Skip to main content

View Diary: Immigrants Like Me (118 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No immigrants, no paycheck? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dgone36

    Since we're talking about things that frost our asses, my hobby horse is the complete breakdown of the rule of law in this country, and the legal community's unwillingness to do anything about it.  We sign human rights treaties, but that and a dollar won't buy you a tall latte at Starbucks.  The Supreme Court spends untold hours writing their literary masterpieces, but because they willfully refuse to do error-correction, the highest and best use of those scintillating opinions is as kindling.  I have floated the idea that individual citizens may be able to legally prosecute war criminals, and that wayward federal judges can be removed from the bench by aggrieved citizens.  It infuriates me that lawyers who took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution don't stand up for the rule of law and instead, are apologists for the tyrannical reign we now live under.

    It's funny, though ... those of us who have been victimized by our broken and corrupt judicial system shouldn't be angry about it (according to the overly-pompous lawyers around here) but yet, your anger somehow justifies a verbal assault?

    Much of that suffering is ultimately based on knothead nativist views

    Help me out on this, Counselor.  When people have legitimate immigration problems, they come to you.  Correct me if I am wrong in this, but it is my understanding that immigration law is not unlike tax law, in the sense that disputes are typically heard in specialized courts, where ALJs don't have a dog in the hunt and as such, are pretty fair.  How could the "suffering" you speak of be caused by anything outside of that court?  The ALJ looks at the file, and the facts you probably stipulated to, and applies the law.  If Sarah from Great Britain overstayed her visa by five years and is working as a secretary, she's violated our immigration laws, and has to go home.  And it's the same way in GB: Right on the visa stamp, it says that you are not entitled to work there.

    If you don't like the law, then you don't like the law. But the law is what it is, and your clients didn't have to break it (assuming that that is what would lead to punishment and suffering).

    •  I've just posted a long essay on rule of law (5+ / 0-)

      in response to another of your comments. I regret I don't have the steam to parse all of this.

      The first half of your comment implies that people who support immigrants, like myself, are somehow tied in with the torturers of the Bush administration, because we disrespect the rule of law. Or something.  There is no point dignifying that with a response.  I have written here several times about what the rule of law actually entails.

      The rest of your comment is just blustering nonsense.  The idea that "the law is what it is, and your clients didn't have to break it" is just mind-bogglingly naive. U.S. immigration law is really fantastically complicated.  It is a huge, baggy backwater of the law that changes so quickly and fundamentally that the U.S. Government stopped about 12 years ago from even going through the motions of fixing the statutes.  They're all filled with hundreds and hundreds of manifest errors, such as references to offices that have been abolished for 10 years.

      As to "ALJs" that term is not used in immigration law.  There are many, many different kinds of immigration tribunal.  I myself regularly practice in several of them, and I have a narrow practice.

      Your belief that federal judges are all very fair-minded and professional is very quaint and charming and 100 percent the opposite of the truth. Some of the judges are great, but some are scum.

      Oh never mind. You just have a cartoon version of law.

      •  Being paid in straw, Counselor? You seem to have (0+ / 0-)

        a bit of a surplus.... :)

        The first half of your comment implies that people who support immigrants, like myself, are somehow tied in with the torturers of the Bush administration, because we disrespect the rule of law.

        I don't know where you got that!  My point was that we don't have a rule of law in America, and the legal community bears responsibility for allowing matters to degenerate to that point.

        As for "supporting immigrants," I draw a principled distinction between those who are here legally, and those who are not.  In rough effect, every illegal immigrant takes the place of a legal one; mercy to the illegal is gross injustice to the one who would be able to come here legally. It's disingenuous for you to not acknowledge that distinction.

        The rest of your comment is just blustering nonsense.  The idea that "the law is what it is, and your clients didn't have to break it" is just mind-bogglingly naive. U.S. immigration law is really fantastically complicated.

        So is the Internal Revenue Code.  But it seems to me that when Jorge W. Arbusto wades across the border to Laredo and goes looking for work, five will get you ten that he is in violation of our immigration laws.

        As to "ALJs" that term is not used in immigration law.  There are many, many different kinds of immigration tribunal.

        As all immigration law is federal, they are either Article III judges, or they are not.  And, unless you are taking a case up on appeal, they are probably not Article III judges.

        Your belief that federal judges are all very fair-minded and professional is very quaint and charming and 100 percent the opposite of the truth. Some of the judges are great, but some are scum.

        Oh never mind. You just have a cartoon version of law.

        Reading comprehension is essential for a lawyer.  If all federal judges were very fair-minded and professional, I wouldn't be able to complain that we don't have a rule of law, now would I?

        You don't see too many off-the-wall decisions in Tax Court cases.  If you had a complex question and the law was on your side, you usually went to Tax Court. My experience is that ALJs are better than district court judges like this guy, who was known for throwing out cases he simply didn't want to hear. Knowing the ALJs I do, I've always seen them as a better breed of cat -- experts in their field, and remarkably disinterested in any one of the steady stream of cases that flew past their desk.

        Of course, after eight years of Bu$h, all bets are probably off.

        •  Jesus said not to throw (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kefauver, Sentido

          pearls before swine. In this current age, people say not to feed trolls. I'm done with you after this post. I've responded way too much, because I've been irrationally hoping to spark a little light of understanding in your mind--with the greater aim of doing a little bit to squelch some nativist lies.

          But you're not responding intelligently to any of my points. Instead, you just keep emitting great clouds of nonsense.  Viz. your penultimate paragraph about tax court.

          Are you having a few pops at the moment, by the by, just out of curiosity?

          Good luck. By the way, I'm not angry at you. I recognize that you're putting a lot of energy into trying to defend an indefensible position.

          But perhaps you'd be more welcome if you'd reflect more Democratic views.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (137)
  • Community (62)
  • 2016 (44)
  • Environment (39)
  • Elections (38)
  • Culture (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (36)
  • Republicans (34)
  • Hillary Clinton (27)
  • Education (25)
  • Climate Change (24)
  • Labor (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (24)
  • Barack Obama (23)
  • Media (22)
  • GOP (21)
  • Civil Rights (21)
  • Economy (20)
  • Affordable Care Act (19)
  • Spam (18)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site