Should Undocumented Immigrants Be Allowed To Practice Law?

[TrafficJam]

This. If he's smart and well educated enough to be fully qualified to practice law why the hell not?

Should we use the same logic if he's smart and well educated enough to be fully qualified to work at McDonald's?

 

[Gucumatz]

^

Why not actually?

 

[warpus]

Yeah, why not, until the authorities come and take him away.

Taking on a high-profile job as someone who has broken the law and is eligible for deportation seems like a bad idea to me.

It's not like I don't support him, I'm just sayin

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, why not, until the authorities come and take him away.

Taking on a high-profile job as someone who has broken the law and is eligible for deportation seems like a bad idea to me.

It's not like I don't support him, I'm just sayin

As I pointed out on the last page, unlawful residence is a civil matter, not a criminal one. This man has broken no laws, and it's unfair to characterise him as such.

(Although, yes, it does rather give the impression that he's asking to be thrown out on his ear, doesn't it?)

 

[El_Machinae]

It strikes me that if a person is capable enough to integrate sufficiently to pass the bar, it's the immigration process that's at fault for being too stringent.

 

[warpus]

As I pointed out on the last page, unlawful residence is a civil matter, not a criminal one. This man has broken no laws, and it's unfair to characterise him as such.

(Although, yes, it does rather give the impression that he's asking to be thrown out on his ear, doesn't it?)

unlawful, illegal, it doesn't make much difference to my point, but I appreciate the distinction.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't know if that's actually true. Is it? That being in a country without legal permission is a crime? As I understand it, what it means is that the host country has the right to deport you without specific grounds. It's not really a criminal matter, otherwise undocumented migrants would be subject to criminal penalties, which I'm not given to understand is the case in the United States.

edit: I looked it up, and unlawful residence in the United States is not a criminal offence. Arizona vs. United States determined that the provisions of S.B.1070 which criminalised unlawful residence, seeking work without a visa and working without a visa, were pre-empted by federal legislation, which did not hold any of these to be criminal offences. So the term you're looking for here is "unlawful", not "illegal", the latter denoting prohibition but the former merely denoting a lack of authorisation.

Of course it is illegal for them to be in this country, just as it is with virtually any other one.

Why do you think Sheriff Joe Arpaio and others have made the news by trying to enforce the immigration laws at the local level by arresting undocumented immigrants on a wholesale basis, while even making them wear pink clothing? Why there have been so many threads discussing this very matter?

PHOENIX - APRIL 30: Undocumented immigrants play cards in their tent at the Maricopa County Tent City Jail on April 30, 2010 in Phoenix, Arizona. Some 200 undocumented immigrants are currently serving time in the facility, and most will be deported to Mexico after serving their sentence. The controversial jail is run by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been an outspoken critic of illegal immigration and a supporter of Arizona's new tough immigration law. Prisoners at the facility are fed twice a day, sleep in non-airconditioned tents and are issued striped prison uniforms and pink underwear and socks. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images) (2010 GETTY IMAGES)

It strikes me that if a person is capable enough to integrate sufficiently to pass the bar, it's the immigration process that's at fault for being too stringent.

Indeed. It is quite unfair for them to have the specter of being arrested and deported at any moment constantly hanging over their heads.

 

[Godwynn]

I'd rather just deport lawyers.

 

[Traitorfish]

What other country would take them? Unless you're thinking of an endlessly-floating-death-barge scenario, which, yeah, I think you could make a case for.

 

[Zelig]

That is not what this thread is asking. You could easily be a non-resident/non-citizen who comes here on a temporary visa for special circumstances or something to defend a client. I suspect.

Shouldn't need a temporary visa, I want to pay Indians to practice US law for me from India via video conference to America.

This is about an illegal alien (the OP was being polite and using the less abrasive phrase "undocumented immigrant")

I suggest the more abrasive term "barbarian invader".

 

[Tahuti]

What other country would take them?

Israel

 

[GenMarshall]

Shouldn't need a temporary visa, I want to pay Indians to practice US law for me from India via video conference to America.

We don't need to outsource anymore jobs out of this country!

 

[El_Machinae]

Being able to telepresence a lawyer would really, really cut down on costs.

Justice Costs are just Too Damn High.

 

[GenMarshall]

Being to telepresence a lawyer would really, really cut down on costs.

At the expense of making American Lawers lose there jobs? NO FREEKING WAY! Ask the factory workers how they felt when there jobs were outsourced overseas.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, this current system where I cannot afford a lawyer is much, much better?

 

[Flying Pig]

If El Mac can get a foreign lawyer without breaking the bank, then he'll have money left over to go out for dinner to celebrate his trial victory, or drown his sorrows over his defeat. This creates restaurant and bar jobs for Americans. So it's not as simple as outsourcing leading to fewer domestic jobs. Indeed, thoughtlessly trying to keep jobs in the country through protectionism usually leads to more unemployment and economic misery overall. Ensuring that only more expensive American lawyers can find work will reduce demand for American restaurateurs and barmen, and leave them unemployed.

 

[dutchfire]

At the expense of making American Lawers lose there jobs? NO FREEKING WAY! Ask the factory workers how they felt when there jobs were outsourced overseas.

The economy is not a zero-sum game.

 

[El_Machinae]

If El Mac can get a foreign lawyer without breaking the bank, then he'll have money left over to go out for dinner to celebrate his trial victory, or drown his sorrows over his defeat. This creates restaurant and bar jobs for Americans. So it's not as simple as outsourcing leading to fewer domestic jobs. Indeed, thoughtlessly trying to keep jobs in the country through protectionism usually leads to more unemployment and economic misery overall. Ensuring that only more expensive American lawyers can find work will reduce demand for American restaurateurs and barmen, and leave them unemployed.

It's a bit more complicated than that. If I hire my lawyer, he'll just spend my money. If I cannot afford a lawyer, I'll spend my money elsewhere. However (and this is lawyer-specific), if I can access a lawyer, I'll be able to engage in transactions with a higher chance of being treated with fairly. As it is, I'm loathe to engage in transactions where there's a power imbalance, because I'll get screwed over. IF justice becomes cheap, though, I can increase the utility of all my transactions and this is inherently wealth creating.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It is a quite simple solution, just as it is with medical doctors. Allow far more people to become attorneys. You could even argue that independent paralegais should be able to do much of what it now supposedly takes an attorney to do, just like free clinics who use nurses and physician assistants to do much of the work.

 

[BvBPL]

Awful idea.