Business and Professions Code § 6067 precludesthe admission of Mr. Garcia becauseit requires an oath to support the federal immigration lawsto the best ofhis ability Mr. Garcia cannottake the oath of office because he has no intention of complying with the federal immigration laws until several years from now. No State authority can administer the oath of office to Mr. Garcia in good faith due to knowledgethat he will have violated that oath by his presence the very moment he completes the oath. -32- Illegal immigrants cannot accept pay for legal services because such payis proscribed by 8 U.S.C. § 1324a. Granting a law license to Mr. Garcia will mislead prospective clients to erroneously believe that he is legally present in the United States and can be paid for legal services.

Furthermore, IRCA provides that upon learning that an employee is not authorized to work in the United States the employer must discharge the employee immediately. 8 USC 1324a(a)(2). Finally, many times this Court has found a contract illegal and unenforceable when it could have been argued that only the formation of the contract was illegal.

The Committee intends to prevent any such loophole in the instant legislation.”’].) In sum, § 1324a(a)(4) prohibits using a contractual relationship to avoid IRCA liability for employing someoneit would be unlawful to employdirectly. Because a client is never in a position to directly employ a sole practitioner, this provision plainly does not prohibit a potential client from retaining an attorney such as Mr. Garcia for his legal services as a solo practitioner.

See Part I.A.2.b, supra. The canon of constitutional avoidance therefore requires reading both Section 1103(a)(3) and Section 1324a(h)(3) narrowly and to disallow DHS’s limitless discretion. C. Plaintiffs Have Standing For all of its complexities, the point of the standing doctrine is simple: to ensure that at least one plaintiff before this Court has “[t]he requisite personal interest” to create a “Case” or “Controversy” under Article III. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 189 (2000).

(See 26 C.F.R. § 301.6109-1(d)(3).) ITINsare also accepted by the State of California Franchise Tax Board in reporting income and paying taxes (payable via electronic funds transfers from bank accounts, moneyorders, or cash). (See, e.g., Form (Cont’d on nextpage) -28- An undocumented immigrant can also provide pro bonoservicesfor a client, or any other person or entity for that matter, as section 1324a only applies to the employmentof an employee for wages or other remuneration. (8 C.F.R. § 274a.1(c).)

Section 17 Violates IRCA’s Prohibition on Employer Sanctions Like Section 16, Section 17 is also preempted. Section 17(a) provides: It shall be a discriminatory practice for a business entity or employer to fail to hire a job applicant who is a United States citizen or an alien who is authorized to work in the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3) or discharge an employee working in Alabama who is a United States citizen or an alien who is authorized to work in the United States as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3) while retaining or hiring an employee who the business entity or employer knows, or reasonably should have known, is an unauthorized alien. Ala. H.B. § 17(a).

See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(3) (An “entity that establishes that it has complied in good faith with [the hiring requirements of] subsection (b) [regarding employment verification] . . . has established an affirmative defense that the . . . entity has not violated paragraph (1)(A) with respect to such hiring . . . .). Here, Plaintiff does not allege that ICE charged the Company with a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(1)(A). Indeed, as the Company disclosed, and Plaintiff cannot refute, “ICE’s notification provided no indication that the Company knowingly or intentionally hired unauthorized aliens and no criminal charges have been filed against the Company or any current employees.”

Recent litigation regarding the Legal Arizona Workers Act (“LAWA”) does not address the issues raised in this case. The ongoing LAWA litigation explores whether states and localities are authorized by the savings clause in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2) to impose licensing sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers. Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2009), pet.

See supra, pp. 35-37. And, Plaintiffs’ challenge to the provision of employment authorization under independent operation of law and regulation, see 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12, is misplaced, because aliens who are granted deferred action have long been eligible for work authorization based on independent provisions of law. See 8 C.F.R. § 274a.12(c)(14).

Here, the INA authorizes the Secretary to establish regulations, issue instructions, and “perform such other acts as he deems necessary for carrying out his authority under the statute.” 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(3) (emphasis added); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3) (defining the term “unauthorized alien” as meaning that the alien is not at that time “authorized to be so employed by this chapter or by the Attorney General.”).