“They benefit from the protections of our laws, so it is fair and just that they be asked to share in the obligation to do jury duty,” the assemblyman said during the floor debate. In California, which has the largest percentage of legal noncitizens in the country, the new law would expand the eligible jury rolls by about 15 percent, easing the burden a little on conscientious citizens.

Perhaps because of the political toxicity of anti-immigrant feeling, the assemblyman emphasizes that he is imposing an obligation, not just bestowing a privilege. But of course he is doing both. Noncitizens sue people, so they should do their part. Noncitizens are sued (and charged with crimes), so why should they not be entitled to have their peers be eligible for the juries that sit in judgment?

The bill was opposed by conservatives who insisted that jury service should continue to be reserved for citizens because — well, basically because it has traditionally been reserved for citizens.

Beyond that appeal to custom, the arguments against enrolling noncitizens get a little feeble. One is that recent immigrants, coming from places that don’t have a jury system (and most countries do not), are ill equipped to handle the nuances of service. But there is no assurance — and certainly no requirement — that full citizens are better versed in the legal system, or more devoted to its values. In any case, a jury’s role is not to interpret the law, but to apply the judge’s legal instructions to the facts.