Oh, rats. There goes my head again…where’s the duct tape?
The reductio ad absurdum of the debate over illegal immigration has reached its apotheosis in California, where Governor Brown actually signed into law a provision allowing illegal immigrants to be awarded licenses to practice law in the state. The law was designed to render moot the case of illegal immigrant Sergio Gomez, who was brought into the country as a child, managed to evade detection and enforcement through law school and the bar exam, and is now fighting to be admitted to the California Bar.
Garcia has said that being able to obtain a law license “is my life’s dream come true. One of two. I’m going for the U.S. citizenship next. I want to be a full part of this country.” Well, why stop at that bizarre sequence? Why not let Mexican citizens first become U.S. lawyers, and then aspire to sneak over the border some day and become U.S. citizens?
Meanwhile, Brown vetoed another bill passed by the legislature that would allow those who would not obey the nation’s immigration laws to be eligible to serve on juries, and pass judgment on the alleged crimes of U.S. citizens. In his muddled explanation, the Governor equated serving on juries as akin to voting, and a privilege that should be restricted to citizens. In light of his agreement that law-breaking aliens should be able to practice law in the U.S., I am at a loss to comprehend what Brown, as well as his ethically blotto state, thinks citizenship is. Actually, I think I know: he thinks it is something which can and should be traded for votes and political power, like an increasing number of cynical and irresponsible members of both political parties across the country. Brown is no fool; I doubt that he really thinks this law is just, fair, logical, or responsible. But it will be popular with California’s Hispanic population, and if that’s true, who is he to oppose them? Especially for a minor goal like the integrity of the legal system.
I am not surprised by this turn of events, just made nauseous by it. I almost closed comments for this post. If I really have to explain to someone why those who have never taken affirmative steps to become citizens in this country should not be allowed to practice its laws after years of being in defiance of its laws, I’m not sure its worth the effort.
Is it unfair that Garcia and others were placed in this situation without their consent or the power to prevent it? In the sense that life is not equitable, sure…and so what? My son wasn’t born in the U.S., either, through no fault of his own, and he can’t become President as a result. It is the delusion of the ethically mushy that the duty of government is to eliminate all of life’s random challenges. I’m sure that Jerry Brown and his like-minded allies in the legislature see no reason why Garcia shouldn’t be able to run for the White House now, and then aspire to citizenship later.
_______________________
Pointer: ABA Journal
Facts: Mercury News
Ethics Alarms 
Are both of his parents not US Citizens?
They weren’t at the time of his birth (he was adopted in Russia.)
Ahhh. Wasn’t aware of adoption.
Adoption, if I recall correctly.
Please check your facts. It appears Mr. Garcia’s father, who is now a U.S. citizen, applied for Mr. Garcia’s application for both legal status and a green card – all the way back in 1994. Ostensibly, Mr. Garcia has been waiting this entire time for the federal government’s approval of his application. This approval has come, but final processing could take another decade to be finalized.
Mr. Garcia may be an undocumented alien, and it may be that he has not taken any affirmative steps on his own, but the way you present it makes Mr. Garcia look disingenuous or foolish (see Jessica Colotl). What do you expect him to do? As far as I know, he cannot single-handedly make the federal government move on an application any faster than it chooses to do so. That it has now gone through a partial shutdown makes his prospects for a upcoming resolution to be even less likely.
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/nation/article/U-S-Illegal-immigrant-can-t-be-lawyer-3758531.php
Mr. Garcia was living in the country illegally. He should have reported to immigration authorities, asked what to do to comply with the law, and have done it, up to and including returning to the country where he was a legal citizen.
Fair point and well said; I just wanted to play devil’s advocate and note that while he may not have exhausted every option, he did at least have his name in the system. It’s not like he’s been wholly irresponsible about this.
As an aside, it amazes me that Mr. Garcia, as an aspiring attorney, apparently didn’t bother to speak to an immigration attorney about his situation.
I’ll respect your desire to avoid a discussion about immigration, but I think you take your argument too far when you say “It is the delusion of the ethically mushy that the duty of government is to eliminate all of life’s random challenges.”
I agree with that sentence as it stands, but it doesn’t apply here. You and I may not think the government should be tasked with eliminating all challenges, but immigration law is not one of life’s random challenges. It’s a challenge created entirely by the action of government. Given that these laws are ultimately enforced by men with guns who throw people in cages, I think it’s unwise to declare that any government power should be immune to modification or repeal. The government may not solve all of life’s difficulties, but we should be careful which ones we allow it to create.
Presumably, the man knew for at LEAST 7 years that he was not a legal citizen of the United States.
At no time did he take any step to change that.
Not only should he not be allowed to become a lawyer, he should be ejected from the fucking country, but force if necessary.
Ditto!
No, the problem is created by the action of individuals. The government has created a path for legal immigration, he just couldn’t be bothered to do it. Much like there is a legal way for me to acquire a car, but if I don’t want to save up the money, I could just steal one. Countries and governments have citizenship for a reason. It may sound wonderful at some new-age party to talk about world citizens and being able to do what you want, but much like Plato’s Republic, reality is much different that such utopian dreams.
His parents brought him to the US as an illegal immigrant. He has spent his life, probably benefitting from US taxpayers (remember, illegal immigrants get in-state tuition but legal ones don’t), as a lawbreaker. OK, he was a minor. When he became an adult, did he file paperwork to become a resident alien like everyone else has to? Did he? He is a cheat, he is a criminal, and now he is viewed as worthy of being an attorney despite being both. I don’t understand why legal immigrants don’t stand up and demand action. They have to go through a long, frustrating, arduous process to become residents and citizens and sleaze like this just bypass them and demand the benefits of citizenship. Their residency and citizenship is made more difficult because of people like Gomez.
Gov Brown is a disgrace and so is the California Bar association for supporting and pushing for this action. Maybe we should become more multicultural and treat illegal immigrants from Mexico the way Mexicans treat illegal aliens in Mexico. Would Mr. Gomez be in favor of this action?
It’s not a utopian dream. Although citizenship has always been legally restricted by definition, immigration to the U.S. was largely unrestricted until the late 1800s. The legal barriers to immigration are all created by the government, and it’s not necessarily unreasonable to argue that they should be lowered.
Mark, my position on illegal immigration is pretty public and laid out in detail. I support efforts to find a route to citizenship for the illegal immigrants in the country now, as the best of a bad set of options, thanks to the irresponsible management of the problem over the past several decades.
Immigration law is a challenge created by reality, which is that no nation can exist if it cannot control its borders, and every nation has aright to do so. It’s unfortunate that everyone can’t be born in the US, or in a nation that is not totally corrupt that keeps its populace, or much or it, poor and desperate. Nobody’s arguing that laws shouldn’t be refined, but there is nothing wrong with US immigration laws, only the enforcement of them. California’s law seeks to remedy the consequences of breaking known laws, willfully, arrogantly, and with presumptions of virtue.
Garbage.
“Nobody’s arguing that laws shouldn’t be refined…”
My point was that by lumping immigration law into “life’s random challenges” which were not the duty of government to eliminate, you were essentially implying that changing immigration law was not the duty of government, which is kind of like saying they shouldn’t be refined. Your statement was a bit too strong.
I agree that we need to change our immigration laws, and I do not believe that we should force illegal immigrants (who came here as children) to go back to countries where they know no one. To them, the United States is their country just like it is for us. BUT, no one forced this individual to go to law school. That was a choice he made. I don’t know the CA rules, but it’s possible that he even could have applied for bar membership in his native country and then been able to practice in CA as a foreign lawyer. (Just like many US attorneys practice law in Europe and Asia.) Being an attorney requires you to follow ALL laws – so in that respect I am in complete agreement with Jack. That being said, every US job requires proof of citizenship or legal temporary status of some kind. So, if we are moving down the path of granting amnesty to individuals like Mr. Gomez, we have to allow them to LEGALLY earn a living and pay taxes.
I’m willing to give a pass to people who are, say, under the age of 25 who entered this country illegally while they were children…
But everyone else needs to be told to bugger off and try it legally.
Oh, and my willingness to give a pass ends should those getting the pass ever have gone back to their country off origin at any point after they turned 18.
This is outrageous but predictable considering Governor Jerry Brown. I guess he’s forgotten what he supposedly learned at Yale Law School. How the voter of California could have been so dumb to reelect him God only knows. But he is definitely a friend to people that enter the USA fraudulently.
It’s an excellent law in several ways.
1) There’s no legitimate reason the practice of law in the US should be limited to US citizens at all. That’s just an anti-competitive measure that artificially makes lawyers richer and consumers worse off.
2) There is nothing unethical about being brought to the US as a child, so the rule has nothing to do with restricting the pool of lawyers to more ethical people.
3) That there are other unfair rules in the world is not a rational reason not to fix this unfair rule.
(The same thing is true in reverse. If your child wants to (when he’s older) work to change the rules on who can run for President, that’s fine, and “but life isn’t always fair for immigrants” would not be a rational reason to say no to that proposed change.)
You are consistent, I’ll give you that.
If the man were here legally, I would agree, but he’s an illegal. He has shown that he doesn’t give a fuck about US law, so why should anyone ever expect him to act ethically or legally as a lawyer?
That would be a great argument if it wasn’t for the fact that he’s had at least 7 years since he was a minor to take some kind of steps to correct his illegal status. There is nothing to even hint that he has done so, and in fact has not even begun efforts to become a citizen. Your argument fails.
And “it isn’t fair” is a shitty argument for letting people with no regard for the law become officers of the court.
1. Actually, I have to withdraw point 1, which is too bad since you and I so rarely agree. But it’s actually not illegal for a non-citizen to practice law, as far as I can tell. What’s at issue is an interpretation of a law intended to prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving welfare; apparently, someone decided that applied to granting someone a license after they pass the bar.
2. As far as I can tell, he’s done everything he can do. He was approved and he was put on the waitlist 17 years ago. He has literally done everything he legally can to become a citizen; there is nothing else for him to do but wait.
So now that you know he has, in fact, done everything he can do to become a legal citizen, does that change your view at all?
No. He’s still illegal, and he could always return to the country where his isn’t.
That would be a pretty heartless expectation to hold, since virtually his whole life since childhood has been in the US. His parents and siblings are Americans, so he wouldn’t even have close relatives there. (I don’t know if he has cousins in Mexico or not).
It’s also bad for America. Smart, hardworking people Garcia are great for their communities, and the economic benefits of having folks like him around are very real.
That aside, however, I must admit you’re technically correct, there is one thing left he could do. But the claim that he has done “nothing” is clearly inaccurate.
Are they? Maybe his siblings are, but I suspect his folks aren’t. And if they are, then why wasn’t he with them in the process (meaning he would now be a citizen if they had become citizens by now).
That is an important point – his parents have been here exactly as long as he has. If they are now citizens why isn’t he?
His father is now a naturalized citizen. I know his mother is a legal resident, but I actually don’t know exactly what that means in her case; it’s possible she’s a legal resident but not a citizen. (Although as the spouse of a citizen, her status is probably relatively secure.)
I can’t say why his father was made a citizen first. Maybe in the 80s you had to be an adult to apply? None of the stories I read explained how this came to happen, but I don’t think it’s unusual for family members to be years apart in when they get to the “front of the line.”
I would assume that one quote is either him not wording a sentence perfectly, or quoted out of context. I’ve checked several news stories (including one from the same source as that quote), and they all agree that he went through the application process years ago and is now just waiting on line.
A bit like the immigrants who don’t just break US immigration laws when they are inconvenient but rather follow them wait in line to enter the country.
The fact is that most legal ethics experts agree with you, Barry; but most legal academics, like all academics, are apparently in favor of Dream Acts and all the other ways we incentivize aliens to break US laws. I can’t account for this, intellectually. It makes no sense to me at all…again, the human instinct to dismiss obligations and accountability out of sympathy rather than to respect process and law, which one would expect lawyers to value more.
Brown’s law also cut off a court appeal. Judicial objectivity on this issue risked a non-politically correct result.
1. I think there’s something fundamentally dishonest about terming your desire that someone who is effectively an American in every way should go live in Mexico, where he has never lived except as a small child, as an “inconvenience,” as if you’re only asking that he go by the post office to mail an envelope. You think that because of circumstances entirely beyond his control, his entire life should be destroyed and he should start over from scratch in a country he may be entirely unprepared to live in. Terming that “inconvenience” is Orwellian.
2. Academics, being fact-based, are aware that evidence doesn’t support the belief that laws creating a path to citizenship, like the Dream Act, measurably incentivize undocumented immigration. Evidence is overwhelming that Immigration is driven by economics; as long as the economic demand exceeds the legal supply of immigrant slots, there will be illegal immigration.
Refusing to face facts, doesn’t make them not facts.
In fact, if we REALLY want to reduce immigration, we’d be far better off taking the money we currently spend punishing and blocking undocumented immigrants, and instead using that money to employ enormous numbers of folks in Mexico. Unlike the policies you support, it would actually have the effect of reducing undocumented immigration.
3. The California legislature is the appropriate body to write CA law, and there’s nothing at all illegitimate about them writing a law to address existing controversies.
And I’m basically a doctor, except for all the schooling I need. That’s basically the same thing, right?
I mean, it’s just paperwork…
Again, except for those 7+ years where he was an adult.
His decision to not do something doesn’t mean I have to give even the slightest of fucks about what his bad consequences are now.
It is not. Our. Problem. It is entirely his problem, a problem of his own devising. Allowing him to flaunt ethical and legal conduct is a shitty solution. That his life would be “ruined” isn’t my concern. It isn’t our job, should never be our job, to protect people from their bad choices.
Bullshit. If Mexico wants to become something other than a third-rate third world shithole, it can fix itself.
A better solution to reduce at least illegal immigration would be to work to make sure that ONLY US citizens got to benefit from public programs (welfare, free schools, etc). Allowing for illegals to gain any benefit from being here gives them incentive to come here.
You can either have an open society (one in which there are no strong regulations regarding immigration) or a welfare society (that provides this to people). The second you have both you are opting to cause financial ruin.
Not the 80′s, but when I was in Junior High (mid 90’s) a fellow student became a naturalized citizen, so I know that isn’t the case. A parent can, as legal guardian, start all kinds of things. I mean, the kid isn’t signing himself up for school at age 9, right?
1. You have to be admitted to the bar, which I suspect has as a requirement you be of good moral character (it’s how CA has kept that Glass asshole from getting admitted).
I would argue that prolonged criminal behavior (and fuck you, being an illegal is a God Damn Crime) would be proof as to not being of good moral character.
2. He said, and I quote, “I’m going for the U.S. citizenship next.” That statement leads me to believe that he is now going to try to become a citizen, meaning he wasn’t trying before.
He wants to be a citizen, great. More power to him. He gets in line behind people who came here legally (he could be 7 years along had he done this when he was 18, he didn’t, so I don’t give a fuck, his mistake is not my problem), and THEN he can get admitted to the Bar.
Immigration is, indeed, what helped make this country amazing…
But I only want people who are willing to sign the book on their way in.
Face it. Gov. Brown is a douche bag, unethical, arrogant, egotistical power tripping idiot. I bet his water carafe does not hold water either! I am still trying to figure out the lead ammo crap and now a illegal who knew he was and when he was and then got to get that far in the good ol US of A educational system; and then on to law school and now just needs to pass the bar. This should be illegal to begin with….and I bet he got his education free! This is like chewing on bad jerky….but then again sounds just ripe for Kaleefornia…
Lawyers have special duties as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process. It seems to me that you can’t uphold the integrity of the adjudicative process while openly flouting the law (and thereby tacitly encouraging others to do the same).
I agree. The California law makes no sense.