American Bar Association to allow illegal immigrants to become lawyers
In a shocking slap in the face to law and justice, the American Bar Association (ABA) voted on Monday to allow illegal immigrants to take state bar exams and to serve as lawyers in U.S. courts.
The ABA’s House of Delegates resolution, passed on Monday at its annual meeting, states, “American Bar Association supports the principle that bar admission should not be denied based solely on immigration status.”
“As lawyers we are tasked with upholding the rule of law. How can we uphold the law by supporting those who are violating the law to join our profession?” – John R. B. Long, representing the State Bar of Georgia, opposing the ABA decision
Not all of the ABA delegates supported the resolution. John R. B. Long, representing the State Bar of Georgia, unsuccessfully attempted to point out the glaring hypocrisy of the proposed resolution. Referring to illegal immigrants who wish to become lawyers, Long said, “I would love to call them brothers and sisters of law, but as lawyers we are tasked with upholding the rule of law. How can we uphold the law by supporting those who are violating the law to join our profession?”
ABA decision makes a mockery of state “Oaths of Admission”
State bar associations typically require lawyers wishing to practice law in that state to swear an “Oath of Admission”. The first line of that Oath usually begins with a pledge to support the constitution and the laws of the United States.
The Oath of Admission for the State Bar of Arizona, for example, begins with the phrase, “I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the constitution and laws of the United States and the State of Arizona.”
California’s Oath is similar, “I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California.”
An illegal immigrant cannot take such an Oath, as doing so would constitute nothing less than a willful false statement.
Illegal immigrants as “officers of the court”?
Lawyers exists within the U.S. justice system as “officers of the court”. As an officer of the court, a lawyer has a number of legal obligations and duties, the performance of which maintain the system of justice in the United States.
For example, as officers of the court, lawyers have a duty to tell judges the truth, without dishonesty or evasion. An illegal immigrant lawyer, however, has already demonstrated a willingness to lie under oath. To become a lawyer licensed through the state bar, an illegal immigrant would have had to swear to “support the constitution and laws of the United States” which, by their very status, cannot be considered anything other than a lie. Why should a judge expect that same person to tell them the truth, if they lied in order to obtain their position as a lawyer?
The next step: Illegal immigrant judges?
Lawyers often serve as judges pro-tem (temporary judges authorized to hear cases and render legal verdicts).
With Monday’s decision by the American Bar Association, it is now entirely possible that U.S. citizens will be called before illegal immigrant judges; before individuals who have demonstrated a contempt for the constitution and laws of the United States and a willingness to lie under oath to obtain their position.
The chaos that would ensue from judicial verdicts issued by illegal immigrant judges can hardly be underestimated. Citizens would ignore verdicts of the court on constitutional grounds. Others will argue, rightly so, that the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. Judgements will be ignored, or deemed unenforceable by higher courts.
If illegal immigrants may now serve as lawyers, how long will it be before they are also summoned as jurors, to render judgement on U.S. citizens?
The ABA’s decision could throw the U.S. justice system into chaos
The ABA’s decision raises many disturbing questions and could threaten the very fabric of law and order in the United States.
Illegal immigrant lawyers could find themselves the subject of criminal litigation, for accepting compensation from their clients. Opposing counsel and their clients could seek charges against the opposing illegal immigrant lawyer for False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911), Fraud and False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), and possibly Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408).
Jurors who have been sworn to render their decision in accordance with state and federal laws, may refuse to hear cases litigated by illegal immigrant lawyers. Similarly, cases that would otherwise be swiftly adjudicated, could end in “hung juries” because of jury holdouts indignant about illegal immigrant lawyers in the courtroom.
Cases could no longer be decided on the facts, but judgements rendered based on the jury’s politics regarding immigration. Innocent defendants may be found guilty by conservative juries who are outraged by their use of an illegal immigrant lawyer, while guilty defendants may be set free by liberal jurists for the same reason.
Attorneys might also be able to have a lawsuit dropped against their client simply by threatening to report their opposing illegal immigrant counsel to immigration authorities.
And what happens if an illegal immigrant lawyer is arrested before the trial has been concluded? Will their client be simply left to their own resources?
If an illegal immigrant attorney shows up in court to represent another illegal immigrant in a deportation proceeding, can the judge arrest the attorney and hold them for deportation too?
If an illegal immigrant is appointed by the court to represent a poor defendant, can the defendant then request a mistrial on grounds of improper representation?
Want to comment?
Citizens wishing to voice their opinion regarding the ABA’s decision are encouraged to do so on the ABA’s website contact page.
