The Policy
For years, U.S. Immigration policies and immigrants have been a touchstone in every political debate. Politicians along with policymakers work hard to ensure that they attract the best foreigners who can add value to the society while maintaining their rights. Immigration policies affect all aspects of society. Regardless of the status of the immigrants, they have always played a central role in the life and growth of the American nation. The constitution grants all legal individuals living in the U.S to be treated equally. One of the factors that distinguished citizens and noncitizens in California is the jury duty. Only citizens are allowed to practice jury duty.
The Assembly Bill 1401 would have given legal immigrants the right to serve on jury duty, which could have made California to be the first state nationwide to pass such a policy (McGreevy & Mason, 2013). According to Section 1 of AB 1401 (2013), the bill “authorizes individuals who are lawfully present immigrants to be eligible as prospective trail jurors, whereas existing law requires prospective jurors to be citizens of the United States”
The California Senate and Assembly voted 25-11 and 48-28 respectively, in favor of the bill (AB 1401, 2013). According to McGreevy and Mason (2013), Assembly Speaker John Pérez pointed out that noncitizens should enjoy this right of citizenship. He added, “It is about making sure that we uphold the standards of our justice system and make sure everybody is afforded a jury of their peers" (“para 6, 2013). AB 1401 would have dropped the lawfully present immigrants from the list of people that are excluded from jury lists that are collected in part from California’s Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) records. Th...
... middle of paper ...
... Cal, A. B. 1401, Chapter 677, 2013-14. (Cal. Stat. 2013).
Lin, J. (2013). Non-Citizen Jury Proposed In California Bill . The Huffington Post Inc. Reterived from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/26/non-citizen-jury_n_3163523.html
Mass, W. (2013). Calif. Assembly passes bill to allow non-citizens to serve on juries. Shaper Neo Demo. Reterived from http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/15272-calif-assembly-passes-bill-to-allow-non-citizens-to-serve-on-juries
Megerian, C. (2013). Assembly passes bill to let noncitizens serve on juries . LA Times. Reterived from http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/26/local/la-me-immigrants-jury-20130427
McGreevy, P. & Mason, M. (2013). Gov. Jerry Brown vetoes measure allowing noncitizens on juries.Los Angles Times. Referred By: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/07/local/la-me-1008-brown-bills-20131008
Prior to the case of United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, the United States implemented a naturalization law known as the Naturalization Act of 1790, in which citizenship would only be granted to “any alien, being a free white person.” And so the prerequisite cases was born, in which any immigrants who wanted to be granted citizenship would have to prove in the court of law that they were indeed “white”. The court would either use scientific evidence or common knowledge to determine if someone was white or not. But not both, due to the In Re Najour case of 1909, in which In Re Najour a dark skin syrian, was granted citizenship after proving that he was indeed “white” in which he won due to scientific evidence. But would of never been granted
Jury duty is the obligation to serve on a jury. There are many reasons for being excused if summoned, here are some: having no public or private transportation or having to exceed 1 ½ hours to travel to the trial (http://www.courti…); if you are under 18 or older than 70 (choose not to serve), or if you are not a US resident with a home in the state (http://www.cga …); if you cannot speak or understand English; or is a constitutional officer, a family support magistrate, a judge, or a member of the general assembly (http://www.cga …). After being selected for jury duty, one is at risk of jury tampering which is a crime where someone attempts to influence the jury via means other than those presented during the trial (http://le...
Johnson uses this law as a temporary fix for few citizens are outspoken. silence the Indian group and their fight for civil rights. This was a waste of time and just prolonged the suffering of the Indian culture. A case known as Martinez v. Santa Clara Pueblo dealt with the laws under which they never took their civil rights seriously. The case was based on simple membership in Indian tribes with the intent of keeping blood line pure. Interracial couples were around in this time period and it became so common the problem of pure blood lines were becoming contaminated. The Santa Clara Pueblo has been a recognized federal government for more than one-hundred years. Santa Clara adopted a membership law and as a government, they regulate their own domestic relations that are reported to their own individual government under the United States. They determine citizenship through blood ratios and clear descendants. Martinez’s son was bi-racial, the mother was Native American and her husband was not Native American, under the law the father was not allowed into the tribe. The case covers the unequal rights Native Americans are facing but bullying within the tribes was evident when it was clear it was necessary to keep the blood line pure.The dissent of the case explained that if the constitution rights were to be given to individual citizen it will
Over 80 million Americans alive today have been called to jury duty at some point in their lives (Henley 5). Out of these 80 million individuals, roughly 30% (or 24 million) have been eliminated from the jury selection process due to the use of peremptory challenges (5). According to Black’s Law Dictionary, a peremptory challenge is a challenge that “need not be supported by any reason.” Although these challenges are commonplace in today’s courts, several Supreme Court cases have questioned the constitutionality of their place in the legal system. This paper will explore the history of peremptory challenges, theories behind them, a few pertinent cases, and reform progress.
Stewart, David (1986) “Court rules against jury selection based on race” ABA Journal, July 1: 72 ABAJ 68.
First, when individuals are appointed for a jury, several individuals will do anything to not be selected for the trial. For instance, my father has conveyed he was indisposed or he could not afford to miss work. Moreover, most individuals do not perceive being a juror as an honor being as a citizen, instead they see it as a burden. A substantial influence on this position is the remuneration, because individuals are missing work to serve. On average, an individual who is selected to be a juror makes about 30 to 40 dollars a day, a fraction of when he or she is working. For this
Weaver, R. D. (2009). A New Era for Legal Immigrants?: Rethinking Title IV of The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. Journal of Policy Practice , 54-68.
Nill, A. (2011). Latinos and s.b. 1070: Demonization, dehumanization, and disenfranchisement. Harvard Latino Law Review, 14, 35-66.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 was established to reduce racial exclusions in America. The key provisions to this legislation was “to have family reunification, to meet the labor needs, and to have a more diverse nation” (Lecture, October 1)
There are hundreds of Americans who are selected for jury duty every day. Just like the characters many of them believe jury duty is a major conflict in their lives. They may say they do not have time to participate, which may be true, but the law will make sure you have time. As always, life and time keep going, and nobody wants to miss it. No one prefers to sit in court when they can be doing something productive but it is not going to kill them. Everyone deserves to have a jury hear them and surely they would want that for themselves.
We must look at the facts and decide whether the American Jury System is still a good idea. How much is it costing us to pay for each individual to serve on the jury and does this out way the possible benefits that a jury system has in the court of law? The other important factor and feasible benefit of a bench trial is that there’s hardly any room for error. No one is perfect, but it’s a lot less likely that a judge would make a vital mistake impacting the rest of someone’s life versus twelve arbitrary citizens from the community. The United States court system shouldn’t allow any incompetency, unsupported bias, or negligence in the evaluation of cases. We must choose the system that is best for our increasing complex and refining society.
In the United States, jury trials are an important part of our court system. We rely heavily on the jury to decide the fate of the accused. We don’t give a second thought to having a jury trial now, but they were not always the ‘norm’.
The United States of America and its large diversity of cultures has been a melting pot of the early 20th century . This Country has constantly been rebuilt by immigrants making it the world 's leading destination country . Descendants from various countries such as southern and eastern Europe , Asia , Central and South America , including the Caribbean fully integrate the U.S. today . However , within the last several years there has been a long unsolved issue on behalf of millions of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. , and the question on behalf of whether they should be allowed to live in the U.S. without fear of deportation . Immigration in America has been one of the most controversial aspects of society and law . The demand for a change is high and the people 's voice in / to show this yet little , or no change has occurred .
juror including race and sex. Part of the reasoning behind the right to a jury
Gray, Tom, and Robert Scardamalia. "Civic Report 71 The Great California Exodus: A Closer Look."