Criminals Becoming Lawyers
-
Countered the vote. A highly contentious issue. On the one hand simply granting him the licence does not mean he is free to practice as a lawyer - if he has qualified he should get it. On the other hand "Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday." Surely, if he has no legal status he is, by definition, an illegal alien and, therefore breaking the law. Doesn't that mean he cannot have passed the moral character review? A bit confusing - what is the point of classifying millions as illegal aliens if it doesn't mean anything? Just makes a laughing stock of the law.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Countered the vote. A highly contentious issue. On the one hand simply granting him the licence does not mean he is free to practice as a lawyer - if he has qualified he should get it. On the other hand "Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday." Surely, if he has no legal status he is, by definition, an illegal alien and, therefore breaking the law. Doesn't that mean he cannot have passed the moral character review? A bit confusing - what is the point of classifying millions as illegal aliens if it doesn't mean anything? Just makes a laughing stock of the law.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
Ya, law means nothing in the US anymore. I guess "illegal" isn't really illegal
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
-
Countered the vote. A highly contentious issue. On the one hand simply granting him the licence does not mean he is free to practice as a lawyer - if he has qualified he should get it. On the other hand "Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday." Surely, if he has no legal status he is, by definition, an illegal alien and, therefore breaking the law. Doesn't that mean he cannot have passed the moral character review? A bit confusing - what is the point of classifying millions as illegal aliens if it doesn't mean anything? Just makes a laughing stock of the law.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Ya, law means nothing in the US anymore. I guess "illegal" isn't really illegal
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
-
Utter nonsense.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Unless you f***ing look like this[^], you also are an illegal immigrant.
- There's no reason at all to cuss at me. 2) Your statement means that all American are illegal. Both comments make you unworthy of serious discussion.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Get over it. That guy could contribute to society probably far more than you. could yourself.
Illegal immigration costs BILLIONS - and thats the only thing this guy contributed to. Hell, his college was probably paid for by US Taxpayer dollars. Don't bother responding - I will neither read nor reply.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
-
Ignoring the initial statement (as it is pretty dumb and completely irrelevant) it isn't about what he can or can't contribute to society. I'm sure he's a perfectly nice person, intelligent and would be happy to contribute to society: the point is whether he should be allowed to if he is in the country illegally? According to the law as it stands he is an illegal alien and has no legal right to be here. Given that is the case the argument is as to whether or not he should be granted a licence since, as a criminal under the law, at the very least, he cannot have passed the requirement to hold the licence in the first place. In any case, it is only the tip of a much wider issue and silly remarks about the legality or not of everyone here apart from the Indians (who also came from somewhere else so, by your argument, are also illegal aliens) are not helpful.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
Utter nonsense.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Unless you f***ing look like this[^], you also are an illegal immigrant.
- There's no reason at all to cuss at me. 2) Your statement means that all American are illegal. Both comments make you unworthy of serious discussion.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
Get over it. That guy could contribute to society probably far more than you. could yourself.
Illegal immigration costs BILLIONS - and thats the only thing this guy contributed to. Hell, his college was probably paid for by US Taxpayer dollars. Don't bother responding - I will neither read nor reply.
If it's not broken, fix it until it is
Kevin Marois wrote:
- Your statement means that all American are illegal.
And so are Canadians and most latinos, even outside the US. All the Europeans did here was destroying the civilizations that were here already. Btw, California used to be in Mexico.
Kevin Marois wrote:
Hell, his college was probably paid for by US Taxpayer dollars.
How can you say that? The guys father is a legal Amercian citizen. He probably paid the tuition.
-
Kevin Marois wrote:
- Your statement means that all American are illegal.
And so are Canadians and most latinos, even outside the US. All the Europeans did here was destroying the civilizations that were here already. Btw, California used to be in Mexico.
Kevin Marois wrote:
Hell, his college was probably paid for by US Taxpayer dollars.
How can you say that? The guys father is a legal Amercian citizen. He probably paid the tuition.
You're making nonsense arguments. By the same token you might as well go all the way back to the first humans leaving Africa. And 'used to be' is the operative statement. Parts of France used to belong to the UK: does that mean we should vilify the French for taking i t back and destroying the culture that was there? You have to deal with the here and now as undoing the past is a little beyond our present abilities.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
How can you say that? The guys father is a legal Amercian citizen. He probably paid the tuition.
So? You're assuming facts that you have no knowledge of. In any case, doesn't matter who paid: he had no right to be here. Perhaps you could blame the immigration system. Still doesn't matter - he's here illegally.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
You're making nonsense arguments. By the same token you might as well go all the way back to the first humans leaving Africa. And 'used to be' is the operative statement. Parts of France used to belong to the UK: does that mean we should vilify the French for taking i t back and destroying the culture that was there? You have to deal with the here and now as undoing the past is a little beyond our present abilities.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
How can you say that? The guys father is a legal Amercian citizen. He probably paid the tuition.
So? You're assuming facts that you have no knowledge of. In any case, doesn't matter who paid: he had no right to be here. Perhaps you could blame the immigration system. Still doesn't matter - he's here illegally.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
You're assuming facts that you have no knowledge of
So did the original poster when he said the state paid for it:
Kevin Marois wrote: Hell, his college was probably paid for by US Taxpayer dollars.
-
You're making nonsense arguments. By the same token you might as well go all the way back to the first humans leaving Africa. And 'used to be' is the operative statement. Parts of France used to belong to the UK: does that mean we should vilify the French for taking i t back and destroying the culture that was there? You have to deal with the here and now as undoing the past is a little beyond our present abilities.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
How can you say that? The guys father is a legal Amercian citizen. He probably paid the tuition.
So? You're assuming facts that you have no knowledge of. In any case, doesn't matter who paid: he had no right to be here. Perhaps you could blame the immigration system. Still doesn't matter - he's here illegally.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
You have to deal with the here and now as undoing the past is a little beyond our present abilities.
That is no reason to ignore it. And we could make a better future, but that also seem to be a little beyond our present abilities (or rather willingness).
-
mark merrens wrote:
You have to deal with the here and now as undoing the past is a little beyond our present abilities.
That is no reason to ignore it. And we could make a better future, but that also seem to be a little beyond our present abilities (or rather willingness).
Le Gauchiste wrote:
That is no reason to ignore it.
It's not germane to the issue at hand so is irrelevant.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
mark merrens wrote:
You're assuming facts that you have no knowledge of
So did the original poster when he said the state paid for it:
Kevin Marois wrote: Hell, his college was probably paid for by US Taxpayer dollars.
So? You're both assuming facts not in evidence - you neutralize each other! :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
-
So? You're both assuming facts not in evidence - you neutralize each other! :-)
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
mark merrens wrote:
So? You're both assuming facts not in evidence - you neutralize each other!
:doh: :)
-
Kevin Marois wrote:
- Your statement means that all American are illegal.
And so are Canadians and most latinos, even outside the US. All the Europeans did here was destroying the civilizations that were here already. Btw, California used to be in Mexico.
Kevin Marois wrote:
Hell, his college was probably paid for by US Taxpayer dollars.
How can you say that? The guys father is a legal Amercian citizen. He probably paid the tuition.
Le Gauchiste wrote:
All the Europeans did here was destroying the civilizations that were here already.
Nonsense. Based on that one can condemn every living human because it is so unlikely that there ancestors at some time did not do something similar. And that includes the ones that you state were "already" here.
-
mark merrens wrote:
You have to deal with the here and now as undoing the past is a little beyond our present abilities.
That is no reason to ignore it. And we could make a better future, but that also seem to be a little beyond our present abilities (or rather willingness).
Le Gauchiste wrote:
And we could make a better future
I am rather certain that your "better future" would not in fact be "better" for some. Further excluding the actual arrival of some other guiding intelligence (aliens from space) there is absolutely no evidence that any conscious decision made by humans will in fact lead to a "better" future. It is all random.
-
Countered the vote. A highly contentious issue. On the one hand simply granting him the licence does not mean he is free to practice as a lawyer - if he has qualified he should get it. On the other hand "Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him, the Committee of Bar Examiners said Monday." Surely, if he has no legal status he is, by definition, an illegal alien and, therefore breaking the law. Doesn't that mean he cannot have passed the moral character review? A bit confusing - what is the point of classifying millions as illegal aliens if it doesn't mean anything? Just makes a laughing stock of the law.
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
The newsreport said he was waiting for his visa. That would mean that his stay has been approved and he is waiting for his turn to come up. Each country is allotted 20,000(?) permanent visas (green cards) a year and someone from Mexico could wait his entire life not receiving one! PS. Just clarifying. Not taking a position in any way, shape or form.:rose:
