Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Treason Lawyer Angelo Paparelli’s Amnesty Scheme Violates His Attorney’s Oath
Immigration lawyer Angelo Paparelli (pictured above right with Rep. Luis Gutierrez ) is leading the fight for an expansion of the Obama Regime’s Administrative Amnesty. In so doing, he proves himself an oath-breaker, an apologist for law-breaking, and an enemy of the Constitution—a full-fledged member of what VDARE.com calls “The Treason Lobby.”
As an attorney, Paparelli must have taken the oath that all attorneys take upon admission to the California state bar:
I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of an attorney and counselor-at-law to the best of my knowledge and ability.
The California Business and Professions Code § 6068 begins:
It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following: a) To support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state.
It is a sad state of affairs when a non-attorney must point out that the Constitution entrusts the legislative power to Congress, not to the President. But Paparelli’s most recent screed is an open attack on the Constitution, and a demand that Barack Hussein Obama impose an amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens by fiat:
We are also little amused about promises broken, like the one where a newly elected President would address comprehensive immigration reform during his first year in office. When it comes to immigration, the President's effort might better be dubbed, IfOnlyObamaCared. To be sure, he's tried the bully pulpit with no tangible success in the recalcitrant House.
ParoleInPlace -The Immigration PIPsqueak That Could Help Solve the Biggest Obstacle To Comprehensive Immigration Reform, by Angelo Paparelli, ILW.com November 18, 2013
According to Paparelli, the President has broken a promise by not forcing the legislature to do what he wants. Paparelli would prefer the President to overturn the Constitution for the benefit of 20 million illegal aliens.
Of course, Paparelli has reasons—but they are culpable reasons.
The attorney’s code states that a lawyer’s duty is:
(c) To counsel or maintain those actions, proceedings, or defenses only as appear to him or her legal or just, except the defense of a person charged with a public offense. [California Business And Professions Code. Section 6060-6069]
An attorney is also told
(g) Not to encourage either the commencement or the continuance of an action or proceeding from any corrupt motive of passion or interest. [Emphases added throughout]
Here Paparelli is doubly guilty. His practice is immigration law at the firm of Seyfarth Shaw. An illegal and unconstitutional Administrative Amnesty would be a financial windfall for him.
And Paparelli openly admits that he is passionately interested in benefits for illegal aliens. From his personal website, Nation of Immigrators (sic):
The grandson of Italian immigrants, Angelo is recognized by his peers and the public as a scholar and leader in immigration law and a passionate advocate for the rights of immigrants, U.S. citizens, and organizations petitioning for immigration benefits.
Paparelli’s corrupt interest and corrupt passion drives his open opposition and contempt for the U.S. Constitution and rule of law. Paparelli appears to be nothing more than a Marxist of the Gramsci type, long-marching through the legal system.
Exaggeration? Look at Paparelli’s advocacy of a coup d’état against the Constitution.
A pragmatic and tangible way for the President to grant the 11 million undocumented among us respite from deportation [is] through expanded use of Parole-in-Place or PIP, the discretionary power of the President under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(d)(5)(A) to transform an unauthorized noncitizen in the U.S. into an individual with legal status.
(Paparelli apparently does not know the correct legal terms to use. A non-citizen is not necessarily, as Paparelli implies, an alien. The Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, defines all persons who are not citizens or nationals of the United States as aliens. But while all citizens of the United States are also nationals of the United States, not all nationals of the United States are citizens. An immigration attorney should know that persons born in American Samoa, for example, are nationals but not citizens of the United States.
(The use of "noncitizens” is a Gramscian attempt to define deviancy down, in this case using the inaccurate "noncitizens" to describe an alien. “Alien” is a legal term that the radical Left is desperate to drive out of political discourse. (See Stop calling people “aliens”, By Careen Shannon, Salon, May 27, 2013.)
Which leads us to an expanded post on Paparelli’s personal website:
Rather, the discretionary power to grant parole arises under Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 212(d)(5)(A). By statute, it is the power to allow a foreign citizen into the United States "temporarily under such conditions as [formerly, the Attorney General, but now, USCIS, as delegate of the Homeland Security Secretary] may prescribe only on a case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit . . ."
Parole is a grant of permission to travel to the U.S. and be granted entry in lieu of presenting a visa or overcoming or waiving a ground of visa ineligibility. It comes in four flavors:
1. Humanitarian Parole (available to persons outside the U.S. who seek letters of travel permission to present to an airlines or common carrier and entry to the U.S., usually for emergency reasons),
2. Public Interest Parole (available to persons outside the U.S. who come for a reason the government believes is in the public interest, e.g., to testify at a criminal trial),
3. Advance Parole (available to persons inside the U.S. who wish to travel abroad and be reasonably assured of being allowed back in)
And then Paparelli gives us #4, but through Gramscian misdirection implies that it is authorized by law, although subtly conceding it has no legal basis:
4. Parole-in-Place (an administrative mechanism permitting an individual in the U.S., often a member of the U.S. military or a relative, to overcome an obstacle to adjusting status here and being awarded a green card).
Dear Immigration Director: Let Our Dreamers Go! by Angelo Paparelli. January 21, 2013
Note the reference to "administrative mechanism," also previously referred to by Paparelli and others as "discretionary." By "discretionary" they mean outside the law. There is no discretion granted to the President or any inferior official, to provide a benefit to an alien not provided to by law.
The applicable statute (Title 8 of the United States Code, Section 1182) makes it quite clear that there is no general parole authority absent extraordinary circumstances, and then only in a case-by-case manner:
Only an alien outside the United States is eligible for parole. Even so-called advanced parole requires an application for parole filed before the alien arrives, and is only available to those aliens lawfully present at the time they applied to adjust status. The only illegal aliens eligible were those covered by the now long expired Section 245(i) waiver.
Nonetheless, Comrade Paparelli goes for the whole enchilada. He advocates a wildly unconstitutional but “low decibel” (i. e. stealth) “parole in place” that would
[P]osition the undocumented to qualify for green cards through adjustment of status in the future under any of the otherwise available family- or employment-based immigrant visa categories. All that's required would be to grant PIP concurrently with another § 212(d)(5)(A) benefit known as "advance parole" and with the issuance of an employment authorization document or EAD. This would allow the undocumented to work and pay taxes and to travel abroad for legitimate business or personal reasons, and then after reentering the U.S. to be essentially cleansed of such prior immigration violations as entry without inspection or failure to depart when required. [Parole-in-Place -- The Immigration PIPsqueak That Could Help Solve the Biggest Obstacle to Comprehensive Reform, November 17, 2013]
Paparelli’s scheme is an assault on the Constitution, a usurpation of the legislative branch, and a clear violation of his oath as a member of the Bar Association of the State of California.
How much more treasonous can you get?
The blogger Federale (Email him) is a 4th generation Californian and a veteran of federal law enforcement, including service in the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Department of Homeland Security, and other federal law enforcement agencies.
Federale's opinions do not represent those of the Department of Homeland Security or the federal government, and are an exercise of rights protected by the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.