, 29, filed an application in 2012 to practice law. "We need to step out of the shadows,“ he said at the time. "That’s the only way we can tell our stories.”

They are stories as predictable as a sunrise, in lockstep with a progressive ideology that seeks to eliminate all opposition to the legalization of millions of law-breakers, by any means necessary. Thus illegal aliens – and that is the proper term, not “undocumented immigrants” a pernicious euphemism that suggests nothing more than paperwork keeps millions of people “in the shadows” – can add law degrees to a long list of privileges granted to law breakers. Those privileges includes in-state tuition, drivers’ licenses, bank accounts and the Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs). The issuance of ITINs has precipitated a scandal all its own: the IRS has sent at least $4.2 billion in tax refunds to the families of illegal aliens.

There are also a host of “sanctuary cities" across the nation in open defiance of federal immigration law. They not only bar police from cooperating with immigration officials when they arrest illegals, they also end the distinction between legal resident aliens and illegal aliens, paving the way for illegals to obtain taxpayer-funded benefits and services. Not that the DOJ is concerned. Sanctuary cities have been around for decades, and not a single suit has been filed against any of them. Here is a list of those cities as of March, 2013. Note that 33 states have at least one locale where government officials have taken it upon themselves to ignore federal law.

Unsurprisingly, California leads the pack.

CNN contributor Ruben Navarrette asks some uncomfortable questions regarding Garcia’s newfound status. He notes that in order to become a lawyer, one must solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States and the laws of California. "How is Garcia supposed to uphold ‘the laws of the United States’ when he is, by his mere presence in this country, in violation of federal law?” asks Navarrette. “How does he pledge to show respect for ‘the courts of justice’ when, for most of his life, he has lived here in defiance of the rule of law? And how can he claim that he won’t ‘mislead’ a judge or judicial officer when living in the United States illegally requires deception on a daily basis?”

The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) Executive Director Mark Krikorian asks even more penetrating questions, because they reveal the real agenda behind the push to “normalize” illegal immigration. “Will you be in favor of barring driver’s licenses for illegals after an amnesty?‘ he asks. "Will you support prohibiting illegal aliens from being admitted to the bar after an amnesty? Will you support deporting illegal aliens after an amnesty?”

Like so many Americans aware of the game being played by the left, Krikorian knows the answer to those questions is “no.” For example, he notes that the latest requirement to check worker IDs contained in the Schumer-Rubio immigration bill would phase in such verification over a five year period, and that checking existing workers is not included in the current mandate. Tellingly, it was eliminated from earlier versions of the bill. Kirkorian also points out another inconvenient reality: according to the Congressional Budget Office, there will still be 7 million illegal aliens in the United States a decade from now, even if  the Schumer-Rubio comprehensive immigration reform bill is passed.

Does anyone seriously believe there wouldn’t be an identical clamor to bring those people “in from the shadows?”

Yet the most burning question Americans should ask themselves is this: if it’s now legal to practice law as an illegal alien, what’s next? Will illegal aliens who desire to practice medicine, teach in America’s classrooms, or assume positions in government, be demanding their licenses as well? In the not-too-distant future, will these so-called professionals and their fellow illegals make the argument that, as productive taxpaying members of society, they are entitled to vote?

And will there come a time when Sergio Garcia, et al, determine the moment is propitious enough that they should be considered worthy of becoming judges? Or members of Congress?

Over the top? Not when the law has been kicked to the curb in favor of expediency. Not when a corrupt Obama administration has set the template regarding which laws are enforced, and which are conspicuously ignored. Not when there is a collaborative ruling class that doesn’t give a damn about anything other than cheap votes and cheap labor, egged on by radicals for whom the notion of a sovereign state defined by language, borders and culture is “nativist” and “xenophobic.”

“This is a bright new day in California history and bodes well for the future,” the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles said in a statement following the decision. No it’s not, and no it doesn’t. It bodes for a future where the rule of law – the one thing that separates a democratic republic from a banana republic – becomes malleable to the point of meaninglessness.

And not just law with regard to illegal aliens. Any law. All law. One incremental expediency after another.

© Copyright 2013 The Patriot Post