home

Undocumented Resident Applies to Florida Bar

Jose Godinez-Samperio, 25, came to the U.S. on a tourist visa with his parents when he was 9. He stayed in the U.S. (a civil infraction, not a crime), was an Eagle Scout, the valedictorian of his high school and graduated from the Florida State University law school. He fully disclosed his status on every application. Florida's Rules of the Supreme Court Relating to Admissions to the Bar do not require proof of citizenship or immigration status. But now there's an issue as to whether he, as an undocumented immigrant, can be admitted to the Bar, and the Florida Supreme Court will decide.

Many Amicus Briefs have been filed on Jose's behalf. The Dream Bar Association's brief is really good, as is the brief by three former ABA Presidents, including two who are friends of mine, Martha Barnett and Reece Smith. Jose also has the support of his Congresswoman,Kathy Castor, of Tampa: [More...]

"To deny these students the opportunity to become doctors or lawyers or practice another profession is to deny the state of Florida and all of our neighbors an educated and talented workforce,"

In a letter she wrote in support of Jose's application, she writes:

It is a shame that his legal status is even in question. I have championed passage of the DREAM act precisely for students like Jose. If the DREAM Act were in place right now, students like Jose Godinez-Samperio would automatically be admitted to the Florida Bar, and immigrants who meet the DREAM Act criteria would be able to access loans for college and even go on to law school or obtain other graduate degrees. We must encourage our nation’s next generation - not place obstacles in their path to success.

The Tampa Bay Times ran an editorial last month, Don't deny law school graduate fruits of his labor.

The Florida Supreme Court should see the waste and arbitrariness of allowing a law school graduate to make it this far only to be denied the full use of his achievements. And Americans, and Floridians in particular who enjoy the benefits of such a diverse state of immigrants, should recognize the costs of an immigration policy that denies millions the chance to give back to the communities where they are called friends and neighbors, fellow students and colleagues — and where they call home.

Here is the appendix to his Supreme Court brief, containing all his achievements, and more. This really says a lot about the sad state of our immigration laws:

As a high school sophomore, the petitioner was selected for a scholarship from McDonald's. However, McDonald's would not disburse the scholarship funds because he could not prove that he was a Florida resident. Ineligible for a driver's license or a state identification card, he was not able to receive the scholarship.

On April 4, the Florida Supreme Court designated the case high-profile due to the importance of the issue.

This is why we need the DREAM Act. Give Jose his bar card, he's earned it.

< Sunday Night Open Thread | Monday News and Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I find it absolutely amazing ... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 10:33:37 PM EST
    ... how friggin' petty and downright mean-spirited some people can be when it comes to the subject of immigration in this country.

    Jose Godinez-Samperio was brought to the United States as a child, and has been raised here. He's worked hard, was by all accounts a brilliant student, and will undoubtedly be a valuable asset to our nation.

    Jose's ties to Mexico were frayed a long time ago, and he no more belongs down there any more than two of my brothers-in-law, now in their mid-50s, who were similarly brought across the border undocumented by their parents when they were small boys back in the 1950s.

    At the very least, people who were brought to this country at a very young age (below age 10), and who've lived almost their whole lives here and are productive and loyal residents, need to be provided a clear pathway to citizenship. It's patently absurd to even consider otherwise.

    The Florida Supreme Court should congratulate Jose on his academic achievements, give him his bar card, and tell the GOP white-wing to give the anti-immigration schtick a rest.

    Aloha.

    I find it absolutely ridiculous (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:42:28 PM EST
    that liberals pretend it's not mean to cheat all those other people waiting on our immigration list by prioritizing illegal aliens ahead of those who are willing to abide by our laws.

    ...tell the GOP white-wing to give the anti-immigration schtick a rest.

    Sorry to bust your race baiting bubble, but it's not just white folk who believe we should stop giving amnesty to illegal aliens.

    Parent
    Quit harping about "liberals"... (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:49:53 PM EST
    ...it's a worn out schtick and I assure you we're bored of it, and unimpressed. I mean, truly, stop pretending you're a Democrat on this site or come up with a new bugaboo. If Third Way is not cutting you a check there's no good reason to continually obsess about "liberals" on this blog.

    that liberals pretend it's not mean to cheat all those other people waiting on our immigration list by prioritizing illegal aliens ahead of those who are willing to abide by our laws.

    This issue, as allegedly "mean" as the resolution may be, pales in comparison to the overall challenge of what to do with the millions of people in this country without valid visas. As concerned as everyone should be about "fairness" in the immigration process, there are bigger issues at play.

    Parent

    What's Third Way? (none / 0) (#71)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 12:01:32 AM EST
    Oh, hey, thanks for turning me on to them. Looks like interesting stuff.

    Parent
    Heartfelt best wishes to Jose (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:31:53 AM EST
    Isn't this the kind of guy we want practicing law in Florida? He is probably too good for Florida, however.

    the problem is (1.00 / 1) (#9)
    by nyjets on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    The problem is
    1. He is not an American citizen and he has been living in this country illegally for years. To let him practice law and stay in this country would essentially condone what happened (IOW what the Dream Act essentially does).
    2. This country can not handle any more people. When you have American citizens unable to find jobs, the last thing we need is more people coming and working in this country.


    Parent
    This country can't handle... (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:11:32 AM EST
    anymore cold-hearted counter-productive motherf*ckers who would send a kid who has been living here since age 9 to a country he doesn't know and can hardly remember...if you ask me.

    Even those with a hard on for immigration law realize it is senseless cruelty in the name of blindly following the rules...which is why the DREAM Act is so necessary, so the rules better reflect our supposed values and good nature.

    Parent

    Whose fault is it (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by nyjets on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:32:18 AM EST
    It is not the governments fault or responsibility that the kid has been living in this country illegally for years. It is the parents fault. Therefore, the parents have to fix the problem in another country.
    And tell me something. Is it not cruel for American citizens to be unable to find jobs because of non-American citizens who come to this country.

    Parent
    Punish the child... (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:40:52 AM EST
    for the "sins" of the parents.  If ya can even call it a sin...immigration policies the world over are the real sin.

    Ya want a job as a lawyer, be a better lawyer than this bright young man.  Meritocracy, what's wrong with that?

    Parent

    Why is this bright young lawyer (2.00 / 0) (#62)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:37:23 PM EST
    a higher priority for immigration amnesty than any other bright young person whose parents didn't drag them into this country?

    Parent
    Oh, honestly! There are times ... (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 02:18:47 PM EST
    ... when I hear thoughtless comments about immigration like yours that make me terribly embarrassed to to be a white man.

    What part of "Jose's been living here since the age of 9" do you NOT understand? And really, jets, whose job would he be taking away in this case -- yours?

    You want to be tough on illegal immigration?

    Then you need to support efforts to find and punish those capitalists who profit illegally from their exploitation of the undocumented, and not be so mindless as to believe that it's somehow sound and compelling policy to deport high school / college students and young adults who came here as children, and thus really know of no place else.

    To emphasize the latter in lieu of the former is profoundly hypocritical, unnecessarily cruel and pointlessly nativist, and I'd really like to think that as a nation, we can aspire to be better than that.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    not relevant (1.00 / 1) (#34)
    by nyjets on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 02:23:44 PM EST
    'What part of "Jose's been living here since the age of 9" do you NOT understand? And really, jets, whose job would he be taking away in this case -- yours?'
    As far as I am concerned that is not relevant. That just means he has been breaking the law since he has been 9.
    'Then you need to support efforts to find and punish those capitalists who profit illegally from their exploitation of the undocumented, ...'
    Actually if a company hires 'undocumented' immigrants I have always believed that they should be punished and fined. Harshly. 'undocumented' immigrants are 1/2 of the problem. Employers who hire them are the second half.

    Parent
    Eh. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 02:45:31 PM EST
    If Jose is still in the country when the bar makes its decision, and there's no citizenship requirement for the Florida bar (and/or overstaying a visa is a infraction on a level that usually prevents people from gaining admission to the bar), it's a no-brainer that he should gain admission. It seems that going by the letter of the law there'd simply no reason not to admit him -- the objections would be "common sense" not legal.

    Perhaps I'm wrong on this (along with the DREAM Bar Association), and if there's some text in the Florida bar requirements that specifically prevents him from gaining admission, I'd love to see it quoted.

    Now, if people want INS to go DEFCON 5 to try to kick him out of the country before that, they're welcome to do so and that would in fact stop Jose from gaining admission. But why, at this point?

    Parent

    Note: I meant "DEFCON 1" (none / 0) (#40)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:42:33 PM EST
    I'm through discussing this with you. (none / 0) (#39)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:40:30 PM EST
    Clearly, you're actively engaged in a conscious effort to rationalize your own pre-conceived notions concerning the subject of immigration, by repeatedly falling back upon the letter of the law to the preclusion of this country's immigrant spirit:

    "That is no excuse," replied Mr. Brownlow. "You were present on the occasion of the destruction of these trinkets, and indeed are the more guilty of the two, in the eye of the law; for the law supposes that your wife acts under your direction."

    "If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass -- a idiot. If that's the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is, that his eye may be opened by experience -- by experience."
    -- From Oliver Twist, Chapter 51 by Charles Dickens (1838)

    Aloha.


    Parent

    good One.... Too Full (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:34:38 AM EST
    First, this country is one of the least densely populated industrial countries.  We can handle many more, are you suggesting Americans stop having babies ?  Or does your 'too full' non-sense only apply to brown people ?

    And not to point out the obvious, but brown people are consumers, meaning they buy goods, which of course is good for companies that produce them, and in a sense, they help create jobs just as much as any white person who makes the same income.

    Secondly, what is your solution to children brought here by their parents, return to Mexico on their 18th birthday out of... not really sure why, so you can sleep better I suppose.  Who cares if they know anyone, might not even speak Spanish, and may actually have an established life here complete with obligations.  Soon as they are legally able to decide, they should always decide to leave in your book.

    And lastly, let me guess, you are a free market kinda guy, so long as those markets favor your team.  Can't have the brown man competing in the labor market, can we ?  That's a market you will never want free as it might leave you and your kind in the unemployment line unable to compete.

    How sad and convenient it must be to place our problems at the feet of others.  Like Newt blaming Fox for his campaign failures, stupid logic.  We are a mighty Nation who has never failed at absorbing and building on the backs of immigrants, it's too bad this new generation can't extend the same generosity to this generation of people in need.  

    I thank god every day aholes like you weren't living her when my ancestors decided to make a new life for themselves.  If only you could have have told your ancestors, "We don't have room, please leave."

    Parent

    Well said... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:49:05 AM EST
    regarding the free market...any free marketeer should be an open borders person, otherwise they are a flaming hypocrite.

    Capital is much more free to roam the earth in search of the best return, but once a laborer tries to do the same the handcuffs come out.  

    Parent

    No, kdog, being for free markets doesn't (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 01:32:03 PM EST
    mean the person must be for open borders.

    The two concepts aren't even closely related.

    Parent

    They are very closely related. (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    Nope (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    Being for free markets means that the markets are open within a certain framework.

    Open borders means that the country has no borders.

    How'd that work out for the Native Americans?

    Parent

    Apparently non sequiturs know no borders (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 02:08:32 PM EST
    Open borders means that the country has no borders.

    No, not at all. "Open borders" means there are no restrictions as far as mobility of people (i.e. labor -- which is where it ties into free trade and the free market).

    Borders are still relevant in terms of governance and the different sets of laws followed within the different borders.

    How'd that work out for the Native Americans?

    Poorly. But not necessarily out of keeping with a free market. That's a non sequiter historical example. No one ever said that the free market was always beneficial to every imaginable discrete set of people.

    I don't even know what to do with a free market proponent who doesn't recognize mobility of labor as related to the free market in a globalized economy. It's bewildering.

    Parent

    And I don't know what tp do with someone (1.50 / 2) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 02:20:18 PM EST
    who doesn't understand that

    open borders means the country has no boders

    Parent

    Where did you find that definition? It's wrong. (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by Addison on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    Shorter Jim: (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:27:22 PM EST
    "Why is everyone else here out of step, except for me?"

    Parent
    Shorter (none / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:58:39 PM EST
    Why do you feel the need to snark??

    Parent
    Thank you (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by sj on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:49:17 AM EST
    I'm not seeing red anymore.

    Parent
    I respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#18)
    by nyjets on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:54:40 AM EST
    'We can handle many more, are you suggesting Americans stop having babies ?  Or does your 'too full' non-sense only apply to brown people ?'
    Honestly, everyone needs to stop having babies. Overpopulation is a problem that is effecting everyone and we as a country are very close to that point. When you consider how many people in this country are jobless, the notion we can handle more population is silly

    You assume that I only want immigration restrictions for 'brown' people. That is not true, I am in favor of  immigration restrictions for everyone regardless of where they are from.

    'Who cares if they know anyone, might not even speak Spanish, and may actually have an established life here complete with obligations.  Soon as they are legally able to decide, they should always decide to leave in your book.'

    Again, that is not the problem or responsibility of the US.

    'Can't have the brown man competing in the labor market, can we ?'
    I do not want non-American citizens (regardless of where they are from) competing with American citizens.

    Lastly, I do not believe that all of our problems can be laid on the feet of immigrants. Immigration need greatly aid this country. That is no longer true.  We are no longer a growing nation. Our country has gotten as big as it can be. The government needs to take care of its own first. Then latter maybe we can consider relaxing restrictions on immigration.

    Parent

    We Have Had This Discussion Before (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 12:40:40 PM EST
    At what point is too many, click HERE for population densities, people per square mile.

    Just a few:
    Hong Kong 18,176
    United Kingdom 650
    Germany 609
    France 289
    Mexico 145
    United States 84
    Russia 22

    Unemployment rates HERE.

    United States and United Kingdom have the same unemployment rates, yet they are over 7 times more dense.  Hong Kong has a 3.5% unemployment rate and they are 216 times more dense.

    This data doesn't correlate with your opinion.  Density has nothing to do with unemployment.  Add in the fact that our main tangible exports are food staples, rice, wheat, soybeans and it's clear this country can sustain a lot more people.  

    We aren't even close to being full.

    And to be honest, I have posted these numbers to your ridiculous claims before and you still are making them.  So it's clear that no amount of logic will change your unfounded belief that the US is full, nor will change your opinion in that immigrants are to blame for... not sure how far you think this goes, but definitely unemployment.

    I could go back and look up immigration/emigration rates and compare it to unemployment rates, but I shouldn't have to prove you are wrong, like I did with density, you should source your claims with facts or not make them.

    Parent

    One More Note (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 12:51:41 PM EST
    If every living soul in Mexico emigrated here our density would 115 people/sq mile.

    Which of course would still leave us with lower densities then most industrialized nations.

    Parent

    Quick, open the gates! (1.00 / 0) (#60)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:31:27 PM EST
    Someone could make a lot of money off all those people. They're CONSUMERS, doncha know? Just imagine how much investors, I mean job creators, could be making if we had a hundred million more people here. At last, a sound economic way to drive down wages and rid our economy of those pesky child labor and workplace safety laws...

    /snark


    Parent

    Scott, it has nothing to do with the (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 01:44:51 PM EST
    numbers of people per sq mile.

    And the world has changed.

    For 90% of our history we needed people to settle our farm land and work in our factories. Wave after wave came here and were absorbed and moved upward in society.

    That was good. But in addition to there being land and jobs there was an understanding that the new people would not be XXX-American, but Americans.

    That has changed. There are very few factory jobs and no new farms to bring to life. In addition the ghettos are locked in place by newspapers and radios in the immigrants language. And we also have the problem of "leaders" wanting the new immigrants to remain dependent on them rather than learning the language and no longer needing the "leaders" to tell them what to do.

    So what to do? Pretty simple. First, close the borders and keep'em closed. The illegal immigrants here should be offered green cards and allowed to apply for citizenship. Catch and deport anyone who comes here illegally after the borders are closed.

    Parent

    Why is it, that every time ... (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:20:25 PM EST
    ... you utter the phrase "pretty simple," that my eyes involuntarily roll upward, in tandem with the palms of my hands and the shrug of my shoulders? Your "solutions" are often glib, at best.

    As for the argument that newly-arrived immigrants who live among their own kind and continue to speak their own native languages will subsequently refuse or fail to learn English, well, that's nothing but a right-wing canard.

    The hard truth of the matter is that immigrants to this country have most always preferred to settle among their own kind, at least initially. How do you think we ended up with places like "Little Italy" and "Chinatown" in places such as New York and San Francisco?

    Further, it generally takes at least one generation for English to become firmly established within immigrant families as the first language of choice. That's why up until perhaps 15 years ago, the second biggest Polish-speaking city in the world -- after Warsaw -- was Chicago, given the sheer number of Polish immigrants who settled there after the Second World War.

    My own paternal great-great grandparents emigrated from the Schleswig-Holstein region in northern Germany to northeastern Illinois in the late 1880s. From what I've learned from my family, they spoke mostly German until they died 40-something years later, and their English was broken at best. They read German-language newspapers, listened to German-language radio broadcasts from both Chicago and Milwaukee, and attended German-language church services on Sunday, as did most of their immigrant friends in the surrounding area. But they did make sure that their own children learned English.

    My great-grandmother -- who was 2 years old when she came to this country with her parents and two older brothers -- spoke only German when she began school in a literal German "kindergarten," but eventually came to speak English fluently -- albeit, as I would remember her, with a pronounced clip of an accent.

    My grandmother's primary language was English, and although she understood German as spoken by her parents and grandparents, she consciously chose not to speak it unless it was spoken to her first. She was in kindergarten when the First World War broke out, and she quickly learned from seeing the manner in which her own grandparents were treated that speaking German was not tolerated well by the WASPs in the neighboring communities toward Lake Michigan.

    My father, his brothers and his cousins were the first generation of our family that could be considered English-exclusive. Ironically, he later had to learn German as a young military officer, when the Marine Corps assigned him to an embassy post in Bonn, West Germany. He subsequently delighted his grandmother (my great-grandmother) upon his return to the States, by being able to converse with her in her native language.

    While I admit that my own family's multi-generational experience is entirely anecdotal, I seriously doubt that it's really all that much different from the collective experiences of other American families with European forebears. Why then, given that experience, would we seek to hold immigrants of color to a more rigorous double standard?

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Donald (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 04:02:52 PM EST
    Just to add, my best friend through high school had his non-speaking grandma living with them.  She was German as well, second generation I believe.

    The really cool thing is my friend, who loved prank phone calls, used to call my college German teacher up when we got drunk occasionally and scream at him in German.  It provided a lot of comic relieve to a nearly failing German descendant(me) who could never grasp the language in college.

    Jim is once again doing what he always does, claiming his opinions are somehow facts.  As if we only let people in this country to settle farm land and work in factories.  That's one of those great 1950's area misnomers or idealism or something conservatives want to be true to make their pointless, point.  And even if that were remotely true, that would mean Jim would be cool with allowing anyone coming here with the intention of migratory work, citizenship.  Sure.

    All his fuss about language, well here in Houston, language isn't much of a barrier, if anything I feel like the non-assimilator for not leaning theirs beyond about 100 common words.  You know those dirty Mexicans who were here long before us.  Why are the conservatives the only ones who this seems to drive nuts.  Is he offended when the operator speaks in Spanish for like 3 seconds.  He hates immigrants so I assume he doesn't hang with them, when does language become something beyond an abstract notion of what makes an American ?

    Parent

    Scott, have you ever thought about reading before (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 04:23:17 PM EST
    engaging keyboards.

    What about the following don't you understand?

    So what to do? Pretty simple. First, close the borders and keep'em closed. The illegal immigrants here should be offered green cards and allowed to apply for citizenship. Catch and deport anyone who comes here illegally after the borders are closed
    .

    But you know Scott, at one point I would try and explain things to you but when I read this I was convinced it would be impossible:

    All his fuss about language, well here in Houston, language isn't much of a barrier, if anything I feel like the non-assimilator for not leaning theirs beyond about 100 common words.

    Scott. Go to GoogleEarth and find Houston. Note how small it is in relation to the rest of the country. Also notice that it is in the USA where the vast majority of social and commerce is transacted in English.

    Parent

    Why ? (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 09:27:04 AM EST
    Why do you care ?  According to you this is done in the ghettos, and I suspect you don't live in one, so what do you care if people speak Spanish ?  I hear it all the time and it doesn't bother me, doesn't bother millions of people, why does the language of other bother you so much ?

    Keep in mind, it's the language of 1 in 6 people in the United States, or about 50 Million people.  A language native to Texas, ditto with a lot of the population.

    Man, I am like in love with you "Social Liberal" views on culture. And again Jim, being a sliver to the left of Fox News isn't liberal, not matter how many times they tell you it is.

    Parent

    If Spanish is "native" to TX... (none / 0) (#55)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 12:39:31 PM EST
    ...then English is also. Just sayin.

    Parent
    Well (1.00 / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    It was was the Texas settlers who lived there because they were illegal aliens in Mexican territory, so actually Spanish is the native tongue..... (yes, Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie were illegals).

    Parent
    jb, the "native" tongues in TX are (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:17:39 PM EST
    Apache, Comanche, Caddo, etc. The name "Texas" itself is supposedly derived from a Caddo word.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 03:58:36 PM EST
    But I don't know the reason for Angel's "1" rating - is it possible that s/he does not know or understand history and know that one of the biggest reasons for the Mexican-American War. (I put Wiki up so you can use it as a starting point and learn some basic history).

    Here's some more:

    Immigration was clearly unwanted in Texas. Spain attempted to connect Texas and New Mexico with improved roads. In the mid-1790s the Spanish placed a permanent unit of troops at Nacogdoches to discourage illegal immigration. On August 27, 1796, Pedro de Nava issued an order forbidding the entrance of any immigrant into Texas, including citizens of Louisiana, without a passport. The Spanish were worried that immigrants would disrupt the relationship between Spanish settlers in and Indian tribes.

    In spite of these restrictions, Anglo-Americans as early as 1815 settled on the Red River north of present-day Clarksville, naming the settlement Jonesborough. In 1816, other colonists settled at Pecan Point, south of the Red River. Many of these immigrants were slaveholders traveling from Arkansas. They developed a strong bond because of their isolation and frequent exposure to Indian attacks, allowing for the quick formation of volunteer troops to fight in the Texas Revolution twenty years later.

    The National Colonization Law of August 18, 1824 failed to prohibit slavery and allowed Anglo-American immigration but favored Mexican immigrants from the south, soldiers and nomadic Texas tribes by giving them priority in acquiring land. Between 1821 and 1835, forty-one land contracts permitted 13,500 families, mostly Anglo-Americans, to settle in Texas. Stephen F. Austin received one of the first grants to establish a colony in Texas on August 1823. Two thousand settlers settled in the new colony that stretched from the east coast of Texas to La Grange. Green DeWitt established a colony centered at Gonzalez. Another colony to the southeast of Austin's colony belonged to Martín de León. By 1828, Austin had signed four contracts to settle 1200 families in Texas.

    Anglos also entered Texas illegally, fleeing from the law or debts in the United States, and hoping for a new start.

    So, my statement was true - whether you call them "Anglos", "Texans" or "Texians", Mexico considered them to be there illegally and tried many things to keep them out (including, yes again, Davy Crockett and Jim Bowie).

    I find the irony amazing.

    Parent

    I figured Angel wasn't (none / 0) (#72)
    by jbindc on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 03:56:29 PM EST
    Wow - from ... (none / 0) (#48)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 04:54:55 PM EST
    "Why do you feel the need to snark", to this post in just minutes!

    Parent
    More From Jim's... (none / 0) (#38)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    ...'Social Liberal' non-sense.  Just so you get it, this is a social issue and you are clearly taking a conservative view point.  Maybe not the most conservative one available, but that doesn't make it liberal.

    Not to mention that is one big huge opinion piece with no factual basis.  We get it, you don't like immigrants and their apparent reluctance to assimilate to your satisfaction.  Even though they are forced by our current policies to live out of society.  But quit trying to justify it with unfounded 'facts' and utter non-sense about farm land and factories.  I am positive you would still hate them if they spoke perfect English.

    If what you say is true, you should be able to qualify and/or quantify it.

    Parent

    Donald, spare me the family history (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 04:16:38 PM EST
    Years and years ago the new immigrant could not easily visit the "old country." Letters were slow and native language newspapers were rare. Plus, society pushed new arrivals to learn English and assimilation was the goal.

    Not true any more. Plus, new immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, find themselves concentrated in groups and "community leaders" then claim to speak for them.

    And please.

    Why then, given that experience, would we seek to hold immigrants of color to a more rigorous double standard?

    Why are you playing the race card? This has nothing to do with color any more than the illegal immigrants can do anything about their color.

    The Irish were white. Mexicans are largely brown. So what.

    BTW - One of my great grandmothers was Creek Indian. So I don't claim to have come over and landed at Plymouth Rock.

    ;-)

    Parent

    "community leaders" (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 04:36:01 PM EST
    there have always been community leaders. Switch off the Angry White Man radio, and read up a little more on, for instance, the history of the Irish-American, Italian-American, and Jewish-American neighborhoods, or "communities" (to use a word you don't like), in NYC in the first half of the 19th century..

    Rush, Savage, Hannity, O'Reilly and co. have been terrorizing you with "foreign", "multicultural" boogiemen, (who supposedly come here and automatically get welfare and foodstamps and vote Democrat) and all you're doing is feeding into your own and others paranoia.

    Parent

    is if there were that mature (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 04:53:57 PM EST
    a culture here to assimilate into to begin with..

    And what new arrival trying to avoid making waves
    would go out of their way to avoid learning english? That makes no sense whatsoever. Except in the paranoid, xenophobic world of Fox and wingnut talk radio, in which all these furners are coming here to force red-blooded Americans to be like them.. Next step Sharia Law and mandatory Dead of the Dead celebrations, folks! (with Your daughter in the arms of some swarthy..)

    Parent

    jondee can't read, either (1.00 / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 07:00:33 PM EST
    That has changed. There are very few factory jobs and no new farms to bring to life. In addition the ghettos are locked in place by newspapers and radios in the immigrants language. And we also have the problem of "leaders" wanting the new immigrants to remain dependent on them rather than learning the language and no longer needing the "leaders" to tell them what to do.

    Here's an example:

    Busby said she was invited to the forum at the Jocelyn Senior Center in Escondido by the leader of a local soccer league. Many of the 50 or so people there were Spanish speakers. Toward the end, a man in the audience asked in Spanish: "I want to help, but I don't have papers."

    It was translated and Busby replied: "Everybody can help, yeah, absolutely, you can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help."

    Link

    Parent

    It's just that you rarely post (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 07:10:58 PM EST
    anything worth reading..

    And of course, again, you end with the standard paranoid note that Jim always eventually circles back to: liberals signing up minorities to outvote the hard-working, teabagging white men and women who once made this country great..    

    Parent

    Office Space (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 09:01:09 AM EST
    I am reminded time and time again when a certain person keeps claiming I can't read, or I am immature, or whatever dingle-berry is used to avoid any actual proof beyond regurgitated Fox News blather:
    Tom Smykowski: Well look, I already told you! I deal with the goddamn customers so the engineers don't have to! I have people skills! I am good at dealing with people! Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?


    Parent
    Bwahaha! (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Zorba on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 01:35:35 PM EST
    Okay, Scott, you may well owe me a new keyboard- I just guffawed and spit Diet Coke on it!  Well played, sir, well played!

    Parent
    Office Space Clip (5.00 / 0) (#66)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 03:07:56 PM EST
    Here's the quote in context in case you haven't seen the movie.
    YouTube CLIP.

    Parent
    spare him the family history (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 05:19:01 PM EST
    or any history, for that matter.

    Parent
    You're the one being ridiculous. (none / 0) (#59)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:20:32 PM EST
    The world is too overpopulated already.

    Parent
    How is "overpopulation" determined? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Addison on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:32:01 PM EST
    There is a problem (none / 0) (#63)
    by sj on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 02:37:30 PM EST
    with population.  But the greater problem is distribution.  I once heard in a sermon that the greatest true blasphemy was that people starve while food rots in silos.  I've sat through many forgotten sermons.  I've never forgotten that one.

    Parent
    And Geography/Migration (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by ScottW714 on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 03:47:56 PM EST
    We have small areas that hold the world's food supply and people who live in places that won't support any meaningful substance.

    But that doesn't relate to immigration in regards to Mexicans migrating to the US.  Of course the world is over populated, it's one big Easter Island and we keep chopping.  But beyond making kids illegal, there isn't much we can do about it.

    But I was never arguing about adding more people on the planet, just some migrating from one spot to another.  And I was told 'we are full', which is subjective.  So the only way I know of getting any meaningful value would be to see if other countries are less/more full.  Where do we fit on the curve.

    Turns out we are empty compared to most; that all the talk of being full simply isn't true in any sense.

    Parent

    Yes, there are droves of Mexican lawyers (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:50:19 AM EST
    sneaking in to steal jobs from American lawyers.

    I'd rather make him an American citizen than deport him at this point in his life. He grew up here. though no intent of his own. This is his home.

    Parent

    I'm very tired of people (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by CST on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:48:50 AM EST
    being portrayed as collateral damage in this whole immigration war.  Oh, it sucks for them, but that's the breaks, blah blah.

    These are human beings we're talking about.

    Parent

    Ah (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:40:10 AM EST
    There are too many lawyers period. He should have gone to medical school!

    Parent
    And how about those Cuban-American (none / 0) (#20)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:48:30 AM EST
    lawyers??

    Parent
    I think there's a difference (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 10:31:12 AM EST
    Between say, a 35 year old coming here and overstaying his visa, and someone brought here as a child, through no decision of his own.  Yes, he could have returned to Mexico when he turned 18, but does that seem reasonable - to send someone who has grown up here and doesn't know anything about Mexico anymore back there?

    Parent
    If there are no rules that prohibit (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 04:21:38 PM EST
    him from taking the bar test, and no rules that say a foreign citizen can't be a member of the bar if they pass the test, he should be allowed to proceed.

    one question: (none / 0) (#1)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 10:18:06 PM EST
    does admission the florida bar require that you be a citizen of the united states? if so, i believe the answer is self-evident. unfortunate, but self-evident still.

    No you do not (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 10:23:58 PM EST
    have to be a citizen

    Not a citizen of the United States:

        Provide a photocopy of the immigration document that documents your status for submission to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for verification of authenticity. The USCIS has indicated a copy of these documents may be made to the board for submission to USCIS, regardless of the statement prohibiting copying of these documents. For more information on how to obtain copies of immigration documents or duplication of these documents, visit the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website.



    Parent
    So he's not exactly undocumented (none / 0) (#4)
    by Towanda on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 11:06:13 PM EST
    as he has documentation of his tourist visa -- his lapsed status?

    It seems a conundrum if he truly is undocumented, since the bar asks for documents.  That is, he did not enter the country illegally.  Instead, he has stayed in the country illegally.

    And so, he does have documentation.  And the bar does not, in these rules, specifically require currently legal status.  

    I hope that I've grasped the situation of his documentation?  Interesting case (and inspiring guy) that we can hope goes well and has impact elsewhere.  (I'm reminded of a case where I live of an excellent cop who turned out to be in this situation and was turned out of the force -- despite a lot of high-ups speaking for him.)

    Parent

    given the known, public requirement, (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 11:08:35 PM EST
    again the answer is self-evident. again unfortunate, but self-evident still. that his undocumented status was publicly stated doesn't, by itself, create estoppel on the bar association from enforcement of their rules for admission.

    i realize this is a situation initially placed on him by his parents, and i am sympathetic. however, upon turning 18, he could have (so the argument will go) returned to his native country and sought admission through official channels, thus obviating the documents issue. yes, terribly unfair, but life isn't fair.

    Parent

    But in This Case... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 01:18:10 PM EST
    ...it could be, one rule change (court decision) could make life for this man fair in regards to being able to perform the duties of his profession.

    I hate the "Life is Unfair" argument, because while true, it's always used(not by you) by the right to justify their idiotically unfair rules.

    Never hear "Life is Unfair" claim when they talk about the rich getting progressively taxed, quit the opposite, then it "Unfair to Tax the Rich Disproportionately."

    Life is unfair but we need not make rules to ensure it can't be.  There is no reason to require citizenship (or documentation) to practice law in Florida if one can pass the test.

    I find it mildly amusing that a person is denied access to the FBA because he is not a citizen, yet he can take his case to the state's supreme court.

    Parent

    It does seem, though (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Tue Apr 17, 2012 at 04:01:07 PM EST
    That the "Not a citizen" requirement put out by the Florida Bar means that a resident alien, i.e. someone here legally, can obtain a Florida law license.

    I don't know if you can read into that statement that an "undocumented" person can do so.

    Parent

    In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court declared (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Peter G on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 11:10:47 PM EST
    back in 1973 (In re Griffiths) that it is unconstitutional, in violation of Equal Protection, for a state to exclude non-citizens (there, a lawful resident alien) from Bar membership.

    Parent
    good for the USSC, (none / 0) (#7)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 03:44:03 AM EST
    sadly, the case you cite has no relevance to the issue at hand, as the specific problem appears to be not lack of citizenship, but lack of documentation. i expect that may be why this is still a problem for the young man, because your case cite has no bearing on his problem.

    however, as noted by a poster above, the individual does have documentation, just expired documentation. so, that goes into heavy duty hair splitting. i shall be interested to see how this case resolves itself.

    Parent

    Cool your jets, CP (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Peter G on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 11:51:14 AM EST
    The case I cited is not determinative, but it is far from "irrelevant."  I was responding to the question to which I attached my response (imagine that!), which asked whether one had to be a citizen of the U.S. to become a member of the Florida Bar.

    Parent
    Anyone can take the bar, but... (none / 0) (#52)
    by diogenes on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 09:55:58 PM EST
    Maybe anyone can take the bar, but one must be "documented" in order to avoid deportation.  
    It isn't as if this country needs more lawyers anyway.  The unemployment rate among newly graduated lawyers is quite high.