Okay, my fairly liberal position on immigration is quite well known (and hated by people like Demiurge), but even I wonder about this: Since it is obviously well-known at this point that he does not have the proper papers authorizing him to be in the United States, why isn't he just ordered to leave the country? Why should thousands of dollars be spent arguing all the way to the California Supreme Court about whether or not he can practice law? Has California made some kind of de facto ruling that you don't need any kind of papers to live there as a foreigner? If so, why should anyone, henceforward forever, go through the time, expense and hassle of obtaining a visa? Just go to California. Even to someone as liberal as I am on the issue of immigration, this blows my mind.
I suppose his lawyers could bring the case even if he were deported. What mystifies me, though, is how he could have any standing even if granted the license. Wouldn't a judge have to place him in custody the moment he walked in to the court room? I'm with Async on immigration, but this is lunacy from a practical standpoint.
Yep. This guy lived most of his life in the US, his father is a legal resident, and the paperwork was filed 18 years ago. He should have legal status. But due to the perverse nature of our immigration code, he's in legal limbo. Still, I don't see a path for him to practice law in this country without residency. All proof that we need to move on immigration reform.
Same reason I can show up at a State Court with an ounce of weed in my pocket and not get arrested. States have started ignoring Federal Laws they don't agree with. Liberal States with Immigration and Pot, but more conservative states as well. Remember Montana and it's NFA challenge of a few years back? Heck even counties which don't have as much power are finding ways to get around our broken immigration rules. King County changed it's sentencing requirements just to get around DHS regulations. When the Feds said they were going to start deporting those who were convicted of misdemeanors that carry a possible sentence of one year or more (even if all that was levied was a fine), we changed all of our 'up to one year' to 'up to 364 days'.
Sure, but in the examples you've given, there is a state law in contradiction to the fed law. I don't think that's the case in this instance.
Fuck. I have to leave Portland. In principle I agree with states ignoring stupid Federal laws. But I don't think immigration laws are stupid (I will entertain arguments on pot but fuck, I've dealt with some chuckleheaded stoners.) So in principle I must vote with my feet and move to a better state like Virginia. Or Texas.
Well, considering you do not even have to be an American citizen to be on the U.S. Supreme Court IIRC.......
Exactly, there are no official qualifications for being on the Supreme Court (although loads of "unoffical" ones). And IIRC there have been several non lawyers on the Supreme Court though this was mainly true in the 19th century.
Excellent summary. France has four times the population density of the US, and a major problem with illegal immigration, yet it only takes a few months in most cases to get a visa. Why is it so difficult for the US? Do those who argue against it really claim that France is so much stronger than the US economically that France can afford it while the US cannot?
As a member of the California state bar, I must say we have too many lawyers already. So this guy can sit out. For clarification, he did not take his case all the way to the California Supreme Court. The state bar's admissions are regulated by the California Supreme Court. To be admitted in California, it's actually quite difficult. First you have to go to law school. Then you have to pass the bar (about 50% chance). Then you have to pass a moral character evaluation. That's where this guy got stung. The evaluation packet ranges from the mundane (are you a US Citizen) to the overly personnel (provide references, discuss past crimes, bankruptcies, all prior addresses for the past ten years, etc.). It looks like the bar referred this guy to the court for final disposition. This case has been public for a while now. He's been open about his immigration status. The feds clearly don't care enough about him to do something. It's not the role of the state judge to deport someone. The interesting thing about the case is that the law preventing him from practicing apparently allows state legislatures to exempt their licensing from it. California has chosen not to do so. And although some justices question the wisdom of the legislature to decline to act, I imagine a large percentage of the bar would object to making it easier to become a lawyer in California. And honestly, 18 years? If you're so smart and litigious and moral why haven't you looked into that issue? Or are you trying to create a test case?
If the unresolved visa issue is the government's fault, then I wouldn't say he needs deporting. You don't even have to be competent to serve in the Federal government! Eighteen years of uncertainty about whether you're going to stay in the USA, all for the sake of being some sort of test case, would require an awful lot of patience.
Hmmm...well, that little detail of him being dragged here by his parents puts it in a different light. I feel bad for the guy being punished for his parents' bad decisions he had no control over, but this is not a precedent that we should set. We should look in an immigration process that takes a bit quicker than 18 YEARS to get back to someone.
