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

Save Our State (http://www.saveourstate.info/index.php)

- State Government (http://www.saveourstate.info/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - State Legislature Working To Allow Non-Citizens To Serve On Jury (http://www.saveourstate.info/showthread.php?t=7858)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAPhil (Post 23094)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilbegone (Post 23095)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAPhil (Post 23096)

The primary question is

Quote:

what is the value of American Citizenship?

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

Quote:

when they can sit on juries, the slippery slope will be "why not let them vote as well"?

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?

Quote:

Walk across the border and yooouuure a voter!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilbegone (Post 23097)

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 prejudice 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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAPhil (Post 23105)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilbegone (Post 23106)

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.