4 ms·

"either it is lawful or it is not" not really. things aren't really ever that clear cut. if they were, then being a lawyer wouldn't be quite a lucrative a busi

by donal 19y ago

"either it is lawful or it is not" not really. things aren't really ever that clear cut. if they were, then being a lawyer wouldn't be quite a lucrative a business. considering the complexity of immigration law, "probably" and "maybe" are good answers until a judge gives an official "yes" or "no".

notauser 19y ago
It is one of the major disadvantages of a common law system (as opposed to statutory law, like the French legal system). Because things are so heavily influenced by precedent, until there has been a legal opinion it is very unclear what the law actually is. Even if there is a statute on the books that is very unambiguous that doesn't mean that a judge will always be compelled to follow it. Not only that but because of the difference between binding vs persuasive opinion two different courts might even (legitimately) make opposing rulings. This means that you can't really rely on a certain ruling in many causes, and if you _are_ convicted based on a judge's interpretation of the law you will have to wait for the appeals process. Assuming your appeal is even taken up you might need to wait months or years and spend a large fortune on legal bills. In the mean time you might have the penalties for "breaking" the law applied to you anyway. After 4 years of court costs and expulsion from the US it won't console you much that they will now let you back in, considering the opportunities you may have lost while all this was going on. Hence the 'probably' and the 'maybe'. IANAL etc.
- donal 19y ago
  Hmm, I don't know if I'd necessarily call it a "disadvantage," it is a difference however. Not being up on the merits of different legal systems, I'll avoid demonstrating my ignorance and just refrain from making a decision I would not be able to back up. I am now curious though, so I guess you just grew my "to research" list.
kirubakaran 19y ago
Also, officials tend to enforce the letter of the law and judges are expected to rule per the spirit of the law.

by donal 19y ago

notauser 19y ago

It is one of the major disadvantages of a common law system (as opposed to statutory law, like the French legal system). Because things are so heavily influenced by precedent, until there has been a legal opinion it is very unclear what the law actually is. Even if there is a statute on the books that is very unambiguous that doesn't mean that a judge will always be compelled to follow it. Not only that but because of the difference between binding vs persuasive opinion two different courts might even (legitimately) make opposing rulings. This means that you can't really rely on a certain ruling in many causes, and if you _are_ convicted based on a judge's interpretation of the law you will have to wait for the appeals process. Assuming your appeal is even taken up you might need to wait months or years and spend a large fortune on legal bills. In the mean time you might have the penalties for "breaking" the law applied to you anyway. After 4 years of court costs and expulsion from the US it won't console you much that they will now let you back in, considering the opportunities you may have lost while all this was going on. Hence the 'probably' and the 'maybe'. IANAL etc.

donal 19y ago
Hmm, I don't know if I'd necessarily call it a "disadvantage," it is a difference however. Not being up on the merits of different legal systems, I'll avoid demonstrating my ignorance and just refrain from making a decision I would not be able to back up. I am now curious though, so I guess you just grew my "to research" list.

kirubakaran 19y ago

Also, officials tend to enforce the letter of the law and judges are expected to rule per the spirit of the law.