In an earlier post, I pointed out that the “argument” for continued immigration implied by the slogan “we are a nation of immigrants” was an enthymeme that cannot be cashed out: every nation is, or originally was, a nation of immigrants. Thus, if any nation has the right to restrict immigration, then so does America.
Think about why immigration to America was once considered desirable by Americans. I see a little band of Puritans in Boston, swatting mosquitoes, sloshing through mud, setting aside a few canisters of seed corn. Clearly, more people, especially like-minded ones, are desperately needed. There is far more land to be subdued than people that can subdue it.
With gradually decreasing urgency, that situation continued through, say, much of the nineteenth century.
But it is no longer the case. We have subdued the land. Whatever pockets of territory that could stand to be more thickly settled may be reserved for our posterity. There is no danger of weeds and rats getting the upper hand any more. Thus:
Principle #1: We do not need any more immigrants.
Note well: I do not qualify this as illegal vs legal immigrants. Any.
Now, let’s consider the current political rhetoric regarding immigration. It is all about “illegal” immigration.
But think about it: given that there is going to be a migrant here, far better he should be an “illegal” one.
The “illegal” one only takes benefits that our own corrupt judges and politicians force people to give; he did not arrive making such demands. And above all: the “illegal” immigrant does not vote.
I’ll never understand why anyone would desire additional voters that are going to vote against him. This is not just irrational: it is suicidal.
Frankly, it is evil to desire new voters that would vote with one, if their presence also is going to change the community spirit and culture deleteriously. We should not desire the influx of new “citizens” who do not share our mores, music, or hygiene, even if we knew for a fact they would be voting for Ron Paul. Thus:
Principle #2: If there are to be more immigrants, let them be the “illegal” kind.
As I began to unpack in an earlier post, the very notion of “illegal” is ill-formed. I suspect the very term is consciously designed to get traditionalists and Christians up in arms about the “issue,” to push one of their hot-buttons connected to their view of law, duty, and honor; which “issue” can then be manipulated by our rulers to get them to lend support for measures having nothing to do with immigration at all. More on this anon.
For all intents and purposes, we can define “illegal” in this context as plundering society without having voted to do so.
If you are allowed to vote to force people to pay for your children’s education, you are “legal.” If you cannot vote for it, but someone else forces people to pay for your children’s education, then you are “illegal.”
In other words, our inter-locking system of plunder and mutual exploitation is nuanced lightly by the “citizen” vs “alien” distinction. But that is a minor part of the brew. It is the thieves on the inside, and the exploitative attitudes of our people that need to be corrected in the first place.
“Legal immigrant” today simply means, someone that has filled out paperwork and been approved for permanent work and the path to citizenship. It is exactly that which must cease.
Principle #3: “Legal” immigration must cease immediately.
And note that, to do this, no expensive appropriations are needed. Indeed, we can instantly fire an army of bureaucrats and start saving a great deal of money.
A healthy nation will always have what the Bible calls “strangers and aliens” in its midst. In Israel, there were caravans and herdsmen passing through, and in the towns were peddlars of various wares. In addition to explicit mention (e.g. Joshua 15:63), one sees evidence for this in oblique references. For example, in Zeph 1:11, the Hebrew phrase “people of Canaan” (preserved by the ever-literal NAS) is translated merchant people or traders by AV, RSV, and NIV. That is, a class of Hebrews is evidently identified by way of an ethnic stereotype; as if today a prophet to America were to say something like, “all you shysters, tricksters, and jews of all stripes — beware of the coming judgment.” But this kind of language-usage is rooted in the reference to an ethnic group that is literally present. It was a reference that would be clear to the everyday Hebrew.
The law of God required a single standard of justice to be applied to stranger and kinsman. “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am Jehovah your God,” Lev 24:22. But this did not mean that the wayfarer would be allowed to vote for the elder in the gate! The Jerusalem aldermen did not go house to house, picking the pockets of the Hebrews, then offering free silver to the resident Canaanites.
The biblical view does not countenance immigration as that is understood today. Instead, a nation is defined by a people, among whom live some strangers and aliens; but there is no presumption whatsoever that these would become citizens.
Principle #4: A moderate traffic of strangers and wayfarers should be permitted, but with no notion of becoming citizens built into that at all.
What fooled so many of us for so long was our rulers’ framing this question as if the rule of law (hence: “legal,” or “illegal”) were the issue, rather than deeper concepts of being a people and a nation.
Ask yourself: why are the hordes of Mexicans a problem now, and for the last twenty years; but not for the last two hundred years? There were no ten-foot high fences for 200 years; yet massive, undesired, invasive immigration was simply not a problem.
Clearly, the origin of the problem is not the Mexicans, but our own corrupt politicians and judges. The rage we feel welling up should be at our own impotence to throw these scoundrels out of power, to exile them forever.
Any country that says in effect, “come here and we will make you wealthy” is bound to have many takers. This situation must be stopped. But the same cadre of rulers that says “come on in” is also supposed to be entrusted to stop it?
If walls and national ID cards were not needed for 200 years, yet there was no harmful national invasion of undesired immigrants; then clearly the call for walls and national ID cards is a diversion to our outraged and impotent people, for a nefarious purpose that has nothing to do with the problem of immigration. The root causes of massive immigration were created by the same class of manipulators that is getting us to demand these measures.
The Gulag Soviet Union described by Solzhenitsyn built walls to keep their people in; there were no illusions about their purpose.
The fascists demanded, “ihre Papiere, bitte.” (At least they said please.)
Our rulers have learned from history. Far better to get the people to demand their own walls and papers.
Consider carefully, that the currently-proposed measures may be designed, not to curb immigration, but to advance our own enslavement.
Dear Tim,
I think your explanation of Principle #5 may have been cut off.
-Turretinfan
I wanted to comment, but i see that our host has had a computer problem…so i will wait..do not want to steal Tims’ thunder/lightning etc..
s. hoffmeister
T-fan — no, I purposely structured the essay to put the summary theses at the end of the considerations supporting them. However, your remark made me see that the last part, especially, was not very clear. I have recast it and also added a couple clarifying words elsewhere. Let me know if it is still opaque.
Steve — no, wade in. Our host often has a computer problem; I have no control over that.
Granted that REAL ID uses the issue of illegals to promote very effective loss of liberty for us all.
Also, it is evident there is no more room, physically, nor enough resources, financially. Since we live in an entitlement society, there is not much $ to go around–we’re deficit spenders.
The Democrats use the Hispanic vote–this is despicable. But Republicans use the pro-life vote, too. (At least they did).
If there’s room and money, people are an asset to society and can be encouraged to immigrate. I, for one, however, want to see those immigrants share our culture of Christendom (what’s left of it), speak English, and ask for no special favors.
Dear Tim,
Thanks for the clarification. I am still munching and ruminating on your post. I like the tension between “no more immigrants” and “but no walls/paper requirements to keep them out.” (paraphrased, not quoted)
Even though I disagree at certain points, I want to take the time to reflect on whether my disagreement is core or only surface disagreement.
To take a quick example: a large chunk (and perhaps the largest chunk) of the illegal immigrant population arrived in the U.S., not by taking a plunge in the Rio Grande or braving the western deserts, but by flying in a commercial airliner and then overstaying a visa.
But that really doesn’t seem to go to the core of what you are saying, and I don’t think (though I could be wrong) that it really matters to you HOW they got here, so much as that they are here.
-Turretinfan
Shouldn’t it be “ihre papierEN?”
The immigration “question” perplexes me, actually. I think a country is certainly well within its rights to control its borders, and so those (many of whom share our perspective on most things theological and jurisprudential) see the issue rather simply as violation of a criminal law, making illegal immigrants criminals.
The fact that they disregard our laws in itself ought to disqualify them from receiving our sympathies, much less tangible support. This seems legitimate to me.
On the other hand, “laws” that are unenforced are problematic, particularly when the lack of enforcement is an official policy, as seems to be the case with our immigration laws.
I do the same thing with my children. I have some rules that are almost never enforced. I either don’t mean them as laws, but as very strong guidelines, and I want them to sound stronger. OR, I made a rule that is not properly a rule in the first place, and I need to amend it (which I hopefully will do).
Either way, disregard of such “laws” may not really qualify one as a lawbreaker. The difficulty, I think, is that the issue of immigration for any nation is largely one of prudence. It may be good for a while or for people from certain areas, but not good for other times or people. I believe that prerogative is properly the nation’s, but a huge degree of discretion is appropriate in making those rules. Perhaps a Mexican yesterday was good for us and today he isn’t. We get to decide.
I guess immigration violations are more akin to trespass, which is both civil and criminal. But, when you have previously invited other members of the same family onto the property, saying “no” to subsequent members is difficult, even if lawful.
The last issue with immigration I have comes largely from my experience with Hispanic immigrants in the construction industry in the Southeast. I would readily take them as neighbors over a lot of other people, including longtime US citizens.
I have heard there are differences in various places, but in my experience they share a lot of very important values, and are generally very open to learning much more. While they are a mixed bag, I know many such immigrants who are a LOT cleaner than a lot of whites or blacks, and I would take their music over rap and hiphop any day.
I know that is not always the case, and I’ve heard it is very different on the West Coast.
I also wonder whether the fact that without them many of our businesses would suffer tremendously should figure into the equation. Certainly, people would “figure something out,” but is shutting the border and/or deporting workers really important enough to shut down entire thriving industries (construction, landscaping/nursery, agriculture, etc would shut down, at least for a while, without them).
I didn’t find your discussion of biblical examples very helpful. What rules do you find from those examples, and how do they apply to our factual circumstances? It is hard to argue anything by assuming “citizenship was not expected.” How do you know that? If you do know it somehow, how do you conclude that it is normative?
Those are some of my thoughts, inconclusive though they may be, also.
I guess I’m wondering why my fellow conservatives are getting so worked up about hard working families moving here. They’re often Christian or at least very generally christianized (I’ve never met a Mexican atheist), often very family oriented, often very prudent in their finances, often intent on exercising dominion in that they seek to improve their lives their surroundings and even others lives.
I dunno…I just haven’t figured out why we’re so exercised about the idea of Hispanic immigration(demanding social services is a separate issue…of course, they usually DO pay taxes, because their employers withhold from them, too.)
Matthew — uh… no, it’s Papiere. Plural of neuter Papier.
I’ll try to shotgun answers to a few of your points.
Yes, clearly Hispanic culture is vastly to be preferred to Negro culture; but the latter can’t be dealt with by stopping immigration. It is a different issue altogether, though perhaps even more important to start wrestling with.
It’s true that some industries might suffer if the cheap source of labor ceased, but that’s saying it the wrong way. The point is, they have grown excessively because of the distortion of the market brought about by the immigrant labor. It is the same thing that happens when any industry is, in effect, subsidized. It becomes like a drug junkie that needs more fixes. Cold turkey is what is needed to restore the proper balance. This artificially cheap labor enriches GCs and even middle-class home-owners, but it hurts American labor, and this is wrong.
I don’t think “illegal” aliens are paying income tax. To do so, they would need a Social Security number. But if they have that and are paying, then the govt has no excuse whatsoever for allowing this to continue while saying it is against the law.
Actually, even after they become legal, the ones of moderate means and/or large families (i.e. most) are not going to be paying Fed income tax to speak of anyway. They may even be eligible for the EIC “negative” income tax.
My argument that “we have enough people now” applies to stopping legal immigration of any kind. The only reason to single out Mexicans is that that is the accidental situation that dominates right now.
The biblical argument was not intended to prove what you thought. It was more directed against the notion that there were no strangers and wayfarers in the land in biblical times, or that there ought not to be strangers and wayfarers (i.e. “illegal immigrants” today). I tried to give a couple examples of types of texts to look for to see plenty of evidence of the contrary.
However, that the situation re nations and “citizenship” was as I implied is, I think, beyond dispute. If you need proof, it will need to await a series of posts on that subject alone. Here is the short answer just to prime your thinking a bit: In ancient times, nations were equivalent to “tribe,” regardless of what territory they occupied at the moment. The genealogies show how tribes split every so often and moved off into their own destiny. Tribes are basically extended family. Israel was Israel when they lived in Egypt, and when they occupied Canaan.
Actually, I say “ancient world,” but the reality is that this is the case for 99% of all nations right up to the present. Look at a globe with nations marked out; you are basically looking at the surviving tribes of humanity as they are divided. The most notable exceptions are the USA and post-Revolutionary France. (The USSR, for example, incorporated many tribes, but the tribal [ethnic] root was indicated with a second mark on their passport; even the Communists did not try to eradicate this.) However, even the USA and France, despite their birthright provisions of citizenship, are still majority tribal.
So the very notion, “did Hittites show up at the Immigration Service in Jerusalem to apply for Israelite citizenship?” would be absurd to the facts of the matter. Even those that married into the nation were still identified by their birth tribe “Urriah the Hittite.”
We’ll write more on this. The main point I meant to make was simply that that wasn’t the burden of my brief biblical references in this essay.
Our “job” as a nation is to exercise our callings and provide for our posterity to do the same; it is NOT our job to provide a nice place for everyone else in the world to come and live, provided only they work hard and agree that “all men are created equal.” This is the myth that we have all been inculcated with. I’m suggesting a paradigm shift.
Ok time to jump in.
i have a multitude of problems with this issue as you have stated tim. I am in agreement with many and like to add a few.
That this as has been noted, has gone on for a long time. The allowance of the “illegal” into our land to benefit many of the in the agg industry as well as others, that make a profit on this cheap labor. the Civil magistrate as had little if any desire to enforce the laws already on the books.(as it does with many others) Thus causing a “problem” that only they can work out via more legislation.(which they still will not adhear to.) i see a real injustice in a way to say to a large group that “we know your here and working but will not bother you” until this upswell of emotion. Now we(the government) must enforce our law and cause more problems for those who were “winked” at before. I also see that when the “Republicans” or “Democrates” wish to speak on any subject it does not follow that either side really has the right view of the problem or solution. They just want to “react” to seem as though they are doing something…
This whole idea of migrant workers needs a better take and i like the OT versions that have been past on. Also the idea of being born here allows one automaticly to be a U.S. Citizen also needs review in this circumstance. The no “Freebees” is a must. And the like treatment is a must, but again needs work on what they get and how as according to our laws of free rep as lawyers and so on.
The absolute insanity of wanting our citizens to have passports(can you say taxation) and these migrants with no documents what so ever is…problematic at best.
the disenfrachisement of the tax paying citizen for the non tax paying migrant that some day will be the next to be disenfrachised because there is always someone else behind you…the allowance of the illegals to vote is again a problem, hold a drivers license, or other “official” documents…problem.
one more thing, i can be paranoid at times and do see some conspriacies…so as we fight and bicker and have our attention drawn to this curtain i always wonder what am i ” not suppose to see over there?” or we will be so exhausted on this ,the next bills will fly through and be worse than this…?
well i will stop for comment then possibly resume…btw i have seen this enslavement first hand working in Mushroom country Kennet Square/Avondale/Toughkennomon Pa.
s hoffmeister
Dear Tim,
Tyrrany is certainly spreading. In addition to the demand for papers and walls, people are demanding (increasingly) random searches (not just at the airports, but on the highways). I’m sure others could expand.
The papers issue started with birth certificates, marriage certificates, and death certificates a long time ago. We are now in a much steeper part of the paper’s curve, and few seem to even notice. Thank you, Tim, for bringing this to our recollection.
As to immigration itself, I have mixed feelings. One thing I’m rock-solid confident about. Wives, widows, and brides-to-be of citizens should be permitted to stay/enter, cf. Ruth.
I’m also reasonably confident that immigrants should be able to become citizens at least by remaining resident and part of the society for ten generations.
Beyond that, it gets a bit murky for me.
The problems swirling around immigration seem to me mostly to relate to the U.S. being such a relatively good place to live when you are poor. Once it is not, the immigration problem will quickly solve itself. I’m not particular thrilled about solving the immigration problem that way.
-Turretinfan
I should clarify that I do not have a position on this at the moment, so I’m still very much in evaluation mode. I will say that the hysteria du jour (des Tages ;>) ) seems a bit artificial and ill-founded. BUT, perhaps that’s because I don’t perceive the real crisis.
I would say that black and white contemporary culture could benefit from the better parts of hispanic culture…again, based on my experiences, which I recognize are not universalizable. For instance, Butler can’t make a burrito or do a sombrero dance to save his life, and that is a sad state of affairs.
I also would agree, however, that the best of white culture is superior to the best of hispanic culture by far.
Saying that “some industries might suffer from the lack of cheap labor” is an almost ridiculous understatement. They will not suffer, they will stop (at least for a painful period of time).
They will close their doors and go to the cubicle or worse, the welfare line, and all of the many supporting/ancillary industries will take a big hit (lenders, suppliers, etc).
Add on to this the fact that many of the industries involve necessities (or at least closer to it than, say, personal electronics), and you have a much bigger potential impact than I think you have allowed for.
Again, from my experience, the issue is not so much the cheapness of the labor as it is the availability. I did not witness any significant differences in the construction and green industries in compensation between white and histpanic laborers (or blacks). Possibly in the case of benefits, but generally speaking, the wages are relatively equal.
Availability really was the key. They were there and they wanted to work, and the others weren’t
Pehaps in the early days this was not the case, but their level of market sophistication has increased, and they are able to enter wage negotiations with considerably more bargaining power. Caveat: All this is from my own experience only.
But what I can positively state is that if next week legal and/or illegal hispanic immigrants are somehow removed from our soil, the economic impact could cripple many industries and areas. I have seen companies close doors never to reopen after a visit from INS. There are no workers to replace them. They simply can’t fulfill their contracts.
I’m not sure how you can assess that the market is “distorted.” How would you decide what it ought to be so as to adjudge it distorted? In my experience, they make good money for what they do, and generally spend it on things that matter, often even saving enough to become business owners themselves in fairly short order.
Now, if the principle is important enough, so be it. Let them close. I’m just not sure it is important enough, and so far I haven’t heard a good enough reason. It may be out there. I haven’t read it here, though. “We have enough” is a relatively subjective judgment, not a principle, and it is an assessment with which many would disagree.
I don’t know all of the situation with tax payment. I do know that with occasional exceptions where specific, brief needs for additional temp labor was concerned, taxes were withheld from their checks just like everyone else’s.
Now, the SS#’s may have been phony or stolen, I don’t know how all that works. But the witholding was the same as it was with my check.
In the event that more income tax was owed, than I’m sure they wouldn’t pony up, but it is unlikely that more than the witheld amount ever owed, especially in a typically large family.
I may not have been clear in regard to your biblical examples. I don’t see how you can argue from those examples that there was no expectation of citizenship either by those not of the tribe or by those of the tribe. There seems to be a lack of evidence either way, and so I do not see how it can be beyond dispute.
IF you could demonstrate that there was no expectation of citizenship from the evidence, though, you still have to go from there to a conclusion that such is normative.
I am not aware of a biblical principle which would make it so (potential miscegenation seems to be a severable and distinct issue).
Citizenship aside, the notion of a tribe seems to argue against the push to make them assimilate so often touted. Unless you think the pattern of tribes means that if they want to live with us, they need to join our tribe.
I suppose a return to nations as relatively strictly identified by tribe is worth consideration, but not very helpful to the present immigration debate. They could very easily say, “Fine, get back across the pond. This was our continent before it was your’s.”
Or, if we argued conquest, they could use that to their favor, also, by saying, “Yes, and now conquest via peaceful economic means is our goal.”
It sounds like I’m fully for having a bunch of hispanic immigrants, but I really am undecided. I have worked with many of them, so I do have a personal connection and in many ways an appreciation for them at the personal level; but I think I am capable of stepping back from that personal connection to look at the question at the theoretical level.
I guess the closest I get to a position is this (and I’ll stop): If the control over our borders is largely a matter of practicality, then if we want to close the borders, we ought to do it in a practically feasible way. Booting them all out en masse seems not to accomplish this; nor does advocating a return to strictly tribal nations.
Matthew (#10) — It seems like you are making the same points and asking the same questions as in #6. I guess, keep thinking about the answers I gave in #7, OR write me off as an obscurantist, hopelessly thick, or whatever.
T-fan (#9) — I can meet you at least half-way on your stipulations. re Ruth, of course I am with you in her specific case; questions might remain as to how to generalize, such as (1) what happens if the living patriarch does not approve, (2) can the principle be extended ad infinitum, or was there a presumption that the Moabites were kinsfolk once-removed?
I’m not suggesting that either one of us should expect to be able to rattle off an adequate answer to these kind of questions. More work will be needed after we throw off the regnant paradigms. There is time.
In re #11–#10 resembles #6 because #7 resembles #0. I won’t write you off as anything, except perhaps nonresponsive… ;>)
And, I’ll stick to the story that I am very responsive, and Matthew either doesn’t understand or doesn’t like the response. Ponder; and after a while, maybe try to ask from a different angle.
Here is the proof that our rulers are lying when they say that importing cheap labor is good for all Americans; even for those that no longer make as much as they used to as a result.
There is one class of “laborer” that they never even hint should be brought in.
They give special visas to engineers, because Silicon Valley capitalists say it costs too much to hire an American engineer. They have brought in foreign doctors. Outsourcing of software and customer support is rampant. Manufacturing is all but decimated. But there is one class of labor that is still very expensive, yet they never suggest that there should be a massive influx in order to increase our wealth through lower prices.
Lawyers.
Dear Tim,
Perhaps as with the walls and papers, most people have willingly embraced the concept of fewer rather than more lawyers.
-Turretinfan
#14 now resembles #11, #7 and #0. Of course, it is possible Matthew understands and is right.
In response to #15…I think that’s a brilliant idea…we should immediately bring in many more lawyers from Cuba, Iran, China, Sudan and the Netherlands. I’m not sure why we haven’t thought of that before.
Matthew– Understands what? Might be right about what?
T-fan– Yes of course we want fewer; but the point is our rulers that tell us we are all better off on account of cheaper labor only apply that to every field except the one most of them practice. This shd tell us something about how much they believe their own professed argument.
Understand your points, and right about them not being responsive.
I’m always amused when someone thinks that if you disagree with them, it must be because you don’t understand them.
Your foreign lawyer point seems a little silly. The position that foreign fruit pickers are good, but foreign officers of our courts are not good is not that difficult to defend. Bringing in cheap foreign lawyers would be a little like brining in cheap papist monks to preach in our churches to save some money.
Law has to do with our values, and while the legal profession has its problems, inserting lawyers who have no residue of a Christianized legal ethic would have quite a different impact than having some Hindus answer our tech questions.
Of course, there are a fair number of hispanics becoming lawyers, and that doesn’t seem to be too big of a cultural leap, since much of their value system has its own Christian residue. I think their billable rates are comparable, though.
Lawyers from the british domains. It would take them about 6 months to adapt to our idiosyncracies.
Matthew:
Let’s list the points from your post 6. I abbreviate.
1. Shouldn’t it be “ihre papierEN?”
2. Hispanics share many values, are clean, and have better music than rap and hiphop.
3. Businesses would suffer without them.
4. Discussion of biblical examples was not helpful. What rules do you find from those examples, and how do they apply to our factual circumstances?
5. It is hard to argue anything by assuming “citizenship was not expected.” How do you know that? If you do know it somehow, how do you conclude that it is normative?
6. They usually DO pay taxes, because their employers withhold from them, too.
I answered each of these in post 7. Again, I abbreviate:
1. No, it’s Papiere.
2. Hispanic culture is superior to certain other cultures, but that was not what the argument rested on, and the worst culture cannot be dealt with in terms of immigration anyway.
3. Subsidization provides an analogy. Businesses that have been subsidized would also suffer when the subsidy ceases; yet (except perhaps for national defense) subsidy ought to cease. So it is not a good argument for or against the antecedent issue.
4. The purpose of the biblical example was something other than you thought. It was to weigh against a view at the other extreme, that strangers and aliens ought to be prevented entry. Since that is not your issue, don’t sweat it one way or the other.
5. The essay presupposed nation=tribe, it didn’t try to establish it. If you don’t know that nation=tribe in the ancient world, then you are not even a beginner in the study of world history yet; it might be laid out more carefully in a future post, but that wasn’t my purpose here. I’m taking that as assumed, or obvious upon mention, for this argument. Even so, in #7 I gave a few lines of consideration to get you started in this study.
6. I doubt they pay very much in the way of taxes; if they do, then the govt is prevaricating; besides, that wasn’t part of my argument against immigration anyway.
Just in case there are some who have not seen it yet, this video shows why lawyers and big corporations support Bush’s amnesty bill. The lawyer in the video is Lawrence Lebowitz of the firm Cohen & Grigsby.
There is one other reason why this bill is important to the cryptocracy, but it will sound too conspiratorial for many to believe. At least at this point in time.
I didn’t get around to watching MB’s link in #22 til now, but please, everyone do so. This shd make your blood boil. Our rulers are simultaneously destroying the working American and consolidating their own power. These are people that should be lined up and shot, and I pray for the day to come when that may legally be done.
(And, it’s a comparatively minor point, but I’ll say it again: I’m pretty sure Cohen and Lebowitz and Grigsby and all their associates are NOT demanding that the flood-gates be opened up for foreign lawyers to give it a shot here.)
I’ll be hornswaggled. It looks like even legal work is starting to be farmed out now. Granted it is jewlywood doing it at first. Oy vey, bissness is bissness.
Let’s keep our eyes on this. Will the ABA lobby against it? Stay tuned.