American Immigration Lawyers Association plots its decline
The American Immigration Lawyers Association, AILA, is the venerable organization of immigration lawyers. Many, but probably not most, immigration lawyers belong. Its dues are high. The cost of its continuing legal education (CLE) programs (Continuing education is the requirement most state bars impose on lawyers to take classes each year as a requirement to keep their license.) is high, but less high than many of its competitor programs. For many immigration lawyers, it is their only credential other than their license. Lawyers advertise, “Member of AILA,” which they hope will be interpreted as, “I am an expert in immigration law,” but which really means, “I write a dues check every year.” (Actually, to spur membership, you can pay dues on an installment plan.) There are no qualifications to membership other than being allowed to practice law where you live. It is not like a state legal specialization program with tests and standards. The organization thrives on the confusion, just as the Better Business Bureau and Good Housekeeping thrive, or at least used to.
Lawyers join the organization for more than the ability to deceive potential clients. Some join for the camaraderie – meeting colleagues from their community at local meetings (though one of the local organization is “the South,” and another, “Texas,” land masses the size of Western Europe, hardly a local fraternity) and from around the country at national conferences. Some join for the CLE opportunities, though it seems that it is becoming more and more easy to pick up credits through other organizations, sometimes for a fraction of the cost. The quality of the CLE is also an issue. Slick books given out as part of the CLE have been replaced by memory sticks, which though lamentable as a research tool makes going home from a conference easier with the demise of the checked bag. Some join for the news and updates the organization provides through the Internet – the organization used to print information and mail it, but, like course books, austerity and changing media habits have all but eliminated hard copies of news. (I was on the editorial board of an AILA journal which the organization stopped publishing. No one ever informed me the journal was defunct or sent me a parting gift. It took me a year to figure it out myself and remove the position from my CV. The AILA website is strangely silent about the folding of a magazine.) While AILA’s news-disseminating function is extremely useful, the Internet is making it obsolete. Courts and other websites, like Findlaw, will post and email new court cases immediately. USCIS and other DHS organs as well as the Department of State and the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review maintain websites where they post their new memos, rules, and regulations. Other aggregators, like ILW and BIB (How does Benders have such a good website and such a crummy journal, asks Lexis subscribers – the last one looked like a ransom note – and the publishing of its editors’ napkin scratches does it no credit) are getting the news AILA gets out at a premium price faster and for free.
The remaining great benefit of AILA membership is its liaison work. DHS, DOL, and DOS still favor AILA in meeting with it to discuss their policies and to accept advice and criticism. These governmental organizations, especially USCIS, favor AILA lawyers by allowing AILA members special access for troubleshooting cases. I am sure one day some non-AILA lawyer will sue over this cozy relationship and win. Imagine if you had to join the Federalist Society to get help with your litigation in a district court?
With fewer and fewer advantages to membership, membership is shrinking.
What AILA did have going for it was a wonderful collegiality and conviviality. People could call each other for help or advice. Attorneys were willing to give their time to help peers. While not all AILA lawyers were good, honest, or generous with their time, you did meet many good and honest people you could refer your client to if he moved elsewhere or got in trouble elsewhere. “Yes, I do happen to know a good immigration lawyer in Bogalusa.” Like all organizations, there were political divisions, cliques, ideological differences – but in general it seemed everyone was civil and interested broadly in the same things – a well-run organization, more knowledgeable members, a better-run government, and better immigration laws. It now seems the civility is breaking down. The director quit. An ambitious announced effort to find a new director of national stature from outside the organization failed – imagine if Tom Daschle of Spencer Abraham was named AILA director? Members are more and more brittle towards each other and self-government is breaking down.
The current election is an example. The organization is staging its annual elections of its leaders. The way AILA runs itself, like most organizations, is current leadership picks a committee which then picks a slate of candidates for the organization’s offices. People are free to run against the slate, but like most unimportant things, interest is limited. Think of your high school student council – you may remember who your high school student council president was, but not because of what she accomplished but because of the size of her chest or the quality of her toe touch jump. There are always people who seek these kinds of office – they go on to run for their university senate and then, if successful, become the Newt Gingriches of the world.
Yet, while the need for AILA dwindling, the membership falling, and its status in decline, the organization’s leaders are tearing up what little fabric of the organization is left. The slate’s candidate for secretary by all accounts is a highly competent, articulate fellow from Milwaukee. His dedication to the organization through volunteerism is long and admirable. His nomination seems a logical choice for an organization seeking competent, experienced leadership. I know him from my own work in the organization and we have had several cordial discussions. Running against him is a lawyer from Los Angeles. His claims to fame are seven published court decisions (of which he “won” two), his diversity (whatever that means), and his exposure on Spanish-language TV (now you know what that means). If an AILA member had nothing to do other than read email, he or she could make a full time job of reading the email traffic extolling the candidates. Those interested in leadership roles in the organization are endorsing one or the other, splitting the organization in two. I am sure there are all kinds of “political” reasons for what is going on, but like the political machinations in your local high school student counsel or garden club, it really is of no interest. If all this rancor does not subside, the organization will weaken more – perhaps split.
And why all this division? AILA’s self-selected leadership fancies itself that it has a big role in immigration reform. Many immigration lawyers have a good idea how immigration law works and what new laws affecting immigrants could look like – how any new law will fit into the current statutory and regulatory structure. AILA’s leaders think that AILA’s input can be decisive in the process. They believe Congress will learn from it, the executive branch will seek its guidance, and the masses of immigrant rights organizations will bow to its wisdom and follow its lead. This is the view of much of the leadership despite all previous experience. The organization spends a fortune on “advocacy,” though it has nothing to show for it. The last immigration reform laws Congress passed were in 1996 and 1997, under Bill Clinton. These reforms were to bettering the situation of immigrants as the Nuremberg Laws were to benefitting the situation of Jews. The pressure on the advocacy staff to make progress must be immense as there is a lot of turnover in the advocacy department.
Some AILA leader believes the time has finally come for immigration reform. AILA leaders are going to organize and inspire the Hispanic masses and get reform legislation passed. These leaders think a “diverse” AILA leader from America’s largest Spanish-speaking city – actually the world’s largest Spanish-speaking city – will galvanize the Hispanic masses behind AILA and lead the country to comprehensive reform. So, these leaders are willing to tear apart the organization and run against the slate based on the delusion that a great brown hope will bring immigration reform. For that these leaders will forsake an orderly process, comaraderie, and future cohesion. Maybe they will be right. Maybe under new leadership, AILA will write comprehensive reform legislation, Congressional leaders will embrace AILA’s proposal, and a new millenium will emerge. Or more likely, AILA will remain in the sidelines, Congress will sense pressure from its constituencies – voters, police chiefs, unions, businessmen (not lawyers), rely on its own expertise and other experts in business, industry, and academe, and some change might come. In the meantime, AILA, torn asunder, will be surpassed by superior information technologies, greater government openness, cheaper CLE’s, and more collegial organizations. And immigration lawyers will go on doing what they do, running their own offices and earning their livings making their own decisions based on their own experience, intuition, and understanding of the law. Posted May 23, 2010
