An illegal immigrant born in Mexico appears to qualify for a law license, though the Florida Board of Bar Examiners says it still wants an advisory opinion from the state Supreme Court before making a final decision.
The board initially denied Jose Godinez-Samperio’s admission to the bar but asked the justices to decide whether being an illegal immigrant disqualifies applicants. The new findings submitted to the Supreme Court on Monday are the result of a request by Godinez-Samperio to consider new information related to his character and fitness before the Supreme Court makes its decision.
Former Florida State University President Talbot “Sandy” D’Alemberte, now teaching law at the school, is representing his former student.
“I hope the bar examiners would just go ahead and approve his admission to the bar and just be done,” D’Alemberte said Tuesday.
I thought it should be a pretty simple issue to resolve. Mr. Godinez-Samperio’s scholastic achievements are laudable – but that changes nothing regarding his legal status in this country. He is illegal by any definition of the term.
But that’s not what piqued my interest. What did was one of the callers to the show.
There was a law student/lawyer friend of Mr. Godinez-Samperio’s who called in to voice his support and he started the process with the “this country was built on immigrants/we must support diversity” angle. The questions that surfaced in my sleep deprived brain were these – how is diversity accretive to anything beneficial in this case? Having a daughter who is a recent law school graduate, I can tell you that the job market for lawyers is terrible. Good person or not, how does positioning an illegal non-citizen to practice law help any legal citizen who is a recent law school graduate? How does this “diversity” help and “enrich” them?
It occurred to me that “diversity” has had too long of a run without critical examination. Academia loves it as do the quota-mongers in government. It is also used to defend illegal immigration but “diversity” for the sake of being diverse has just become a way for “progressives” to say to others “look at me, look how evolved and tolerant I am” but it isn’t “tolerance” at all. It is just putting a check in the box of the “progressive” job application. They are not concerned about diversity except as a badge of “progressive” achievement.
“Progressives” only care about differences, they think that tossing a bunch of different colored marbles in a bag makes them all unified, all the same. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
As it is with much of true political and philosophical thought, the concept of diversity has its origin in the natural world – and as such can be described in scientific terms. There are two types of diversity with definitional roots in the science of chemistry. These are what I would term to be solution diversity and mixture diversity. The two are very different.
The technical definition of solution is this: a solution is a homogeneous mixture composed of only one phase. What you have here is a solute and a solvent combining to form something entirely new with properties different from the constituent parts. Solutions cannot be separated into their individual parts after they are mixed.
I would propose that this is the type of diversity that we want, that this is very beneficial to our country. This is the historical diversity of the American Colonies and post-Revolutionary War America. It is the diversity of Ellis Island and the genesis of idea that America was a “melting pot”. People brought their varied heritages with them but ultimately blended and combined to catalyze into Americans – not Italian-Americans, German-Americans or Mexican-Americans – just Americans. While they maintained a fondness for their origins, they subjugated that fondness to the love, devotion and loyalty to their new home.
A mixture is a material system made up by two or more different substances which are mixed but are not combined chemically. The materials are in suspension and the heavier particulates will eventually precipitate or fall out of solution the minute that the mechanical mixing action stops. This is the “diversity” that we have today. Disparate groups with allegiance to foreign countries and intent on prosecuting that love even as living here. Rather than assimilate, they retreat to cloistered areas and resume the same customs and lifestyles as their old countries, most refusing to even learn the language of the United States.
It is a mistake to assume that all people who come here legally or illegally are here to become part of America. The common excuse for illegal immigration from Mexico is economic. Once these illegal aliens satisfy their economic goals, they have no need to assimilate – being here illegally also creates a secretive culture, assuring that assimilation will never take place. Legal immigration assures that the people who come to America are coming because they desire to actually become an American, not simply as a method by which to satisfy an economic need. There is a purpose for the process of legal immigration that transcends simple protection of sovereignty.
Creating diversity for its own sake creates a mixture, not a solution. Mixtures are weak and eventually break down. Solutions do not.