Page 1 of 1

#1 California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:09 pm
by frigidmagi
New York Times
California is challenging the historic status of American citizenship with measures to permit noncitizens to sit on juries and monitor polls for elections in which they cannot vote and to open the practice of law even to those here illegally. It is the leading edge of a national trend that includes granting drivers’ licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants in some states and that suggests legal residency could evolve into an appealing option should immigration legislation fail to produce a path to citizenship.

With 3.5 million noncitizens who are legal permanent residents in California, some view the changes as an acknowledgment of who is living here and the need to require some public service of them. But the new laws raise profound questions about which rights and responsibilities rightly belong to citizens over residents.

“What is more basic to our society than being able to judge your fellow citizens?” asked Jessica A. Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, referring to jury service. “We’re absolutely going to the bedrock of things here and stretching what we used to think of as limits.”

One new state law allows legal permanent residents to monitor polls during elections, help translate instructions and offer other assistance to voting citizens. And immigrants who were brought into the country illegally by their parents will be able to practice law here, something no other states allow.

In many ways, the new measures underscore the lock Democrats have over the State Capitol, where they hold an overwhelming majority in both houses. Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, signed the poll worker legislation this month and has indicated his approval of the other bills. Many of the changes, including granting drivers’ licenses to unauthorized immigrants, passed with overwhelming support and the backing of several Republicans.

State legislatures across the country approved a host of new immigrant-friendly measures this year, a striking change from just three years ago, when many states appeared poised to follow Arizona’s lead to enact strict laws aimed at curbing illegal immigration. More than a dozen states now grant illegal immigrants in-state college tuition, and nine states and the District of Columbia also allow them to obtain drivers’ licenses.

With an estimated 2.5 million illegal immigrants living in California — more than in any other state in the country — some say the state has no choice but to find additional ways to integrate immigrants.

“It’s a recognition that how people are living and working in their community might trump their formal legal status,” said Hiroshi Motomura, an immigration law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles. “There is an argument that in parts of California a jury without a legal permanent resident is not really a jury of peers. Some view citizenship as the final consecration of complete integration, but this says, ‘Let’s take who we have and get them to participate in our civil institutions.’ ”

Early this month, the State Supreme Court suggested during a hearing that lawmakers could create a law to address the case of Sergio Garcia, who was brought to the United States illegally as a child. Mr. Garcia had met every other requirement to become a licensed lawyer. Within days, legislation was approved to allow immigrants who were brought here illegally as minors to obtain law licenses, with just three opposing votes.

But the bill to allow noncitizens to sit on juries has proved more controversial. Several newspaper editorials have urged Mr. Brown to veto it.

Rocky Chávez, a Republican assemblyman from northern San Diego County, said that allowing noncitizens to serve on a jury would make it harder to uphold American standards of law.

“What we call domestic violence is appropriate in other countries, so the question becomes, ‘How do we enforce our own social norms?’ ” Mr. Chávez said. He added that granting more privileges would weaken immigrants’ desires to become citizens. “Once we erase all these distinctions, what’s next? What is going to convince someone it is essential to get citizenship?”

Departing from their role regarding other bills affecting immigrants, advocacy groups largely stayed out of the debate over the jury duty bill, which was sponsored by Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, a Bay Area Democrat who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Being a juror really has nothing to do with being a citizen,” Mr. Wieckowski said. “You don’t release your prejudices or histories just because you take an oath of citizenship, and you don’t lose the ability to listen to testimony impartially just because you haven’t taken that oath either.”

He said that roughly 15 percent of people who received a jury duty summons never showed up and that the legislation would make it easier to impanel juries. Mr. Wieckowski said that he expected the governor to sign the bill and that the changes would quickly become accepted.

“It’s the same thing that happened with gay marriage: people got past their initial prejudices and realized it was just discrimination,” he said.

Supporters say that expanding the pool of those eligible to serve on juries and work the polls would serve citizens as well as immigrants. Several counties in California are required to print ballots and voting instructions in languages other than English. In Los Angeles County, ballots are available in Spanish, Chinese, Arabic, Armenian, Tagalog and Vietnamese.

But advocates say that the printed instructions are often insufficient and that many people are turned away from the polls because they simply cannot communicate. Expanding the pool of potential poll workers to include legal permanent residents will allow more citizens to vote, they say.

Critics say that the Legislature is going too far and that the legislation will probably face legal challenges.

“It seems they stay up late dreaming up ways they can reward illegal immigration and create either new benefits or new protections for illegal immigrants,” said Ira Mehlman, a spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which backs stricter federal laws. “The overriding objective of the California Legislature is to further blur the distinction between citizen and immigrant, legal and not.”

State legislators and advocates had for years sought a law to allow unauthorized immigrants to obtain drivers’ licenses. Earlier legislation to create licenses for them had been vetoed by the previous governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. Governor Brown signaled during his 2010 election that he would do the same.

But this year, a Republican co-sponsor signed on to the bill, and Mr. Brown quietly assured supporters that he would sign it as long as it included a marking to distinguish such a license from the existing driver’s license.

Assemblyman Luis A. Alejo, a Democrat and a sponsor of the bill, traced his involvement back to protests against the 1994 state ballot initiative that would have strictly limited access to public services for immigrants here illegally.

“Twenty years ago, that drove activists like me to get serious about school, and now we’re able to lead these pro-immigrant rights legislation, which is the total opposite of what was happening then,” Mr. Alejo said. “What was really controversial then is the reality now.”
Bluntly, I am not in favor.

#2 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 7:59 pm
by Josh
Yeah, that's some bullshit right there.

#3 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 8:04 pm
by rhoenix
The immigration problem is a problem, yes. However, this really isn't the best way to solve it, from what I can see.

I actually want to hear the reasoning behind this.

#4 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 9:51 am
by Comrade Tortoise
Well, first of all, these are legal permanent residents. Why should they not sit on juries in state courts? The constitution does not specify that only citizens may sit on said juries. The same goes for volunteering in voting places. Why should they be prohibited?

Then there are children brought over by their parents. They had no choice in their status, no ties to their "home" country. Why shouldn't they be able to practice law or get in-state tuition when they do in fact pay the taxes that go to support aforementioned universities?

Until congress can get off its corrupt and dysfunctional ass, and actually provide a path to citizenship for these people, the state governments have to pick up the slack, and a particularly for those raised in the US, ensure that their existence is something other than a nightmare in which they have no rights and no options for improving their lives.

#5 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:34 pm
by General Havoc
This will get dragged through the courts, but overall, I actually don't have much of a problem with this. Immigrants, illegal and otherwise, contribute 14 dollars in taxes for every dollar in services they require. I'm not overly worried about them draining the trough for the rest of us. The benefits of citizenship must remain the provision of citizens only, but none of the proposals being made here infringe on said benefits, as I see it.

#6 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 1:10 am
by SirNitram
Immigration is a mess with no moves from those in power to fix it, so I really don't care about these stopgap moments. Hell, the Senate still mouths the lies about there being a line everyone can get in.

#7 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:14 pm
by frigidmagi
Why should they not sit on juries in state courts? The constitution does not specify that only citizens may sit on said juries. The same goes for volunteering in voting places. Why should they be prohibited?
Because we're talking about people who may or may not have any understanding of what is legal or not legal, or have completely different cultural and social beliefs about what is or is not proper behavior. Look do you want a bunch of older men who just got here from Iran (just for example) deciding your fate? I have enough problems with juries drawn up of "average" American citizens let alone people who may have been here a couple of months.

As for voting, if noncitizens want to observe I got no problems (I've said before I'm fine with the UN sending observers for example) but a noncitizen who can't vote deciding which ballots are good or bad? No thank you.

I am not prepared to hand out the prerogatives of citizens to noncitizens because congress isn't moving fast enough to suit you.

As for the kids, meh. It's not that I have an issue with them getting in state tuition (I did support the DREAM Act remember?). I do have something stuck in my craw that people who did actual service can't get that though. Sure these kids did nothing wrong and don't deserve to be penalized. I'm prepared to be fair on that issue, but how about those of us who did something right and often get crapped on as a result? Still that's not gonna drive me to shit on them. Honestly this part doesn't bother and I thought everyone already knew that.

#8 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:35 pm
by Batman
I'm not sure there is such thing as the 'average american', or even a consensus on what is and isn't proper behaviour. Heck you yourself mentioned older men...which are perfectly eligible for jury duty.
Given that a goodly portion (I'm inclined to guess the vast majority of, but as I AM guessing without having done any research whatsoever a guess is all it is) US voters don't really know what is and isn't legal in the US despite living there (having lived there for generations on occasion), I don't see how that particular aspect of the immigrants' ignorance factors into it.

#9 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:38 pm
by frigidmagi
frigid wrote:Look do you want a bunch of older men who just got here from Iran
Try the whole thing next time Bats hey?

#10 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 5:51 pm
by Batman
Doesn't change a thing. Your very own country is lousy with people whose political stances you find abhorrent, yet you stand by their right to maintain those. You're apparently if not happy, then at least willing to tolerate as something that is unavoidable in the political system you deem appropriate for the US, the Religious Right and their undue influence (well in my opinion anyway) on politics. Why is neanderthals from Islam abusing your (begging to be abused) sorry excuse for a legal system any more offensive than the christians who have done it for decades?

#11 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Thu Sep 26, 2013 11:49 pm
by Hotfoot
When over two hundred years old your judicial system is, look as good it will not, Bats.

#12 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Fri Sep 27, 2013 1:31 am
by Comrade Tortoise
Because we're talking about people who may or may not have any understanding of what is legal or not legal, or have completely different cultural and social beliefs about what is or is not proper behavior. Look do you want a bunch of older men who just got here from Iran (just for example) deciding your fate? I have enough problems with juries drawn up of "average" American citizens let alone people who may have been here a couple of months.
I hate to be an ass, but what part of "legal permanent resident" did you not understand? These are not people who have been here for only a few months, by and large, but people who have been living and working here for years.

Citizenship also does not modulate whether your same objection is true. Moreover, the vast majority of immigrants are from countries that are more or less culturally similar.

Additionally: that is what jury selection and instruction is for.
As for voting, if noncitizens want to observe I got no problems (I've said before I'm fine with the UN sending observers for example) but a noncitizen who can't vote deciding which ballots are good or bad? No thank you.
In this case, they would monitor the polling place and help translate things, not adjudicate ballots.
Try the whole thing next time Bats hey?
In fairness, the distinction there can often be somewhat... fungible, because the cultural values of the really old can be vastly out of step with those of the current generation. That sort of thing is kind of a moving target. An old christian dominionist for example can sit on a jury in a child abuse case.

#13 Re: California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens

Posted: Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:28 pm
by frigidmagi
I hate to be an ass, but what part of "legal permanent resident" did you not understand? These are not people who have been here for only a few months, by and large, but people who have been living and working here for years.

Citizenship also does not modulate whether your same objection is true. Moreover, the vast majority of immigrants are from countries that are more or less culturally similar.
I hate to be an ass, but do you understand that getting the legal permanent resident does not require an understanding of our legal system, our government system or even being in the US at the time? So yes, it is quite possible for a legal permanent resident to have only been in the US for a few months. Now if you had said waiting for years, I would have conceded that.

Additionally, you're wrong on the culturally similar part. Let me state for the record here that different doesn't mean lesser and additionally state that just because you have a democracy doesn't mean you are culturally similar to the US.

In the year of our Lord 2012, 1,031,631 people from all over the world became legal permanent residents (I'll grant this is not exactly a tide that threatens to wash us away). Let's break it down.

Of that million or so people, 429,599 came from Asia (81,784 from China and 66,434 from India, neither nation is similar to us culturally and if you try to argue that India is, I will have no mercy upon you) the vast majority of Asia is not culturally similar to us by any stretch of the imagination! The closest nations we could possibly say that about (and we would be lying) would be Japan and S Korea... Their culture is not like ours and saying it is does both sides a huge disservice!

107,241 came from Africa. Do I really have to explain this?

407,172 came from... Well mostly Latin America and the Caribbean (fun fact! The Dominican Republic is the 2nd largest point of origin with 41,566 people, Mexico with 146,406 is the single largest group out of... everyone. This should not be surprising). Shockingly, our cultures are in fact rather different. The way we arrange our families, approach business and government (eh, to be fair, I blame Spain for this, our early elites were fucking slaveowners and still made the early elites of S America look rather... mean in comparison) the way our economic and social orders are arrayed... Hell, despite being both groups here being mostly Christian, our approaches to religion remain very different. To be blunt we are certainly becoming more alike, but we are still not very alike.

The nations that can be said to be of the same cultural unit as the United States are the Anglo nations (Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom) which is itself a subsection of Western Europe (even then there is a marked difference between the French and us, they're both fine cultures but you'll know right way if you're in one or the other if you pay attention. Hopefully you will not be in Paris but somewhere with nice Frenchmen).
In this case, they would monitor the polling place and help translate things, not adjudicate ballots.
Why do we need their help to translate things? Actually here's a question, I thought California already had ballots in other languages (which frankly is a better solution)?
In fairness, the distinction there can often be somewhat... fungible, because the cultural values of the really old can be vastly out of step with those of the current generation. That sort of thing is kind of a moving target. An old christian dominionist for example can sit on a jury in a child abuse case.
The cultural values of the old and young within the United States have more in common with each other then they do with most other places. Unless you think your grandparents have more in common with people in China then with you.

As to Dominionism, the vast majority of Dominionist (of which there are not many) would never be on a jury. As by their view the court system is inherently corrupt and by taking part in it they are sanctioning it. The majority of the people you're worried about (by the way? Highest number I could find? 200,000 in the entire US) don't want to be part of American culture, they isolate themselves from it. Although I will note from what I found on them... They would call a spade a spade and say you shouldn't beat your kids. So... Yeah that doesn't work. Unless you want to argue Rick Parry is a Dominionist (to which my reply is going be please the man doesn't have the brain power to have consistent theology, he's a glad hander at best).