Looks like California wants to be the first State to go. It’s legislature has got the ball rolling by passing in the Assembly a measure to allow non-citizens to serve on California juries.
In any state or nation, there are things called privileges. Sometimes privileges get called rights, and in this global age of confusion they often get conflated with human rights. Eric Holder has jumped on the bandwagon, undermining the sovereignty of the nation he is supposed to be serving as its Attorney General by claiming people not legally in this country have a civil right to be citizens of this country.
This ‘age of confusion’ we speak of might also be called the “Age of Absurdity’, because many of the propositions being put forth are so absurd they are increasingly difficult to describe, much less argue with. Perhaps that is the secret to the success of the Left.
If you are a guest at a private club, for example, the members of the club might extend to you certain privileges, such as being able to dine with them, or take your turn at the roulette table, or perhaps even sit in on open club meetings. But if you are not a card-carrying member of the club, would you expect to be given a black or a white ball to drop in the box as the members were considering the fate of one of their own? That is the circumstance that the California legislature is presenting in their scheme to let non-citizens hear the case of citizens in California Courts (both criminal and civil, we presume).
It would not be a right, and certainly not a civil right and can we, if nothing else, agree it wouldn’t be a ‘human right’ for a guest or a visitor or even a prospective member to sit in judgement of a bona fide member, or to have a vote on official business conducted by the club? Now, the membership could extend the privilege if they so chose, but why would they do that? What part of ‘membership’ do people who advocate that non-citizens should have the rights and responsibilities of citizens not understand?
Serving on a jury is a solemn responsibility, no matter whether it’s at the local, state or national level. Deciding the guilt or innocence or sentence or fine or damage award or whatever the issue might be necessarily has profound effects on the litigants but also for society at large. If non-citizens are deemed qualified to be extended the privilege of serving on juries, then why should they not also be allowed to serve in public office? Talk about your slippery slopes – we skipped right over the whole “right to vote” issue and went straight to the “giving the country away to foreigners” level, didn’t we?
There have been cases somewhat analogous to this in the courts, some currently. Forcing previously all-male clubs and organizations to accept women comes to mind. Some American Universities have recently banned Christian clubs from campus because they refused to accept …….non-Christians. Some schools have even gone so far as to insist that these organizations allow non-believers, or people of other faiths, to serve as officers in these private clubs! So, yes, there is plenty of absurdity going on in America these days. We should not be surprised at the levels it reaches.
Holder’s ranting and raving about illegal aliens, whom he refers to in the non-judgemental vernacular way as “undocumenteds,” is California writ large. Holder seeks to render membership in the entire American polity meaningless. So inconsequential anybody wandering across the border is, by virtue of inhaling and exhaling, a “citizen of the United States.”
Pardon us for presuming that the States of Sonora and Nuevo Leon did not ratify the Constitution of the United States, nor were those states admitted to the Union. Therefore, it would seem only logical that natives of those states are not entitled to any of the benefits of US citizenship, including rights and privileges, unless they complete, in required order and according to a timetable as prescribed by law, the steps necessary for naturalization. What is so hard to understand about that?
Compounding the “ball of confusion”, we have the esteemed Attorney General on one hand taking the State of Arizona to court for its enforcement of US immigration laws, but not taking the State of California to court for giving illegal aliens rights and privileges to which they are not entitled. In a sane world, an Attorney General would be grateful for the assistance of the individual States in law enforcement matters and disparaging of any attempt by the states to mollify or coddle violators of US law. Apparently, we are wasting tens of billions of dollars by maintaining a US Coast Guard and a Border Patrol Service.
Conscious decisions to not enforce US law, including border enforcement, and indeed going the extra mile to reward non-citizens with rights and privileges they do not deserve, constitute an abandonment of sovereignty. Sovereignty exists because it carries the power of enforcement of the customs and laws of the authoritative power, be it the people, their representatives, or their rulers. Non-enforcement is an abandonment or dilution of sovereignty and the only possible ultimate result is the disappearance of the previously sovereign entity. That’s where we’re headed as a country. California, which will allow anyone who says he might one day become a US citizen to serve on a jury, is already gone.
Crossposted at Grumpy Opinions