Monday, October 22, 2007

Marks misrepresents claim, and is wrong on substance

JM misrepresents a post over at FansOfFaisal. In that post, I was explaining that indigent illegal immigrants charged with a crime are entitled at this point to legal representation, and if they can't afford one, the court will assign a lawyer. I further stated:

Even if a lawyer tried to only represent "good" people, they are assigned indigent people who need help, and are expected to provide top-notch legal services, even to the guilty ones. If Nichols refused to represent an indigent illegal immigrant, he'd be breaking his oath -- but I'm certain Nichols would have no problems representing illegals.

Over at GBF, where truth is an inconvenience, here is what JM says about that quote:

Oath? What oath? Only criminal defendants are guaranteed court-appointed attorneys.

Which of course was exactly what I was talking about. JM can't refute my claim, so he lies about my claim:

Police only Mirandize persons facing criminal charges. Deportation or forcible removal from the United States is a civil matter.

I was specifically talking about criminal law, not deportation. JM continues:

To put it bluntly so that even Faisal Gill supporters will understand—if you immigrate to the United States and are resisting removal in a civil proceeding then you only have the rights which we give you. You do not have the rights of a defendant in a criminal trial.

Which is why, in regard to oaths and requirements, I used the case of an illegal in a CRIMINAL TRIAL.

But, let's look at exactly WHAT Gill and Gallinger say about immigration. First, you should read the entire entry at their web site. It's quite extensive, as the law firm helps people with legal immigration, legal work visas, etc. In fact, the firm's practice, reading the web site, is focused on ensuring that people who have a LEGAL RIGHT to be in the country are able to do so. Immigration law is difficult, and it takes a lawyer sometimes to understand it and follow it, which is what we WANT immigrants to do.

The section on deportation is two paragraphs at the end. The first paragraph is ignored by the Gill-haters:


The U.S. has long been a beacon of freedom. This is incorporated into the immigration system through the granting of asylum. A person who is persecuted in their home country for religion, politics, race, nationality, or membership in a social group can permanently live and work in the U.S., even if they would otherwise be deported. Asylees (those granted asylum) are also able to qualify for permanent residency. Because the benefits given to asylees are so great, it can be very difficult to qualify. A potential asylee must demonstrate to the USCIS a "well-founded fear" of persecution in the home country. Gill & Gallinger have the abilities necessary to help you with this important process. We can also help you apply for Withholding of Removal (allowing you stay in the U.S. when otherwise eligible for deportation) and gaining protection based on the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

Yep, if you are a Christian who has fled persecution from a Muslim country, and you don't otherwise qualify for legal immigration, our nation's LAWS allow you to LEGALLY stay in the country -- but only if you qualify, which often can require a lawyer to put together the legal proof.

Now, JM is right -- an indigent doesn't have a LEGAL RIGHT to taxpayer-funded representation. But an indigent facing religious persecution NEEDS a lawyer nonetheless, to put together the legal case to qualify for the LEGAL claim of Asylum. SO what happens is that Christian organizations, or other well-meaning groups, often donate services, or donate money to hire services, of good immigration lawyers. Those of us in the Christian community support the asylum process, which is a LEGAL METHOD to stay in this country, and is LEGALLY granted to people even if they arrived here without legal basis.

Now, I'm certain that Paul Nichols supports the law of asylum. America IS the beacon of protection for those, especially Christians but also Jews and those of other religious faiths, who would otherwise face torture and death. I'm guessing that even JM supports the asylum laws in our legal immigration rules.

So, rather than having to argue against it, they simply IGNORE that section on the Gill and Gallinger web site.

Instead, they go to the SUMMARY paragraph at the end of the long discussion of legal immigration support:

Even if you or your loved one is already in the process of being removed from the U.S., Gill & Gallinger may be able to help. We can help you qualify for protection from deportation based on Cancellation of Removal, Waiver of Deportation, Asylum, or other methods. Time is extremely important in situations dealing with possible removal, so contact the Gill & Gallinger today for a free consultation.

What this paragraph says is that, in addition to all the things above they had offered legal services for, in getting to come to our country LEGALLY, that many of those same LEGAL protections can be applied even if you already face deportation. They didn't WRITE the laws, that's what the law SAYS.

And thier offer isn't to 'get people off' from a valid deportation. The service they offer is to work to find a LEGAL remedy, to get their clients qualified for LEGAL status. This is what we all say we want -- for immigrants to go through the legal process, to be here LEGALLY. Gill and Gallinger offer legal services to those who want to be legal immigrants.

I will also note that NOWHERE on their entire site to they ONCE use the term "illegal immigrants". Being "illegal" is a legal term, and is decided by the courts or legal body. The deportation hearing is part of that process, and until adjudicated, the defendant is not "illegal", he is an "alleged" illegal. If the defendant can successfully demonstrate a qualification under immigration law to be in this country, the deportation will be cancelled, and by definition the immigrant will be a LEGAL immigrant, NOT an "illegal immigrant".

Will some of these people be deemed illegal? No doubt. Just as a lawyer who promises to only defend "innocent clients", will still lose cases, making their clients "guilty" under the law.

The point is, neither Paul Nichols, nor the MJM, and least of all Jonathan Marks and Greg Letiecq, have bothered to find out what kind of clients are being represented here. They ignore the body of the firm's work for LEGAL IMMIGRATION, ignore the work for helping those seeking asylum, and focus on the provision of legal representation to HELP PEOPLE BE LEGAL IMMIGRANTS.

JM does so by lying about what has been written, but Paul Nichols is a lawyer and knows better.

No comments: