Labor and immigration

First, check out this intense, fascinating short film by the Capitol Area Immigrant Rights Coalition (CAIR Coalition) about immigrant detention. This is a must see if you don't know much about it.

Immigration detention video (5 min)

Unfortunately, the labor movement has a mixed record on immigration rights. In fact, attitudes about immigration are rumored to be part of the reason the Change to Win group broke away from the AFL-CIO. There is a tendency among some union people and fans of unions to think that Labor should fight for union members, not for working people generally. This tendency fuels and is fueled by xenophobia and isolationism of the worst kind. It is also counterproductive; when unions allow immigrants to be criminalized, they are in too precarious a position to be organized. Relatively stable lives are a prerequisite to organization.

The credibility of unions is not built only on what they can do for their members, but what they do for everyone. If unions appeal only to self-interest, they will lose, because employers can (under the current legal structure) make it very painful to join a union. Unions must foster a broader sense of community and empowerment, one that is willing to sacrifice if need be.

This means fighting for immigrant rights, living wages, health care, etc etc.

The problem is that if unions spend too much on these issues without organizing, they will shrink into irrellevancy.

There must be a two pronged attack;
1. Political
A. fight for people, immigrant rights, living wages, etc.
B. fight for laws that enable union organizing
2. Grassroots
A. Organize the lower level service sectors of the economy; they need it most
B. Organize the expanding tech and professional/service sectors; unions need it most
C. Build community movements; unions must support churches, student activists, immigrant groups, and other allies in their issues if they expect to get support from the community during organization.

Certainly looks easy enough, but the challenge is in the execution. All supports of workers and democracy will be watching Cambiar para Ganar very closely.

P.S. The immigration debate is heating up fast, and the unions are helping to make sure the immigrants' voices are heard.

H&R Blocked

So far, we’ve spent a lot of space on this blog talking about attorneys whom we don’t like. As a change of pace, this bit of news caught my eye today and reminded me that attorneys can also do amazing things with the law.

I’ve kept up with the news on tax preparation companies who prey on folks who don’t feel comfortable doing their own taxes but can’t afford a personal CPA. They, like the payday lending outfits on every street corner in rough parts of town, have exploited low-income people for years.

And they do make money. They actually make enough money that H&R Block could miscalculate its own state taxes by $32 million since 2004. Whoops.

So where’s the good-attorney news? New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer just filed a $250 million lawsuit against H&R Block for a product that “encouraged consumers to put income-tax refund money into individual retirement accounts where low interest rates and high fees meant these customers were ‘virtually guaranteed to lose money.’ For the lion's share of the customers, many of whom are low-income, the fees far exceeded the interest they earned, considering the interest rates were often as low as 1% or less for the accounts.” See the article on The Motley Fool for more details.

Spitzer’s not the only Attorney General fighting against H&R Block’s abuse of low-income folks. California Attorney General Bill Lockyer filed a lawsuit last month, accusing the company of “overcharging thousands of poor customers on loans to tide them over until they get tax refunds.”

Yes, I know an Attorney General--of a state or of the nation--is supposed to use the law to protect the legal interests of citizens, but they don’t all live up to that expectation. Surely I have some reason to be a bit cynical.

So, cheers to Spitzer and Lockyer and the other attorneys who are fighting for the exploited many. We law students need all the inspiration we can get as exam time approaches…

---
PS. Washington in the springtime: A cherry tree blooms　桜が咲く

The "Billy Madison Doctrine": Don't be an idiot

Judge Leif Clark of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas signed an order last month in an apparent dispute over the discharge of a debtor in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. In his "Order Denying Motion for Incomprehensibility," Judge Clark ruled on a motion whose title sounds ripped from pages of The Onion: "Defendant's Motion to Discharge Response to Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Response Opposing Objection to Discharge."

In a one-paragraph ruling, Judge Clark wrote, "The court cannot determine the substance, if any, of the Defendant's legal argument, nor can the court even ascertain the relief that the Defendant is requesting. The Defendant's motion is accordingly denied for being incomprehensible."

But it's Judge Clark's footnote, which speaks for itself, that really caught our eye:

"Or, in the words of the competition judge to Adam Sandler's title character in the movie, 'Billy Madison,' after Billy Madison had responded to a question with an answer that sounded superficially reasonable but lacked any substance,

'Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response was there anything that could even be considered a rational thought.

Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.'

Deciphering motions like the one presented here wastes valuable chamber staff time, and invites this sort of footnote."

For the clueless, Billy Madison on IMDB

UPDATE: the smoking gun takes notice

the very first "Devil's Advocate" Award

They say that New York is the headquarters of the American legal profession, but virtually all the biggest law firms have offices in Washington DC. From a survey of the 200 largest law firms in the US, I found that around 77% have offices in Washington DC. In addition, there is a large specialized portion of the legal profession that only exists in Washington. Administrative law and all the federal legislative and regulatory work in the nation centers in Washington.

I came to school knowing very little about the legal profession, and life at law school in Washington has been quite a shock. I came having heard about "ambulance chasers" and the like, and having heard about criminal lawyers, but having no real contact or experience with lawyers. Even my pop culture exposure was extremely limited. I didn't read legal thrillers, or watch Law and Order, or Boston Public, or even CSI. Not that it would have helped.

From this place of almost total ignorance, the most fascinating and shocking part of the legal world for me is, without question, the defense bar. All of the largest law firms in the nation are corporate defense firms.

First, I find it interesting that lawyers specialize on one side of the law, particularly on the corporate defense side of the law. Why are lawyers more closely defined by the character of their clients than by their legal area? There is an easy answer to this question in the case of those who, for ideological reasons, always believe that their client is right. However, the picture is complicated by the fact that ideology is impacted by the socialization of the lawyer during the course of work for a client. For this reason, and because most people simply don't have a rigid ideology (or even an opinion) about most things, I think pre-existing ideology is a weak explanation for the factions in the lawyer world. However, I do think that ideology, particularly as it forms in the socialization process of the lawyer at the firm, plays a crucial role. But this is
too big a thought for this little post; maybe I'll post later just on this topic.

Second, these large defense law firms amaze me by doing despicable things on a regular basis, and being proud of it! Unlike corporations that produce products for public consumers, most of these law firms have only one very specialized clientele, corporations. Thus, their advertisements and publications need only focus particularly on the needs and desires of this clientele. As a result, the websites of the firms are an interesting window into the true purposes, objectives, and self-image of the corporations! The websites often include boasts about "accomplishments" such as the following:

"[Our firm] has advised Anglo American plc subsidiary, Zambia Copper Investments Limited, on its acquisition of the privatized assets of Zambia Consolidated Copper Mines Ltd ('ZCCM')...The transaction required significant changes to Zambian law, particularly in relation to environmental liabilities. ZCCM’s assets were incapable of complying with certain Zambian environmental standards... The key achievements included negotiating an indemnity from the government and obtaining a moratorium on environmental law enforcement for 20 years."

This has inspired me to host a weekly "Devil's Advocate" Award for those who facilitate corporate evil.

So congratulations to the people that changed the law of a third-world African nation to allow twenty years of indiscriminate pollution. More information on ZCCM and environmental pollution:

OxFam report on Zambian copper mines and pollution
This report is really fascinating; it details the various kinds of environmental damage and the role Anglo.

UN Human Rights Article on the Zambian pollution in lead mines

Investing group report on the pollution problem
Office of the Compliance Advisor/Ombudsman of the International Finance Corporation and the Multilateral Investment Agency. Extremely thorough.

Santren Report