Undocumented Immigrant Lawyer

Posted by Eyecu2 7 years, 5 months ago to Government
47 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Here is the URL of the Story
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...

Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye stated 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.”

Be that as it may the fact that an undocumented immigrant’s presence in this country violates federal statutes is sufficient reason to deport the undocumented immigrant to their country of origin, which would make the rest of this case unimportant.

How do individuals too stupid to realize that an undocumented immigrant is by definition a criminal? If memory serves criminals are not allow to serve as lawyers. It seems to me that the ENTIRE Supreme Court of California should lose their licenses.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by TheOldMan 7 years, 5 months ago
    An "undocumented" immigrant is not someone without birth or citizenship documentation. It is simply someone whose documents are for a different country. "Undocumented' makes it sound like the person left his papers in his other pants. Control the language, control the people.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 7 years, 5 months ago
    As I commented: Liberalism is a mental disorder. As such, you can expect any kind of irrational insanity to be put forth with a straight face and a sincere voice. No use railing against trying to correct a psychotic person. Just fight to keep them out of power.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by exindigo 7 years, 5 months ago
    At some point, people are going to start wondering if there is any benefit to citizenship. The Roman citizens must have felt the same way when thousands of non-citizens flooded Rome to get state supported work.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by guidvce 7 years, 5 months ago
    Always knew lawyers could break the law and get away with it. The perfect scenario would be this one getting arrested after being sworn in for being an illegal and perjury(lying when taking the oath).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Snoogoo 7 years, 5 months ago
    Waiting for the green card since 1995? That doesn't make any sense. I know the government is slow but usually they process those applications "approved" or "denied" within about 6 months.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by MattFranke 7 years, 5 months ago
    "...criminals are not allow(ed) to serve as lawyers."
    Are you so sure about that?? Lawyers, are to your average criminal, what a brain surgeon is to a family doctor. They are in the same business, just a different set of skills involved. lol
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
      Criminals are not "legally" allowed to serve as lawyers. Yes many lawyers are nothing more than criminals and enablers of criminals but the difference between what is and what is supposed to be is very large.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by USAONENATIONUNDERGOD 7 years, 5 months ago
    Not ALL get welfare....hard working baby boomers who learned that working hard and saving for their future can not even think to apply..yet the fool on the hill thinks we should give back after our hard years and savings..This undocumented immigrant not only should not be practicing law....but more to the point he was surely his educational was paid for by the Americans born here.....why is he not a LEGAL Citizen? Some reason he can not become one?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 5 months ago
    WOP (from) W.O.P.: without passport. Wops sit on the Supreme Court, dude.

    When Shelly and Byron toured the Continent, as English genty had done and would do until World War One, passports were not required. The passport was invented by the belligerents of World War One.

    The diploma given to scholars is like the credentials given to diplomats: a folded and sealed safe passage across all borders, even in time of war.

    Short of that, no one ever needed permission to travel.

    It was in Germany, especially after Unification under Prussia, that it became habit for visitors to a city to register with the police. If you watch old 1930s movies, you will see that the hotel graciously took care of that for the better sort of traveler.

    Show me the American entry visa for Jan Sebelius or Nikola Tesla or James Stuart Kennedy.

    Nationalism is a form of collectivism. America was always intended to be CAPITALIST nation of open immigration.

    Yes, immigrants get welfare. So does everyone. Welcome to America. The solution is to get rid of welfare, not to get rid of immigrants -- unless of course, you happen to be a Native American, still fighting for Homeland Security since 1492.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 7 years, 5 months ago
      Actually, as I heard it, WOP stood for "without papers".

      Please point to the foreigner who is in this country without proper documentation who sits on the Supreme Court?

      If borders were as porous as you pretend, why would diplomates need safe passage across all borders.. hm?

      Nationalism is an extension of tribalism, Mankind's natural social form.

      Ah, now we get down to it... only immigrants from more than 600 years ago are "native American", not the people who immigrated less than 600 years ago who actually built the civilization we're trying to protect.

      Believe it or not, the U.S., modern plumbing, hospitals, superhighways, nuclear power, space travel were NOT inevitable. The "Native Americans" were in the Americas longer ago than the Egyptians were scratching together a society. And yet, they never got past a stone age level of development, and were already decaying when the Europeans first showed up here.

      So you think the solution is to welcome those who want the unearned, who do not want to trade value for value, who support the welfare state, with open arms, eh?

      If you feel self-destructive, no need to drag the rest of us along with you.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by XenokRoy 7 years, 5 months ago
        I agree with what your saying in principle. However I do not feel the way to control the immigration problem is by locking down our boarders, but by eliminating the programs which attract those that do not wish to trade value for value.

        We want an open boarder that allows all traders to come here and escape the rest of the worlds system of push or pull.

        I do not believe that the problem is really immigration at all, but the programs we have created that attract the moochers at record levels to the US. It was never a problem when our culture and programs attracted highly productive and ambitious people looking to make money by way of production.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
          Sorry but I believe that this has always been a problem not just since we have created the largest welfare state in the world.

          Evidence of my point would be things like Operation Wetback in 1954 and Mexican Repatriation that occurred between 1929 and 1939 and the Immigration Act of 1903. Each of these times we had huge numbers of illegal immigrants who were deported. Nearly all of them to Mexico. Essentially illegal immigrants have been coming here for over 100 years and we had continuously had to deal with the negative impacts of this movement.

          Please do not get me wrong I care nothing for where a person comes from, as long as they follow the laws to do it. If however they come here illegally I firmly believe that we should ship them out.

          Additionally, I believe that ALL forms of governmental assistance should be denied any first generation immigrant and all family members of first generation immigrants while residing with a first generation immigrant.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
          • Posted by Hiraghm 7 years, 5 months ago
            http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/Rome-Fel...
            "This unequal portrait of the two forces would not only have been the Roman view: it could almost have been the German view as well (for the milling hosts are of Germanic origin, as are all the intruders of this period). To the Romans, the German tribes were riffraff; to the Germans, the Roman side of the river was the place to be. The nearest we can come to understanding this divide may be the southern border of the United States. There the spit-and-polish troops are immigration police; the hordes, the Mexicans, Haitians, and other dispossessed peoples seeking illegal entry. The barbarian migration was not perceived as a threat by Romans, simply because it was a migration— a year-in, year-out, raggle-taggle migration— and not an organized, armed assault. It had, in fact, been going on for centuries. The Gauls had been the first barbarian invaders, hundreds of years before, and now Gaul lay at peace. The verses of its poets and the products of its vineyards were twin fountains of Roman inspiration. The Gauls had become more Roman than the Romans themselves. Why could not the same thing happen to these Vandals, Alans, and Sueves, now working themselves to a fever pitch on the far side of the river?

            When, at last, the hapless Germans make their charge across the bridge of ice, it is head-on, without forethought or strategy. With preposterous courage they teem across the Rhine in convulsive waves, their principal weapon their own desperation. We get a sense of their numbers, as well as their desperation, in a single casualty count: the Vandals alone are thought to have lost twenty thousand men (not counting women and children) at the crossing. Despite their discipline, the Romans cannot hold back the Germanic sea.

            From one perspective, at least, the Romans were overwhelmed by numbers— not just in this encounter but during centuries of migrations across the porous borders of the empire. Sometimes the barbarians came in waves, though seldom as big as this one. More often they came in trickles: as craftsmen who sought honest employment, as warriors who enlisted with the Roman legions, as tribal chieftains who paid for land, as marauders who burned and looted and sometimes raped and murdered."
            - from "How the Irish Saved Civilization"
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
        • Posted by Hiraghm 7 years, 5 months ago
          Exactly how are you going to do that without filtering who comes into the country? Even Galt required Dagny to take the oath.
          Part of the problem is also that American culture has been mutated to reduce our sense of nationalism. Again, consider Atlantis in AS as an example. No one who lived there would consider it "just another town". They differentiated between "producers" and "looters and moochers". And no one who lived there would be willing to let just anyone come squatting. Their border was truly sealed, *even though they invited people with the right mindset to join them*.

          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by exindigo 7 years, 5 months ago
      "Nationalism is a form of collectivism." That is the funnies thing I have seen in print for some time. Words must have absolutely no meaning any more. I guess since gender moved from a language description to sex, things have gone downhill. Take the following for example "Those people only have sex in the Missionary Position and only for procrastination." that was from a blog about movies.

      Also, 1933 Hitler and the Nazis came to power. They started a number of programs designed to ensure the safety of the German people. Id cards were issued to all Germans and these had to be shown to get services. There were special hotels where non-Germans were supposed to stay and booking in the hotel meant you had to register with the government. In 1937 the Nazis seized all guns. Mein Herr, these papers are not in order. Are your papers in order?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Mimi 7 years, 5 months ago
      Native Americans per capita are the richest group in America these days. The casinos have changed the dynamics. It’s why Harry Reid and Obama are always in private meetings with Native Americans. They got loot..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Hiraghm 7 years, 5 months ago
        Remember some of the discussions we've had here regarding offensive terms?

        I find "Native American"... well not offensive, but objectionable. Living here in the (former) Indian Nations, I guess I'm more aware that there was never any unified "Native American" population.
        It's like saying, "Native Europeans are the richest group in Europe these days."

        I refrain from saying "American aborigines" because most people will go, "huh?"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 5 months ago
        I agree that the matter is complicated. My quip was based on a different aspect: the first one in has more right to complain than the last one wanting to slam the door. I have worked with Native Americans in New Mexico and here in Texas and just like Moravians, Slovenians, and Vietnamese, "per capita" says nothing about the individual.Look at Equatorial Guinea, with a per capita income of $25,000 per year.
        "Since the mid-1990s, Equatorial Guinea has become one of sub-Sahara's largest oil producers. With a population of 650,702, it is the richest country per capita in Africa,... and its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ranks 69th in the world;... However, the wealth is distributed very unevenly and few people have benefited from the oil riches. The country ranks 136th on the UN's 2011 Human Development Index. The UN says that less than half of the population has access to clean drinking water and that 20% of children die before reaching five."
        (wikipedia). So, too, is life on the reservation not what you might expect -- or considering Francisco's "Money Speech" it might be exactly what you should expect.

        Individuals still make decisions. The last native I worked with was a systems analyst who said that education was never valued on the reservation, so she left as soon as she could.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 5 months ago
    “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 role of a judge is to interpret the law. This interpretation is that it doesn't matter if you're a felon, you can still practice law, ie it doesn't matter if you break the law, you can still be an objective judge! (And it works out so well for the law-abiding folks...)

    Uh, anyone else see any GLARING inconsistencies in this argument?

    If there was ever a case for impeachment, this would be it.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by iamA2u 7 years, 5 months ago
      See Milton Friedman on immigration (legal or not) (referenced elsewhere here). He states "bad laws [welfare] make socially desirable actions [immigration ] illegal". I think he would favor this ruling, but maybe not for the double negative kind of reasoning, but because the law itself is bad.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Hiraghm 7 years, 5 months ago
      wait a sec... something you said rang a bell from Francisco's money speech...

      "Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them.

      "Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them."
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -5
    Posted by Dargo 7 years, 5 months ago
    These wetbacks have more rights given to them then I have and I am a white, straight, male. There was a wetback that fell off a truck and was disabled and could not work. The aclu got him a $1,000 monthly check fro the federal government and a free plane ticket back to wetback land.BTW that was in the mid 70's Why is the government kissing there ass?? Because it is PC!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by khalling 7 years, 5 months ago
      why the name calling?
      Notice how none of these aclu groups focus on Asian immigrants in the US. Why is that? There is a strong agenda to support and nurture getting more and more on a welfare roll. This encourages illegal immigration more than anything else. This isn't about immigration policy-this is about welfare.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
        I agree that name calling is inappropriate but I understand the frustration and the possible desire to do so. Even though I understand it, it is still unacceptable.

        I agree this is about expanding the welfare roles which correspondingly expand their voter base. True illegals cannot vote but it only takes time before the illegals have children and then those children (who in my mind are wrongly legal) eventually grow up to vote.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by iamA2u 7 years, 5 months ago
          "those children (who in my mind are wrongly legal)" You need to review your premises, Eyecu2. If you adhere to that opinion then you should consider yourself illegal if your ancestors didn't get clearance to immigrate. I know none of my great (to the 5th) grandparents had such clearance in the 1800's. Am I "illegal"? "Illegal" immigration is a construct which is inherently contradictory to the principles upon which the U.S. has become great. People are valued based upon their contribution, not race, religion, or where they were born. I agree the court decision is wrong GIVEN CURRENT LAW, but I also know the laws are bad ones. Don't you want a person who can come from nothing and earn a law degree to be able to work here? You are a moocher if you say a wiling and capable person can't work because "the law" says so. Yes YOU, eyecu2, are preaching mooching, if you don't realize it.

          Yes, according to the law he is a criminal, but isn't the objective of the moochers to make us all criminals? Weren't the heroes in AS ALL criminals under the laws? Did he actually do something wrong? Clearly not. He seems to be a fine example of a contributing person. You are blind if you can't see that.

          The problem is welfare, requiring hospitals to treat anyone, and similar handouts. Welfare should be abolished, or reformed to fix that, not criminalize immigration.

          There should be NO restrictions to who can live or work here. We must establish systems which mitigate mooching.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
            There is a standardized method of immigrating to this country. Since he is here illegally and he illegally received his education here. He should have been deported way back when he applied to the college where he got his education.

            As to yours and my legal status here in this country as citizens. While I am unsure of when you or your family came here I do know that mine has been here since BEFORE there were laws on the books regarding immigration status. In fact most of my family was sentenced to come to Georgia way back when Georgia was a penal colony of England. Some others were Native Americans and one was a French trader who happened to be living in Florida when Florida became part of the United States so I am pretty sure that my status is acceptable as an American citizen by birth.

            As to me being a moocher. Does it make me a moocher to point out a criminal who has been mooching for an extended period of time and now wants to work all the while violating long standing laws which address rights to which he has been violating for years?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by iamA2u 7 years, 5 months ago
              Yes, eyecu2, it does make you a moocher for hiding behind a bad law. Period, end of argument.

              But, in case you need help... Did this man, who was brought here as a child, earned a degree, wants to work and trade value for value, do anything other than involuntarily break the law? Government moochers make unprincipled laws to make us all criminals, so "breaking the law" is NOT prima facie a wrong act, yet that seems to be your only argument. Based on this story, cite an OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLE that he actively violated (just existing, going about his life, bettering himself, is not an active violation). Did he do harm? Mooch (just suppose he worked his way through school)? Does he intend to mooch? Examine your assumptions.

              You make him a criminal for existing. That is the penultimate goal of a moocher. You want to deny him trading his value with others without your permission. Also, moocher goal.

              When was he supposed to deport himself? When he was 10 and realized he was illegal, and should he then go back to Honduras or Brazil or China by himself? Or 18 when he was no longer a minor after he had lived here most of his life, and having done nothing wrong.

              A true objectivist finds nothing inherently wrong with open immigration, actually they would assume it as a natural right. I do object to anyone mooching, immigrant or natural citizen. But if they don't mooch, WELCOME them as compatriots. America is an idea, and if they come to embrace that idea then the more the merrier!
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by khalling 7 years, 5 months ago
          except in most countries this is the case.If there was a free world, citizenship would not be a big deal. It would be about voting, which is procedural and secondary to natural rights. Acknowledging natural rights would mean you can walk across a border without showing ID or being stopped. Unless you break the law, a govt should not stop you. Of course, there would be no welfare.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
            Well first let me say I LOVE the idea of no welfare.

            Currently the world has borders and each person is a citizen legally of some country. Persons who are in a country other than the country that they have legal citizenship in either have a valid visa or are in that country illegally. It is my position that being in a country illegally is a criminal activity and people who are illegally occupying a country should be deported.

            Now I would dearly LOVE to see immigration officials deporting the illegals by the train load but I understand that this is somewhat impractical. However, if an illegal is unabashedly advertising that they are here illegally then that individual most certainly should be gathered up and sent on his way.

            This man freely admits to being an illegal. This man has challenged the legal system and rubbed his illegal status in the face of the courts. This man should be IMMEDIATLY DEPORTED!
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by khalling 7 years, 5 months ago
              ok, I get it-you're a law and order guy. I'm just trying to get you to start from a foundation. Starting from-"he broke the law" is pragmatic. There are many laws you break, probably you don't even know it. If you are going to be so firm on THIS law, you will have to be firm on ALL laws without more reasoning and that reasoning needs to be consistent. If for example, you believe you own yourself, then it would be contrary for you to stand morally behind the law that says by just being in a country you were not born in constitutes force or immorality or an automatic punishment. Really, you are upset about something much deeper but you want the argument to end on the pragmatic or procedural. Fine, but you are missing the forest for the trees, respectfully.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Rozar 7 years, 5 months ago
              Obviously in our current world we need borders. I fully agree with that. We need immigration control and monitoring to keep Americas economy in balance. But, if you think that that people should are SUPPOSED to own their own property, and do with it whatever they see fit, then what gives a group of people (my fellow country men) the right to tell me I can't bring a guest from another country into my home? If he manages to get to my property through voluntary trade with others, at what point does the fact that he is foreign impede any ones individual rights? Again obviously in our current world the act of doing anything effects everyone because everything is taxed, but in a moral world, immigration laws are considered immoral. N'est pas?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by 7 years, 5 months ago
                I see your point and will say this. At the point where that person that you brought into your home causes any burden on someone legally here. Even something as simple as occupying a spot on a bus that could have been used by a legal. Of course that person will have to use some resources and do something outside your home. Otherwise they are but a prisoner and you are violating their rights.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo