Or just another attack on the responsibility of citizenship?
It IS a basic pillar of American Jurisprudence is that we are to be judged by a panel of our peers – people that should at least share some common values and outlook on guilt / innocence and presence / absence of evidence. And be able to logically connect the dots running between all those things within the confines the applicable law. We, as Citizens, are expected to fulfill this duty and responsibility – those that are accused need to be judged by fellow citizens. I am amazed, at time, how often my co-workers in Southern California are called to do just this, for here I am in central New Hampsha, having lived in the same town and same house for 30 years, and I have yet to be called even once (or TMEW, but the Eldest and the Youngest have)! I know a lot of people do an awful lot to keep from being empaneled as they never know what kind of case they’d be put on – the fear being a long drawn out trial in which they might lose their job or miss out on some important marker in life (e.g., wedding, funereal). To be honest, I would like to be called.
With all that said, I think this is a horrible idea (emphasis mine):
California would allow noncitizens to serve on juries under a proposal being considered by state lawmakers, potentially expanding a fundamental obligation of American life to millions more people.
The measure, which would apply only to legal residents, would make California the only state to open the jury box to noncitizens who meet all other requirements of service, according to legal experts. The proposal raises the question of what it means to be judged by peers in a state where more than one in seven residents is not a citizen. One of the bill’s authors, Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont), said the proposal would help ensure an adequate pool of jurors, help immigrants integrate into American society and make juries more representative of California.
Juries “should reflect our community, and our community is always changing,” Wieckowski said. “It’s time for California to be a leader on this.” The Assembly passed the bill this week on a party-line vote, with most Democrats lining up in favor and Republicans standing in opposition.
Obligation. That pretty much says it all. For Citizens. But what these chuckleheads are doing (just like the USDA actively searching out illegal aliens to sign up for food stamps) is blurring the importance as to who is a Citizen and who is not, what the responsibilities of a Citizen actually are and what their Rights are as Citizens. Gee, if I didn’t know better, I’d be thinking that there shouldn’t be a difference at all – we are just brothers from another country, merely Citizens of the World (albeit, without a common sense of who we are – ah, the vagarities of Diversity)! Doing the jobs that Americans refuse to do, even to voting (oh, wait!)?
Once again, we see the Progressive attitude of Multiculturalism and Diversity, values that are not part of our foundational values trying usurp those that are. Legalities – just a pure piffle! What matters is not a common set of values but simply a set of skin colors, genders, and economic stratus. Respect for the Law – or an unmitigated sense of another Progressive value – Social Justice (than can say you are innocent, but you will pay for someone else’s injustices because “it feels right”). Tell me – would YOU want to be judged by a jury of “peers” given this new Progressive view of Lady Justice? By folks that may well not even speak the language, much less understand the values ingrained in our American system of jurisprudence?
Or is this just yet another “tell” of California swirling in the toilet bowl?
Assemblyman Rocky Chavez (R-Oceanside), who voted no, said the measure was unfair to both the prospective jurors and any defendants whose fates they could decide. Noncitizens may not want the responsibilities of American citizenship, he said, and people on trial should not be judged by jurors who “might not have the same cultural experience.” The legislation goes next to the Senate. Gov. Jerry Brown has not taken a public position on the bill.
The requirement of being judged by a jury of my peers is the expectation that these ARE my peers from an American outlook – not those of a country left behind. Xenophobic? Certainly not! This would be a case of fairness before the law and being judged by those that do not share the ability to do so is patently unfair and my outlook was noted in the post but dismissed:
Niels Frenzen, a professor of immigration law at USC, said he doubted immigrants would have any more trouble handling jury duty than citizens would. “There is not often that great a divide of knowledge between immigrants and …citizens.”
Sigh…yeah, fersure. It seems, lately, that in each kind of study and survey (or even Jay Lens’s “Jay Walking” bits) shows the increasing trend of decreasing knowledge by our fellow citizens. Certainly, I would take Grokster Mike’s grasp of American History and Civics over any average graduating high school student’s (or adult, for that matter). However, given that our current immigration process is as much forgiving of the illiterate illegal immigration as they are of the legally immigrating doctor or engineer, if the current Gang of 8 stupidityness called “the latest immigration reform”, who knows which now-legal “new non-Citizen Citizen” I’d have staring back at me from that jury box.
Yeah, there are certainly Americans that could be there that wouldn’t have clue either….
