California high court to decide if illegal immigrant can practice law

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-usa-immigrants-california-idUSBRE98407U20130905


Arguments for and against Sergio Garcia, an undocumented Mexican immigrant seeking to practice law in California in a closely watched test case, hinged largely on interpretations of a federal law that bars the expenditure of public funds for the benefit of illegal immigrants.


"Congress used a very broad term - professional licenses," Justice Carol Corrigan said during oral arguments in the case. "But don't you think that if they really wanted to say, 'all other licenses ... except lawyers,' they could have said that?" she asked Garcia's lawyers.


"Is there anything else other than law licenses that are excised from the common-sense reading of the term 'professional license?'" asked Justice Goodwin Liu.

Wagstaffe said there was not.
"(Then) the exception is a set of one - and it happens to be the one you're arguing for," Liu said.


The argument is apparently that the law was too vague, so it wasn't meant to include law licenses, yet it was specific enough that ONLY law licenses are not covered.

WTF????

And... if the guy is 'undocumented', WTF is he still DOING HERE!!!!

[Arbo]

Well this should tick off many here, but it appears the current administration is against this guy getting his license. So the broke clock strikes again.

Hopefully the CA judges do not grant this.

[logroller]

Well this should tick off many here, but it appears the current administration is against this guy getting his license. So the broke clock strikes again.

Hopefully the CA judges do not grant this.
Seriously, even when the admin's position is agreeable, you're disdainful.

Interestingly though, I thought professional licensure was the sole authority of the state. But there are provisions in state law that are the sole authority of the Feds.

From ca business and professions code:


30. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any board, as
defined in Section 22, and the State Bar and the Department of Real
Estate shall at the time of issuance of the license require that the
licensee provide its federal employer identification number, if the
licensee is a partnership, or his or her social security number for
all others.

how would an undocumented immigrant provide such documents, ie federal tax ID number?

[Arbo]

Seriously, even when the admin's position is agreeable, you're disdainful.

Uh, no. The reality is that most of the posters here are very much right leaning, and appear to hate everything this administration does. So far I've seen nothing but that. There are plenty of reasons to stand against the current administration, they policies in general are horrible, bad for the people, bad for the country. No need to hate on them just because they have a (D) behind their name. Makes people look foolish. Stick with the policies rather than the personalities.

WRT the subject of the thread, the administration is standing against the lawsuit because as they have put out (or the DOJ), licensing and regulation is done with public money and it is against federal law to give public money (ie benefits) to a non-citizen.

Think about that for a bit.

And then think about how that is in direct opposition to so many of their actions. Major irony in that one.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-usa-immigrants-california-idUSBRE98407U20130905







The argument is apparently that the law was too vague, so it wasn't meant to include law licenses, yet it was specific enough that ONLY law licenses are not covered.

WTF????

And... if the guy is 'undocumented', WTF is he still DOING HERE!!!! Its California, some of the dumbest people on earth live and vote there. How can they give a license to practice law to a man that is a known criminal? He is guilty of illegally entering this country. ffing dumbasses..

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Uh, no. The reality is that most of the posters here are very much right leaning, and appear to hate everything this administration does. So far I've seen nothing but that. There are plenty of reasons to stand against the current administration, they policies in general are horrible, bad for the people, bad for the country. No need to hate on them just because they have a (D) behind their name. Makes people look foolish. Stick with the policies rather than the personalities.

WRT the subject of the thread, the administration is standing against the lawsuit because as they have put out (or the DOJ), licensing and regulation is done with public money and it is against federal law to give public money (ie benefits) to a non-citizen.

Think about that for a bit.

And then think about how that is in direct opposition to so many of their actions. Major irony in that one. Here less than a week and you know all about most of the posters here. How do you know why those people disagree with obama? Your saying that its just hate shows how ignorant you are. Its about policy not hate. Nobody has to hate the bastard to disagree with what he has done but I freely admit hating the son of a bitch myself. WHAT OF IT? I hate Hitler, Stalin and Mao too. Nothing foolish about hating such dirty bastards.--Tyr