Undocumented Chico man passed the bar, but can he practice law?

This is the part that stuck out to me:

This is someone who is trying to work with the system, not someone who just snuck across and wants to get away with something. 18 years ... for a response?

I think the INS should get off their butts and give him an answer to the Green Card application.

 

Something that should be said regarding this topic and I try to post it every time there's a morality vs. legality discussion going on on some level.

Don't mix morality and legality.

Morality influences the creation of law.
Laws are created based on the morality of the time.
Morality changes over time, sometimes very quickly
Laws unless repealed or modified, don't.

So what you get is laws that don't reflect the current society's morals but are still in force. You also get revisionist positions where the current society's members will say something like "was slavery morally correct just because it was legal?" or "is immigration law fair?"

The answer to both questions is.. "Yes, at one point it was.", "In some places it still is". and "until you repeal it, it may as well be."

Which is why anyone who runs for office on a moral platform is a moron, because regardless of what you feel.. until you can get enough people to agree with you, it won't matter legally.. and also why any political organization based on religious foundations is extremely dangerous.. hence why we supposedly separated church and state.

Of course some ideas are good ideas regardless of time. The middle of society tends to crap all over those ideas first..

 

This is one way to look at it.

The other way is to wonder why someone is waiting 18 years for a response. Has the petitioner attempted to follow up with INS over what is obviously lost paperwork or a criminal issue that they don't want to bring to light, or some other thing not reported in the media?

So here's the jam, if you apply for a green card and don't hear back within a certain time period, you have a certain time period to follow up before you risk being seen as an illegal while following up. Risk/Reward proposition methinks. Some of the problem is the government but not all of it.

 

No, the article clearly says 17 MONTHS old. It's in the third paragraph, first sentence. His family left here at 9 and returned here when he was 17 years old. He was still a minor and under the control of his parents.

 

But a lack of respoonse, although wrong, does not give someone the right to ignore the system. If you asked for acceptance into Harvard's medical program and did not hear back would you just show up for class because they never said no? Sorry, I believe in rules and while I might not agree with them all they need to be followed.

 

Without getting too geeky into immigration law, the guy's not waiting for a response from INS (and if he is it'll be a long wait, considering the agency hasn't existed since 2003), but he's talking about his visa number coming current. When his father petitioned for him, it got him a spot in a very long line. But, chances are he blew his eligibility by entering illegally the second time. Unless he has other grounds of eligibility (and it doesn't appear so), his manner of entry precludes his adjustment of status. As I posted earlier, a new policy might help this guy when his number comes up.

 

You're right on the 17 month's. He came back unlawfully at 17 years for good. But don't give me that "under control of his parents" nonsense. 17 is plenty "adult" to bear responsibility for his illegal entry. He certainly knew what he was doing, and knew it was illegal.

 

I like Randell's analogy with someone just walking into Harvard and taking classes. I guess that student would be "undocumented". I wonder if Harvard would say, what the heck, let the kid have free classes and get a degree. He did just walk in here and sit down.

 

America is a country built upon immigration. Immigration laws need to be liberalized.

 

Although complicated, they're already pretty liberal already. Those in the field have a saying, "It ain't over til the alien wins." And they usually do.

 

In other cultures, 17 years old is still not an adult, and non-adults are expected to do what their parents and elders tell them to do, whether they agree or not. I'm not saying that's what happened because there's no way to know. I'm just saying that not everyone shares your point of view, and you shouldn't expect them to.

 

Well, I wouldn't expect the "daddy put me up to it" defense to work well in too many cases. But feel free to test it out sometime if you're feeling lucky.

 

Should we go by our culture (meaning the United States of America) or others? If we have to go by others shouldn't we cut off someones hand if they steal if they are from the Middle East? My god mother moved to another country at one point years ago and she was tld her children could not go to school until they were fluent in the language. Could you imagine if we did that here?

 

I should have been more clear. America is made up of people of different races/ethnicities, each with their own cultures WITHIN American culture; a sub-culture I guess you could say. In these sub-cultures, 17 years old is still not an adult and this guy may have been compelled to obey. It's possible.

 

Don't get personal, please. Thank you.

 

I apologize for offending you. My aim was to go after your argument (albeit in a flip way), but not to attack you personally. I'm sorry it came out that way.

 

Sure, anything is possible.

 

Thank you. We're good.

 

He's here illegally, throw his ass out of the country. It's pretty straight forward. You're here, you're not supposed to be here, GTFO.

 

No, no we should overly pontificate this one. It really is a sticky situation that deserves as much attention as we can muster and a look at all the nuances to se.....I can't.

He's illegal no matter how he got here. Leave, and no, you cannot practice law in this country.