By Stacy Suh

It’s been a month since AB 60 - The Safe and Responsible Driver Act went into effect: since then, all eligible Californians can apply for a driver’s license, regardless of immigration status. This is a huge victory that immigrants and advocates fought for over two decades.

AB 60 is an essential public safety program: all Californians benefits from safer roads when drivers are licensed, tested, and insured. Weeks later, the numbers attest to a great start for the program: during the first month of implementation, over 366,000 DMV visits were made for an AB 60 license, and over 57,000 people already received an AB 60 license. The pass-fail rate for AB 60 license applicants was comparable to that of other license applicants in California.

But more importantly, a driver’s license is a necessity for many folks in their daily lives, whether it is to get to work, to drop off their children at school, or to take family members to doctor’s appointments. It means a huge step to acknowledging that immigrants are a part of our community.

Jose Antonio Vargas, a journalist and undocumented activist, was one of the first to receive a driver’s license in California under AB 60. He shared, “One of the happiest days of my life: a real, legit, government-issued California-approved driver's license… I got this license because I am part of this community–as are my fellow undocumented Americans here in California and across the country.”

Despite the exciting news, we still have a lot of work to do to ensure that AB 60 licenses are truly accessible to all eligible Californians.

For example, the ACLU and our coalition partners are working closely with API and African immigrant community organizations to address specific needs of those communities to improve accessibility to AB 60 licenses. Our coalition website will soon host educational materials in a number of API languages.

We also continue to work to ensure that the federal government respects the privacy of all Californians. In particular, we hope to limit the sharing of information submitted by AB 60 driver’s license applicants with federal immigration agents.

Just a few weeks ago, the National Immigrant Law Center filed a lawsuit that seeks to shed light on how the Department of Homeland Security will access and use driver’s license data. We welcome the lawsuit and hope to get assurance from the federal government that DHS will respect California’s new road safety law and refrain from using the database for enforcement purposes.

After all, people shouldn’t be afraid of getting deported simply for wanting to follow state law and drive legally in California.

Until then, we will continue educating community members about the application process and providing them with information to help them weigh the benefits and risks of applying for a driver’s license.

At the end of the day, we believe this is a battle worth fighting for.

On Friday, a California appeals court brought us one step closer to ensuring that the protection of our laws – including the constitutional right to a fair trial and an impartial jury – extends to everyone.

In a personal injury case involving a former factory worker who obtained a devastating lung disease after being exposed to a harmful chemical at work, the appeals court granted a new trial to Wilfredo Velasquez, whose immigration status the judge had revealed to the jury even though it was not relevant to his claims.

At trial the jury found the company negligent, but declined to award damages to Velasquez, suggesting it was prejudiced by information about his immigration status. In reversing the trial court, the appeals court acknowledged “the strong danger of prejudice attendant with the disclosure of a party’s status as an undocumented immigrant.”

The ACLU Foundation of Southern California, together with UC Hastings Appellate Project and the People for the American Way, filed an amicus brief in the case, Velasquez v. Centrome, Inc. dba Advanced Biotech.

U.S. law provides the same employment rights and protections to all workers, regardless of citizenship or immigration status, but vindicating these rights is often difficult or impossible for undocumented workers. Employers threaten to have them fired or deported if they complain or report workplace violations. Workers (rightfully) fear their immigration status could be discovered if they file a lawsuit. Judges and juries may be prejudiced against them.

Friday’s decision is an important victory, just as it is an important reminder that we must continue to press to make justice and the courts accessible to all.

We can start by working to ensure that existing laws designed to enable workers to come forward and report unlawful employment conditions are respected and enforced.

New California laws that took effect last year increase penalties for employers who threaten to have a worker deported for exercising their employment and labor rights. Employers who violate this law are not only liable for monetary damages, but their business licenses can be revoked and they can be held criminally liable for extortion.

Similarly, U visas provide an important protection for workers who are victims of workplace crimes, including retaliatory threats of deportation. But due to misunderstandings, lack of training and prejudice, dozens of law enforcement agencies across the state refuse to sign the law enforcement certification that is a prerequisite to apply for a U visa, leaving workers in these areas unprotected and thus often unable to pursue claims against retaliatory employers.

We need to do more to educate employers, workers and law enforcement about these laws and ensure that they provide meaningful protection and enable immigrant workers to come forward. By closing the gap between what the law says and what the reality is for immigrant workers, we will raise the playing field and working conditions for everyone.

Jennie Pasquarella is staff attorney at the ACLU of Southern California. Follow ACLU_SoCal.