California is poised to allow non-citizens sit on juries, and thus hold judgment over American citizens. The bill, AB1401, has already passed the state Assembly, and of the writing of this post, is in the hands of the state Senate. Both legislative housed have a Democratic supermajority.
To a non-Citizen, American law is a foreign law, that is conducted quite differently in most of the world. While this bill is targeted towards Mexicans, the problem with this bill can easily be illustrated with white Europeans. The legal framework of the United States, particularly the Common Law system, is shared by only a few countries from the Anglo-sphere, the hybrid system in Louisiana notwithstanding. The rest of the world works on very different systems of law, and people for whom the American law system is alien can not be expected to be competent to serve on American juries, judging cases based on American law.
Similarly, an American would not be competent to serve on another country’s jury (for those countries that have juries), even in other Anglo-sphere nations where the Common Law still stands strong.
While it could be said, that many U. S. citizens are not competent to serve on a jury, this is a failing of the education system and the death of history and civics in schools. Even then, they are at least familiar with American law and many legal procedures!
Ultimately, though, this is but another example of the erosion of citizenship. With non-citizens, even illegal aliens, can receive food stamps and free education. California even allows illegal aliens, who are no legally resident in the United States, to receive reduced tuition to its university systems, while denying the same to hundreds of millions of American citizens!
Sitting on a jury and voting are the two last and most significant hallmarks of citizenship. With the right to sit on a jury ceasing to become dependent on one’s citizenship, only voting (and running for office) are reserved to citizens, though even there there have been assaults on the rights associated with citizenship. In 2004, San Fransisco tried to allow non-citizens to vote in some local elections. Thankfully, they are barred from doing so due to Article II, Section 2 of the California Constitution which restricts the right to vote to citizens.
However, other states have localities that have swept such requirements aside. Massachusetts is one such example, as brought to light by the question of the elder of the Boston Marathon bomber brothers who was not a citizen was found to have been registered to vote.
With the destruction of the privilege of voting and jury membership, what purpose does citizenship even have any more. With those pillars of citizenship gone, what reason would there be to think that holding office would also be extended beyond the requirement of citizenship? What meaning is there to citizenship then?
If the left has its way, citizenship will be meaningless and mere presence (under the left’s enlightened hand, of course) in the country would grant people power over Americans and the very essence of America itself.
Citizenship does mean something, and it ought to be reflected in the law. It is citizens that make up the body politic for their own benefit. Millions strive legally to become citizens of the United States because it means something.