Illegal immigrant passes the Bar exam and can practice Law- California

CNN said:

"How is Garcia supposed to uphold 'the laws of the United States' when he is, by his mere presence in this country, in violation of federal law?" CNN contributor Ruben Navarrette asks in an opinion column he wrote on the case in September. "How does he pledge to show respect for 'the courts of justice' when, for most of his life, he has lived here in defiance of the rule of law? And how can he claim that he won't 'mislead' a judge or judicial officer when living in the United States illegally requires deception on a daily basis?"

California's Supreme Court ruled Thursday that no state law or public policy should stop Garcia or others like him from obtaining a law license in the state.

Immigration officials would be unlikely to pursue sanctions against an undocumented immigrant who had been living in the United States for years, had been educated in this country and whose sole unlawful conduct was his presence in this country, the court said in a unanimous ruling written by Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

"Under these circumstances, we conclude 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," the court ruled.

Click to expand...

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/02/justice/california-immigrant-lawyer/

This is the CNN article on the news that an illegal immigrant who came to the US when he was in his mid teens, is now able to work as a lawyer in the US (California).

This seems quite strange. I am not sure how the judge concluded that the immigration officers would be "unlikely" to "pursue sanctions (?) " against someone being an illegal immigrant there. Isn't that pretty much the reason that this branch of the immigration office exists?

Of course this man is just one person, and most people can sympathise with his problem and might also like that he managed to now have a work as a lawyer (while remaining an illegal immigrant). But i tend to think that this decision does not reflect either the view of the public at large, nor any efficiently logical rule which would prevent an escalation of lawlessness. In the end an illegal immigrant being a US lawyer is likely to be seen as a token or a symbol, and not as a real choice for people to be represented by.

You can discuss your views on this decision by the Cali court, and what may follow. I thought of leaving this to be a non-rd thread, but in the end suspected that it would potentially lead to many useless infighting and i'd much rather have the thread with fewer posts (or none at all) rather than invite that. However, cautiously, i don't include the RD tag from the start, but might ask it to be applied later on

Isn't the criminal charge you're "guilty" of for being an illegal immigrant not all that serious? Would a similar conviction (for another crime, but of the same magnitude) prevent one from practicing?

El_Machinae said:

Isn't the criminal charge you're "guilty" of for being an illegal immigrant not all that serious? Would a similar conviction (for another crime, but of the same magnitude) prevent one from practicing?

Click to expand...

I can agree that it is not "all that serious" (assuming it remains by itself, obviously), but isn't there a written expectation in the Bar exam that the person applying to be a lawyer is not one prone to decieve others? And being in a country for 20 years illegally tends to presuppose that you were not telling the truth about your illegal status, and to a number of institutions like schood, uni, state offices and so on.

Kyriakos said:

I can agree that it is not "all that serious" (assuming it remains by itself, obviously), but isn't there a written expectation in the Bar exam that the person applying to be a lawyer is not one prone to decieve others? And being in a country for 20 years illegally tends to presuppose that you were not telling the truth about your illegal status, and to a number of institutions like schood, uni, state offices and so on.

Click to expand...

I have not read the article, but in the UK at least there is a massive difference between being a lawyer and being "on the bar" (being a barrister).

Kyriakos said:

I am not sure how the judge concluded that the immigration officers would be "unlikely" to "pursue sanctions (?) " against someone being an illegal immigrant there. Isn't that pretty much the reason that this branch of the immigration office exists?

Click to expand...

It's a matter of limited resources. With infinite resources, they'd send him home. But the reality is that they are prioritizing actual criminals.

You shouldn't need to be a citizen or resident of the united states to practice law there.

Character fitness, which illegal acts speak to, is a portion of being certified by the bar. Here I guess the Cali board of bar overseers (or whatever its Cali analog is) made the determination that simply being an illegal immigrant under the circumstances of the individual in question was not sufficient to create an overwhelming issue of character. Past felons have and can be certified to practice law and (I suspect) people that have never been convicted of or admitted to a crime can be denied. Criminal acts, on their own, may not necessarily prevent admission to the bar.

As pointed out, the bar treats criminal activities related to fraud and the like differently than others. A person with a history of minor fraud may very well face greater scrutiny on the character test than someone with a criminal past that his not related to fraud. Presumably the bar decided that being an illegal alien was not a sufficiently fraudulent activity to prevent admission to the bar.

Then there's the fact that it is now California state law expressly stating that people not in the country legally can receive a law license.

Samson said:

I have not read the article, but in the UK at least there is a massive difference between being a lawyer and being "on the bar" (being a barrister).

Click to expand...

There is no such distinction, generally, in the United States.

"How does he pledge to show respect for 'the courts of justice' when, for most of his life, he has lived here in defiance of the rule of law? And how can he claim that he won't 'mislead' a judge or judicial officer when living in the United States illegally requires deception on a daily basis?"

Click to expand...

Indeed. How dare he live in the US for so many years without even once turning his parents in for such a heinous crime? How many others does he personally now who openly defy a law which hardly anybody enforces?

Infrequency of enforcement, alone, is not a sufficient reason to defy a law.

He came the the US as a 17-month old baby with his parents. He applied for a visa that has not been granted for almost two decades. He does not use a false identity or purport to be anything he is not. In fact he is actually taking a very big risk publicly proclaiming who he is and what he wants to do in spite of his status. Rather than reflecting negatively on his character I think it shows integrity, courage and determination. He will hopefully make a fine attorney and I wish him well.

Better watch out. Someone might turn you into the California bar for "defying the law".

illram said:

He came the the US as a 17-month old baby with his parents. He applied for a visa that has not been granted for almost two decades. He does not use a false identity or purport to be anything he is not. In fact he is actually taking a very big risk publicly proclaiming who he is and what he wants to do in spite of his status. Rather than reflecting negatively on his character I think it shows integrity, courage and determination. He will hopefully make a fine attorney and I wish him well.

Click to expand...

Re the bolded part: No. The article clearly states that he is 36 and came with his parents to the US "nearly two decades ago".

CNN said:

(CNN) -- Sergio Garcia's parents brought him to the United States from Mexico nearly two decades ago. He's been waiting for a green card ever since.

But there's one thing the undocumented immigrant no longer has to wait for, according to a California Supreme Court ruling on Thursday: his law license.

Garcia can be admitted to California's state bar and legally practice as a lawyer there, the court ruled.

The landmark case quickly caught the eye of activists on both sides of the national immigration debate.

Garcia, 36, says his American dream has finally come true.

Click to expand...

If California lets Orly Taitz keep her license, I see no problem with this.

Kyriakos said:

Re the bolded part: No. The article clearly states that he is 36 and came with his parents to the US "nearly two decades ago".

Click to expand...

It says both. He came as an infant went back and returned when 17.


Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk

JollyRoger said:

If California lets Orly Taitz keep her license, I see no problem with this.

Click to expand...

Small wonder they allow atheists and homosexuals to be attorneys.

"When the going gets tough, you don't want a criminal lawyer. You want a criminal lawyer. Know what I'm saying."


Link to video.

Kyriakos said:

Re the bolded part: No. The article clearly states that he is 36 and came with his parents to the US "nearly two decades ago".

Click to expand...

He came as an infant, went back to Mexico from age 10 to around 18, then came back and his dad applied for a Visa for him.

A very common a story for multitudes of law abiding people in this country whose only so-called crime is existing without proper documents.

I do not envy his situation and I hope the Federal government will provide quick path towards legalisation. I sure as hell don't want to see him deported.

That said, he should count himself lucky he is in the US and not in any of the EU countries. The US is fairly tolerant of illegal immigrants compared to say, the Netherlands or France where children from wartorn areas are simply deported for being illegal: They are usually rounded up with their families as if they were murder suspects and are then detained without due process prior to deportation. Sometimes, specific cases provoke protests and rightly so, but its pretty commonplace unfortunately.

I hope Obama nominates him for the Supreme Court, that'd be nice.

BvBPL said:

It says both. He came as an infant went back and returned when 17.


Sent from my SM-T210R using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

illram said:

He came as an infant, went back to Mexico from age 10 to around 18, then came back and his dad applied for a Visa for him.

A very common a story for multitudes of law abiding people in this country whose only so-called crime is existing without proper documents.

Click to expand...

+1, i now read that later part of the story. While this is indeed different, it still means that he went to school in the US while being illegal and not born in the US anyway.

Like i said in my OP, i don't see this person as some sort of enemy (i mentioned that i can see how people may support him and want him to live his dream and so on) but i still heavily doubt he can function as a lawyer while being an illegal immigrant. To be relegated to token or at best symbol status, is not a good start in any job, let alone one which relies on public record that much.

About illegal immigration, i don't see something out of the ordinary in a state trying to enforce immigration laws. It is one thing to decide to change those laws, and quite another to not enforce the laws which are active. The latter is pretty much not a good idea.

Being an undocumented immgrant is a minor misdemeanor, much like jaywalking or smoking pot in many states now. It is also a federal offense. It isn't up to the states to enforce the immigration laws.

Those undocumented immigrants who cause problems by committing serious crimes are sent to prison then deported. The rest are generally left alone because they are willing to do menial jobs for affluent people and businesses for far less money.