State Legislature Working To Allow Non-Citizens To Serve On Jury
 

OK folks,

This is a big deal. The state assembly passed a bill that will bring non-citizens into the Jury pools in all courts. This is a direct assault on state citizen sovereignty. It would allow foreign citizens to sit in judgement of all native born. I'm still mired in a work project, but this one we have to fight hard on

http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/13-14/bill...d_asm_v98.html

I just read the bill and it specifically exempts persons who are not lawfully present immigrants or citizens of the United
States as potential trial jurors. I don't have a big problem with non-citizens serving a jury, as long as they're legal residents.

It's both a big problem and a can of worms, Phil.

The countries many of those people come from are corrupt and lacking in democratic values, even whole different thought processes are involved.

Are you willing to have a jury comprised of newly arrived people from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Saharan African countries sit in judgement of the surviving Boston bombing suspect, a legal immigrant from Chechnya?

How about cases in which the Mexican government has an interest in, want a bunch of Mexican nationals weighing in on the outcome?

Juries are selected from voter registration lists, so when they can sit on juries, the slippery slope will be "why not let them vote as well?"

So the value of American citizenship is diminished with every tiny little bite.

The people who come up with this crap hate our country and are seeking to change it into something else by turning us into "citizens of the world".

Think about it.

Ilbegone, as the lawyers would say, you're assuming a lot of facts not in evidence. If there were a case of jurors who were "planted" or jurors who were biased or had malevolent intentions because of their nationality or religion that would theoretically come out during the voir dire and they would be disqualified, even if the attorneys had the slightest suspicion that that was the case. Any potential juror can be disqualified at the discretion of the attorneys. You're looking for a worst case scenario here, whereas in the vast majority of cases having a legal resident on a jury would not constitute any problem as long as that juror was not found to have any significant biases. And as for the voter registration rolls, if non-citizens can't vote I don't know how they could be selected anyway.

The primary question is

This stuff devalues citizenship. What other Nation allows foreigners to sit in judgement over their citizens, laws, disputes, and further allow them to set precedence?

None.

There is no other nation which practices the generosity, goodwill, and tolerance for foreigners as we do. We roll out the welcome mat for people who hate us and give them low or no cost business loans or provide them with social services both not ordinarily available to citizens and overlook faults for which a citizen would be crucified, and it's killing who we are and negating what we have been.

And not for the better.

If you're not a citizen, you don't vote and you don't serve on juries.

To address your contention that malevolence or bias will be "sniffed out", my experiences with the legal system leads me to not entirely believe that premise, and how is that to be thoroughly done with the inquisitors dealing with people from unfamiliar cultures? It's not about what is being said so much as what is meant, and what is said in public might not be the same as what is said in close privacy.

Furthermore the slippery slope is

There is a lot of pressure at the very bottom grass roots level to let illegals vote on very local governmental and school district matters. How do you think it's all eventually going to turn out if green card residents sit on juries?

I still don't accept the idea that just because someone has a green card but is not a citizen is reason for disqualification from jury service. What would you say if the juror was in the process of applying for citizenship? Wouldn't this experience be a productive one in learning about our legal system? I'm sure that there are plenty of foreign legal residents who we wouldn't want sitting on a jury, but by the same token there are plenty of American citizens who make terrible jurors. I know because I'm one of them. I have some pretty strong opinions about the failings in the judicial system and when the attorneys hear me spout off about them they don't want to touch me with a 10-foot pole. However, there are a lot of good unbiased people who make excellent jurors and I don't believe there is any reason to believe that they can't be found among non-citizens. Now perhaps the Founding Fathers would have agreed with you and maybe it's a bad idea for one state to set a precedent like this. All I'm saying is that I can't get upset about the idea, and when I called for jury duty next month if a non-citizen makes the random cut just ahead of me I won't be complaining.

Phil,

You may not get upset about foreigners sitting in judgement over our citizens, laws, disputes, and further allow them to set precedence, but I am greatly concerned.

And yes, the founding fathers would have been concerned with good reason, very similar to the reason Mexico has all the restrictions on foreigners that it does.

Furthermore it's a cynical stepping stone to give the vote to people who are newly arrived, legal or not. Just who do new citizens tend to vote for? Those who paved their way - generally Democrats who come up with bills like this.

Just one more point and then I'll rest my case. I can actually sympathize with a lot of the points you made, but consider this: A non-citizen resident is subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States and if arrested they are entitled to a jury trial like any other resident, citizen or otherwise. A jury is ideally supposed to be composed of the peers of the defendant (which the Founding Fathers did believe in), and who better to fill the role of peer of a non-citizen than another non-citizen?

I anticipated the notion of judgement by peers, thus the question concerning a Muslim Chechen foreigner being judged in the United States by other middle eastern foreign Muslims - this notion of "social justice" is the stuff the parallel dimension minded United Nations is all about.

Besides, some cultures believe in arranged marriages with the bride being a child while the husband may be a middle aged man. Should a jury in the United States be composed of foreigners who came from the same child bride culture as a foreigner accused of child molestation?

But these are all side arguments which detract from the real issue - national sovereignty.

To give foreigners the jury box is a big step towards giving foreigners who have no loyalty or sympathy for our country the ballot box.

I don't agree with that at all. Voting is a privilege which is given to us. Jury service isn't a privilege or something people are entitled to, it's something they provide for us at their own expense in many cases, not to mention the inconvenience.

It is a chip away to the direction of giving illegals the right to vote, just like giving drivers licenses (with the motor voter automatic registration) to illegals would enfranchise them to vote.

AND WHO WILL THEY VOTE FOR WHEN ALLOWED TO DO SO?

They will vote for the party which caters to them, which party includes a whole delegation of those Americans who want to entirely change the character of America - and those political knuckleheads (who quite often live up on the hill and not among those they bring in) have no idea of what they are really bringing about.

We get back to the basics of what is being wrought, regardless of the "joys" to you and I of jury service:

It's ultimately about national sovereignty, allowing foreigners to sit in judgement over our citizens, our laws, our legal disputes, and further allow them to set legal precedence,

And to give foreigners the jury box is a big step towards giving foreigners who have no loyalty or sympathy for our country the ballot box.

It's about "One World", "world without borders", "citizen of the world", "Racist American imperialism" among much else that is being exploited by other agendas.

There are lots of agendas in this pie, not just Aztlanistas, not just "white privilege" race baiters, not just far left Birkenstock wearing kumbaya usefull idiot crowd cum Stalinist style communists, but many more.

I have no love for the Republican party, but the Democrat party has the largest collection of useful idiots among them all.

Well I guess we just fundamentally disagree. I don't see any connection between allowing foreigners to serve on a jury and getting the right to vote without becoming citizens first. And why do you assume that just because they're not citizens they have no loyalty to this country? Many of them may be in the process of becoming citizens, as the process takes time. Being a juror is simply a matter of deciding guilt or innocence in a criminal matter or liability in a civil matter, and being a non-citizen is not de facto an obstacle to that. As I said earlier, the attorneys can dismiss anyone for cause, and if they feel that a particular person is not qualified they will not hesitate to dismiss that person.

We very much disagree and I respect your right to disagree with my view.

America is the land of a free ride (or relatively so) for many foreigners who come here. Taking the ride doesn't necessarily indicate any sort of affection for the host. The Boston bombing is clear enough proof of that, and going through the motions of getting citizenship doesn't mean anything is either learned or appreciated. Citizenship sells cheap in this country.

The tendency among Mexican nationals and middle easterners is to merely be residents in America while holding a general disdain for America and Americans. Green cards and citizenship doesn't change that mindset, although there are a couple of them I know who hate Mexico for reasons both expressed and not stated.

Maybe all that is irrelevant.

Jury duty is thankless, from waiting to be called or dismissed all friggin' day in an overheated, 98% humidity room containing three times as many people gasping for air it was designed for to the fact that it takes a chunk out of your income whether or not you are chosen. I have served on juries, and I know for a fact that the screening doesn't weed out all the naive (either way) and those with their mind made up before trial begins. I'm dismissed anymore because I speak the truth based upon my experiences.

However to give jury duty to foreigners is like giving away distasteful parts of your work when times are good - when work slows down that distasteful work never comes back because the people who filled the slot work cheaper and are willing to take a lot more shit than you are and you are no longer in the market and you no longer have an income.

And it all comes back to SOVEREIGNTY

You don't give away parts of your house to strangers, you might eventually find yourself on the street.

I've already explained the jury box to ballot box dominoes, but here it is again:

Every possible straw is being grasped to give illegals voting privilege through progressive legitimization. It's going on now with school board elections and other very local matters where it becomes both a chip in the system and a precedence - a future justification for more and bigger chips to be taken.

That's the attempt with driver's licenses for illegals regardless of all the false rhetoric about public safety, it's a step towards legitimization.

Give green card holders the jury box when the jury pool is selected from the voter registration list, the demand will be to change the law to allow green card holders to vote... and the justification offered for giving green cards the jury box is the falsehood that the jury pool isn't large enough.

With green card voting accomplished we have a nation without borders and the rationalization will be that it's discriminatory to exclude illegal alien squatters from the ballot box...

You don't have to believe me, just study Jose Angel Gutierrez and how his failed La Raza Unida party became the very model for government takeover one chip at a time and hanging on to it. It's gone on for 40 plus years, and it's working.

Have you been to court recently Phil?
Attorney's do not get carte blanche pre-emptory challenges. There are limits, else they would juror shop til they drop.

As a citizen, the juror is presumed to know the state and federal constitutions. Native born are taught those in school. Immigrants who become citizens are schooled in both and must pass a test. Non-immigrants have no such requirements to learn it, or inherent values that are often absorbed by exposure after being raised here. This bill makes zero provision for an understanding of law or constitution. None Phil! All you need to have is a visa, and it could be a tourist visa, because that's lawful presence.

AG, that is an excellent point and I have to admit I hadn't thought of it. Maybe this is a bad idea after all.

I want my Country back!