[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by LAPhil

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.