Celebrating 10 years! 2007-2017

Dreamers want bar admission?

Okay, let me get this straight. Committing crimes...particu qdllc05/24/18
lie repeatedly? how does a minor do that when they have no d legalbeagle05/24/18
I worked on DACA. There was a lot of fraud there. I saw a lo karma05/24/18
"Now people who came here illegally, lied repeatedly to avoi therewillbeblood05/24/18
It would be nice to know what a Dreamer is before you critic trollfeeder05/24/18
That's easy. "Dreamer" is one of the newer pc terms for an " cacrimdefense05/25/18
Being saddled with six figures of debt and the JD albatross 6figuremistake05/24/18
She should have been more prudent about becoming a citizen. junkwired05/24/18
A state supreme court can license someone to practice law. T onehell05/24/18
Being in the US without authorization IS a crime. A civil m qdllc05/25/18
SCOTUS disagrees with you: https://www.supremecourt.gov/ onehell05/25/18
"Being in the US without authorization IS a crime." Incor dieter05/25/18
LOL..the only tax returns I ever saw during my immigration w karma05/25/18
How does this work for foreign LLM students? LLM students g hairypalms05/24/18
You've got it. The LLM might qualify to take the bar if the onehell05/24/18
Bar admission is not exclusive to us citizens. A ton of fore pisces21305/25/18
This is like the illegal aliens who buy real estate here. Th isthisit05/25/18
Like pisces213 said, not everyone who wants a license in a U onehell05/25/18
1. Sure, that's very possible but now we're putting the want isthisit05/25/18
A DACA doctor recently made news on Yahoo. bizzybone131305/25/18
And...? Wouldn’t you rather have illegal immigrants workin jorgedeclaro05/25/18
Liberal agenda: -make the NY bar (the primary internation kragoth133705/26/18
kragoth1337 don’t even know where to begin in responding l pisces21305/26/18
Pisces213: "The immigration law as it is prevents foreign kragoth133705/26/18
Since you've expanded the discussion to general immigration pisces21305/27/18
"First, of course there are states where marrying a local do kragoth133705/27/18

qdllc (May 24, 2018 - 11:36 am)

Okay, let me get this straight. Committing crimes...particularly of fraud...tend to stop one from admission to the state bar.

Now people who came here illegally, lied repeatedly to avoid detection, and still don’t have a legal right to be here want admission to practice law?

This nation is done if this goes through.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dreamers-getting-law-degrees-taking-system-041340099.html

Reply Like (0)
legalbeagle (May 24, 2018 - 12:06 pm)

lie repeatedly? how does a minor do that when they have no decisions about whether they came to this country as a child? they all have at least a GED and continue to study and have neer been convicted of a crime, 3 or more misdemeanors etc.

Reply Like (0)
karma (May 24, 2018 - 8:26 pm)

I worked on DACA. There was a lot of fraud there. I saw a lot of fake social security numbers on applications. A lot of them were teenagers who came alone. Some DACA recipients are now 40 years old. And as far as the GEDs-well, let's just say the diploma mills advertising high school diplomas for $99 online got a huge, huge windfall from DACA.

God knows how much taxes were raised on legitimate taxpayers (you know, the US Citizens who file taxes and aren't paid under the table) to pay for all of those ESL classes for the "dreamers."

Reply Like (0)
therewillbeblood (May 24, 2018 - 12:25 pm)

"Now people who came here illegally, lied repeatedly to avoid detection, and still don’t have a legal right to be here want admission to practice law?"

You really have absolutely no clue about immigration law or DACA, do you...

Reply Like (0)
trollfeeder (May 24, 2018 - 12:20 pm)

It would be nice to know what a Dreamer is before you criticize a policy connected with them.

Reply Like (0)
cacrimdefense (May 25, 2018 - 12:02 am)

That's easy. "Dreamer" is one of the newer pc terms for an "illegal alien" (but not as new as "immigrant"). More specifically, someone who has no business being in the country, but came in as a minor (before age 16, I believe) and has managed to successfully avoid deportation for a number of years.

Our current and previous president see some sort of merit or utility in rewarding the families of illegal aliens for evading detection or the clutches of law enforcement, and therefore desire to reward them by throwing an amnesty in the direction of the children in the family.

That is not how the concept is marketed, but that's the reality.

Reply Like (0)
6figuremistake (May 24, 2018 - 12:39 pm)

Being saddled with six figures of debt and the JD albatross around one's neck may be incentive enough to leave the US

Reply Like (0)
junkwired (May 24, 2018 - 1:14 pm)

She should have been more prudent about becoming a citizen. 0 sympathy.

Reply Like (0)
onehell (May 24, 2018 - 1:26 pm)

A state supreme court can license someone to practice law. That doesn't change their immigration status in any way. In the case of DACA, they have work authorization already.

And even if they aren't DACA recipients, people have got to get it through their heads that merely being in this country without authorization is not in and of itself a crime. It's a civil matter which DHS may or may not choose to pursue.

Sure, if you stole someone else's social security number to get a job or something that's different, but contrary to popular belief most of them don't do that. They find employers who are willing to look the other way (which is on the employer, not the employee) or they work as independent contractors, which is actually fine as long as they pay their taxes, which they can do under an ITIN rather than an SSN. In fact, people filing tax returns under an ITIN pay the same taxes as everyone else but don't draw the same benefits, like social security, so in a sense they contribute more than a citizen does.

In theory, even without DACA, a person could be licensed as an attorney and hang a shingle. No one is employing them; they are independent contractors for each of their clients. So long as they pay their taxes as above, they would be committing no crime. DHS could commence removal proceedings at any time, but that's a civil matter.

Reply Like (0)
qdllc (May 25, 2018 - 7:13 am)

Being in the US without authorization IS a crime. A civil matter only involves a fine. Being here illegally = arrest, detention and deportation. Incarceration is omitted only because it’s preferable to send a person back where they came from rather than pay to house and care for them in the prison system.

Reply Like (0)
onehell (May 25, 2018 - 11:36 am)

SCOTUS disagrees with you:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

"Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. . .

Also: "Congress has since enacted its own restrictions on employers who hire illegal aliens, 8 U. S. C. §1324a, in legislation that also includes some civil (but no criminal) penalties on illegal aliens who accept unlawful employment. The Court concludes from this (reasonably enough) “that Congress made a deliberate choice not to impose criminal penalties on aliens who seek,or engage in, unauthorized employment.”

Reply Like (0)
dieter (May 25, 2018 - 12:14 pm)

"Being in the US without authorization IS a crime."

Incorrect. If it were a crime, aliens would be entitled to representation at state expense during removal proceedings. They are not, because EOIR proceedings are administrative, not criminal.

Reply Like (0)
karma (May 25, 2018 - 11:11 pm)

LOL..the only tax returns I ever saw during my immigration work on DACA was when the parents filed for the tax credit, claiming such things as their annual income was 6K, they had 5+ dependents, and they got presumably got a very hefty check from the IRS because of the earned income tax credit on kids!

Reply Like (0)
hairypalms (May 24, 2018 - 6:04 pm)

How does this work for foreign LLM students? LLM students get admitted to US LLM program. Some of them get jobs at US law firms. From an immigration standpoint, I guess the LLM would have to be sponsored by the firm. This is just another way that the US legal market has become saturated beyond belief. All the while the law schools continue the wealth of riches from the student loan monies.

Reply Like (0)
onehell (May 24, 2018 - 6:46 pm)

You've got it. The LLM might qualify to take the bar if the jurisdiction allows it, but a professional license conveys no immigration benefit in and of itself. Heck, you or I could take the QLTT and become a UK solicitor too, but it wouldn't get us permission to actually move there and start competing with natives for jobs. You'll still need a native employer or close relative/spouse/fiance to sponsor you if you want a job at the kind of place that actually checks these things.

Although in theory, in the US one thing that is different is that a person could come for the LLM on a student visa, pass the bar and get a license, then hang a shingle and file tax returns using an ITIN. Such a person could be removed at any time and subjected to a long ban from reentering, but that would be a civil matter. They wouldn't actually be committing a crime merely by overstaying a visa and engaging in state-licensed self-employment with proper ITIN tax filings.

Reply Like (0)
pisces213 (May 25, 2018 - 12:54 am)

Bar admission is not exclusive to us citizens. A ton of foreign students finish their jds or llms and take the bar to go home and market themselves as a us attorney since many countries trade with the us and it helps to have somebody that knows us law.

Also, being an attorney is probably the worst choice if you want to obtain citizenship as there is no shortage of us attorneys unlike, say, engineering.

Reply Like (0)
isthisit (May 25, 2018 - 9:55 am)

This is like the illegal aliens who buy real estate here. There is no guarantee that you'll eventually naturalize. If you do, great! If you don't than you have to fire sale it before ICE/ERO comes for you.

If you have DACA, there's no guarantee it'll always be available or that you'll always qualify.

Giving possibly removable aliens a license to practice law would be detrimental to their clients. The Immigration laws will change and not always in your favor. You're doing your clients a disservice if you're taking on long cases without any guarantee you will always be authorized to work them or even be in the U.S.

Note: For what it's worth, I'm an Immigration attorney and I feel for the DREAMERS and their struggle to have a path to citizenship.

Reply Like (0)
onehell (May 25, 2018 - 11:44 am)

Like pisces213 said, not everyone who wants a license in a US jurisdiction wants to actually live & work here. Some of those that do may have credentials elite enough that some big firm wants to sponsor them, but such sponsorship might come after licensure. That too is no problem.

As to DACA, yeah it could go away. But the courts have thus far blocked Trump's attempts to abolish it, and if it were to go away, there would be enough advance notice for clients to arrange for substitute counsel. It's not really any greater risk to the client than that your lawyer could get hit by a bus or something; life happens.

Reply Like (0)
isthisit (May 25, 2018 - 1:22 pm)

1. Sure, that's very possible but now we're putting the wants of the few (elite DACA recipient from BigLaw worthy schools with BigLaw employers who will sponsor them) over the needs of the many (regular Joe Schmoe client who doesn't realize/know that his attorney could no longer be allowed to work or whose "status" can become tenuous overnight.) Is that something you're OK with?

2. True if I get hit by a bus today and unable to work. The other 3 attorneys in my office will jump on my cases until I recover or am resurrected. But that's a risk a client is inherently prepared for. I imagine very few clients are going to retain an attorney when the possibility of losing their "status" constantly looms overhead. Plus the possibility that a "significant misdemeanor" that wouldn't kill a USC attorney's career but would disqualify an illegal alien for DACA/EAD is also very real.

Reply Like (0)
bizzybone1313 (May 25, 2018 - 2:41 pm)

A DACA doctor recently made news on Yahoo.

Reply Like (0)
jorgedeclaro (May 25, 2018 - 11:54 pm)

And...? Wouldn’t you rather have illegal immigrants working and paying taxes then stuck standing outside of Home Depot? You either hate immigrants as a matter of principle or are a hardcore trade protectionist.

Reply Like (0)
kragoth1337 (May 26, 2018 - 2:45 am)

Liberal agenda:

-make the NY bar (the primary international jurisdiction for the US) into a multiple choice test
-spread it to as many states as possible (UBE)
-get rid of the LSAT (which requires high fluency/speed in the English language) and replace it with the GRE (more memorization)
-llm does not require LSAT/GRE (only TOEFL)
-relax immigration laws

It is like liberals want the legal profession (at least transactional) to be outsourced.

Foreign countries block/deny foreign citizens from opening law firms/becoming local lawyers. The net effect is Americans will be licensed only in US, while foreign nationals get licensed in US and their home jurisdiction of citizenship.

Why are tax dollars from US citizens paying/supporting politicians/public servants to do this to US citizens?

California did not lower the standards of its bar exam, and look at the present result. Just do a comparison of the statistic breakdowns to see the cause of the drop in scores.

Reply Like (0)
pisces213 (May 26, 2018 - 9:03 am)

kragoth1337 don’t even know where to begin in responding lol. The immigration law as it is prevents foreigners from practicing law since nobody is going to set up their own practice if your days here are numbered. Same with firms that hire as it takes a couple years for grads to be an asset rather than a cost. Law school is an even bigger scam for foreigners who are never told how difficult it is to turn their jd into a work visa and set them on a path to immigration. You’d have to be very very special to make it especially they don’t allow firms to use “foreign language expertise” as an excuse to hire foreigners.

As for lsats, you will learn that the foreign test-prep mill is far more efficient than the us counterparts and can game the system better - getting rid of it is not to lower the bar for foreign students; I suspect it’s more about unranking the schools so more can claim to be at least viable in their local market.

Lastly, the proportion of sticker price paying students is much higher among foreign students and they have kept many public universities afloat. In a way, they are making sure us citizens are getting quality education at the current price point.

Reply Like (0)
kragoth1337 (May 26, 2018 - 11:19 am)

Pisces213:

"The immigration law as it is prevents foreigners from practicing law since nobody is going to set up their own practice if your days here are numbered."

The US immigration law, to the extent it is enforced, works to prevent unauthorized employment within the US. The US immigration law, however, does not prevent foreign persons holding US law licenses from practicing US law overseas though. Moreover, practicing US law may pay more than practicing local law in the foreign country (and the foreign country may be a low cost jurisdiction)--so a good amount of transactional work could be outsourced.

In respect of working in the US, it may be possible to obtain employment authorization by other means besides the H1B route, which would resolve the work authorization problem (perhaps by having a USC or LPR spouse). This arrangement is in contrast to certain other foreign countries, where even if one has a local spouse, one cannot obtain employment authorization based on the local spouse.

"You’d have to be very very special to make it especially they don’t allow firms to use “foreign language expertise” as an excuse to hire foreigners."

This is the crux of bringing in foreign talent as having native speakers of foreign languages (also familiar with the culture/affairs) available locally is an asset. On the flip side, the foreign country that these native speakers are from should reciprocate (i.e. allow US persons to pursue opportunities to the same extent).

There should be equal opportunities for US citizens to seek similar opportunities (should they choose to). From what I can see, certain countries completely block/prohibit the entry of foreign lawyers into their domestic legal systems while the US is wide open. One just has to turn on the news to know the score.

"As for lsats, you will learn that the foreign test-prep mill is far more efficient than the us counterparts and can game the system better - getting rid of it is not to lower the bar for foreign students; I suspect it’s more about unranking the schools so more can claim to be at least viable in their local market."

As for LSAT, I am familiar with local and foreign test-prep and know the challenges the LSAT poses compared to the GRE and GMAT for non-native speakers. If anything law schools probably want an overall larger pool of certain candidates (whether URM, STEM, foreign, or other) that the LSAT has deterred/historically worked against (due to the characteristics/hurdles of the particular test). I am not particularly against this for URM/STEM, but as far as foreign, if we are easing barriers in the US legal industry, the barriers should be easing in the legal industry of the respective foreign country--that is "trade".

"Lastly, the proportion of sticker price paying students is much higher among foreign students and they have kept many public universities afloat. In a way, they are making sure us citizens are getting quality education at the current price point."

Let those schools close. The greedy law schools are milking local students and foreign students alike for the school's own short-term benefit, and both local students and foreign students have to live with the consequences. The foreign students, however, have a shot at the US labor market and can always go back and work in their home labor market. US citizens, however, may only be limited to the US labor market (as far as law practice).

Overall, to summarize, foreign talent is an asset, easing barriers for foreign persons to practice in the US can be considered, but the foreign country should reciprocate so that US students have access to equivalent opportunities in the foreign country (if they should choose to pursue them).

Reply Like (0)
pisces213 (May 27, 2018 - 2:10 am)

Since you've expanded the discussion to general immigration policy, we'll talk big picture.

First, of course there are states where marrying a local doesn't put you on track for a citizenship. But there are also countries where you don't even need that, and become a citizen much quicker. Besides, we're talking about "currently foreign" people. So any discussion on how "once-foreign" citizens can practice US law is just outside the scope. We are talking about people who aren't citizens or LPR now, not those who may have once been a foreigner in the past.

Second, since current foreigners may become citizens, it doesn't hurt to test their worthiness first by letting them go through the legal education system. You get their tuition, their living expenses, and even with a license, still don't guarantee citizenship, so what's to lose? Once you've decided you can give licenses to foreigners, you can't stop them from using that license to setup a practice outside of US jurisdiction. That's for the foreign country to decide. Many countries will not allow you to practice or even call yourself a "lawyer" if you are not licensed in the home country anyway, just like how countries won't allow people to practice medicine if you didn't graduate from a state-licensed medical school. And just as you advocate for citizen-only bar membership, people in foreign countries do the same, so oftentimes the fact that they don't is actually a win for the US as its product, education, has more value.

Third, the reason why the US doesn't care about 'trade' in its educational barriers is because it's the US's cash cow. You underestimate how many schools rely on international students; just google "drop in international student enrollment" and you'll see. The University of California system, for example, survived its cuts only because it made the decision to increase the ratio of foreign students. You may have a different opinion on higher education, but the fact is that US public universities depend on foreign students. The fact that these foreign students have a fall-back plan is a plus for the domestic students because it means that while they add their tuition to the pool, they don't take away domestic jobs.

Fourth, the legal market is something that is actually brought up in trade negotiations, and has been an agenda in various FTA negotiations. So some countries will allow US law firms to set up branches. Now whether they're run by locals with JDs or US Citizens that are hired here and sent there is up to the law firms, but generally US law firms will partner with an existing local law firm that hired foreign JDs.

Reply Like (0)
kragoth1337 (May 27, 2018 - 6:00 am)

"First, of course there are states where marrying a local doesn't put you on track for a citizenship. But there are also countries where you don't even need that, and become a citizen much quicker. Besides, we're talking about "currently foreign" people. So any discussion on how "once-foreign" citizens can practice US law is just outside the scope. We are talking about people who aren't citizens or LPR now, not those who may have once been a foreigner in the past."

We are talking specifically about the legal industry and persons who enter the US on non-immigrant visas through the education route. Whether they stay or leave, obtain employment authorization, green card, naturalize, get married, have a kid that obtains local citizenship--it's not an issue. The US is open unlike certain other foreign countries which have more formal and informal barriers and restrictions on such arrangements.

"Second, since current foreigners may become citizens, it doesn't hurt to test their worthiness first by letting them go through the legal education system. You get their tuition, their living expenses, and even with a license, still don't guarantee citizenship, so what's to lose? Once you've decided you can give licenses to foreigners, you can't stop them from using that license to setup a practice outside of US jurisdiction. That's for the foreign country to decide. Many countries will not allow you to practice or even call yourself a "lawyer" if you are not licensed in the home country anyway, just like how countries won't allow people to practice medicine if you didn't graduate from a state-licensed medical school. And just as you advocate for citizen-only bar membership, people in foreign countries do the same, so oftentimes the fact that they don't is actually a win for the US as its product, education, has more value."

Do you agree that non-US citizens should be allowed to come to the US, obtain a US law degree, and become licensed in the US (whether practice in the US or overseas) and it perfectly fine if the country of such foreign person prohibits US citizens from becoming licensed in the foreign country (or practicing there)? We are not even talking about restrictions being relaxed for top talent, we are talking about a broad prohibition based on citizenship (with path to citizenship being even more restricted than the US).

I don't advocate for citizen-only bar membership, I am quite fine with non-citizens becoming licensed in the US (practicing in the US or overseas)--it makes the legal industry stronger/more international. I am not xenophobic, and am to the contrary, a multicultural person. But at the same time, there must be reciprocity; any barriers/restrictions should be reciprocal.

"Third, the reason why the US doesn't care about 'trade' in its educational barriers is because it's the US's cash cow. You underestimate how many schools rely on international students; just google "drop in international student enrollment" and you'll see. The University of California system, for example, survived its cuts only because it made the decision to increase the ratio of foreign students. You may have a different opinion on higher education, but the fact is that US public universities depend on foreign students. The fact that these foreign students have a fall-back plan is a plus for the domestic students because it means that while they add their tuition to the pool, they don't take away domestic jobs."

We touched on this point earlier regarding greedy law schools. Let the schools go bankrupt/close/downsize. Let them fall in rankings--whatever. Depending on continuous funding from foreign students to the tuition pool--it's not a viable long-term solution.

The focus should be reciprocity, if the foreign person has access to the US market; the US person should have equal opportunity and access to the foreign market.

"Fourth, the legal market is something that is actually brought up in trade negotiations, and has been an agenda in various FTA negotiations. So some countries will allow US law firms to set up branches. Now whether they're run by locals with JDs or US Citizens that are hired here and sent there is up to the law firms, but generally US law firms will partner with an existing local law firm that hired foreign JDs."

"Up to the law firm" Just to shorten the discussion, we are talking about prohibitions/restrictions by the local government. So, we cannot say it is "up to the law firms" on who they hire/who can practice there locally. Foreign students have the opportunity to be licensed and practice law in the US; US students do not have the same opportunity in certain countries (i.e. have to be a citizen to sit for the national exam). In such regard, the choice for hiring for US law firms is restricted/limited to certain candidates.

Regarding "partnering" with local firms, we are also talking about this being a mandatory requirement under local law (i.e. for market access)--not a free market business decision of the foreign law firms. Just like forced JVs/technology/IP transfers through formal and informal barriers. We can't just gloss over such arrangements as free market business decisions by the foreign firms.

Just to recap, the focus should still be reciprocity/bilateral relations, not on using foreign students as a means to prop up mismanaged schools/local US economic regions. Non-citizens should not be restricted from becoming licensed--on the bilateral level, any restrictions should be reciprocal between the US and the foreign country.

Reply Like (0)
Post a message in this thread