As I write my last article as Chair of the GPSolo Division, I am filled with a profound sense of gratitude and reflection. Serving in this role has been a privilege and a deeply fulfilling experience, one that has enriched my life in countless ways. I thank you for this opportunity. I will offer more thoughts later, but for now let’s advance to the substance of this month’s issue.
In this issue, we examine the broad and often complex area of immigration law. Few topics command as much interest or impact our national consciousness as much as immigration. I hope you will enjoy the content as much as I have.
Immigration laws and policies largely determine who may enter the country, who may stay and for how long, which rights and privileges may be exercised while present in the country, and, of pivotal importance, who has access to U.S. citizenship.
Immigration policy is heavily subject to the vicissitudes of public opinion and political ideologies. The nation’s immigration story thus is a longitudinal observance of who is in and who is out at any given time.
Historically, when the need for labor is high or war is imminent, liberal immigration policies are encouraged and tolerated. When national security concerns—real or perceived—dominate public discourse, there is more pronounced interest in closing the nation’s borders than there is in advancing economic interests or fulfilling our humanitarian obligations. All too often, xenophobia and misinformation have an oversized influence on national policy.
Since the nation’s founding, immigration policy has operated to open the nation’s borders to favored groups and close the borders to “unpopular” groups. By the way, most U.S. citizens are descendants of previously unpopular groups. For example, Benjamin Franklin openly discouraged the immigration of individuals of German, Spanish, French, Russian, and Swedish descent.
Some of the nation’s earliest immigration laws restricted many individuals of African, Asian, and Caribbean descent. Many of these laws stayed in place until the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.
Distinctions prior to the 1965 Act were largely, but not exclusively, based on race or ethnicity. Individuals with disabilities were prohibited from entry through the Immigration Acts of 1882, 1891, 1907, and 1917, and today they still face many immigration obstacles. The Immigration Acts of 1917 and 1952 banned the entry of homosexuals and others with alleged “mental defects.”
By and large, without past advancements in immigration policy, the current populations of U.S. citizens of African, Irish, Italian, German, Japanese, Native American, Chinese, Polish, Asian, and Mexican descent would barely exist. Many Catholic, Muslim, Jewish, Latter-day Saint, and atheist families would have been precluded from calling this nation their home. Individuals with disabilities and homosexuals would have been denied admittance to the country or offered little opportunity for real participation in American society.
Advancements in immigration policy have proven to be a driving force of our nation’s success. We are all Americans, but we are Americans of different experiences and backgrounds. Some ventured here for religious freedom, some for economic gain, some to escape persecution, some came involuntarily on boats, some captained those boats, and many others came seeking reunification with their families. Regardless of how or why we arrived, we each add value to the wonderful mosaic we call America. It is my sincere hope that these articles strengthen your knowledge of immigration law and inspire you to ensure that pathways to the American Dream remain open for others.
As I mentioned above, this is my last Chair’s Corner column. Thus, in closing, I would like to express my deepest thanks to each and every one of you who has been a part of this amazing journey.
This year, we reached a record high for GPSolo membership, 28,022 members, which makes us the third-largest division of the ABA. We sponsored two very successful solo and small firm conferences. We greatly improved the GPSolo website. If you have not visited lately, I urge you to visit americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo. We more aggressively advocated against threats to solo and small firm practitioners. We increased our outreach efforts to law students planning to begin a solo practice right out of law school. We successfully established the Scott LaBarre Disability Law Committee in honor of past Chair Scott LaBarre, who passed away in December 2022.
I pass the baton to the new leadership team, and I do so with confidence and optimism. The 2024–2025 leadership team includes Chair Judge Melody M. Wilkinson (Texas), Chair-Elect Melvin O. Shaw (Iowa), Vice Chair Colonel Thomas A. Urquhart (North Carolina), and Secretary Alan O. Olson (Iowa). Judge Wilkinson spearheaded GPSolo’s recent long-range planning process. We have already made progress on several new initiatives. Her generosity, passion, and unwavering support have been a driving force behind GPSolo’s success. Stay tuned for important updates and new opportunities to learn, engage, and network in an array of practice areas and settings. I am excited, and you will be also.
I extend much-deserved thanks to the GPSolo Division staff, including Kimberly Kocian (Division Director), Steve Wildi (Program Associate), Sherri Napue (Meeting Planner), and Molly Hesse (Marketing Operations Manager). Together, you all fostered an environment where collegiality, professionalism, diversity, and collaboration thrived. It’s remarkable what we were able to accomplish this year.
To Julie T. Houth (GPSolo magazine Editor-in-Chief), Ashley Hallene (GPSolo eReport Editor-in-Chief), Melanie Bragg (Book Publications Board Chair), the full periodicals and book publications boards, and staff editors Rob Salkin and Lorraine Murray, I thank you for what has been a historic year for our publications. Your willingness to go above and beyond in support of GPSolo’s mission has been truly inspiring and has set a standard of excellence for us all.
I must acknowledge and thank the members of the GPSolo Executive Council. Each member’s unique expertise and dedication enriched our discussions, contributed to better decision-making processes, and led to our overall success.
Lastly, I thank the 28,000-plus GPSolo members. It is because of you and the love of our profession that we do what we do. We earnestly believe the success of the legal profession depends on the success of solo and small firm attorneys, a group comprising an overwhelming majority of the profession. We strive daily to live up to our motto, “Your Success, Our Mission.”
This is not a farewell but rather a thank-you. As always, if you have any ideas for how the Division can enhance the administration of justice or improve the efficiency, success, and profitability of the nation’s solo and small firm attorneys, please do not hesitate to reach out.
