More stuff that stacked up in my notes pile… California’s looking to have non-citizens serve on juries.
Jury duty long has been held up as a privilege of U.S. citizenship, along with voting and a few other civic actions.
But in move that is drawing controversy, California is considering extending the right to serve on a jury to legal immigrants who are not naturalized citizens. The California Assembly passed a bill on Thursday that would allow non-citizens who are in the country legally to serve on jury duty.
Not a jury of your peers.
Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, a Democrat, sponsored the bill, arguing that the state needs to broaden the pool of eligible jurors, and that fulfilling jury duty would help integrate immigrants.
United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, or USCIS, the branch that deals with naturalization, said that only U.S. citizens may serve on federal juries, but that some local jurisdictions in the nation allow non-citizens to be jurors. The same is true of voting, which at the federal level requires citizenship.
Local jurisdictions allowing aliens to vote on how you live in your country is absurd. It surrenders sovereign franchise to aliens, whether they be illegal (which is the real point in Cali), or legal. Legal permanent residents aren’t citizens. They’re just living here, they aren’t Americans. They haven’t so much as sworn any allegiance to the US, they’re just here on papers.
If they want to be Americans, then once they get citizenship they can enjoy the right to vote, and they can enjoy the right to serve on juries and convict or acquit their fellow citizens (though some may find that a dubious honor, given the time commitments).
Democratic lawmakers who voted for the bill said there is no correlation between being a citizen and a juror, and they noted that there is no citizenship requirement to be an attorney or a judge.
Yeah, actually there is. A jury of one’s peers means having citizens of the country you reside in be your jurors. That anyone can hire any attorney they want is no big deal, but that a judge, as a state official, could bear allegiance not to the US, but to a foreign nation, is frankly absurd.
The Democrat argument for it basically comes down to “we need them to serve on juries US citizens are too lazy to serve on”.
Noting that women were once kept off juries, Assembly Speaker John Perez, D-Los Angeles, said the judicial system should be changed to allow a person to be judged by their peers.
He then went on to talk about apples and oranges.
Paula Hannaford, an expert at the Center for Jury Studies, confirmed that California would be the only place — state or locality — in the country to allow non-citizens to serve jury duty.
Because non-citizens on jury duty is patently absurd.
Why not just have Incitatus on the jury? There’s nothing that says horses can’t serve on juries.