California bar: Illegal immigrant should get law license

California bar: Illegal immigrant should get law license

usnews.msnbc.msn.com

An illegal immigrant applying for a law license in California should be allowed to receive it, the State Bar of California argues in a filing to the state Supreme Court.

Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.latimes.com
www.npr.org
www.dreamact2009.org

Oh my goodness! An illegal immigrant should not be barred from receiving a license to practice law? Are we in the freaking "Twilight Zone?" The law is the law, and these lawyers are supposed to uphold the law! Yet, it is the California State Bar Association representing this aspiring lawyer's case?

I am no legal expert, but does this case not scream of being unethical and a conflict of interest? If this gentlemen wants to become an attorney? Then I would expect him to use the legal measures learned in law school to take the necessary steps to become a citizen. In the meantime, I guess no law license? Why is the California courts wasting their time with this case? A quote from another article on topic sums it up quite nicely.
Can an illegal immigrant become a lawyer?

“I know what the policy ought to be, which is that … someone who doesn’t have the right to be in the United States shouldn’t be admitted to the bar, period,” Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington think tank that supports tighter immigration controls, told msnbc.com in late April.

“This is trying to steal a base. In other words, they’re trying to skip over the debate over whether people in his situation should get legalized,” he added. “It’s one more way of trying to create a de facto legalization.”

This stuff is really getting disgusting. People are making a mockery of our legal system and legislative process. Expect more under-the-table antics, and before you know it? There will be enough court precedence on the matter of illegal immigration law that there will be no need for immigration reform or "The Dream Act." Here is what I mean. The courts will have decided the issue long before the legislature has the opportunity to dissect the law and this controversial issue.

I am really indifferent on the whole issue, but we have laws that have to be respected! I am all for amending laws, or even changing them all together. However, I am against making laws by fiat, through courts, or any nefarious means. That is not how the system works. Laws are developed, amended, or even thrown out in the US Congress, and not by a man or woman in a black cloth or at a podium.

usnews.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Jakes51


I dunno, Im all about merit.

He did this on his own Merit, he met the requirements.

If he can pass the bar why not.

I don't fear illegals like some on here do though.

reply to post by Jakes51


The legal system was already a laughing stock. I think it's a little hyperbolic to say this makes it a mockery. I think OJ cemented that for most Americans.

Here's the thing: The bar is a test one takes after law school. If he passes the test then he gets the license. But really...just what we need right-Another lawyer I saw deport him just for that offense.

reply to post by Jakes51


Well eventualy with Online education becoming more wide spread.... whats to prevent people from other nations from recieving education from the united states electronicly? This guy could have just and potentialy taken the bar over teh web... certification is certification regardless of status.

reply to post by benrl


I am all for merit as well. There are rules and laws. The guy earned his credentials to practice law, and I am not denying that. However, until he meets the proper requirements to practice law such as legal residency status? He is going to have to wait. How difficult is that? As I have said before, if the laws are to change? Then it takes place at the legislative level, and not by a bunch of folks in black robes or an executive. Checks and balances, and proper channels. That is all I am saying.

The fact is that many of the immigration laws are no longer enforced, or at best, only selectively enforced. Many consider being "illegal" as not being a crime.

What other country on this planet rewards those who enter their country illegally? In-state tuition, free health care, welfare, food stamps?

I am not against allowing anyone to come here and work, but if we're going to do that, change the immigration laws to give them a fair chance at success. Either enforce the laws, or get rid of them.

Should the BAR uphold the law? LOL.

I go to CNN.com for my daily laughs now. Thanks America!

reply to post by Jakes51


But yet if a lawyer does the following he/she will be disbarred?

Generally disbarment is imposed as a sanction for conduct indicating that an attorney is not fit to practice law, willfully disregarding the interests of a client, or engaging in fraud which impedes the administration of justice. In addition, any lawyer who is convicted of a felony is automatically disbarred in most jurisdictions, a policy that, although opposed by the American Bar Association, has been described as a convicted felon's just deserts.

en.wikipedia.org...

Let's see....

"Engaging in fraud which impedes administration of justice"............ check

Felony.......... check

Crossing the border into the United States without first applying for a visa or green card is a federal crime.

www.ehow.com...

He should NOT qualify for the ABA for those 2 alone.

reply to post by benrl


The story says his father is a naturalized citizen. Why isnt he? Paperwork issue perhaps. The story does go on to say someone, but it's not clear to me, has been waiting 18years for his visa....sounds to me like this guy has done his part and our bloated, red taped govt has dragged it's heels. Let him have it.

Originally posted by benrl
He did this on his own Merit, he met the requirements.

No. He doesn't. Period.

reply to post by antonia


Yeah, I know what you are saying. The legal system has had its ups and downs. However, ruling in this man's favor sets precedence, and other illegal immigrants will use it in defense. There lies the problem. I am not taking away his accomplishments as a student and an aspiring lawyer.

However, I am against his ability to practice law in either the public or private sector. His story is no different than a bunch of undocumented immigrants working at a factory, being rounded up, and deported. They can't work here, but he can? I am supposed sympathize with him because he is a lawyer, and somehow he is above the same treatment other illegal immigrants are faced with? Not me. Until he gets his paperwork in order? I guess it is time to play the waiting game.

reply to post by HandyDandy


You make the case quite nicely. Get your brief case and head to court. Please excuse the levity. This whole thing is right out of left field. Why the California Supreme Court is even hearing the case is beyond me? I guess they are trying to get a little publicity as result of this controversial issue? The law speaks for itself. No judicial interpretation necessary. No proof of residency, and therefore no law license. Plain as day.

If you have a problem with that? Write your congressional representative or senator. In the meantime, put on the knee high rubber boots and commence with the wading through of muck known as federal bureaucracy. Other people have to do it, and so too should this up and coming lawyer.

A law breaking lawyer?
This is absurd! Either we have laws or we don't.

reply to post by Jakes51

Oh my goodness! An illegal immigrant should not be barred from receiving a license to practice law? Are we in the freaking "Twilight Zone?" The law is the law, and these lawyers are supposed to uphold the law! Yet, it is the California State Bar Association representing this aspiring lawyer's case?

You would think a person fresh out of law school would know the legal definition of license means permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort. What does this mean for any attorney regardless of their residential status?

This means that apparently practicing law is illegal, or a trespass, or some sort of tort that only a license - sort of like James Bond's license to kill - can rectify. Is that true? Is practicing law illegal? Is it a trespass? Some sort of tort, maybe, but illegal, really?

Consider the oath of office any attorney applying the the California State Bar must take:

I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor at law to the best of my knowledge and ability

What "duties" is this oath referring to? These duties begin:

It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:

(a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.
(b) To maintain the respect due to the courts of justice and judicial officers.
(c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense

(Emphasis added)

(i) To cooperate and participate in any disciplinary investigation or other regulatory or disciplinary proceeding pending against himself or herself.

(In part)

(k) To comply with all conditions attached to any disciplinary probation, including a probation imposed with the concurrence of the attorney.

(l) To keep all agreements made in lieu of disciplinary prosecution with the agency charged with attorney discipline

A licensed attorney, in any state, has taken an oath of office that is contradictory in that each oath of office demands they support and/or defend the Constitution(s), but then demands they swear a fealty to the state and comply with any and all regulatory schemes imposed with this licensing scheme. So, if that attorney is a defense attorney, hired to defend a person charged with a crime by the awesome machinery of the state, that attorney has a huge conflict of interest, owing fealty to both the state that has charged the person, and to the person charged with a crime.

I ask the question again: Is practicing law illegal? Is it unlawful? What about the practice of law would reasonably require a licensing scheme to begin with?

I would be far more worried about all licensed attorneys than one single one applying for such a license simply because of their residential status.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
I ask the question again: Is practicing law illegal?

I would believe that without the license....yes.

As I can not sign my name as a professional without my license either.

Is it unlawful?

Penalties for Practicing Without a License

State laws vary, but practicing without a valid, current license may be punishable by:
•Community service
•Fines
•Restitution
•Probation
•Jail or prison time
•Permanent loss of the license (if the violation was temporary)

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

Answer: YES

What about the practice of law would reasonably require a licensing scheme to begin with?

States issue licenses for the practice of many professions, with the goal of protecting the public by requiring certain training and experience before someone receives a license. Doctors, dentists, nurses, lawyers, veterinarians, engineers, nurses, midwives, funeral directors, pharmacists—all of these professionals, and many more, must be licensed by their state. If they aren’t, they may be guilty of practicing without a license.

I would be far more worried about all licensed attorneys than one single one applying for such a license simply because of their residential status.

Unless those other licensed lawyers are practicing something illegal (like the illegal immigrant).....why?

reply to post by HandyDandy

I would believe that without the license....yes.

A license has no validity if the act itself is not illegal, a trespass or some sort of tort. The circular logic of it is "illegal to ----- without a license" misses the point of what a license is. What a waste of time my effort was put into my previous post. Carry on.

Originally posted by benrl
reply to post by Jakes51
[more

I don't fear illegals like some on here do though.

edit on 19-6-2012 by benrl because: (no reason given)

fear? haha...
why cant anybody believe thats its the principle that matters...

BTW im assuming this "illegal" earned his undergraduate degree from some accredited school or online institution...how did he do this?....forgery?...false documentation?

supposedly even a reformed felon can become a lawyor(in some states) but its as the bar see's fit.
Now what offenses is the bar mainly concerned with?....Thats right "DISHONESTY" (perjury, punishable false statements, etc) aas well as crimes related to money

Theres already enough crooked lawyers...do we really need such a blatant one

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


\

So, if that attorney is a defense attorney, hired to defend a person charged with a crime by the awesome machinery of the state, that attorney has a huge conflict of interest, owing fealty to both the state that has charged the person, and to the person charged with a crime.

I would say there is no conflict. The defense attorney's duty to the state is to uphold the constitution which grants the person charged the right to counsel.

reply to post by type0civ

I would say there is no conflict. The defense attorney's duty to the state is to uphold the constitution which grants the person charged the right to counsel.

Constitutions do not "grant" any rights, but instead acknowledge the rights that preexisted the Constitutions that acknowledge them.

The right to counsel, not a privilege granted but a right, does not obligate anyone to obtain a licensed attorney, but merely acknowledges the right to counsel.

If there is no conflict of interest, then why are attorneys barred by their own Bar and from the rules and procedures of any court, from arguing jury nullification?