POLL: Should LEGAL Immigrants Be Called/Allowed To Serve On Juries?

Should LEGAL Immigrants Be Called/Allowed To Serve On Juries?

  • Yes, but I don't feel that strongly either way

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I would like to hear more from both sides

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

Mayhem

Banned
Jerry Brown Vetoes Bill To Allow Non-Citizens On Juries

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/07/jerry-brown-jury-veto_n_4060983.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have allowed non-citizens who are legal residents to serve as jurors in California.

"Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship," Brown said in an announcement Monday accompanying his veto of AB1401. "This bill would permit lawful permanent residents who are not citizens to serve on a jury. I don't think that's right."

The bill by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, was intended to expand the pool of prospective jurors. Wieckowski said in a statement that lawful immigrants are part of the fabric of communities and should be included in such civic obligations.

"They benefit from the protections of our laws, so it is fair and just that they be asked to share in the obligation to do jury duty, just as they serve in our courts, schools, police departments and armed forces," Wieckowski said.

The bill passed the Legislature on a largely party-line vote, with Democrats supporting the idea. Republicans said the lack of available jurors in California courts is due to a shortage of funding, not due to an insufficient pool of jurors.

Assemblyman Rocky Chavez, R-Oceanside, said the legislation was an effort to solve a problem that does not exist, because there is no shortage of people who can be called upon to serve on juries.

"The debate over this bill attempted to create a social wedge in our communities over our justice system," Chavez said in a statement Monday. "The phrase 'jury of your peers' still means something in our criminal justice system."

An estimated 10 million Californians are summoned for jury duty each year and about 4 million are eligible and available to serve, according to the Judicial Council, which administers the state's court system. About 3.2 million complete the service, meaning they waited in a courthouse assembly room or were placed on call.

In 2010-2011, the most recent year available, only about 165,000 people were sworn in as jurors.


This is interesting. For the moment I side with the Governor. But this is certainly a two-sided issue.

"They benefit from the protections of our laws, so it is fair and just that they be asked to share in the obligation to do jury duty, just as they serve in our courts, schools, police departments and armed forces,"
is certainly a valid point, and I'm going to spend some time thinking about this.

So I'm turning this one into a poll. Tell the jury of your peers (such as it is) what you think.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
No, I don't believe any rights should be extended to illegal immigrants, except for a ride back. If they want to go about immigration legally however...
 
No, in any case. This right should be reserved solely and exclusively to born and bread Americans
 

larss

I'm watching some specialist videos
Yes.

As they can be put in front of a jury if the are accused of a crime, then they should be able to serve on the jury.
They are part of the community and should be able to (and indeed be required to) serve that community in the same way that a citizen can and should.
 

Elwood70

Torn & Frayed.
Yes.

The more people that are in the pool of potential jurors, the less likely they are to pick me. :D
 
Not only should legal immigrants be able to perform jury duty, but so should illegals. After all...

Yes.

The more people that are in the pool of potential jurors, the less likely they are to pick me. :D

... that's what they do. Illegals do the jobs that real Americans don't want to. Why would jury duty be the exception? :confused:
 
No, in any case. This right should be reserved solely and exclusively to born and bread Americans

I am a legal citizen of the United States. It took me years and thousands of dollars to become one. I now enjoy all the rights, privileges, and obligations that come along with that. Are you saying I should not be allowed to serve on jury duty? Why, pray tell.
 

Elwood70

Torn & Frayed.
Illegals do the jobs that real Americans don't want to. Why would jury duty be the exception? :confused:

This is misleading. I know plenty of "real Americans" who are willing to do those jobs. They just want fair pay to do the work, not peanuts. The reason why "illegals" are "taking our jerbs" is because they're being hired - read: exploited - by employers who want to cut costs and overhead by not fully paying for the work. The problem isn't just the so-called "illegals" , it's also the ones doing the hiring.

...and my comment was a joke. Jury duty can suck, but it's also a fascinating insight into how the legal system works. In fact, everyone who armchair-quarterbacks about how a high-profile case turned out should serve on a jury at least once. It changes your perspective.
 

Mayhem

Banned
No, in any case. This right should be reserved solely and exclusively to born and bread Americans

I am a legal citizen of the United States. It took me years and thousands of dollars to become one. I now enjoy all the rights, privileges, and obligations that come along with that. Are you saying I should not be allowed to serve on jury duty? Why, pray tell.

I'm conflicted. On one hand, Dirk would be an asset to any jury. On the other hand, georges just recused himself from American jury duty. I have to be happy about that. :thumbsup:


(And yes, I know that georges lives somewhere in Europe [alone, with his hatred for everything that isn't him], but we can't take the chance in case he ever washes up here.)
 
This is misleading. I know plenty of "real Americans" who are willing to do those jobs. They just want fair pay to do the work, not peanuts. The reason why "illegals" are "taking our jerbs" is because they're being hired - read: exploited - by employers who want to cut costs and overhead by not fully paying for the work. The problem isn't just the so-called "illegals" , it's also the ones doing the hiring.

It's not really misleading, the low pay is part of the job because it's what can be paid. Most work that illegals get is farm work. Farmers just flat out can't afford to pay what legitimate workers will do that kind of labor for (because it's just a shitty job). They can't pay more without raising the price of their wares, and doing so they can't sell them because no one wants an $8 orange. There was a crack down on migrant workers a couple of years back in Georgia and Americans didn't fill those positions, the fruit just rotted on the vine.

I mean hey, if someone can convince the government to increase farm subsidies to the point where they can pay a fair wage and still keep their produce at a price where people will buy it then that's great. You think that would ever get through the House though?

...and my comment was a joke. Jury duty can suck, but it's also a fascinating insight into how the legal system works. In fact, everyone who armchair-quarterbacks about how a high-profile case turned out should serve on a jury at least once. It changes your perspective.

I was kidding too... mostly (I just got added to the list). It's a civic duty. It sucks, but it's a necessity.

Of course, I've also taken some law classes so there's not a lot of fascination there for me... just monotony and lost time.
 

Elwood70

Torn & Frayed.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Mayhem again.


It's not really misleading, the low pay is part of the job because it's what can be paid. Most work that illegals get is farm work. Farmers just flat out can't afford to pay what legitimate workers will do that kind of labor for (because it's just a shitty job). They can't pay more without raising the price of their wares, and doing so they can't sell them because no one wants an $8 orange. There was a crack down on migrant workers a couple of years back in Georgia and Americans didn't fill those positions, the fruit just rotted on the vine..

I wasn't initially referring to migrant farm workers, but it brings up an interesting point, which is the inherent hypocrisy of some peoples' stance on the issue. Simply put, everyone benefits from it (except for the obvious), even the people who are so vehemently against it.
 
I wasn't initially referring to migrant farm workers, but it brings up an interesting point, which is the inherent hypocrisy of some peoples' stance on the issue. Simply put, everyone benefits from it (except for the obvious), even the people who are so vehemently against it.

Ultimately it's an unavoidable problem. It's not like with iPads, luxuries where they're shipping the work to China. It's food. It's something that's necessary, and done at home. It's too expensive to grow and harvest (especially with the type of legal politically-supported abuse we see from corporations like Monsanto). Subsidies exist, but they aren't enough. Farmers have the option of hiring migrant workers or going under. Everyone hand waves it because no one wants to foot the bill. The consumer doesn't want to pay high prices for food (and the poor can't). The government doesn't want to increase subsidies. So where does that leave everyone? Reliant on rules being broken and cheap foreign labor, and if you strip it out the house of cards will collapse.

It's "pro-immigrant" (arguably... you know, despite the abusive wages) and it's the "fiscally conservative" move. Is it any wonder neither the left nor the right go too far out of their way to examine the issue? :dunno:
 
What a stupid fucking question considering the venire facias is typically generated through voter registration logs. although property records and drivers license renewals are used in some jurisdictions the best way to create a pool of non felons is through voter registration records. Not to mention the almost impossible task of qualifying them if they aren't fluent in English. If they aren't a citizen, fuck no!
 
What a stupid fucking question considering the venire facias is typically generated through voter registration logs. although property records and drivers license renewals are used in some jurisdictions the best way to create a pool of non felons is through voter registration records. Not to mention the almost impossible task of qualifying them if they aren't fluent in English. If they aren't a citizen, fuck no!

Good enough to serve in the military, but not on a jury?
 
The military has it's own judicial system as well as other regulations that civilians do not follow. So the answer in short is yes.
 
The military has it's own judicial system as well as other regulations that civilians do not follow. So the answer in short is yes.

So... what's the long answer. I'm honestly curious, because I just don't see it.

I can't picture finding someone acceptable to serve in the military, but not on a jury. There's some degree of both responsibility and accountability with either. One however tends to be more grave and more immediately... worrisome. You can't appeal getting blow apart by an anti-personnel device.

So yeah, I'd honestly like to hear your thoughts on why non-citizens on a jury is less problematic. Maybe there's just something I'm not seeing. :dunno:
 
For starters these legal residents are not being drafted. If they were I would say they should be afforded these rights. They join to earn an income.
 
Top