If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   CA mandates that illegal immigrants, shining examples of abiding by the law, be issued a license to practice it. 1st beneficiary of the new law snuck in at 17 and faked papers. Bonus: not one instance of the word "illegal" in the article or headline   ( latimes.com) divider line
    More: Stupid, California Courts, illegal immigrants, individual mandate, Sergio Garcia, University of San Francisco, law license, civil litigation, Wagstaffe  
•       •       •

1157 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Jan 2014 at 7:20 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-01-03 01:14:52 AM  
7 votes:
As a descendent of Irish immigrants, go f*ck yourself, hillbilly.

I'll hire the wetback attorney who fought to get and stay here over Harvard boy any day of the week.

Why? He'll actually give a f*ck about my case and not rape me over the price.
2014-01-03 01:35:58 AM  
6 votes:
1. Kid came over at 17 months, Dad is legal, son is waiting on his green card.  In the meantime, he's not allowed to work, so he goes to school.

2. The ruling says that being in violation of this particular federal law is not reason enough to prevent him from being admitted to the bar.

3.  The article makes it perfectly clear that he's not here legally.  Anyone with a 6th grade or higher reading level will have zero problem understanding that.
2014-01-03 08:43:10 AM  
5 votes:
I'd rather have illegal Mexicans than teabaggers any day. Illegal Mexicans love America.
2014-01-03 07:25:17 AM  
4 votes:

qorkfiend: Is there some reason that law licenses should be restricted to citizens only?

There does seem to be a general consensus that if you're going to be an officer of the court and sworn to uphold the law, you ought not to be in violation of it and have a history of deliberately flouting the law.
2014-01-03 08:44:32 AM  
2 votes:
As somebody who did the whole visa/green card/citizenship path the long, hard way, going to every INS interview, presenting every paper, paying every fee, and working damned hard for the legal right to be here, I say...

...I'm OK with this.

The whole immigration system is just a ridiculous bureaucratic mess. Yes, they are here "illegally"... not because they broke any basic moral precept, but purely because they didn't follow an arbitrary paper trail. On any objective scale, the "wrong" that they have done is right up there with rolling through a Stop sign when there was no traffic around apart from that one cop car that saw you do it.

So yes, I know, some idiot will be along any moment now to pretend that I'm saying that if this law isn't important then no law is important (seen that); or that you can't be selective about the law or you are "rewarding" crime (hint: if you ever committed a traffic offense and the cop let you off with a warning, you already benefited from the law being selective); or that we might as well throw open the borders to criminals and terrorists (scare much?). I'm used to that. Basically, if your argument boils down to "It's illegal because it's illegal", then resorting to hyperbole is probably all you have left.

Also, the whole "they should pay a fine, leave the country, and go to the back of the queue" thing is complete nonsense. If I were to say that somebody who got a speeding ticket should lose their license and go to the back of the queue to get a new one, you would very reasonably say "that's ridiculous, it's completely out of proportion to the offense. And besides, there is no 'queue' for driving licenses, so what does that even mean?". And I would reply: "Precisely."
2014-01-03 07:46:58 AM  
2 votes:
People aren't illegal, you racist coont.
2014-01-03 03:19:34 PM  
1 vote:

UrukHaiGuyz: jjorsett: 1) Is there any right enjoyed by citizens that should be denied to non-citizens, particularly those who are in violation of the law by being here?

2) Should the US have any restrictions whatsoever on immigration, and if so, should they be enforced, and if so, how?

3) Should you ask any more ridiculously pants-on-head leading questions?

No. No, you shouldn't.

Given that those questions are neutral in tone and would be simple to answer, that's a very defensive response. I'm guessing that if you were to be honest, you'd say 1) No and 2) No.
2014-01-03 11:48:45 AM  
1 vote:
A shining example of why citizenship should not be a birthright, but earned.  You get all the normal rights & privileges normally associated with citizenship regardless of your documentation status, right up until you turn 18, then you get to convince the rest of us that you're allowed to stay on the island.  Good luck!

Fine print: Since there is nowhere left to deport you, failure to complete citizenship requirements in a reasonable amount of time will result in your euthanasia.  Can't have you moochin'

2014-01-03 10:58:56 AM  
1 vote:

karnal: qorkfiend: serial_crusher: Debeo Summa Credo: Seems to me a good way to raise the market wage for lawful US working class residents (something liberals would like) would be to deport the illegals (something conservatives would like but liberals oppose).

Yup, clever conspiracy from the Democrats.  Bring more illegals in to work for slave wages.  Mandate untenable wages for legals, thus creating pressure on businesses to hire illegals instead.  Basically the same con they've been running since 1861

Are we deliberately ignoring the fact that deportations are at a record high under this administration?

Also, lol @ "untenable wages".

Yeah, but he still blames Bush.

uhhh... actually deportations are at an all time low for citizens who have made it to america... Border Patrol deportations are up massively due to enforcement which is what everyone asked for. secure borders and immigration reform for those already here and established.
2014-01-03 09:50:19 AM  
1 vote:

MetryPapi: It has been said, but can never be repeated enough.

People are not illegal . . . their actions may be, but fundamentally a person or people should never be classified as legal or illegal.

When you kill someone intentionally, you are a murderer . . . not an illegal.

When you go past the speed limit, you are a scofflaw . . . not an illegal.

When you enter a country undocumented, you are an undocumented person . . . not illegal.

By your addition of an before Illegal you have transfered the word into a noun.  This removes the verb definition and allows for the noun to be defined by context, in this case an illegal is an undocumented immigrant.  Yes you can be an illegal.
2014-01-03 09:40:09 AM  
1 vote:

Pokey.Clyde: GoldSpider: Precisely. People don't understand that they would have a more compelling argument against illegal aliens if the naturalization process was made more reasonable.

More reasonable? You do realize that the U.S. is the easiest place in the world to legally immigrate to, don't you?

Yeah, waiting nearly 20 years for a green card (Garcia's petition was accepted by the government in 1995) sounds totally reasonable.
2014-01-03 08:36:36 AM  
1 vote:
It seems subby is full of envy this morning.  Having to look on someone who loved freedom so much that against all odds has done more with less than maybe subby has done their whole life.

History is not on those like subby's side.  This has happened before and they have lost every time.  If subby is a person of faith as I am then they know even God is not on their side.  As the great MLK said, the arch of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.  The defeat of the radical right is nigh, I can feel it.  The defeat of the monied oligarchy that has sought to disenfranchise voters and blame the poor for miseries they caused, is nigh.  The American people are about to break the backbone of their power.

2014-01-03 08:29:49 AM  
1 vote:

Ivandrago: Three Crooked Squirrels: 2) that they have been screened for character and fitness.  As for whether he meets the character and fitness requirements, my personal opinion is that the screening is in place to try to screen out people likely to fleece their clients, which doesn't seem to apply to a person simply because the are living in the US illegally.*

*I think the argument could be made that there is a higher likelihood that they could abscond with a client's money.  My guess is that the argument was made, considered and rejected.

I told them everything when I did my character and fitness, including when I got kicked off campus and told I couldn't live in the dorms anymore when my undergrad roommate ratted on me for smoking pot in my dorm room. I have no idea how this guy passed character and fitness because they asked for everywhere I'd ever lived. I even had to give them my APO's for those two years I spent in Iraq.

I don't pretend to know how he passed, but he did.  CSB - one of my law school classmates got arrested a few times in law school.  A DUI and unpaid child support, I think.  He was law review, so he was no dummy, but when he applied for the bar (either in OK or TX, not sure which one), he was told to stay clean and reapply in one year.  Basically given a one year period to prove he got his act together.  He did, and reapplied and passed the bar.  His first job was with Enron.  I always thought it was kind of funny that the one guy I knew that had problems with character and fitness was hired out of the box by Enron.
2014-01-03 07:43:03 AM  
1 vote:
But if they are allowed to get a driver's license then they might also get insurance.  If that happens it might eliminate or reduce the problem of unlicensed and uninsured undocumented motorists getting in at fault wrecks and the victim being screwed.  That "issue" is a great fund raiser for the GOP to scare money out of xenophobic constituents.
2014-01-03 07:35:37 AM  
1 vote:

KIA: qorkfiend: Is there some reason that law licenses should be restricted to citizens only?

There does seem to be a general consensus that if you're going to be an officer of the court and sworn to uphold the law, you ought not to be in violation of it and have a history of deliberately flouting the law.

Looks like we found derpmitter.
2014-01-03 07:35:12 AM  
1 vote:
"snuck in at 17 and faked papers"

Wow, I didn't know that 17 month old children were capable of sneaking across the border and forging their own papers! Do go on!
2014-01-03 07:32:24 AM  
1 vote:

KIA: qorkfiend: Is there some reason that law licenses should be restricted to citizens only?

There does seem to be a general consensus that if you're going to be an officer of the court and sworn to uphold the law, you ought not to be in violation of it and have a history of deliberately flouting the law.

He wasn't being excluded on that basis, so those aren't particularly germane to the discussion.
2014-01-03 03:06:01 AM  
1 vote:
He's as much of an American as I am, except he's better educated and has probably taken a terrible career path. But still, deal with it. He's an American.

And "17", subby? Nice comment / green light bait.
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.