So what WOULD the difference between a Citizen and non-Citizen be?

First we have California wanting to let non-Citizens to be on juries – our “peers” that COULD eternally deprive us of my Liberty when they may still adhere to the historical and legal precepts held over from their country of origin?  How would THAT serve us well as a society?  I talked about Progressives forcibly trying to blur the lines between Citizens and non-citizens, that their sense of “Community” overrides the actual legalities of the obligations of Citizenship.

Now, we see the next shoe drop – if non-citizens are allowed to vote, what is left of the notion of what a citizen is?  From the Left  Coast to the virtual Left Coast of New York City:

New York City is poised to become the first major city to grant non-citizens the right to vote.

The New York City Council’s committees on immigration and government relations will today hold joint hearings on a proposal that would allow non-citizens to vote in city elections, and backers of the effort say they have a veto-proof majority, according to the New York Daily News.

Citizenship is currently a requirement for voters throughout New York State, but this legislation, “Voting By Non-Citizen Residents,” would change that, allowing immigrants who are “lawfully present in the United States” and have lived in the city for longer than six months to vote.

“This is extremely important, because it’s based on the founding principle of this country and that was, ‘No Taxation Without Representation.’ All of the people who would be included in this and would be allowed to vote are paying taxes, they’ve contributed to society,” Councilman Daniel Dromm, a co-sponsor of the proposal, told Talking Points Memo.

Read more

Just another devaluation of Citizenship?

Or just another attack on the responsibility of citizenship?

Jury BoxIt 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.

Read more

Share to...