Undocumented immigrant can practice law, California Supreme Court rules

reply to post by Helpus2014


I don't find this scary... I do have concerns though. A Lawyer is an officer of the court. At what point is it ok to break the law when your very profession deals with the law?

I would think this would be a candidate for an ethics complaint.

However - What truly scares the hell out of me is the US Supreme Court. In case anyone is curious, check the US Constitution (Federal) and find where it says a person must be a US citizen in order to be a Supreme Court Justice.

For those who want the quick answer - There is no requirement in the Constitution regarding Supreme Court Justices being required to be a US Citizen.

While I understand, and completely respect, the fact our nation was founded out of rebellion and built by immigration. The issue is when immigrants (legal or illegal) refuse to adapt to America, instead requiring America to adapt to them.

The overall goal in my opinion should be to bring something to America in order to make her better for all instead of coming to America only to try and resume the very issues that caused them to immigrate in the first place.

*** No offense intended and my position is not meant to come across as morally superior / racist / etc. I fully support lawful immigration as well as those lawful immigrants wanting to incorporate the best of where they came from to what they came to.***

A friendly reminder...

That civility and decorum are a cornerstone of ATS. Personal attacks or other not so subtle swipes will not be tolerated. Consider this fair warning.

The END of hate speech, subtle or otherwise, on ATS

reply to post by Helpus2014


ok - an obvious question - do you ACTUALLY have to be a citizen to practice law ?

each state has their own bar exam - and you need to be certified in each state

you don't have to live in a given state - just past its own bar exam

so do you even have to be a US citizen ?

reply to post by Xcathdra


If I may refer to the end of your post alone for brevity's sake:

*** No offense intended and my position is not meant to come across as morally superior / racist / etc. I fully support lawful immigration as well as those lawful immigrants wanting to incorporate the best of where they came from to what they came to.***

When one is born of illegal immigrants, it becomes a matter of logistics as well as politics or legality. It was noted before you can't change or have any control otherwise over where you were born... and after all this guy did pass the California BAR exam. He's no fool, and finally who got to pay for it? Maybe someday soon and as a result we may all pitch in... it's getting codified up pretty fast for my wallet. Trouble is it's been empty for about thirty-five years anyway.
Kind of hard to prove intent except through the documented results. We sure are one now...

I think this comes down to only one question. Nothing more. Nothing less. If we remove the social engineering by court ruling from this? Only one legal question remains, since courts aren't about 'fair' but what the law reads as passed by legislature.

Is this man legal for status inside the United States, or isn't he?

Fair doesn't enter into it, IMO. Right or Wrong in some social sense doesn't enter into it either. This is about becoming an Officer of the Court, in some respects and practicing law to represent those in violation of it in all respects.

If he's legal, then the rest is moot. If he's not legal...the rest is still moot. Legal means it works. Illegal SHOULD mean, in a nation built on law, it doesn't work until he's corrected that. WHY a legal status issue exists should be 100% irrelevant to what is being sought here. Although we aren't based on law anymore. Not when law is deemed...inconvenient to social progress. We don't change laws....we just re-define or ignore them outright.

Hell of a way to run a nation.

Are we a nation of laws or aren't we?

What kind of signal does it send if we allow someone without legal status to arbitrate law? Is that something a nation of laws actually does?

Now you can argue that he is in the situation of being illegal through no fault of his own, but that doesn't change the fact that he still has no legal status. Perhaps, he should gain legal status before he seeks to arbitrate the law otherwise what kind of ethical signal does that send?

This is sort of like kids who get special tuition rates even though they legally belong to another country. What kind of signal does that send to kids who belong to the country but get charged more because they live in another state?

Perhaps it is time to vote with your feet as you eluded to. America would hardly be the first nation on earth where people have done this. It's not as if they can force you to stay a US citizen and continue paying taxes into the broken system, not yet anyway.

reply to post by Helpus2014


How exactly is he "undocumented" if he's in the system? Misleading title.

He has a license to practice law. However since he is considered an Illegal, no law firm can legally hire him. And he cannot open his own law practice if he is considered an Illegal.

So he is kinda in legal limbo.

They beat this to death on Friday morning talk radio.

reply to post by Horatius


I am a latina and I am against illegal immigration and amnesty, with that said what that makes me, in your eyes.

No all latino Americans in the US agree with illegals running the nation in the millions while hundred of thousands more are still crossing the border yearly, is not enough tax payers Americans in the nation to keep supporting the increasing welfare state.

Immigration is nothing but importing poverty into the nation a nation that already have enough poor killing the working class.

Have a great day.

reply to post by marg6043


Well thought out.
Well spoken.
I'd flag your post if I could.

-Via con Dios-

Eryiedes
reply to post by marg6043

 

Well thought out.
Well spoken.
I'd flag your post if I could.

-Via con Dios-

Agreed and so would I! Marg always gets stars from me on such subjects.

reply to post by Helpus2014


Practicing law is speech. Speech is a right. Everyone has a right to practice law regardless of legal status.

fractal2
reply to post by Helpus2014

 

Practicing law is speech. Speech is a right. Everyone has a right to practice law regardless of legal status.

Pursuing a career in private business is now a right? We have the right to be an attorney?

Which section of the Constitution outlines that right, if I may ask?

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

Speech is a natural right, and traditionally associated with the 1st amendment of the US Consitution. I've always thought of an attorney as a public job. However, if it were a private job then the employer should have the right to hire whoever they believe is best qualified for the job. If the best person to represent me in court is what you label an "illegal alien", you are harming my best chances of winning the trial by eliminating my best option of defense in court. If I'm going to court I need the best person for the job, not the politically correct one.

reply to post by fractal2


The problem is..."illegal alien" isn't a 'label'. It's a literal description of their legal status to live or remain in the United States for ANY reason whatsoever. Actually sitting for a state Bar Exam to become an officer of the Court while also breaking the law daily in simply being here, is outrageous. Argue the law, but it exists and it's not made up.

I see what you're saying about wanting a lawyer you knows you, but there is also a Canon Of Ethics (Large PDF from the American BAR) that Attorneys are sworn to follow in their profession. The core of that is ethical and LEGAL behavior at all times.

I don't object to looking at and reforming immigration law and goodness knows, it needs it ..however we each may consider the need to be best served. However, just pretending like laws don't exist and breaking them has absolutely no consequence is precisely how we lose the idea of a nation based on law and become a Banana republic.

At this rate, bringing criminals in to serve as members of the court? We won't need lawyers much longer. We'll need Amnesty International and the International Red Cross, like so many other people seek hope in. The loosey goosey approach to the law works for some right now .....it'll be a sad sad thing to see those same people when an extreme Republican again takes power and the game STILL works the same way for them.

reply to post by Night Star


Thanks, I can only imagine that if a none America citizen gets away with practicing law as the OP is referring too, how can we stop unlicensed none American doctors from practicing medicine as a right.

When in a nation of laws one person tried to circumvent those established laws always opens up a can of bigger and nastier worms.

Usually the law as is suppose to do and work step in and fix the mess that others makes.

Is actually interesting to see this cases resolved.

reply to post by fractal2


Oooo, I like this! So, I can be a doctor because speech is a natural right?

D'oh! Marg beat me to it.

ketsuko
reply to post by fractal2

 

Oooo, I like this! So, I can be a doctor because speech is a natural right?

D'oh! Marg beat me to it.

The freedom of speech gives everyone the right to give medical advice and investing advice without a license. But, they must be honest about not being licensed and also while medical advice is speech medical procedures are actions are not free speech. This would be different from lawyers because a lawyers only job is speech.

I like personal choices and personal responsiblity. Lets say for some reason I specifically want to go to a doctor and he tells me that due to a recent lawsuit he has had his licensed revoked. Lets say I have personal reasons to believe he is a good doctor despite the revokation. I trust this doctor more than I trust the American Medical Association who tells me he is a bad doctor. It should be my personal choice and my personal responsiblity about who I trust with my body more than it is the responsiblity of my US state government. Should government be more responsible for my choices than I am? No. Even if they were semi-competent, I still trust my own judgement more than theirs. I just wish other people would allow others that personal choice and personal responsiblity, and am disappointed when they strong-arm their choices upon me as if they have a divine right to decide who I have to trust.