Featured Post

Dreaming of the Guild

SergiogarciaMeet Sergio C. Garcia. Mr. Garcia was born in Villa Jimenez, Mexico in 1977. Villa Jimenez is a rather small village a little bit south of the freeway between Mexico City and Guadalajara, about two-thirds of the way to the latter city.

When he was 17 months old, his parents brought him to California without any kind of documentation. He lived in California until he was about nine years old.

When he was 17 (this would be in 1994), he and his father returned to California, again without documentation, although his father got an immigration visa in 1995 and Mr. Garcia applied for one immediately thereafter. These visas are granted by a waiting list. Mr. Garcia has been on the waiting list for a permanent residency visa for nineteen years.

During this time, he graduated from high school, attended community college and transferred to the California State University at Chico, where he took a bachelor’s degree. Subsequently, he attended Cal Northern School of Law, taking a juris doctorate in 2009. (He lives all the way up there in Chico. I didn’t have a chance to meet with him and talk him out of this.)

He passed the Multistate Professional Responsibility Exam, and then the California Bar Exam given in June of 2009. His moral character evaluation reveals that he has never been convicted of any crime, and had only one minor incident with an employer while a teenager concerning his status as an undocumented alien. On his bar application, he (truthfully) described his citizenship status as “pending.”

Today, the California Supreme Court unanimously approved Mr. Garcia’s petition for admission to the California State Bar.

The relevant statutes are 8 U.S.C. § 1621, and California Business & Professions Code § 6064(b), which is part of the State Bar Act. The Federal statute provides, in relevant part, that professional licenses may not be granted to undocumented aliens, unless a state passes a law after August 22, 1996, specifically providing that such licenses may be granted. I do not have sufficient legislative history in front of me indicating why August 22, 1996 was chosen as the sunrise date for this deference.

The State Bar Act was amended effective January 1, 2014, after the Legislature, by majorities in both houses much larger than the Democrats’ majorities there, passed what is now B&P Code 6064(b) providing:

Upon certification by the examining committee that an applicant who is not lawfully present in the United States has fulfilled the requirements for admission to practice law, the Supreme Court may admit that applicant as an attorney at law in all the courts of this state and may direct an order to be entered upon its records to that effect. A certificate of admission thereupon shall be given to the applicant by the clerk of the court.

The Supreme Court found that this new act qualifies as a state-level exemption under 8 U.S.C. § 1621, so Mr. Garcia’s status as an undocumented alien was no bar to his admission. So, both Congress and the California Legislature, who presumably represent the will of the majority of voters, have created a statutory pathway to bar admission for people like Mr. Garcia.

Note that at the time Congress passed the deference statute in 8 U.S.C. § 1621, Republicans controlled Congress; note that the margins of votes in the California Legislature indicates that at least half the Republicans in both the upper and lower houses of the Legislature voted in favor of B&P Code 6064(b).

In any event, the legal barriers to Mr. Garcia’s bar admission have been removed. The fact that the Court waited to announce its decision on the first business day that those legal barriers were taken down hints at something about the Court’s intent, but the Supreme Court did not compel the Legislature to amend the State Bar Act.

But also notice that the amendment to the State Bar Act uses permissive language, rather than mandatory: the Supreme Court “may” admit the application, rather than “shall” admit the applicant. We aren’t quite out of the realm of the normative here; the Supremes could have used their discretion to deny admission. So should they have?

Not too long ago, I wrote of my reservations about Stephen Glass seeking admission to the Bar. The ultra-condensed version is: there are two things in particular that we care about lawyers doing: lying to colleagues, clients, and courts; and stealing from their clients. Stephen Glass’ past conduct contains a pattern of willful and sculpted dishonesty. While he seems to have lived an honest life since his public shaming for journalistic dishonesty, it’s not clear what burden of proof of reform he should have to offer. So there is an unsettled issue of whether Mr. Glass might resort to untruths in his practice when the facts get rough (as they do for all attorneys, inevitably).

Sergio Garcia’s conduct — he re-entered the United States at age 17 when he had sufficient maturity to understand that doing so was contrary to the laws of this country, and has remained here since then awaiting eventual review of his visa application so he’s technically here illegally, and has worked here illegally — does not touch upon the two very sensitive issues about which I would have the Bar, and the Supreme Court, be particularly vigilant. At most, they touch on the question of respect for the law in a generalized sense.

But nobody’s perfect; nearly everybody out there, including attorneys, have committed at least petty violations of law. If nothing else, lots of people speed and park their cars where they shouldn’t. We let people who have DUI’s practice law. We let people who pirate software practice law. Some violations of the law do not involve moral turpitude, and even some crimes that do involve moral turpitude aren’t particularly relevant to what lawyers do.

Mr. Garcia lied about his citizenship once when applying for a job when he was 17, for which he avows contrition. And he may have driven a car without a license for a few months when he lived in Oregon. These mistakes don’t leave me with an abiding mistrust of his integrity. The big reasons why we might want to keep someone from entering the legal profession are not present in Mr. Garcia’s case.

But there may well be other reasons, and an amicus to the California Supreme Court have raised them. The first was that Mr. Garcia, or indeed any undocumented alien, cannot truthfully take the oath of office of an attorney, providing that the attorney will “…support the Constitution and laws of the United States… .” Simply by being in the United States, the argument goes, Mr. Garcia is violating the laws every day. In response, California’s high court said:

Although an undocumented immigrant’s presence in this country is unlawful and can result in a variety of civil sanctions under federal immigration law (such as removal from the country or denial of a desired adjustment in immigration status), an undocumented immigrant?s unauthorized presence does not constitute a criminal offense under federal law and thus is not subject to criminal sanctions. Moreover, federal law grants federal immigration officials broad discretion in determining under what circumstances to seek to impose civil sanctions upon an undocumented immigrant and in determining what sanctions to pursue. Under current federal immigration policy it is extremely unlikely that immigration officials would pursue sanctions against an undocumented immigrant who has been living in this country for a substantial period of time, who has been educated here, and whose only unlawful conduct is unlawful presence in this country. (Citations omitted, but see page 4 of this document from ICE.)

The other argument advanced was that as an undocumented alien, Mr. Garcia cannot lawfully be employed in the United States. And indeed, everyone who appeared before the Supreme Court on the issue, and the Court itself, agreed that a law firm, a lawyer, a governmental entity, or a corporation cannot lawfully offer Mr. Garcia employment.

But, everyone agreed that Mr. Garcia could represent a client pro bono, that working for free is not “employment.”

So what if he opened up his own practice, and did not have any employer other than himself? Is it lawful for him to be engaged as an attorney in exchange for a fee? The amicus, and the Federal government, said “no,” but the Committee of Bar Examiners and Garcia himself said “yes.”

For my part, while I refer to clients “hiring” and “firing” lawyers, I do not consider my clients my “employers.” I use the word “retain” as much as I do “hire” with respect to an attorney representing a client. My clients do not control the time, place, and manner of the bulk of my work; my relationship to my clients is that of an independent contractor and that’s a different sort of relationship than that of employer and employee. Does Federal immigration law prohibit working as an independent contractor? (I notice the Feds argued that it does. Doesn’t necessarily mean they’re right, though, at least not in the professional context, but they kind of have to argue for the broadest interpretation of their own law.)

The Supreme Court basically punted on this argument. It said that certain kinds of practice are explicitly prohibited (like practicing before the ICE), and that there is a general prohibition on attorneys from undertaking representation where they cannot competently render service. “Competently” often refers to the attorney’s own level of skill, knowledge, and experience, but it can also refer to a legal or ethical inability to act as a lawyer. The Supremes basically said that until and unless someone shows that Mr. Garcia has made bad decisions about what to do with his license, there is no reason to presume that he will undertake an illegal representation of a client.

And that seems right to me. We can’t know — he can’t yet know — what Mr. Garcia will do with his license to practice law. It will be incumbent upon him to determine what he can or cannot do, and he cannot help but be cognizant of the fact that he operates under special restrictions and special scrutiny, and will govern himself accordingly.* It’s certainly inappropriate to presume that he will do so, just as it’s inappropriate to presume that he would use a license to drive wrongfully.

There are lots of things one can do with a license to practice law. Some of them are profitable. Lawyers tend to be clever; Mr. Garcia may be clever and find a way to practice law in a remunerative way that does not violate any law. If so, why should we stop him?

Also, a license to practice law in California does not come with a requirement that he live here. There’s hundreds, probably thousands, of California admittees who live out of state, out of the country, even. I’m sure that there are Mexican law firms that would want a California lawyer, or a Mexican branch office of a California-based firm that could employ him in Mexico or as a telecommuter to the Mexican office until he gets his visa. If such an arrangement doesn’t violate U.S. law, then there’s no reason he shouldn’t be able to do it, which means the license should issue. (I don’t know if it would or not.)

And if he does screw up, he should have to answer for it the way any of the rest of us lawyers would — but he hasn’t screwed up yet. And most of us lawyers go our entire careers without screwing up sufficiently awfully that the Bar needs to discipline us. We certainly don’t start out attorneys’ careers by saying that their mere existence is a violation of law.

I certainly don’t feel like my license is cheapened in any way because Mr. Garcia is now a brother member of the Bar. I’ve practiced adversely and cooperatively with attorneys who were born and raised in other nations; Mr. Garcia was raised more in California than he was in Mexico. Culturally, he’s as much an American as he is a Mexican. He’s smart enough to have passed the bar on the first try; after that, it’s a question of whether he has sufficient integrity to be trusted with handling matters that affect other people’s lives. There’s no reason to think not.

So welcome to the Guild, Mr. Garcia. Good luck; cite-check often; use your license for good, not ill, and may you be granted permission by the government to legally seek regular employment at the soonest possible date. After all, if we had a sensible set of laws concerning immigration and naturalization, you’d have been a full citizen of this nation a long time ago.

 

* “Govern yourself accordingly” is a common closing line of a letter threatening a panoply of unpleasantnesses should the recipient fail to comply with the sending attorney’s demands. When I see it at the end of correspondence I usually interpret it as legalese for an instruction to engage in a reflexive reproductive act. I bear Mr. Garcia no ill will so I disclaim any such implication here — but if in his practice he should see that phrased used in correspondence to himself or his clients, hopefully he’ll bear in mind my default interpretation and be governed accordingly. Damn, I did it again!
 
Burt LikkoBurt Likko is the pseudonym of an attorney in Southern California. His interests include Constitutional law with a special interest in law relating to the concept of separation of church and state, cooking, good wine, and bad science fiction movies. Follow his sporadic Tweets at @burtlikko, and his Flipboard at Burt Likko.

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

58 thoughts on “Dreaming of the Guild

      • I think there is much we could learn from our Canadian friends. I notice how they have a more liberal immigration policy, a higher employment rate, a similar if not lower crime rate, and the same (which is to say, functionally zero) rate of acts of terrorism perpetrated by “illegal immigrants” as we do. (9/11 was perpetrated by foreign nationals, but not immigrants — they were all here legally on student or tourist visas.)

        Not only did all the bad things that are supposed to happen if immigration policy is liberalized not happen in Canada, the reverse of those bad things seems to be true.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • In our experience, their immigration policy was less liberal than the US’s. It was easier for Maribou to come to the US than for me to move to Canada.

        Now, when it comes to refugees, Canada is more liberal… but would this guy count as a refugee?

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • There’s zero chance that this man would qualify as a refugee in Canada. He’s not being persecuted in either of his home lands. If he were to flee to Canada, there would be no serious repercussions if he were then returned to either the U.S. or Mexico (though his life might suck more either of those places, that’s not grounds for a refugee claim).

        Canada doesn’t take kindly to refugees from the U.S. (even when they should), and we’ve even gotten a little harsher with refugees, in general.

        Note: I’m not making any claims on whether, in such a case, Canada should or should not accept this man. I’m just saying that recent events demonstrate that he wouldn’t be accepted as a refugee.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Would Canada let him practice law?

        We all know that Canada *SHOULD* let him practice law, as is only right and proper. But we also know that Harper is a blight on the land, slowly turning the entire country into a diseased amalgam of Duck Dynasty and There Will Be Blood. As such, would he be able to practice law under current Canadian law?

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Is there a country that has a more liberal immigration policy than the US? If so, I don’t know what it is. All of the countries that come to mind are quickly disqualified by just a little bit of research.

        If America is letting this guy practice law, then we are, to my knowledge, already being more liberal with our labor policies than any other country in the world.

        And yet the underlying argument seems to be “we need to be *EVEN MORE* liberal with our immigration policy” with an undercurrent of disapproval that we are not.

        I’m more wishing that, before we get really disapproving, that we point to a country and say “we should be more like (shining example!)”… and if there are no other examples we can point to, I’d sort of like that established beforehand.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Is there a country that has a more liberal immigration policy than the US?

        Belize, I believe, only cares if you are law abiding and can support yourself.

        …we are, to my knowledge, already being more liberal with our labor policies than any other country in the world. And yet the underlying argument seems to be “we need to be *EVEN MORE* liberal with our immigration policy” with an undercurrent of disapproval that we are not…I’m more wishing that, before we get really disapproving, that we point to a country and say “we should be more like (shining example!)”…

        So, unless someone else is better, we shouldn’t strive to improve? Once you become the best at something you shouldn’t seek further improvement? What’s the point of your position?

        if there are no other examples we can point to, I’d sort of like that established beforehand.

        Ok, set aside Belize, about which I may be wrong. Let’s say we’ve established there are no other examples we can point to. What then?

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • While I appreciate your experiences with Canadian immigration, , the end result of Canada’s immigration policy appears to be a proportionally greater inflow of immigrants than the U.S. Roughly 19.8% of Canada’s population are foreign-born, while the corresponding number for the United States is 14.9%.

        The amount of time it takes the Canadian government to process immigrants and issue visas and permits is dramatically less than the amount of time the U.S. government takes, as well. Mr. Garcia’s example — having waited nineteen years for a residency permit, and still waiting, despite having a good education and family with residency permits — is not that far out of the ordinary. It seems that someone seeking legal status in Canada needs to wait less than two years for a residency visa or work permit. (Although I can’t find the citation to back that up at the moment and need to run off to my day job shortly. Perhaps someone else can find the statistics and prove me wrong.)

        So without discounting your own experiences, the exact details of which I know little beyond the facts that you have a well-developed skill set and had married a Canadian spouse but apparently nevertheless encountered difficulty in obtaining a residency or work visa, it seems to me that Canada is proportionally letting more people in than the United States, and with less money and less time spent in the bureaucracy. That seems to me to be the “more liberal” regime of the two neighboring nations.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Is there a country that has a more liberal immigration policy than the US?

        Well, there are certainly countries with higher immigration rates than the US — see this Forbes article, for example. Don’t know if that means their policies are more liberal, or if they’re simply more attractive.

        Not sure how to classify Israel’s Law of Return. Yes, there’s a religion requirement, but that appears to be it. Show up, prove your Jewishness, and you’re a citizen.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • I checked out http://ambergriscaye.com/pages/town/immigrationpolicy.html and they have some stuff that sounds better (if creepier) than some US policies (the “Qualified Retired Person” program sounds pretty sweet) but the very top of the webpage says The Ministry of National Security and Immigration has given careful consideration to the existing laws governing immigration and nationality. It is felt that there is an urgent need to further strengthen the Immigration Act to deter the incidence of illegal entry into Belize. There is also a need to modify the immigration rules relating to the fees charged for nationality and residence permits. which, right there makes me take pause…

        But I like the “Live here for only $2k a month!” thing that they’ve got going on, assuming the law hasn’t changed since 1999.

        So, unless someone else is better, we shouldn’t strive to improve?

        Yes, that is exactly what I said in the part where you quoted me.

        Once you become the best at something you shouldn’t seek further improvement?

        It’s like you’re cutting and pasting me.

        What’s the point of your position?

        This question might have benefitted from not being preceeded by the other two. In any case, if we are, in fact, better than everybody out there (including Belize), I think that “what’s the point of your position?” is a question worth asking of immigration policy in general.

        As for Mr. Garcia here, he strikes me as someone that countries would be fighting amongst themselves in order to claim as a citizen. Obviously very smart, obviously a lot of gumption, obviously educated, obviously a hard worker. He’s someone who will benefit whatever country he ends up working in. Indeed, if American law makes it so that he can’t work despite his obvious qualifications, that indicates a hell of a lot that is wrong with American Immigration Law in general… but it strikes me as odd that this is a policy where what other countries are doing has *ZERO* influence on the debate.

        Wanna talk universal health care? We can talk about Europe all day, Canada, even Mexico. Wanna talk about the Death Penalty? Ditto. Libel law? Copyright? Antidisestablishmentarianism? You can’t get two paragraphs into the story without mentioning what’s going on in Europe.

        And that’s curiously absent from discussions of immigration law. And I’m curious about that.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Roughly 19.8% of Canada’s population are foreign-born, while the corresponding number for the United States is 14.9%.

        Or, in raw numbers, 6,186,950 people vs. 40,381,574.

        it seems to me that Canada is proportionally letting more people in than the United States, and with less money and less time spent in the bureaucracy.

        Are they spending proportionately less time and less money? Or just less time and less money?

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Your logic here is pretty silly. But that increasingly seems par for the course. No one is allowed to criticize anything unless they have a perfect solution which is perfectly consistent with every other perfect solution they have offered prior.

        Do you agree or disagree that there is something wrong with America’s immigration policy when this man is pushing two full decades of waiting? A “yes” or “no” will suffice.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • I have no idea if this man would be allowed to practice law. That kind of seems like a non-sequitor, though. As a refugee (if we’re still clinging to that hypothetical), I believe he would not be, no (though immigrants are allowed to work while paperwork and citizenship are being processed… I just don’t know how it specifically applies to lawyers). Of course, he’s not a refugee in the U.S., so that’s not really an accurate comparison.

        “…we are, to my knowledge, already being more liberal with our labor policies than any other country in the world.”

        I’m unsure if you actually meant this to be as blanket a statement as it seems, but numerous discussions around here (regarding holidays, right-to-work legislations, etc.) makes it seem that Canada is far more liberal in labour policy… unless we’re using some different definition of the term “labour”.

        Also, though I don’t doubt that you and Maribou had difficulties getting you into Canada, that was a long time ago, no? As much as the current government is rather xenophobic and hating on refugees, they’ve actually been “okay” on immigration (in terms of letting people in and improving the bureaucratic process… treating immigrants with respect is a different thing, separate from this discussion). 19 year processing times are unheard of. Even refugee claims that drag on really long only ever reach a couple/three years.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • So, a little googling brings this:

        “I am not or have not applied to be a permanent resident of Canada or a Canadian citizen. Can I enter and complete the Licensing Process and be called to the Bar of Ontario?

        Yes, as of May 1, 2007 revisions to The Law Society Act no longer require a Licensing Process candidate to apply for or be a permanent resident or a Canadian Citizen when entering the Licensing Process or for the purpose of being called to the Bar of Ontario. However, you will need to provide required Canadian issued documents for purposes of confirming your legal name.”

        Source: http://www.lsuc.on.ca/FAQs/

        From this, and other links, it implies that someone in Mr. Garcia’s position (applying for citizenship or permanent residence status) would be allowed to practice law in Ontario and probably all provinces. It would be especially easy if he studied law in Canada (there are, obviously, rules about foreign-trained lawyers).

        Further links showed that foreign-certified, non-citizenship/perm. residents can apply to practice law in Canada, so it is conceivable that a person in Mr. Garcia’s actual position (not a hypothetical transplanted up north) would be allowed to apply to practice law in Canada.

        All-in-all, looks like Canada has already decided this issue, Jaybird.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Oh, you still want to play that adolescent game of snarking at people who misunderstand what you’re purposely trying to avoid making understandable. I had hopes that with the new year you might have matured into a more adult conversationsl style.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Do you agree or disagree that there is something wrong with America’s immigration policy when this man is pushing two full decades of waiting?

        Absolutely.

        I would agree with the statement that “we need to be more like Canada and/or Luxemboug” 100%.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • JB:

        Have you seen and heard about how Mexicans treat illegals that get in Mexico? They are brutal, which is why I find Mexico’s whining about how we threat their illegals here so hypocritical. I think folks here want the Scandinavian system where they let anyone in and shower them with money.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Oh, I have. I know that Mexico gets a huge amount of its money (either #1 source or #2 source) from remittances and that strikes me as downright criminal.

        That said, it doesn’t surprise me at all that someone would prefer to live and work in the US to live and work in Mexico and it’s ironic that the majority of workers from Mexico (as far as I can tell) just want to make money, send it home, and then be able to go home at the end of the season or end of the year or when they feel they’ve made enough money to get by for a while… and our immigration laws make it tougher for them to go home again.

        Heck, if they’re coming here and giving us labor and putting things together and building things for us and all they’re getting in exchange is paper money, we are making out like bandits.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • Have you seen and heard about how Mexicans treat illegals that get in Mexico? They are brutal, which is why I find Mexico’s whining about how we threat their illegals here so hypocritical. I think folks here want the Scandinavian system where they let anyone in and shower them with money.

        Maybe “Mexico” is being hypocritical. I don’t know because I haven’t been paying attention, but if it’s true, then shame on “Mexico.” But immigration policy in the US is about US laws and individuals facing those laws and not about whether the government of the land they hail from is hypocritical.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • FTR, I think an argument that “Mexico is really really cruel to people trying to immigrate there, so we in the U.S.A. don’t need to reform our immigration policies at all because we’re already way better than Mexico” is about as valid as the argument that “We should feel free to torture our Muslim prisoners of war because if a Muslim soldier were to take an American soldier prisoner, he’d torture the American way worse than anything we’d ever do.”

          Quote  Link

        Report

    • – that’s the best bass ackwards rendition of a cuss word I’ve seen this week. It could lead to all sorts of variations used for sloganeering purposes Ordinary Times, NOT a Fuster Cluck in the blog-o-sphere! and that sort of thing.

      Burt,
      I find you run down interesting and readable – which is to say an oceanographer successfully followed your argument. Probably not the pinnacle of your writing career, but probably worth an extra beer tonight when you get home. I remain troubled by the whole emphasis from certain political corners on illegal immigrants and what “they” “should” or shouldn’t get. Had all our European ancestors not included significant numbers of undocumented persons, I suspect our national history would be different. And frankly, if immigration violations are civil in nature, then why deny services or rights? We don’t do that to any one else for civil penalties.

        Quote  Link

      Report

    • “19 years on the waiting list for visa!!!!! What a fustercluck of a system.”

      And that’s with somebody who (a) has lived for many years in the USA, and (b) was brought in both times as a minor.

      When people say ‘wait your turn’, they really mean ‘die where you are’.

        Quote  Link

      Report

  1. Under NAFTA, it can be fairly easy for a professional from Mexico or Canada to get a US work permit; thus, being admitted to the bar could speed up Mr. Garcia’s documentation process.

      Quote  Link

    Report

  2. The Supreme Court basically punted on this argument. It said that certain kinds of practice are explicitly prohibited (like practicing before the ICE), and that there is a general prohibition on attorneys from undertaking representation where they cannot competently render service. … We can’t know — he can’t yet know — what Mr. Garcia will do with his license to practice law. It will be incumbent upon him to determine what he can or cannot do, and he cannot help but be cognizant of the fact that he operates under special restrictions and special scrutiny, and will govern himself accordingly.”

    Here’s a question. In most states, admission to the local federal District Court is a fairly straightforward process following admission to the state bar. But would the situation be different for an undocumented immigrant?

    That is, if Mr. Garcia applied to practice before the US District Court for the Eastern District of California, would any federal statute or rule prohibit his admission because of his immigration status?

      Quote  Link

    Report

  3. Meh,
    All that aside, there’s no reason the feds can’t pick this guy up and deport his ass back to Mexico. Since they were apparently litigating his case, I assume they know where he would be, ie the courthouse. Why didn’t they snag him and drive him across the border?

      Quote  Link

    Report

      • My house would cost $175,000 to purchase. My brother bought a house for just under $200,000. The upgraded and sold his house to a young couple for $150,000 or so, if that.

        That’s why I could never live in San Fransisco. No other reason, really, but that one.

          Quote  Link

        Report

      • J@m3z:

        I read you link and found an interesting statement, “Mostly, people who come from the USA are students, retirees, religious workers (missionaries, pastors, etc.), Mexican-Americans, and spouses of Mexican citizens. A few are professors who come employed by Mexican companies to teach English, other English teachers, and corporate employees and executives.

        While significant numbers live in Mexico year round, it is probable that a majority of these residents do not stay the whole year. Retirees may live half a year in the U.S. to keep retiree benefits. Those called “snowbirds” come in fall and leave in spring.”

        So these folks really aren’t leaving the US permanently for the promised land of Mexico. Not to mention that foreigners can’t own property in Mexico. Sorry, that is hardly enough to pierce my mindless jingoism.

          Quote  Link

        Report

  4. It’s a minor point but this guy is clearly not undocumented, he is known to the immigration system and presumably has whatever documents are involved in being in the queue. Undocumented would seem to indicate someone who lacks any kind of official record.

    Also could it be argued that by not deporting him during the 19 year wait the immigration authorities have de facto granted a temporary leave to remain (or whatever the term is) until the case is decided?

      Quote  Link

    Report

  5. It seems to me we should nominate Garcia to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Or we should elect him President.

    Despite every aspect of our sick, unjust, evil immigration system aimed at Garcia not being allowed to live his life, he managed not only to rise out of the ghettos our Great Walls of paperwork force on others in his situation but he actually became a lawyer, one of the most respected, important, and prestigious occupations around!

    Even if we succeed in our ignoble quest to prevent Garcia at all costs from contributing his exceptional brilliance and drive to our society, what he has already attained is truly impressive.

      Quote  Link

    Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *