Aa
California mulls letting noncitizens serve on juries
(CNN) -- Some in the pro-immigrant left are confused. They can't make up their minds about U.S. citizenship. Is it a necessity or a luxury?
Is it vitally important to living a full life or something one can live without? Should it be respected and treasured or rejected and trivialized?
Don't expect California to be of much help in sorting this out. In making public policy, especially on the tough issues, my home state can often be emotional, egotistical and erratic.
Just last week, the state Assembly approved AB 1401, a bill that would allow noncitizens to serve on juries if they are in the country legally. The vote, 45 to 26, wasn't even close.
All the "yes" votes came from Democrats. No surprise there. Getting noncitizens on juries is the first step toward what Democrats are really after -- getting more of them to vote, at least in non-federal elections. In November 2010, voters in San Francisco weighed in on a proposition that would have allowed all parents of children in the city's schools to vote in school board elections whether they were citizens or not; they voted it down but the shocking part is that it was even proposed.
Still, if the bill is approved by the state Senate and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, California would become the first state in the nation to dispense with the citizenship requirement to sit on a jury.
What's wrong with this picture? What happened to all the rhetoric we've heard in the debate over comprehensive immigration reform, about how advocates won't settle for the undocumented getting only legal status because "citizenship" is so wonderful and valuable? Just not essential to acts of civic participation like sitting on juries.
Supporters say they want to increase the size of the available jury pool while helping immigrants integrate into U.S. society. They also claim that juries should reflect their communities as they exist, and this means including noncitizens in the mix.
Those are lovely sentiments. But if people want to help immigrants "integrate," they should help them become U.S. citizens. It's not that difficult. The hard part is going from "illegal immigrant" to "legal resident"; by comparison, transitioning from "legal resident" to "U.S. citizen" is a walk in the park.
In fact, often times, according to immigration attorneys and other experts in the field, the only reason that more people don't complete the process and become citizens is because they're reluctant to let go of their romantic attachment to their homeland.
Immigration is a complicated issue that has baffled the Golden State for more than 25 years. In effect, there are two signs on the California-Mexico border, about 10 miles south of San Diego: "No Trespassing" and "Help Wanted." Half the time, we're trying to get rid of immigrants; the other half, we're trying to get our hands on more.
Our elected officials only add to the confusion. With one hand, Brown signed legislation letting undocumented college students apply for state-sponsored financial aid. With the other, he vetoed a bill that would have scaled back the cooperation that local police give to U.S. immigration officials in rounding up immigrants who are here illegally.
So, in Brown's California, local cops can help hunt you down if you lack legal status. But, if you get by them, you can go to college on the taxpayer's dime?
We've seen this kind of inconsistency before. In 1986, U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson helped push the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized more than 3 million illegal immigrants.
The Republican did it to please his benefactors in agriculture, who understand that they would be out of business without the undocumented. In 1994, Wilson -- who was by then California governor, and fighting for re-election -- turned himself inside out and hitched his wagon to Proposition 187, an insanely cruel ballot initiative that intended to deny illegal immigrants and their children access to public schools, welfare benefits and nonemergency health care.
It was that Republican-backed initiative, which was later struck down by the federal courts as unconstitutional, that sent California into a political tailspin.
In a state that is more than 38% Latino, and where Latinos account for more than one in five voters, the GOP's war on immigrants turned out to be a suicide mission. Thanks in large part to support from Latino voters, Democrats now have "supermajorities" in both chambers of the state legislature. This means they get bills passed without a single Republican vote. Think about the consequences.
Noncitizens serving on juries. Who could have imagined?
Welcome to life on the Left Coast. This is how California rolls. It acts on impulse and out of a misplaced sense of social justice. It makes mistakes that take years to rectify. Its "can-do" spirit convinces it that it can do great things. But it never stops to ask whether it might instead do great harm.
SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/opinion/navarrette-noncitizens-juries/index.html?hpt=us_c2
Is it vitally important to living a full life or something one can live without? Should it be respected and treasured or rejected and trivialized?
Don't expect California to be of much help in sorting this out. In making public policy, especially on the tough issues, my home state can often be emotional, egotistical and erratic.
Just last week, the state Assembly approved AB 1401, a bill that would allow noncitizens to serve on juries if they are in the country legally. The vote, 45 to 26, wasn't even close.
All the "yes" votes came from Democrats. No surprise there. Getting noncitizens on juries is the first step toward what Democrats are really after -- getting more of them to vote, at least in non-federal elections. In November 2010, voters in San Francisco weighed in on a proposition that would have allowed all parents of children in the city's schools to vote in school board elections whether they were citizens or not; they voted it down but the shocking part is that it was even proposed.
Still, if the bill is approved by the state Senate and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, California would become the first state in the nation to dispense with the citizenship requirement to sit on a jury.
What's wrong with this picture? What happened to all the rhetoric we've heard in the debate over comprehensive immigration reform, about how advocates won't settle for the undocumented getting only legal status because "citizenship" is so wonderful and valuable? Just not essential to acts of civic participation like sitting on juries.
Supporters say they want to increase the size of the available jury pool while helping immigrants integrate into U.S. society. They also claim that juries should reflect their communities as they exist, and this means including noncitizens in the mix.
Those are lovely sentiments. But if people want to help immigrants "integrate," they should help them become U.S. citizens. It's not that difficult. The hard part is going from "illegal immigrant" to "legal resident"; by comparison, transitioning from "legal resident" to "U.S. citizen" is a walk in the park.
In fact, often times, according to immigration attorneys and other experts in the field, the only reason that more people don't complete the process and become citizens is because they're reluctant to let go of their romantic attachment to their homeland.
Immigration is a complicated issue that has baffled the Golden State for more than 25 years. In effect, there are two signs on the California-Mexico border, about 10 miles south of San Diego: "No Trespassing" and "Help Wanted." Half the time, we're trying to get rid of immigrants; the other half, we're trying to get our hands on more.
Our elected officials only add to the confusion. With one hand, Brown signed legislation letting undocumented college students apply for state-sponsored financial aid. With the other, he vetoed a bill that would have scaled back the cooperation that local police give to U.S. immigration officials in rounding up immigrants who are here illegally.
So, in Brown's California, local cops can help hunt you down if you lack legal status. But, if you get by them, you can go to college on the taxpayer's dime?
We've seen this kind of inconsistency before. In 1986, U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson helped push the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized more than 3 million illegal immigrants.
The Republican did it to please his benefactors in agriculture, who understand that they would be out of business without the undocumented. In 1994, Wilson -- who was by then California governor, and fighting for re-election -- turned himself inside out and hitched his wagon to Proposition 187, an insanely cruel ballot initiative that intended to deny illegal immigrants and their children access to public schools, welfare benefits and nonemergency health care.
It was that Republican-backed initiative, which was later struck down by the federal courts as unconstitutional, that sent California into a political tailspin.
In a state that is more than 38% Latino, and where Latinos account for more than one in five voters, the GOP's war on immigrants turned out to be a suicide mission. Thanks in large part to support from Latino voters, Democrats now have "supermajorities" in both chambers of the state legislature. This means they get bills passed without a single Republican vote. Think about the consequences.
Noncitizens serving on juries. Who could have imagined?
Welcome to life on the Left Coast. This is how California rolls. It acts on impulse and out of a misplaced sense of social justice. It makes mistakes that take years to rectify. Its "can-do" spirit convinces it that it can do great things. But it never stops to ask whether it might instead do great harm.
SOURCE: http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/02/opinion/navarrette-noncitizens-juries/index.html?hpt=us_c2
If foreign nationals grow our food and feed us, serve in our military to protect us, and work at Microsoft to think for us, why shouldn't we hire them to make our moral/legal decisions for us?
And then check out the Roman Empire and every other civilization that followed this path.
And then check out the Roman Empire and every other civilization that followed this path.
"I’m all for it if they would allow me to go to Home Depot and hire one to take my place. They never pick me anyway, "
I always get picked...... I want to hire one, also; maybe even 2 of them.... lol
I always get picked...... I want to hire one, also; maybe even 2 of them.... lol
I’m all for it if they would allow me to go to Home Depot and hire one to take my place. They never pick me anyway,
LEGAL, resident-aliens (green-card holders) that've been in-country for at least 5-10 years... I think I might be okay with that.
But I can't help feeling like the motive here, has yet to rear it's ugly head.
I'm on the fence about this.
If the person being tried (person on the stand) is a US-Citizen, and some of those sitting on the jury aren't US-Citizens... the whole "jury of your peers" goes out the window.
But I can't help feeling like the motive here, has yet to rear it's ugly head.
I'm on the fence about this.
If the person being tried (person on the stand) is a US-Citizen, and some of those sitting on the jury aren't US-Citizens... the whole "jury of your peers" goes out the window.
So your going to get more people trying to get out of jury duty? What's the point?
Seriously jury duty is for citizens. While I like the overall idea of it being extended to legal rather then illegal it's still a privlidge for citizens of this country.
I have to say the whole immigaration debate is good and sickening. It is being pushed for citizenship for all these illegals because they get votes, it is being opposed by some Reps because they will lose election after election. I think common sense needs to be addressed. If you are going to reward people who broke the law then why stop will illegals? Why not reward those who came here and have done everything legally with an advancement to citizenship. With illegals a lot more thought needs to be done when talking about these people. Many are good and hard working but it does not make up for the fact that they broke the law.
Seriously jury duty is for citizens. While I like the overall idea of it being extended to legal rather then illegal it's still a privlidge for citizens of this country.
I have to say the whole immigaration debate is good and sickening. It is being pushed for citizenship for all these illegals because they get votes, it is being opposed by some Reps because they will lose election after election. I think common sense needs to be addressed. If you are going to reward people who broke the law then why stop will illegals? Why not reward those who came here and have done everything legally with an advancement to citizenship. With illegals a lot more thought needs to be done when talking about these people. Many are good and hard working but it does not make up for the fact that they broke the law.
"Supporters say they want to increase the size of the available jury pool while helping immigrants integrate into U.S. society. They also claim that juries should reflect their communities as they exist, and this means including noncitizens in the mix."
I hear and understand what they are saying, HOWEVER, I find myself saying wtf?
I hear and understand what they are saying, HOWEVER, I find myself saying wtf?
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
