California Moves to Ditch Citizenship Requirement for Jury Duty

[The Real]

the jury selection process is meant to eliminate biases or conflicts of interest, but the point of a jury is that you are to be judged by your peers and that you are not judged by simply one person, the logic is that either party has to convince one more than one person

the rodney king trial were criticized but legally speaking there is nothing that could be done about it because it was the cops under trial not rodney king and to show that there was something illegal you would have to show that certain groups were excluded from the jury selection process

That was already shown- it had no effect. Legally, there was every reason for the trials to be scrapped, but that's corruption at work.

and i think this is why you have to separate what the purpose of a jury is and what the purpose of jury selection is because you are conflating the two

the purpose of the jury selection is two eliminate obvious conflicts, but the purpose of the jury is to judged by your peers, so by definition immigrants would have to be excluded because they lack knowledge of the american culture and tradition and they are not your peers

No, I'm not conflating the two. The peer argument is irrelevant in this case, as I already demonstrated. Furthermore, I also provided citations in the Constitution and the selection process. You have provided no citations which explain that being judged by your "peers" means "people who are familiar with American laws and culture to x degree." You already conceded that juries were meant to eliminate biases, so the peer argument is now worthless, especially since it's impossible to deny that immigrants commit crimes and are victims of crimes.

you dont know what you are talking about, you have it backwards, you need a green card to come into the united states in the first place, you do not get a green card after several years, you get it when you come in for example if i marry a foreign chick, i apply for a green card for her, the moment she gets here she has a green card already, if she doesnt have a green card, she cant get into the country, so the minute she steps off the plane she can go to the dmv and get a license and under this proposal she can be a juror the next day

First of all, you do not need a green card to enter the US. That's just plain wrong. I'm not sure you understand what a green card actually is- it's a permanent resident card. You can enter the US with a variety of documents- mostly Visas, and in most cases, you cannot even apply for a green card immediately. I suggest you look here: USCIS - Green Card

Secondly, the marriage way is only one way of getting a green card, but it is the fastest. The fastest that takes is 2 years, which is very rarely the case, but even then, you have to prove to the government that you are filing taxes, are familiar with several laws, are actually an acclimated couple, etc. You can't be someone who speaks no English, doesn't work and pay taxes, and doesn't assimilate at all and get a green card through marriage. In any case, using these much less common cases does not strengthen your argument, since most immigrants don't get green cards this way.

a temporary residence card would not exclude you from being a lawful immigrant, its the opposite, temporary workers are lawful immigrants, if you are here legally you are entitled to a license and that includes guest workers and h1b workers, so this proposal would have temporary workers IT workers from india and farm labor from mexico on jury duty

Once again, you're wrong. Read the link I sent, and read your own link to the article. Lawfully-present immigrant is a category that does not include temporary residents, who are classified as nonimmigrant visitors, so temporary resident card-holders do not qualify for jury duty. I'm not sure why you're in denial here- I linked the DMV website, and it's on the US Gov Immigration and Customs Enforcement website as well.

i wasnt discriminating against those who know the law or not, i'm discriminating against non citizens for cultural reasons

Which is a foolish point, as I already stated. If what you're worried about is foreign biases, and you already admitted that some immigrants would be capable jurors, then why exclude them instead of screening them like they already do with everyone else?

well since you bring up race and discrimination, lets talk about how race and discrimination plays out in places like india and mexico, what logical reason do you have to think that a person from mexico or india would discriminate less against african americans? why would a person that comes from a culture with a caste system be a better juror? why would a person from a culture like mexico that puts white at the tops and native americans in the bottom be a better juror?

I don't know if specific individuals would be or not, because I don't stereotype entire groups of people... that would be idiotic. The job of the lawyers is to screen for things like racism- obviously a lawyer doesn't want a juror who is racist against their client and will do everything in their power to prevent those biases from entering the jury. There is no reason that procedure would mysteriously give racist immigrants an easier time than racist citizens.

and lets be real about what's going on, the proposal is being put out by mexican american legislators to increase mexican influence in the us, that is all thats going on here, and liberal are lapping it up because in their minds only white people can be racist, apparently mexicans, chinese and indians cant be racist

this is another example of why black people need to separate ourselves from liberals

Of course. I already stated that liberals have their reasons for introducing the bill, just like xenophobic conservatives have their reasons for opposing it. That has nothing to do with the bill's actual merits.

and there is every reason to think that immigrants are not familiar with fundamental america concepts like freedom of speech, civil rights, and separation of church and state

There is little reason to think that immigrants with green cards, who either married citizens and worked for several years, or who waited the 5 or more years to get a green card some other way are not familiar with American concepts. Anyway, you still haven't proven that familiarity with those concepts is an a priori requirement for jury duty- it's not. Most people only learn those specifics in the courtroom, like I said, which you haven't disputed yet.

immigrants are just as racist as white people, you're an idiot if you believe otherwise

No, you're an idiot if you believe this. "Immigrants" is a category that includes a wide diversity of individuals with completely different backgrounds and opinions. Obviously some are racist, but suggesting that immigrants in general are just as racist as white people is an incredibly stupid and unsupportable claim. Any appeal to "common sense" instead of actual proof in this matter is just more evidence that your claim is not based in reality, since something so overwhelmingly a matter of common sense should be easily supported by certain statistical indicators.

Second, this argument is just you shooting yourself in the foot. If whites are allowed to be jurors in cases with Black defendants, and screened for racism, there's no reason other people should be excluded from that same process, even if their populations include people who are "just as racist as white people." As I have stated again and again, racists are supposed to be screened out of the process regardless, so this point isn't really relevant.

 

[theworldismine13]

That was already shown- it had no effect. Legally, there was every reason for the trials to be scrapped, but that's corruption at work.

im not following how putting immigrants into the jury pool would fix that corruption

No, I'm not conflating the two. The peer argument is irrelevant in this case, as I already demonstrated. Furthermore, I also provided citations in the Constitution and the selection process. You have provided no citations which explain that being judged by your "peers" means "people who are familiar with American laws and culture to x degree." You already conceded that juries were meant to eliminate biases, so the peer argument is now worthless, especially since it's impossible to deny that immigrants commit crimes and are victims of crimes.

what do you mean you arent conflating that two, yes you are, the purpose of the jury selection process and the purpose of having a jury are not the same thing and you are trying to say that a particular process in the jury selection is itself the purpose of having a jury, that assertion is false

using your logic, what would stop a person from that isnt even a resident of the us from being in the jury selection pool? using your logic the DMV and residential requirement is itself irrelevant and the capability of understanding legal technicalities qualifies you to be an american jurist

First of all, you do not need a green card to enter the US. That's just plain wrong. I'm not sure you understand what a green card actually is- it's a permanent resident card. You can enter the US with a variety of documents- mostly Visas, and in most cases, you cannot even apply for a green card immediately. I suggest you look here: USCIS - Green Card

yes i do know what im talking about, and yes you do need a green card to enter the US, most immigrants get a green card before coming to the US, that is the the way the process works

you can enter with a tourist visa, student visa or temporary employment visa, im not sure how that is relevant to the discussion unless you are trying to point out that people with student visas and temp employees are lawful immigrants and so they are also eligible for DMV cards, which means even the chinese grad student that barely speaks english is also eligible for jury duty

it is true that you can apply for a green card or apply for asylum if you come here in a tourist, student or temp employment visa, that is called an Adjustment of Status: Learn about the multi-step process for individuals inside the United States that want to get a Green Card but im not sure how that contradicts my point because the vast majority of immigrants come here on a green card that they get before they get here, and the vast majority of green cards get processed at the US embassies overseas

so in the end people can get off the boat and be in the jury the next day under this proposal

Secondly, the marriage way is only one way of getting a green card, but it is the fastest. The fastest that takes is 2 years, which is very rarely the case, but even then, you have to prove to the government that you are filing taxes, are familiar with several laws, are actually an acclimated couple, etc. You can't be someone who speaks no English, doesn't work and pay taxes, and doesn't assimilate at all and get a green card through marriage. In any case, using these much less common cases does not strengthen your argument, since most immigrants don't get green cards this way.

lol, you dont know what the fuk you are talking about, there is no english requirement for green cards, there is no requirement to pay taxes and there is no requirement to be familiar with any laws, what you are saying is complete bullshyt

the way to get a green a card is through the us embassy overseas unless you are a student or a guest worker or asylum seeker then you can apply for an adjustment of status, but that is a minority, the vast majority get their green cards from the embassy before they get to the US

Once again, you're wrong. Read the link I sent, and read your own link to the article. Lawfully-present immigrant is a category that does not include temporary residents, who are classified as nonimmigrant visitors, so temporary resident card-holders do not qualify for jury duty. I'm not sure why you're in denial here- I linked the DMV website, and it's on the US Gov Immigration and Customs Enforcement website as well.

well first of all i did quote your link, and your link says that temporary residents are allowed to have DMV cards

If the applicant was born in the U.S., he/she may provide a U.S. birth certificate or passport. An applicant who is an immigrant to the U.S. may provide a U.S. citizen naturalization or citizenship document, or a Permanent Resident Card. Applicants who are non-immigrants, but are authorized to be in the U.S. may present a Temporary Resident Identification card or other temporary resident documentation.

do you even read your own link?

it clearly says that temporary residents are allowed to have DMV cards so therefore under this proposal temporary residents will be allowed into juries

and you are also wrong about the definition of lawful immigrants https://nilc.org/lawfullyresiding.html

Lawfully present immigrants include the "qualified" immigrants listed in 8 U.S.C. section 1641, as well as several other categories of non–U.S. citizens who have permission to live and/or work in the U.S

so people with students visas and guest workers are lawful immigrants becuase they are allowed to live and work in the US so they would also be allowed into juries under this proposal

Which is a foolish point, as I already stated. If what you're worried about is foreign biases, and you already admitted that some immigrants would be capable jurors, then why exclude them instead of screening them like they already do with everyone else?

i didn't say that immigrants would be capable jurors, what i said is that immigrants would be capable of understanding technicalities of american law but they would lack an understanding of some fundamental principles of america law and american culture so they would NOT be capable jurors imo

there is no reason to think that somebody who is not familiar with separation of church and state, freedom of speech and civil rights would make the justice system fairer

and im not understanding how a jury screening would screen for biases stemming from cultural issues, like under what legal premise would you exclude Zubeidat "my baby aint hurt nobody" Tsarnaeva from a jury pool?

and why is it foolish for me not to want for example an indian that comes from a culture with a caste system judging me? i would agree with that if its a reciprocal agreement and im allowed to go to india and stand be in their juries

I don't know if specific individuals would be or not, because I don't stereotype entire groups of people... that would be idiotic. The job of the lawyers is to screen for things like racism- obviously a lawyer doesn't want a juror who is racist against their client and will do everything in their power to prevent those biases from entering the jury. There is no reason that procedure would mysteriously give racist immigrants an easier time than racist citizens.

but you are stereotyping entire groups of people, you just asserted that immigrants would be more fair to minorities and poor people than white people, what is your basis for that assertion? and how are you not stereotyping whole groups of people? just because you make a positive assertion about entire groups doesnt mean its not stereotyping

this is news to me, i didnt know this was possible, how exactly does a lawyer screen for racism?

Of course. I already stated that liberals have their reasons for introducing the bill, just like xenophobic conservatives have their reasons for opposing it. That has nothing to do with the bill's actual merits.

it has nothing to do with its merits, but it has everything to do with race in california

if you want to ignore the racial aspect of this legislation thats fine, but again that is why black people need to separate themselves from liberal, liberals arent looking out for black interests

There is little reason to think that immigrants with green cards, who either married citizens and worked for several years, or who waited the 5 or more years to get a green card some other way are not familiar with American concepts. Anyway, you still haven't proven that familiarity with those concepts is an a priori requirement for jury duty- it's not. Most people only learn those specifics in the courtroom, like I said, which you haven't disputed yet.

if the person spent the majority of their life outside of the us and in countries that do not have notions such as freedom of speech, civil rights and separation of church and state then its logical to assume that they may not be familiar with it

and you do not wait for 5 years for a green card, that is bullshyt

and i am not talking about law specifics, i am talking about culture, 5 years in the us will not necessarily change your culture or your world view

No, you're an idiot if you believe this. "Immigrants" is a category that includes a wide diversity of individuals with completely different backgrounds and opinions. Obviously some are racist, but suggesting that immigrants in general are just as racist as white people is an incredibly stupid and unsupportable claim. Any appeal to "common sense" instead of actual proof in this matter is just more evidence that your claim is not based in reality, since something so overwhelmingly a matter of common sense should be easily supported by certain statistical indicators.

my claim is completely supportable, all you have to do is look at the way black people are treated in other countries and you have to look at the way they behave in this country, immigrants behave just as racist as white people

there is no evidence to support the notion that immigrants are less racist than white people

Second, this argument is just you shooting yourself in the foot. If whites are allowed to be jurors in cases with Black defendants, and screened for racism, there's no reason other people should be excluded from that same process, even if their populations include people who are "just as racist as white people." As I have stated again and again, racists are supposed to be screened out of the process regardless, so this point isn't really relevant.

i have no idea where you get this shyt that whites are screened for racism, that doesnt happen, you can't screen for racism

and my argument isnt that immigrants are racist, that was simply me retort to your suggestion that immigrants would be fairer to minorities, if the system is racist the solution isnt to bring in more foreigners into the system

my basic argument is cultural, im saying that immigrants would not have a good understanding of basic american culture and tenents like freedom of speech, civil rights and separation of church and state

and my other argument is that this is just a corny ass power grab by mexican americans

 

[The Real]

im not following how putting immigrants into the jury pool would fix that corruption

Most immigrants are not wealthy and are people of color. It would obviously contribute to diversifying, and thus weakening the grip of wealthy whites, who are currently advantaged in the system. It's also obviously not a magical solution, though.

what do you mean you arent conflating that two, yes you are, the purpose of the jury selection process and the purpose of having a jury are not the same thing and you are trying to say that a particular process in the jury selection is itself the purpose of having a jury, that assertion is false

using your logic, what would stop a person from that isnt even a resident of the us from being in the jury selection pool? using your logic the DMV and residential requirement is itself irrelevant

I'm not conflating the two. I stated that your peer argument was irrelevant. You didn't even define "peer," yet you expect me to believe it somehow excludes immigrants. And my bias argument is completely unaffected by that. It stands on its own. As long as its part of the process, which it obviously is, my argument stands.

And of course I didn't endorse getting rid of the DMV requirement. That's why temporary residents aren't allowed to be on juries.

yes i do know what im talking about, and yes you do need a green card to enter the US, most immigrants get a green card before coming to the US, that is the the way the process works

it is true that you can apply for a green card or apply for asylum if you come here in a tourist, student or temp employment visa, that is called Adjustment of Status: Learn about the multi-step process for individuals inside the United States that want to get a Green Card but im not sure how that contradicts my point because the vast majority of immigrants come here on a green card that they get before they get here in other words the vast majority of green cards get processed at the US embassies overseas

the way to get a green a card is the through the us embassy overseas unless you are a student or a guest worker or asylum seeker then you can apply for and adjustment of status, but that is a minority, the vast majority get their green cards from the embassy before they get to the us

You don't need a green card to enter the US.

And immigants enter the US on Visas, not with green cards, because you can't get processed for a green card elsewhere. Proof of residence in the US is one of the basic requirements of having one.

I know you can't produce proof for any of the following assertions, because they're completely false. The majority of immigrants do not come here with green cards. The US Consuls abroad can only be used to apply under very specific circumstances. Again, please read this:

USCIS - Green Card

you can enter with a tourist visa, student visa or temporary employment visa, im not sure how that is relevant to the discussion unless you are trying to point out that people with student visas and temp employeees are lawful immigrants and so they are also eligable for DMV cards, which means even the chinese grad student that barely speaks english is also eligible for jury duty

The English requirement was already outlined in the article you posted, so the Chinese example is irrelevant.

lol, you dont know what the fuk you are talking about, there is no english requirement for green cards, there is no requirement to pay taxes and there is no requirement to be familiar with any laws, what you are saying is complete bullshyt

If you are marrying in, all those requirements exist. The government literally sends people to your home to check up on your marriage periodically and confirm all of those things. It's part of the process. And yes, filing taxes is part of the green card process for marrying in, too. Again, check the government link I posted.

well first of all i did quote your link, and your link says that temporary residents are allowed to have DMV cards
do you even read your own link?

it clearly says that temporary residents are allowed to have DMV cards so therefore under this proposal temporary residents will be allowed into juries

and you are also wrong about the definition of lawful immigrants https://nilc.org/lawfullyresiding.html

so people with students visas and guest workers are lawful immigrants and they would also be allowed into juries under this proposal

You didn't read your own link, nor mine. Temporary residents get state IDs and drivers licenses that say that they're temporary residents/visitors. Notice the link below has a special category for "nonimmigrants." Those are the visitors. They are lawfully present temporary residents, and they can get IDs and licenses, but they are not lawfully present immigrants, and hence, cannot be chosen for jury duty. Lawfully present immigrants are people with an actual immigration status, which is to say green cards.

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/dmv_factsheet.pdf

i didnt say that immigrants would be capable jurors, what i said is that immigrants would be capable of understanding technicalities of american law but they would lack an understanding of some fundamental principles of america law and american culture so they would NOT be capable jurors imo

I see you want to change it up now. No matter, because there's no difference. This mysterious distinction between understanding the laws and understanding the "principles" of law and culture is meaningless. If they can understand the laws, then they can understand the principles.

there is no reason to think that somebody who is not familiar with separation of church and state, freedom of speech and civil rights would make the justice system fairer

Most Americans are not familiar with what these entail, either. Most people learn it during the case, like I said. You still haven't addressed that.

and im not understanding how a jury screening would screen for biases stemming from cultural issues, like under what legal premise would you exclude Zubeidat "my baby aint hurt nobody" Tsarnaeva from a jury pool?

First, because she's related to the defendant. We have no idea how she would judge someone else's child, but that's for the lawyer to discover during the screening process.

and why is it foolish for me not to want for example an indian that comes from a culture with a caste system judging me? i would agree with that if its a reciprocal agreement and im allowed to go to india and stand be in their juries

You could use that argument about the caste system to prevent that person from being on your jury, assuming that person believed in the caste system.

but you are stereotyping entire groups of people, you just asserted that immigrants would be more fair to minorities and poor people than white people, what is your basis for that assertion? and how are you not stereotyping whole groups of people? just because you make a positive assertion about entire groups doesnt mean its not stereotyping

When did I state that immigrants would be more fair to minorities and poor people (which they are, for the most part?) I said that they were as capable of being racist or nonracist as anyone else, and so if they are properly screened, there is nothing that separates them from anyone else.

this is news to me, i didnt know this was possible, how exactly does a lawyer screen for racism?

i have no idea where you get this shyt that whites are screened for racism, that doesnt happen, you can't screen for racism

Uh... it's a major part of the voir dire. They do thorough background checks and question you directly about your demographic biases to see if you hold any biases for or against the kinds of people involved in the case. I assume you've never been on a jury before? One easy way to get out of jury duty is by pretending to be racist against whoever the defendants or accusers are.

and i am not talking about law specifics, i am talking about culture, 5 years in the us will not necessarily change your culture or your world view

So I guess naturalized citizens shouldn't be allowed to serve on the jury either, since their culture might still be racist? This is a slippery slope that ends in unreasonable conclusions. People born here are racist, too, and they're screened for it.

my claim is completely supportable, all you have to do is look at the way black people are treated in other countries and you have to look at the way they behave in this country, immigrants behave just as racist as white people

there is no evidence to support the notion that immigrants are less racist than white people

So because Black people are treated poorly in some other countries, all people from those countries are racist? That's a very illogical argument. But if you're not suggesting that they're all racist, then this point is completely irrelevant, since you admit that there are racists and nonracists, so judging them all by the racists makes no sense.

and my argument isnt that immigrants are racist, that was simply me retort to your suggestion that immigrants would be fairer to minorities, if the system is racist the solution isnt to bring in more foreigners into the system

my basic argument is cultural, im saying that immigrants would not have a good understanding of basic american culture and tenents like freedom of speech, civil rights and separation of church and state

So your argument isn't that immigrants are racist, even though you said they were? And I never said that immigrants would be fairer to minorities. I said that immigrants was a vague category that included many different kinds of people, just like the category "citizens," and so nonracist immigrants can be screened just like nonracist citizens.

 

[theworldismine13]

Most immigrants are not wealthy and are people of color. It would obviously contribute to diversifying, and thus weakening the grip of wealthy whites, who are currently advantaged in the system. It's also obviously not a magical solution, though.

it obviously isnt magical solution, because its based on the false belief that immigrants are less racist than white people

and it isnt a solution at all imo, its simply a way along with most other liberal immigration proposals like amnesty, to increase mexican influence in the US

I'm not conflating the two. I stated that your peer argument was irrelevant. You didn't even define "peer," yet you expect me to believe it somehow excludes immigrants. And my bias argument is completely unaffected by that. It stands on its own. As long as its part of the process, which it obviously is, my argument stands.

im not talking about the peer argument

you keep harping about the jury selection process which is suppose to eliminate bias but then you try to use that process to say the purpose of a jury is to eliminate bias and that if immigrants eliminate bias then they should be in the jury

but that doesn't necessarily follow, the purpose of the jury is to get a fair trial by your peers, the jury selection process is just that a process to get fair trail, the jury selection process is not the purpose of having a jury

the problem with your logic is that it basically says that if you can get a supposedly unbiased jury and and people that have the technical ability to understand the law, then you have fair trial

if that is all you need to have fair trial then you can have a person from any part of the world be in the jury

but my point is that the reason you dont have anybody from all over the world is that you have to be judged by your peers

what is your logic is to why anybody from anywhere in the world shouldn't be allowed to be a juror in an american court?

And of course I didn't endorse getting rid of the DMV requirement. That's why temporary residents aren't allowed to be on juries.

using your theory and logic, what would be the reason for excluding somebody who isnt even a resident at all? under your logic a jury composed of people that dont reside in the us would be a fair trial

You don't need a green card to enter the US.

sure there are other ways of entering the US without a green card

And immigants enter the US on Visas, not with green cards, because you can't get processed for a green card elsewhere. Proof of residence in the US is one of the basic requirements of having one.

residency is not a requirement to have green card, that is the dumbest thing ive heard LOL

even you own link says

Consular Processing


Consular processing is the method immigrants use to get their green card when outside the United States or when ineligible to adjust status in the United States. Find out more about the process.

so obviously what you are saying about residency being a requirement is not true

here is a link Green Cards - 11 Ways to Get One - Apply Online: Fast, Easy, Economical

there is nothing there or in your link about being a resident or english requirement, or paying taxes or waiting for 5 years, all of that is some bullshyt you made up

there is a way to adjust your status if you are here on a student or job visa but that is an exception, the vast majority of green cards are processed at the embassy and you get a green card before you get to the US, a green card is a visa and its processed at the embassy just like other visas

and stop posting that link to the immigration site, that link doesnt say anything to support what you are saying, nowhere in that site does it say anything about english, knowledge of law, 5 year wait or residency requirement, if it does then past the exact page or STFU

The English requirement was already outlined in the article you posted, so the Chinese example is irrelevant.

the chinese example is relevant, because they would qualify for jury duty under this proposal, the chinese grad student obviously speaks english, you have to pass the TOEFL to get a student visa, that is why i said barely

and you are the one that pulled an english requirement for a green card out of your ass

If you are marrying in, all those requirements exist. The government literally sends people to your home to check up on your marriage periodically and confirm all of those things. It's part of the process. And yes, filing taxes is part of the green card process for marrying in, too. Again, check the government link I posted.

no they dont, that's bullshyt, the only requirement if you are getting married is that you are able to support the person you are getting married to and that, obviously, its a legit marriage and so you have go to an interview

the rest of what you are saying is complete bullshyt, lol @ filing taxes

you dont know what the fuk you are talking about

You didn't read your own link, nor mine. Temporary residents get state IDs and drivers licenses that say that they're temporary residents/visitors. Notice the link below has a special category for "nonimmigrants." Those are the visitors. They are lawfully present temporary residents, and they can get IDs and licenses, but they are not lawfully present immigrants, and hence, cannot be chosen for jury duty. Lawfully present immigrants are people with an actual immigration status, which is to say green cards.

http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/dmv_factsheet.pdf

the federal government doesnt control who gets licenses the states do, in CA your license does not say your immigration status, the CA DMV doesnt differentiate, that is why this is a dumb idea

I see you want to change it up now. No matter, because there's no difference. This mysterious distinction between understanding the laws and understanding the "principles" of law and culture is meaningless. If they can understand the laws, then they can understand the principles.

i dont see how thats absurd, a person born and raised in the US has a better understanding of american culture than a person who wasnt born and raised here, im not sure why you think that is some kind of absurd assertion

Most Americans are not familiar with what these entail, either. Most people learn it during the case, like I said. You still haven't addressed that.

i disagree, the average american does have a better understanding of freedom of speech, civil rights and separation of church and state then an immigrant who grew up somewhere else

First, because she's related to the defendant. We have no idea how she would judge someone else's child, but that's for the lawyer to discover during the screening process.

im not talking about any specific trial

what i am saying is that Zubeidat "my baby aint hurt nobody" Tsarnaeva does not have the same grasp of freedom of speech, civil rights and separation of church and state as an average american and so she shouldn't be in the jury pool in the first place

im not understanding what, under your logic, would disqualify anybody from anywhere in the world from being a juror in an american court

When did I state that immigrants would be more fair to minorities and poor people (which they are, for the most part?) I said that they were as capable of being racist or nonracist as anyone else, and so if they are properly screened, there is nothing that separates them from anyone else.

you cannot screen for racism, that is ridiculous, if screening juries eliminated racism then how do you explain the racism in the justice system? are you saying that juries are not racist because they have been screened by lawyers?

and you just said in this very post that immigrants would be more fairer than whites

this is what you said

Most immigrants are not wealthy and are people of color. It would obviously contribute to diversifying, and thus weakening the grip of wealthy whites, who are currently advantaged in the system. It's also obviously not a magical solution, though.

You could use that argument about the caste system to prevent that person from being on your jury, assuming that person believed in the caste system.

the cultural impact of growing up believing in a caste system is not something that would show up in jury screening process, the level of stupidity and naivete for you to think that is incredible

Uh... it's a major part of the voir dire. They do thorough background checks and question you directly about your demographic biases to see if you hold any biases for or against the kinds of people involved in the case. I assume you've never been on a jury before? One easy way to get out of jury duty is by pretending to be racist against whoever the defendants or accusers are.

so are you saying that we have a process that eliminates racism from juries? but i thought you said the jury system was racist against minorities and poor people

which one is it?

So I guess naturalized citizens shouldn't be allowed to serve on the jury either, since their culture might still be racist? This is a slippery slope that ends in unreasonable conclusions. People born here are racist, too, and they're screened for it.

no because naturalized citizen go through a process of being a resident and taking an english test and civics test on american laws and american culture

apparently you are confusing the naturalization process with the green card process

and for the 6th or 7th time, the jury process does not screen for racism, this assertion is naive in the extreme bordering on stupidity, the jury process screens for blatant bias

So because Black people are treated poorly in some other countries, all people from those countries are racist? That's a very illogical argument. But if you're not suggesting that they're all racist, then this point is completely irrelevant, since you admit that there are racists and nonracists, so judging them all by the racists makes no sense.

actually yeah i do assume that they are all racist, why wouldnt i?

why do you assume that white wealthy people are against minorities and poor people? you consider that to be logical? but my assertion is illogical?

but again my argument is not based on racism, that was simply my retort

my argument is based on the idea that immigrants do not have a good grasp of freedom of speech, civil rights and separation of church and state and also that im against mexican americans trying to turn CA into mexico and im against mexican power grabs

So your argument isn't that immigrants are racist, even though you said they were? And I never said that immigrants would be fairer to minorities. I said that immigrants was a vague category that included many different kinds of people, just like the category "citizens," and so nonracist immigrants can be screened just like nonracist citizens.

i disagree, i think you did say that immigrants would be less racist or that they would be more fairer to minorities and poor people

and i dont believe you can screen for racism, that is bullshyt

 

[The Real]

it obviously isnt magical solution, because its based on the false belief that immigrants are less racist than white people

It's based on the idea that diversity of groups necessarily weakens any individual group's hegemony, not on the assumption that immigrants are less racist than white people.

you keep harping about the jury selection process which is suppose to eliminate bias but then you try to use that process to say the purpose of a jury is to eliminate bias and that if immigrants eliminate bias then they should be in the jury

but that doesn't necessarily follow, the purpose of the jury is to get a fair trial by your peers, the jury selection process is just that a process to get fair trail, the jury selection process is not the purpose of having a jury

the problem with your logic is that it basically says that if you can get a supposedly unbiased jury and and people that have the technical ability to understand the law, then you have fair trial

if that is all you need to have fair trial then you can have a person from any part of the world be in the jury

You're rambling about a distinction that I already rendered irrelevant. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Let's simplify: juries have to be impartial. A great pool of jurors only improves that ability. That doesn't necessitate making random tourists into jurors, because they have no commitment to this country, and no necessary investment in American crime and civil society, whereas someone with a green card obviously has some.

sure there are other ways of entering the US without a green card

Yeah... the vast majority of people use those "other ways."

residency is not a requirement to have green card, that is the dumbest thing ive heard LOL

so obviously what you are saying about residency being a requirement is not true

here is a link Green Cards - 11 Ways to Get One - Apply Online: Fast, Easy, Economical

there is nothing there or in your link about being a resident or english requirement, or paying taxes or waiting for 5 years, all of that is some bullshyt you made up

Residence is indeed a requirement. That's why the category is called "permanent resident." If you have a green card, you can lose it if you don't spend enough time living in the US. Applying through a consul does not negate that fact. Whether or not your petition gets approved is explicitly based on things like residence and competance with English- whoever is sponsoring your petition has to testify that you're capable of assimilation. You think an employer would hire someone who doesn't speak English and then try and spend the time and money to try and get them a green card even before they got here, and if they weren't planning on staying?

there is a way to adjust your status if you are here on a student or job visa but that is an exception, the vast majority of green cards are processed at the embassy and you get a green card before you get to the US, a green card is a visa and its processed at the embassy just like other visas

First of all, the green card is not processed at the embassy. The embassy gives you a Visa with which to enter the US. All green cards are only processed in the US, and only after you arrive.

And let's see a statistic for this point you keep repeating about most immigrants applying before they get here.

and stop posting that link to the immigration site, that link doesnt say anything to support what you are saying, nowhere in that site does it say anything about english, knowledge of law, 5 year wait or residency requirement, if it does then past the exact page or STFU

Read the link for yourself. I'm not doing your hw for you. I provided the citation. Most of the information should be there. The green card petition process isn't some loose system where anyone can get in.

the chinese example is relevant, because they would qualify for jury duty under this proposal, the chinese grad student obviously speaks english, you have to pass the TOEFL to get a student visa, that is why i said barely

If they speak enough English to pass the TOEFL, which is enough to get them into any college in the US, then they already speak enough to be on a jury (and remember, the school has to accept the student before it allows them to apply for a visa.) The average American adult doesn't have even a Bachelor's degree, so to claim that someone who got into an American school from another country with their TOEFL scores is somehow incompetent makes no sense.

no they dont, that's bullshyt, the only requirement if you are getting married is that you are able to support the person you are getting married to and that, obviously, its a legit marriage and so you have go to an interview

the rest of what you are saying is complete bullshyt, lol @ filing taxes

you dont know what the fuk you are talking about

On tax returns: Want a green card through marriage? How your tax return might help or hurt. - Massachusetts Immigration Lawyer Blog

On marriage fraud inspections: "In order to detect frauds, the immigration authorities require a lot of proof that a marriage is real, including more documentation than for other family-based immigration applicants. They subject marriage-based immigrants to a longer and more detailed personal interview than other applicants go through, as well as a two-year testing period for couples who have been married less than two years when their green card is approved or they enter the U.S. on their immigrant visa.

Inspectors of the Department of Homeland Security can visit your home, talk to your friends, interview your employers, and so on.

What is the U.S. government’s view of a typical marriage... The "normal" married couple has a fair amount in common. They share a language and religion. They live together and do things together, like take vacations, celebrate important events, birthdays, and holidays, join clubs or gyms, and have sex and children. Typical couples also combine financial and other aspects of their lives after marriage. They demonstrate their trust in one another by sharing bank and credit card accounts and ownership of property, such as cars and houses. They celebrate each others' birthdays and meet each others' families.

The U.S. immigration authorities usually expect applicants to prove that they share their lives in a way similar to what is described above"

the federal government doesnt control who gets licenses the states do, in CA your license does not say your immigration status, the CA DMV doesnt differentiate, that is why this is a dumb idea

Are you suggesting that the states can circumvent the federal government's legal categories for immigration? Lawful immigrant and lawful nonimmigrant visitor are federal categories that apply in every state.

Secondly, I don't know whether your license or state ID says it or not, but it doesn't have to... as your link notes, the jury is selected from DMV records, not from licenses or IDs. You have to note your immigrant or nonimmigrant or citizen status when you apply for any ID there. You live in Cali, right? Go down to your local DMV and you'll see.

So to sum up once again, you can get a license or state ID if you're just a visitor, but just having a license or ID does not make you eligible for jury selection.

i disagree, the average american does have a better understanding of freedom of speech, civil rights and separation of church and state then an immigrant who grew up somewhere else

Almost 40% of Americans would fail our own citizenship test: How ignorant are Americans? An alarming number of U.S. citizens don't know basic facts about their own country | Mail Online

So I'm not seeing that big a difference here between these folks and immigrants who actually do want to be permanent residents. Secondly, the knowledge you need in a jury situation is specific, not some general vacuous, vague knowledge of "culture" or "principles," and most jurors do not have that specific knowledge upon entering the pool. They gain it during the case.

what i am saying is that Zubeidat "my baby aint hurt nobody" Tsarnaeva does not have the same grasp of freedom of speech, civil rights and separation of church and state as an average american and so she shouldn't be in the jury pool in the first place

How do you know what her grasp is? Anyway, I'm not sure why you're using someone who believes in conspiracy theories and who has felony charges against them, and who moved back to her home country as a stand-in for immigrants in general. It's not possible to make accurate generalizations about green card holders from her instance. Someone like her would not be allowed in a jury pool for many different reasons.

However, "grasp" of those concepts you provided would not be among them, since it's currently not a requirement for anyone, and thus not a basis on which to exclude immigrants.

you cannot screen for racism, that is ridiculous, if screening juries eliminated racism then how do you explain the racism in the justice system? are you saying that juries are not racist because they have been screened by lawyers?

so are you saying that we have a process that eliminates racism from juries? but i thought you said the jury system was racist against minorities and poor people. which one is it?

The way the system is set up currently only privileges white people because of institutional racism. That's why something like the Rodney King trials were so easy to distort with bias. It was a mostly white police precinct exerting their influence. Minorities and immigrants have no comparable institutional power in that aspect of society.

That has no connection to an immigrant's biases against Black people. Individual biases are screened out as best as they can be unless you have a Rodney King type situation where some white institutional power distorts the proceedings.

the cultural impact of growing up believing in a caste system is not something that would show up in jury screening process, the level of stupidity and naivete for you to think that is incredible

You didn't even know there was a screening process, and now you're trying to tell me what it can and can't do? If you believed in the caste system, then the lawyer would immediately note that as a strike against you.

no because naturalized citizen go through a process of being a resident and taking an english test and civics test on american laws and american culture

apparently you are confusing the naturalization process with the green card process

No. You said that immigrants were racist, and that spending time here doesn't change their culture. By your logic, naturalization wouldn't have an effect, either, unless you're suggesting that the citizenship test would magically eliminate their racism where a green card wouldn't. So my argument here stands.

actually yeah i do assume that they are all racist, why wouldnt i?

Because you're incapable of basic logical thinking on this subject? There's honestly no other reason for such an assumption. You're starting from some vague stereotypes and unreasonable commitments and then trying to force reality to fit them, which it clearly doesn't.

my argument is based on the idea that immigrants do not have a good grasp of freedom of speech, civil rights and separation of church and state and also that im against mexican americans trying to turn CA into mexico and im against mexican power grabs

So in other words you don't really have an argument.

 

[theworldismine13]

It's based on the idea that diversity of groups necessarily weakens any individual group's hegemony, not on the assumption that immigrants are less racist than white people.

yeah in other words its just a way to increase mexican influence in the US

You're rambling about a distinction that I already rendered irrelevant. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Let's simplify: juries have to be impartial. A great pool of jurors only improves that ability. That doesn't necessitate making random tourists into jurors, because they have no commitment to this country, and no necessary investment in American crime and civil society, whereas someone with a green card obviously has some.

but that doesnt make sense, if they have a different understanding of things like separation of church and state etc, that is the judgement that they will use in court, in other words american citizens will be judged using the judgement and values of people who arent american and of foreign cultures

being a juror and having a fair trial is not simply having a technical understanding of the law

they have a commitment to what in america? immigrants can have a commitment to the views of the countries they came from and are trying to bring those views into the courtroom

Yeah... the vast majority of people use those "other ways."

hmm i looked it and i misspoke it isnt the vast majority, but it is the majority

for 2012 there were 352,183 visas given for adjustment of status http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY12AnnualReport-TableV.pdf

and for 2012 there were 482,300 visas given an foreign posts http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY12AnnualReport-TableI.pdf

i dont know where you get this idea that a green card is something separate from a visa, a green card is a visa for all intents and purposes, they is no point in separating being granted an immigrant visa and getting a physical green card

Residence is indeed a requirement. That's why the category is called "permanent resident." If you have a green card, you can lose it if you don't spend enough time living in the US. Applying through a consul does not negate that fact. Whether or not your petition gets approved is explicitly based on things like residence and competance with English- whoever is sponsoring your petition has to testify that you're capable of assimilation. You think an employer would hire someone who doesn't speak English and then try and spend the time and money to try and get them a green card even before they got here, and if they weren't planning on staying?

that is just false, there is a residency requirement AFTER you get the green card, but you do not have to be resident to get a green card, in 2012 482,300 got visas in foreign embassies which is the majority of visas given that makes them lawful immigrants the minute they step in the us and according to you the minute they step in the US they are qualified to be in a jury

Read the link for yourself. I'm not doing your hw for you. I provided the citation. Most of the information should be there. The green card petition process isn't some loose system where anyone can get in.

it isnt there, if it was you would have found it, im sure you looked, what you are saying is simply false, there is no residency requirement, there is no 5 year requirement, there is no english requirement and there is no american law test to get a green card

you are confusing the naturalizing process which does have those types of requirements to the green card process

here is the page for green card requirements

USCIS - Green Card Eligibility
it says nothing about the requirements that you mention

and no an employer would not sponsor somebody who doent know english, so what is your point? that doesnt change the fact that you do not need to be resident to get a green card

and are you saying that knowing english qualifies you to be an american juror?

First of all, the green card is not processed at the embassy. The embassy gives you a Visa with which to enter the US. All green cards are only processed in the US, and only after you arrive.

And let's see a statistic for this point you keep repeating about most immigrants applying before they get here.

the actual physical green card is given to you in the US, but you are not getting a visa unless you are qualified for a green card, and the paperwork for a green card is processed at the embassy, so its the same difference

a green card is a visa, for all intents and purposes

If they speak enough English to pass the TOEFL, which is enough to get them into any college in the US, then they already speak enough to be on a jury (and remember, the school has to accept the student before it allows them to apply for a visa.) The average American adult doesn't have even a Bachelor's degree, so to claim that someone who got into an American school from another country with their TOEFL scores is somehow incompetent makes no sense.

well dont say i put words your mouth, now you are arguing that a chinese grad student that passes toefl is qualified to be on a jury



but anyways imo opinion a chinese grad student doesn't have the proper cultural background to sit in an american jury

On tax returns: Want a green card through marriage? How your tax return might help or hurt. - Massachusetts Immigration Lawyer Blog

On marriage fraud inspections: "In order to detect frauds, the immigration authorities require a lot of proof that a marriage is real, including more documentation than for other family-based immigration applicants. They subject marriage-based immigrants to a longer and more detailed personal interview than other applicants go through, as well as a two-year testing period for couples who have been married less than two years when their green card is approved or they enter the U.S. on their immigrant visa.

Inspectors of the Department of Homeland Security can visit your home, talk to your friends, interview your employers, and so on.

What is the U.S. government’s view of a typical marriage... The "normal" married couple has a fair amount in common. They share a language and religion. They live together and do things together, like take vacations, celebrate important events, birthdays, and holidays, join clubs or gyms, and have sex and children. Typical couples also combine financial and other aspects of their lives after marriage. They demonstrate their trust in one another by sharing bank and credit card accounts and ownership of property, such as cars and houses. They celebrate each others' birthdays and meet each others' families.

The U.S. immigration authorities usually expect applicants to prove that they share their lives in a way similar to what is described above"

lol, you said that tax returns are a requirement, the link clearly is showing that its optional, second the spouse gets a a green card right away, that two year test is not to get a green card its just a period were they can check on you to make sure the marriage is a legit

i know from being in the military that the spouse gets a green card right away, you do not have to be a resident to get a green card

Almost 40% of Americans would fail our own citizenship test: How ignorant are Americans? An alarming number of U.S. citizens don't know basic facts about their own country | Mail Online

So I'm not seeing that big a difference here between these folks and immigrants who actually do want to be permanent residents. Secondly, the knowledge you need in a jury situation is specific, not some general vacuous, vague knowledge of "culture" or "principles," and most jurors do not have that specific knowledge upon entering the pool. They gain it during the case.

unless you can show that immigrants know more about the us im not sure what the point of the statistic is

culture is not vacuous, its abstract but its significant in the judgement that people make, its apparent that you have a vague understanding of american culture and principle or have little respect for it and so you also assume that everybody else should also

its another problem with liberal ideology, its this notion that america is simply a territory that we all just happen to be living in and not a concept and a culture

How do you know what her grasp is? Anyway, I'm not sure why you're using someone who believes in conspiracy theories and who has felony charges against them, and who moved back to her home country as a stand-in for immigrants in general. It's not possible to make accurate generalizations about green card holders from her instance. Someone like her would not be allowed in a jury pool for many different reasons.

However, "grasp" of those concepts you provided would not be among them, since it's currently not a requirement for anyone, and thus not a basis on which to exclude immigrants.

i dont agree, i think you can make generalizations that immigrants have less understanding of american concepts than a person born here, and she is a good example of that

and just like an american would not have a good cultural understanding of france, russia or zimbabwe to be qualified to sit in juries in those countries even if they were residents and knew the language an immigrant from france, russia or zimbabwe is not qualified to sit in an american jury

i think that generalization is perfectly sensible and appropriate

the grasp of those concepts is why you have the requirements in the first place and its the very reason why immigrants are excluded from jury duty and other things, and those types of restrictions exist in every country

i would be willing to get down with this idea if its reciprocal and any american resident of a foreign country is also allowed to be in foreign juries

The way the system is set up currently only privileges white people because of institutional racism. That's why something like the Rodney King trials were so easy to distort with bias. It was a mostly white police precinct exerting their influence. Minorities and immigrants have no comparable institutional power in that aspect of society.

That has no connection to an immigrant's biases against Black people. Individual biases are screened out as best as they can be unless you have a Rodney King type situation where some white institutional power distorts the proceedings.

lol, but you just said that the proposal had nothing to do with fighting racism and now you are assuming that immigrants lessen institutional racism?

but lets go back to reality

in fact the rodney king jury had immigrants

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/apr/28/rodney-king-juror-my-father-was-black/

It's long been reported that 10 jurors were white, one was Hispanic and another was Filipino. The U.S. Census Bureau considers Hispanic a designation of ethnicity, not race, and the jury and the four Los Angeles Police Department officers on trial — one of them Hispanic — have often been referred to simply as white.

so your suggestion that immigrants will bring about a less racist justice system is COMPLETE ABSOLUTE BULLshyt

You didn't even know there was a screening process, and now you're trying to tell me what it can and can't do? If you believed in the caste system, then the lawyer would immediately note that as a strike against you.

i didnt say i didnt know about the screening process

what i am saying is that a person would not be asked a question like that and that racism doesnt necessarily manifest itself outwardly and blatantly, so the notion that you can screen for caste beliefs and racism is retarded

if the jury system did screen for racism, then we would not have racist juries, and if it doesn't screen for white racism why would it screen racism from immigrants?

No. You said that immigrants were racist, and that spending time here doesn't change their culture. By your logic, naturalization wouldn't have an effect, either, unless you're suggesting that the citizenship test would magically eliminate their racism where a green card wouldn't. So my argument here stands.

for the third time, my argument wasnt that immigrants were racist my argument was cultural, i simply brought racism up because you were suggesting that immigrants were less racist against minorities and poor people

but that wasnt the crux of my argument, my argument was that immigrants would not have the proper culture background

a naturalized citizen has to go through a process to be "americanized" so my argument wouldnt apply to a naturalized citizen, lol, im not sure why you think you caught me in something

a person with a green card has not gone through an "americanization" process so your argument doesnt stand

Because you're incapable of basic logical thinking on this subject? There's honestly no other reason for such an assumption. You're starting from some vague stereotypes and unreasonable commitments and then trying to force reality to fit them, which it clearly doesn't.

im asking you again, what is the logical reason for you to assume that a white wealthy person is against poor people and minorities? why is it ok for you to stereotype an entire race and demographic but you get your panties in a bunch if i do the same?

apparently when you stereotype its because of enlightenment, when i stereotype its because im not logical, is that it? apparently you have a special card that lets you stereotype people, where can i get one of those?

So in other words you don't really have an argument.

i do have an argument, if you dont like it thats not my problem

my argument is that this proposal is dumb because immigrants do not have the proper cultural background to sit in a jury and this proposal is motivated by mexican americans trying to increase mexican influence which is not in black people's interest

this proposal might be a blow to the white power structure but all it does is give power to the mexican power structure, its just robbing from peter to pay paul, the notion that this would represent progress for black people or for the nation or against racism is hogwash

 

[Broke Wave]

Permanent residents should sit on jury's... they get judged by them why shouldn't they be a part of them? How or why is this a big deal?

 

[theworldismine13]

Permanent residents should sit on jury's... they get judged by them why shouldn't they be a part of them? How or why is this a big deal?

I'm all for it as long as its reciprocal, if American residents of Mexico are allowed to be in Mexican juries and in other countries than I would agree with this proposal

If this is such a great idea lets make this worldwide

 

[Broke Wave]

I'm all for it as long as its reciprocal, if American residents of Mexico are allowed to be in Mexican juries and in other countries than I would agree with this proposal

If this is such a great idea lets make this worldwide

More infantile nitpicking from a person who has proven themselves incapable of serious thought... carry on.

 

[theworldismine13]

More infantile nitpicking from a person who has proven themselves incapable of serious thought... carry on.

lol, im far from being infantile

america is not the only country in the world that has permanent residents, if you believe in the principle that because you are under judicial jurisdiction of another country and you are permanent resident of that country that you should be allowed to be in a jury than you should follow that principle

if you only want to apply that principle to the US than you are not about principles, you are the infantile one and you are disingenuous

im just painting the picture of an american in mexico, france, and zimababwe in a jury in those countries to point out how absurd this idea is, if that picture doesnt disturb you and gratifies you then you are a man of principles, but if you have a problem with americans overseas serving in juries than you are not a man of principles

and i suspect the people proposing this are not men of principle, they're just a bunch of corny mexican american legislators supported by a bunch of corny liberals trying to expand mexican influence in the us, they know that if that idea of allowing permanent residents in juries was proposed in mexico or 99 percent of all countries in the planet they would get the shyt slapped out of them

 

[The Real]

yeah in other words its just a way to increase mexican influence in the US

That’s your delusion, but it’s not related to the law. Besides, most immigrants are not Mexican.

but that doesnt make sense, if they have a different understanding of things like separation of church and state etc, that is the judgement that they will use in court, in other words american citizens will be judged using the judgement and values of people who arent american and of foreign cultures

being a juror and having a fair trial is not simply having a technical understanding of the law

they have a commitment to what in america? immigrants can have a commitment to the views of the countries they came from and are trying to bring those views into the courtroom

Their understanding of those concepts is irrelevant when they step into the courtroom. They have to judge by American law. I notice you avoided my link about how 40% of American citizens would fail a citizenship test, by the way.

As for “other views,” those have to be judged on a case by case basis. The fact is that certain “other views” would be relevant and desirable to for particular cases. There are cases in which an immigrant perspective would actually help the jury be more objective.

hmm i looked it and i misspoke it isnt the vast majority, but it is the majority

for 2012 there were 352,183 visas given for adjustment of status http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY12AnnualReport-TableV.pdf

and for 2012 there were 482,300 visas given an foreign posts http://www.travel.state.gov/pdf/FY12AnnualReport-TableI.pdf

i dont know where you get this idea that a green card is something separate from a visa, a green card is a visa for all intents and purposes, they is no point in separating being granted an immigrant visa and getting a physical green card

the actual physical green card is given to you in the US, but you are not getting a visa unless you are qualified for a green card, and the paperwork for a green card is processed at the embassy, so its the same difference

a green card is a visa, for all intents and purposes

it isnt there, if it was you would have found it, im sure you looked, what you are saying is simply false, there is no residency requirement, there is no 5 year requirement, there is no english requirement and there is no american law test to get a green card

This was slick of you, but visas are not green cards, nor are your stats about green cards.

The residency requirement is something I already explained. You basically restated it to me for some reason. The English requirement is absolutely real. Whoever is sponsoring you must confirm your ability to assimilate, which includes language. The 5 year thing is not a requirement, but an empirical indicator of the general time it takes to get a green card.

According to an analysis by the National Foundation for American Policy, qualified immigrants wait an average of five years or more to become permanent residents (green card holders) while the wait time for people who have solicited their residency through their family could be up to 22 years.
Study: Long Wait for Green Cards - NAM

well dont say i put words your mouth, now you are arguing that a chinese grad student that passes toefl is qualified to be on a jury



but anyways imo opinion a chinese grad student doesn't have the proper cultural background to sit in an american jury

I never said they were qualified to be on a jury in general. I said they knew enough English to be on a jury, in opposition to your claim that they “barely knew English.” And I was right, seeing as they are already speaking English well enough to get into a college, which most Americans don’t do.

lol, you said that tax returns are a requirement, the link clearly is showing that its optional, second the spouse gets a a green card right away, that two year test is not to get a green card its just a period were they can check on you to make sure the marriage is a legit

i know from being in the military that the spouse gets a green card right away, you do not have to be a resident to get a green card

The link says that joint tax returns are optional, but recommended, but tax returns themselves are not. During the two year period, you get a temporary green card, while the full, actual green card is only given to you afterwards.

culture is not vacuous, its abstract but its significant in the judgement that people make, its apparent that you have a vague understanding of american culture and principle or have little respect for it and so you also assume that everybody else should also

That’s great, but that’s not in the constitution or our laws for juries.

i dont agree, i think you can make generalizations that immigrants have less understanding of american concepts than a person born here, and she is a good example of that

She lived here for over 10 years. There’s no indication she had a poor understanding of those concepts, so again, I’m not sure why you’re even bringing her up. As for your assumption, since 40% of Americans would fail our own citizenship test, that generalization is unwarranted.

the grasp of those concepts is why you have the requirements in the first place and its the very reason why immigrants are excluded from jury duty and other things, and those types of restrictions exist in every country

Finally, a decent argument. Not a good one, though, seeing as 40% of Americans aren’t qualified to be American citizens.

i would be willing to get down with this idea if its reciprocal and any american resident of a foreign country is also allowed to be in foreign juries

I don’t mind that idea.

lol, but you just said that the proposal had nothing to do with fighting racism and now you are assuming that immigrants lessen institutional racism?

I never said it had nothing to do with fighting racism. Bettering the court system includes removing racial biases.

but lets go back to reality

in fact the rodney king jury had immigrants

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/apr/28/rodney-king-juror-my-father-was-black/


so your suggestion that immigrants will bring about a less racist justice system is COMPLETE ABSOLUTE BULLshyt

This might be the single worst argument you’ve made in this discussion so far, and you’re smart enough to know that. Let’s break down all the reaching you’re doing:

1.There were 2 nonwhites in a jury of 12, and maybe only 1 since the Hispanic could have been white.

2.Those nonwhites are not specified as immigrants. In fact, they can’t be, because no immigrants were allowed on the jury until this law was passed.

3.This is one case, but somehow proves that immigration can never bring about a less racist justice system.

So 2 nonwhite nonimmigrants out of 12 jurors from one case prove that immigrants will never make the system less racist. Congratulations.

what i am saying is that a person would not be asked a question like that and that racism doesnt necessarily manifest itself outwardly and blatantly, so the notion that you can screen for caste beliefs and racism is retarded

if the jury system did screen for racism, then we would not have racist juries, and if it doesn't screen for white racism why would it screen racism from immigrants?

Questions about bias, as well as background checks are standard procedure. And it would screen racism from nonwhites because the system is not equal-opportunity racist. It’s only biased towards whites.

a naturalized citizen has to go through a process to be "americanized" so my argument wouldnt apply to a naturalized citizen, lol, im not sure why you think you caught me in something

a person with a green card has not gone through an "americanization" process so your argument doesnt stand

I did “catch” you in something- you said that immigrants were racists, and rely on naturalization as some magical cure for racism (this while you posted that the two nonimmigrant nonwhites on the Rodney King jury were supposedly racist.)

im asking you again, what is the logical reason for you to assume that a white wealthy person is against poor people and minorities? why is it ok for you to stereotype an entire race and demographic but you get your panties in a bunch if i do the same?

apparently when you stereotype its because of enlightenment, when i stereotype its because im not logical, is that it? apparently you have a special card that lets you stereotype people, where can i get one of those?

Wealthy white people are not a race, and I didn’t stereotype them. It’s an empirical fact, well-documented in all manner of legal literature that the jury system is biased in their favor. Hell, there are even citations for it on the wikipedia page for juries. That’s very different from a nonsensical claim like “all immigrants are racist” that is unaccompanied by any empirical data.

 

[theworldismine13]

That’s your delusion, but it’s not related to the law. Besides, most immigrants are not Mexican.

the only delusion is your delusion that more immigrants would make the system fairer

and mexicans make up the biggest portion of of immigrants in california

Their understanding of those concepts is irrelevant when they step into the courtroom. They have to judge by American law. I notice you avoided my link about how 40% of American citizens would fail a citizenship test, by the way.

As for “other views,” those have to be judged on a case by case basis. The fact is that certain “other views” would be relevant and desirable to for particular cases. There are cases in which an immigrant perspective would actually help the jury be more objective.

the values a juror has is completely relevant in the courtroom, you are obviously smoking shyt

and i did respond directly, i said the only way that statistic would be relevant is if you show what the statistics of non citizens are

why would an immigrant having a different perspective on civil rights, separation of church and state and freedom of speech be more useful in a court room?

This was slick of you, but visas are not green cards, nor are your stats about green cards.

The residency requirement is something I already explained. You basically restated it to me for some reason. The English requirement is absolutely real. Whoever is sponsoring you must confirm your ability to assimilate, which includes language. The 5 year thing is not a requirement, but an empirical indicator of the general time it takes to get a green card.

According to an analysis by the National Foundation for American Policy, qualified immigrants wait an average of five years or more to become permanent residents (green card holders) while the wait time for people who have solicited their residency through their family could be up to 22 years.
Study: Long Wait for Green Cards - NAM

do you even read your own links, the link showed that the reason people immigrate illegally to the us is because they have to wait so long for a green card, in other words the green card is the visa, in other words you cant come to the us without a green card and in other words you do not have to be resident to get a green card, you get a green card overseas and then you come to the US

I never said they were qualified to be on a jury in general. I said they knew enough English to be on a jury, in opposition to your claim that they “barely knew English.” And I was right, seeing as they are already speaking English well enough to get into a college, which most Americans don’t do.

but the point is using your logic there is nothing that disqualifies him and in fact under your logic he would make the system better

The link says that joint tax returns are optional, but recommended, but tax returns themselves are not. During the two year period, you get a temporary green card, while the full, actual green card is only given to you afterwards.

they site was recommending joint tax returns if the foreign spouse is already in the US and you are applying for an adjustment of status

it is not saying that residency is a requirement for a green card

during the 2 year period the spouse is a lawful immigrant and therefore under this proposal they are qualified to be on a jury the day after they arrive

the 2 year or 10 year green card doesn't give a separate immigration status and the physical process of getting an actual green card or what type of green card you have is not relevant to anything being discussed in this thread because the minute you step on us soil you are a lawful immigrant

That’s great, but that’s not in the constitution or our laws for juries.

but that was the logic in having a requirement of citizenship, the logic is that an immigrant would not have the cultural background to be in a jury

She lived here for over 10 years. There’s no indication she had a poor understanding of those concepts, so again, I’m not sure why you’re even bringing her up. As for your assumption, since 40% of Americans would fail our own citizenship test, that generalization is unwarranted.

that generalizing is completely warranted and i would assert that she does not have a proper understanding of freedom of speech, separation of church and state and civil rights to be a good juror in an american court room

and unless you can show how non citizens do on the citizenship test im not sure what the significance is because if non citizens do worse (which i would speculate they will do) then your whole argument is bogus

Finally, a decent argument. Not a good one, though, seeing as 40% of Americans aren’t qualified to be American citizens.

how do non citizens do?

I don’t mind that idea.

good then you should work for it to be tried in other countries and then come back and tell us how it worked out

I never said it had nothing to do with fighting racism. Bettering the court system includes removing racial biases.

you never said it has to do with fighting racism but bettering the system includes removing racial bias

that is a pathetic statement

This might be the single worst argument you’ve made in this discussion so far, and you’re smart enough to know that. Let’s break down all the reaching you’re doing:

1.There were 2 nonwhites in a jury of 12, and maybe only 1 since the Hispanic could have been white.

2.Those nonwhites are not specified as immigrants. In fact, they can’t be, because no immigrants were allowed on the jury until this law was passed.

3.This is one case, but somehow proves that immigration can never bring about a less racist justice system.

So 2 nonwhite nonimmigrants out of 12 jurors from one case prove that immigrants will never make the system less racist. Congratulations.

you just said that diversity will improve the system, the rodney king jury was diverse

how am i reaching, the rodney king jury is direct rebut to your assertion that diversity lessens racism and corruption

Questions about bias, as well as background checks are standard procedure. And it would screen racism from nonwhites because the system is not equal-opportunity racist. It’s only biased towards whites.

if you are trying to say that the jury screening process screens for racism that how do you explain racist juries?

I did “catch” you in something- you said that immigrants were racists, and rely on naturalization as some magical cure for racism (this while you posted that the two nonimmigrant nonwhites on the Rodney King jury were supposedly racist.)

for the fourth time, my argument is not that immigrants are racist, i just brought that up because you were suggesting that immigrants would decrease racism in the justice system

i never suggested that americanization makes immigrants less racist, i said that naturalized citizens have to go through a process to learn american civic and cultural concepts, i said that after you suggested that my argument would eliminate naturalized citizens from jury duty

my argument is that adding immigrants lawful or naturalized would not have any impact on the level of racism in the justice system because immigrants themselves are just as racist as white people

the only thing this proposal would do is add to the mexican power structure at the expense of the white power structure, its only cornball liberals like yourself that assume that would be good for black people or for the country or that it would reduce racism or make the justice system better

Wealthy white people are not a race, and I didn’t stereotype them. It’s an empirical fact, well-documented in all manner of legal literature that the jury system is biased in their favor. Hell, there are even citations for it on the wikipedia page for juries. That’s very different from a nonsensical claim like “all immigrants are racist” that is unaccompanied by any empirical data.

but wealthy white people are a demographic group and you are stereotyping them as racist

there is literature that documents the racism black people receive in other countries and there is documentation of racism against blacks by immigrants, so what is wrong with me stereotyping them as racist? am i only allowed to stereotype the white and wealthy as racist?

 

[The Real]

the values a juror has is completely relevant in the courtroom, you are obviously smoking shyt

I agree, but those values do not include anything you’ve stated up to this point.

and i did respond directly, i said the only way that statistic would be relevant is if you show what the statistics of non citizens are

that generalizing is completely warranted and i would assert that she does not have a proper understanding of freedom of speech, separation of church and state and civil rights to be a good juror in an american court room

and unless you can show how non citizens do on the citizenship test im not sure what the significance is because if non citizens do worse (which i would speculate they will do) then your whole argument is bogus

how do non citizens do?

From October 1, 2009, through February 28, 2013 more than 2,570,000 naturalization tests were administered nationwide. For those applicants taking both the English and civics tests, the overall national pass rate as of February 2013 is 92 percent.
USCIS - Applicant Performance on the Naturalization Test

At this point, your point about knowledge of “culture” and “principles” is on life-support. Immigrants outperform citizens on the citizenship test by a significant margin- over 30%, so even with a margin of error, there’s no way the numbers are even close.

do you even read your own links, the link showed that the reason people immigrate illegally to the us is because they have to wait so long for a green card, in other words the green card is the visa, in other words you cant come to the us without a green card and in other words you do not have to be resident to get a green card, you get a green card overseas and then you come to the US

A green card and a visa are two separate documents. I’m not sure why this simple fact keeps evading you. And the article showed that people immigrated illegally because they couldn’t get visas, not green cards. You started out saying you needed a green card to enter the US, then you said “there were other ways,” and now you’re back to saying you need a green card again. I’m not sure why you’re being inconsistent.

during the 2 year period the spouse is a lawful immigrant and therefore under this proposal they are qualified to be on a jury the day after they arrive

You get what’s called conditional permanent residency. That’s not true permanent residency, which only comes after the 2 years.

but that was the logic in having a requirement of citizenship, the logic is that an immigrant would not have the cultural background to be in a jury

See the stats about the citizenship test.

you never said it has to do with fighting racism but bettering the system includes removing racial bias

that is a pathetic statement

That would be a strange statement, but it’s not what I said. Read the section of my post you quoted again. You’re missing a critical word.

you just said that diversity will improve the system, the rodney king jury was diverse

how am i reaching, the rodney king jury is direct rebut to your assertion that diversity lessens racism and corruption

You’re reaching because you think that 2 nonwhite, citizen jurors on one trial prove that immigrants will never contribute to ending the racism of the jury system. That is simply a laughable claim.

if you are trying to say that the jury screening process screens for racism that how do you explain racist juries?

Like I said, racist juries are the result of institutional power being exercised, which is not a power that anyone but whites have in the legal system. It’s not racist against white people, but is against everyone else.

but wealthy white people are a demographic group and you are stereotyping them as racist

there is literature that documents the racism black people receive in other countries and there is documentation of racism against blacks by immigrants, so what is wrong with me stereotyping them as racist? am i only allowed to stereotype the white and wealthy as racist?

I’m not stereotyping. I’m using the research that proves the bias in the system exists. As for Black people receiving poor treatment in other countries, you’ll have to be more specific. Black people being treated poorly in Mexico doesn’t mean immigrants from Vietnam will necessarily be racist, nor does it mean all Mexicans are racist. You need to stop treating “immigrant” like it’s a demographically homogenous category.

 

[theworldismine13]

I agree, but those values do not include anything you’ve stated up to this point.

that is just your opinion, but values concerning freedom of speech, separation of church and state and civil rights are very important imo but thanks for sharing that those are not important to you, i can see where you are coming from now

From October 1, 2009, through February 28, 2013 more than 2,570,000 naturalization tests were administered nationwide. For those applicants taking both the English and civics tests, the overall national pass rate as of February 2013 is 92 percent.
USCIS - Applicant Performance on the Naturalization Test

At this point, your point about knowledge of “culture” and “principles” is on life-support. Immigrants outperform citizens on the citizenship test by a significant margin- over 30%, so even with a margin of error, there’s no way the numbers are even close.

holy fuking shyt are you this retarded? that is not a a random sample of non citizens, that is a stat about people who spent years studying for that one test, i cant believe you are this retarded

and it just shows how stupid this proposal is, there are plenty of immigrants that naturalize and add to the diversity of the jury pool, so this proposal is trying to solve a problem that doesnt exist and its more evidence of what this really is, just a power grab by mexican americans who by the way have the lowest naturalization rate of any immigrant group Study: Mexicans naturalize at half the rate of other immigrants | AEIdeas

so in other words this proposal will shift influence to a group that is least likely to study for american civics and american culture and therefore least likely to understand freedom of speech, separation of church and state and civil rights from an america point of view and come from a racist country

the notion that adding these people will make the justice system fairer is just liberal stupidity

A green card and a visa are two separate documents. I’m not sure why this simple fact keeps evading you. And the article showed that people immigrated illegally because they couldn’t get visas, not green cards. You started out saying you needed a green card to enter the US, then you said “there were other ways,” and now you’re back to saying you need a green card again. I’m not sure why you’re being inconsistent.

first of all lets go back to your bs, you said that to get a green card you have to be resident for 5 years, you have to pay taxes, and you have to study america laws

you provided zero evidence to support that, and you have never found it because it doesn't exist

the title of the article you posted is " Long Wait for Green Cards" and now you say that people illegally immigrated because they could get immigrants visas, are you really this stupid, do yo read your own links? are you not realizing that you are the only one that is making a distinction between a visa and a green card

yes it is correct that an actual physical green card is separate from a an actual immigrants visa, but the two go together, the green card is simply a confirmation that you have a visa, its not separate process so its used interchangeably by most people, and apparently its confusing you

Permanent residence (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The green card serves as proof that its holder, a lawful permanent resident (LPR), has been officially granted immigration benefits, which include permission to reside and take employment in the United States.

its just like if you pass you dmv test they give you a piece of paper that serves as your license, your argument is basically saying that the paper they give you is not a license which is a useless point to make

once you get an immigrant visa you get a green card right away, there is no point in differentiating the two, but for the purposes of this discussion, once you get an immigrant visa/green card and you land in the us you are a lawful immigrant, which is why this proposal is stupid, and you do not have to be a resident to get an immigrant visa/green card

and yes there there are other ways of getting to the us without a green card like a student or tourist visa or guest worker, but that doesnt add to your point, the student and the guest worker can get licenses and so they will probably qualify to be in the jury pool, so im not sure why that point helps you

You get what’s called conditional permanent residency. That’s not true permanent residency, which only comes after the 2 years.

but either way you are still a lawful immigrant, so a person under conditional permanent residency will qualify to be in the jury as soon as they get here, per this discussion that particular bureaucratic point doesnt change anything

See the stats about the citizenship test.

that isnt relevant, the people that pass the test are people that have studied for years and when they pass they are allowed to be on a jury, which is the appropriate way to do things, there is no reason to change that system just cuz mexican americans want more mexicans in juries so that they can turn america into mexico

That would be a strange statement, but it’s not what I said. Read the section of my post you quoted again. You’re missing a critical word.

this is your quote

I never said it had nothing to do with fighting racism. Bettering the court system includes removing racial biases.

so you are saying that this proposal will reduce racism in the justice system, am i missing something?

You’re reaching because you think that 2 nonwhite, citizen jurors on one trial prove that immigrants will never contribute to ending the racism of the jury system. That is simply a laughable claim.

you made the assertion that diversity will reduce corruption and racism and used the rodney king trial as an example of corruption and racism, but the rodney king jury was diverse

it doesnt prove anything but you will need another example, the rodney king trial is not an example of how diversity makes the system better

Like I said, racist juries are the result of institutional power being exercised, which is not a power that anyone but whites have in the legal system. It’s not racist against white people, but is against everyone else.

but you were saying that the jury selection process filters out racism

so now you are admitting the truth that it doesnt filter out racism, it is ingrained in the system

and you are assuming that by adding immigrants that will weaken institutional racism by their simple presence, but there is no evidence to support that claim, there is no reason to think that immigrants are less racist than white people or that immigrants will not form their own racist institutions

this proposal in fact is move by the mexican power structure, that is all it is, the only way you can believe that this will reduce racism is if you believe mexicans are less racist than white people, when in reality mexico is just as racist as the us, and it has an awful judicial system and it has customs and views about freedom of speech, separation of church and state and civil rights that are not in sync with american views so there is no logical reason to think that adding mexicans to the jury pool will make the system less racist or better

I’m not stereotyping. I’m using the research that proves the bias in the system exists. As for Black people receiving poor treatment in other countries, you’ll have to be more specific. Black people being treated poorly in Mexico doesn’t mean immigrants from Vietnam will necessarily be racist, nor does it mean all Mexicans are racist. You need to stop treating “immigrant” like it’s a demographically homogenous category.

you are the one that is putting immigrants in a demographically homogeneous category and assuming that adding this category of people to the jury pool will make it less racist and they will not be part of the racist power structure

im the one pointing out that your stereotype of immigrants as being against the racist power structure, is just that a stereotype

i still dont get why you think its ok for you to stereotype people and put them in these broad categories but then you get your panties in a bunch when i do it

 

[theworldismine13]

NYC Council Considering Law Allowing Non-Citizens To Vote | TPMDC