Undocumented Immigrant Lawyer
Posted by Eyecu2 11 years, 3 months ago to Government
Here is the URL of the Story
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye stated 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.”
Be that as it may the fact that an undocumented immigrant’s presence in this country violates federal statutes is sufficient reason to deport the undocumented immigrant to their country of origin, which would make the rest of this case unimportant.
How do individuals too stupid to realize that an undocumented immigrant is by definition a criminal? If memory serves criminals are not allow to serve as lawyers. It seems to me that the ENTIRE Supreme Court of California should lose their licenses.
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...
Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye stated 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.”
Be that as it may the fact that an undocumented immigrant’s presence in this country violates federal statutes is sufficient reason to deport the undocumented immigrant to their country of origin, which would make the rest of this case unimportant.
How do individuals too stupid to realize that an undocumented immigrant is by definition a criminal? If memory serves criminals are not allow to serve as lawyers. It seems to me that the ENTIRE Supreme Court of California should lose their licenses.
The role of a judge is to interpret the law. This interpretation is that it doesn't matter if you're a felon, you can still practice law, ie it doesn't matter if you break the law, you can still be an objective judge! (And it works out so well for the law-abiding folks...)
Uh, anyone else see any GLARING inconsistencies in this argument?
If there was ever a case for impeachment, this would be it.
"This unequal portrait of the two forces would not only have been the Roman view: it could almost have been the German view as well (for the milling hosts are of Germanic origin, as are all the intruders of this period). To the Romans, the German tribes were riffraff; to the Germans, the Roman side of the river was the place to be. The nearest we can come to understanding this divide may be the southern border of the United States. There the spit-and-polish troops are immigration police; the hordes, the Mexicans, Haitians, and other dispossessed peoples seeking illegal entry. The barbarian migration was not perceived as a threat by Romans, simply because it was a migration— a year-in, year-out, raggle-taggle migration— and not an organized, armed assault. It had, in fact, been going on for centuries. The Gauls had been the first barbarian invaders, hundreds of years before, and now Gaul lay at peace. The verses of its poets and the products of its vineyards were twin fountains of Roman inspiration. The Gauls had become more Roman than the Romans themselves. Why could not the same thing happen to these Vandals, Alans, and Sueves, now working themselves to a fever pitch on the far side of the river?
When, at last, the hapless Germans make their charge across the bridge of ice, it is head-on, without forethought or strategy. With preposterous courage they teem across the Rhine in convulsive waves, their principal weapon their own desperation. We get a sense of their numbers, as well as their desperation, in a single casualty count: the Vandals alone are thought to have lost twenty thousand men (not counting women and children) at the crossing. Despite their discipline, the Romans cannot hold back the Germanic sea.
From one perspective, at least, the Romans were overwhelmed by numbers— not just in this encounter but during centuries of migrations across the porous borders of the empire. Sometimes the barbarians came in waves, though seldom as big as this one. More often they came in trickles: as craftsmen who sought honest employment, as warriors who enlisted with the Roman legions, as tribal chieftains who paid for land, as marauders who burned and looted and sometimes raped and murdered."
- from "How the Irish Saved Civilization"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eyJIbSg...
"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them.
"Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them."
(sorry, couldn't resist...)
I find "Native American"... well not offensive, but objectionable. Living here in the (former) Indian Nations, I guess I'm more aware that there was never any unified "Native American" population.
It's like saying, "Native Europeans are the richest group in Europe these days."
I refrain from saying "American aborigines" because most people will go, "huh?"
Part of the problem is also that American culture has been mutated to reduce our sense of nationalism. Again, consider Atlantis in AS as an example. No one who lived there would consider it "just another town". They differentiated between "producers" and "looters and moochers". And no one who lived there would be willing to let just anyone come squatting. Their border was truly sealed, *even though they invited people with the right mindset to join them*.
Also, 1933 Hitler and the Nazis came to power. They started a number of programs designed to ensure the safety of the German people. Id cards were issued to all Germans and these had to be shown to get services. There were special hotels where non-Germans were supposed to stay and booking in the hotel meant you had to register with the government. In 1937 the Nazis seized all guns. Mein Herr, these papers are not in order. Are your papers in order?
But, in case you need help... Did this man, who was brought here as a child, earned a degree, wants to work and trade value for value, do anything other than involuntarily break the law? Government moochers make unprincipled laws to make us all criminals, so "breaking the law" is NOT prima facie a wrong act, yet that seems to be your only argument. Based on this story, cite an OBJECTIVE PRINCIPLE that he actively violated (just existing, going about his life, bettering himself, is not an active violation). Did he do harm? Mooch (just suppose he worked his way through school)? Does he intend to mooch? Examine your assumptions.
You make him a criminal for existing. That is the penultimate goal of a moocher. You want to deny him trading his value with others without your permission. Also, moocher goal.
When was he supposed to deport himself? When he was 10 and realized he was illegal, and should he then go back to Honduras or Brazil or China by himself? Or 18 when he was no longer a minor after he had lived here most of his life, and having done nothing wrong.
A true objectivist finds nothing inherently wrong with open immigration, actually they would assume it as a natural right. I do object to anyone mooching, immigrant or natural citizen. But if they don't mooch, WELCOME them as compatriots. America is an idea, and if they come to embrace that idea then the more the merrier!
As to yours and my legal status here in this country as citizens. While I am unsure of when you or your family came here I do know that mine has been here since BEFORE there were laws on the books regarding immigration status. In fact most of my family was sentenced to come to Georgia way back when Georgia was a penal colony of England. Some others were Native Americans and one was a French trader who happened to be living in Florida when Florida became part of the United States so I am pretty sure that my status is acceptable as an American citizen by birth.
As to me being a moocher. Does it make me a moocher to point out a criminal who has been mooching for an extended period of time and now wants to work all the while violating long standing laws which address rights to which he has been violating for years?
Evidence of my point would be things like Operation Wetback in 1954 and Mexican Repatriation that occurred between 1929 and 1939 and the Immigration Act of 1903. Each of these times we had huge numbers of illegal immigrants who were deported. Nearly all of them to Mexico. Essentially illegal immigrants have been coming here for over 100 years and we had continuously had to deal with the negative impacts of this movement.
Please do not get me wrong I care nothing for where a person comes from, as long as they follow the laws to do it. If however they come here illegally I firmly believe that we should ship them out.
Additionally, I believe that ALL forms of governmental assistance should be denied any first generation immigrant and all family members of first generation immigrants while residing with a first generation immigrant.
"Since the mid-1990s, Equatorial Guinea has become one of sub-Sahara's largest oil producers. With a population of 650,702, it is the richest country per capita in Africa,... and its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita ranks 69th in the world;... However, the wealth is distributed very unevenly and few people have benefited from the oil riches. The country ranks 136th on the UN's 2011 Human Development Index. The UN says that less than half of the population has access to clean drinking water and that 20% of children die before reaching five."
(wikipedia). So, too, is life on the reservation not what you might expect -- or considering Francisco's "Money Speech" it might be exactly what you should expect.
Individuals still make decisions. The last native I worked with was a systems analyst who said that education was never valued on the reservation, so she left as soon as she could.
We want an open boarder that allows all traders to come here and escape the rest of the worlds system of push or pull.
I do not believe that the problem is really immigration at all, but the programs we have created that attract the moochers at record levels to the US. It was never a problem when our culture and programs attracted highly productive and ambitious people looking to make money by way of production.
Yes, according to the law he is a criminal, but isn't the objective of the moochers to make us all criminals? Weren't the heroes in AS ALL criminals under the laws? Did he actually do something wrong? Clearly not. He seems to be a fine example of a contributing person. You are blind if you can't see that.
The problem is welfare, requiring hospitals to treat anyone, and similar handouts. Welfare should be abolished, or reformed to fix that, not criminalize immigration.
There should be NO restrictions to who can live or work here. We must establish systems which mitigate mooching.
Load more comments...