No, before this law, Hindus living without documentation would be deported along with Muslims. This law let's them, but not Muslims claim citizenship, thereby allowing the state to detain and deport Muslims only. The rise in right-wing nationalistic authoritarian type rules has been so synchronized across the world one has to wonder if there was some kind of coordination behind it all.
As I understand it, the law only pertains to migrants from the Muslim-majority neighboring countries, and it neither grants nor takes away rights from non-migrants or migrants from other countries.
If you have two people living illegally in a country - one Hindu and one Muslim. If you start to go after them, you deport both. But if you pass a law giving the Hindu citizenship rights - then you can go after them and deport the Muslim only. Neither has documentation. No proof that they have any rights.
I assume the law would require some sort of evidence that the person applying for citizenship migrated from one of the neighboring countries. Is that not the case?
thank you, i was going to post this for the other guy but apparently he didn't even read the actual bill. Its fine if its against everybody, but the second you pick a religion to base deportation off of (and in the government from a very trump like anti-muslim indian) it causes xenophobia. There have been conflicts but for the large part india is a super diverse country (see south indians, north indians, sikh's etc..) where people have been able to live side by side. This clearly singles out muslims only and deports people who may have been living there for generations if they can't produce the proper documents (people in 3rd world countries like india who don't know how to read and write to begin with are kind of set up to fail).
So let me say this again, the target population (extreme poverty stricken areas) are less likely to have documents spanning more than a generation (hindus and muslims) , to say the muslims are the only ones that need to show identification or be kicked out is pretty effed up. If a hindu illegal immigrant comes across the border, he/she is in the clear, a muslim that may have been there for generations may not be able to read/write and be deported to a foreign land. This is why laws don't discriminate Fine law if you apply it to everyone, again no reason not to apply this law to everyone if the aim is to curb illegal immigration. Otherwise this is textbook discrimination---liberals here shouldn't give trump **** about a wall if they're trying to play double standards in this scenario.
How laws are executed and enforced can vary especially in a place like India. They have the right to claim - there is nothing about what evidence they would have to have. If they say they are Hindu and are poor - they are fine - with or without documentation. If they are Muslim, and even if they have been living in India for generations - they have no proof they didn't come from Pakistan and thus can be deported. This is the way things work. Anywhere for that matter. Just think, US citizens who look Mexican get deported all the time here because they didn't have papers. But how many white people who don't have their ID on them get deported?
The bill says that they must have cross before 2015. It is exempting migrants from having "illegal" status if they were religious minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and are consequentially vulnerable to persecution in those countries (see reports from HRW or Amnesty International on the threats religious minorities face in those countries). I don't have a problem with that. Religious persecution is obviously a valid criterion for granting asylum, which is what this is effectively doing.
The amendment specifically names people that are Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhinsts, Jains, Parsis, and Christians. You're saying that the bill effectively allows any such person to be treated as legal, regardless of where they are from or how they go to be in India? I highly doubt that. It is very specific about the countries they must originate from and also that that must have arrived in India before a particular date. You don't get the exemption status otherwise, according to the law. If you have no proof of your country of origin or when you arrived, you're out of luck.
I can't believe people are defending this. I suggest use your imagine a little harder to see where the gaping loopholes are where this can be abused in a horrible way.
How many residents of India have lived multiple generations there that have no paperwork? So essentially the people with no paperwork who can show their Hindu culture are safe but if you are Muslim who was born and raised in India with no paper work, you are ****ed. Now imagine a Hindu Nationalist in power holding that authority. Use your imagination.
The bill has no effect on the status of Muslims, legal or otherwise. It defines an exemption class that depends on religious affiliation, country of origin, and date of entry. If you can’t demonstrate that you belong to that exemption class, the amendment shouldn’t apply to you either. So I don’t consider that a loophole. Do you have some source you’re basing your comment on that says candidates don’t have to offer any evidence about where they are from and when they arrived?
A family that has deep rooted Hindu culutrual ties can prove they are Hindu thus they would be exempt. Same goes with Muslim families in India. If you are raised in a Muslim family, people just know you are Muslim. You can't hide it. If you make an exception based on religion, you are creating a system that can easily be abused by a Hindu Nationalist in power. Hindu family with no paper work -you're fine Muslim family with no paper work - get out. How the **** are you okay with this?
I’ll repeat. The bill gives three conditions for getting exemption status. One of them is country of origin being Afghanistan, Pakistan, or Bangladesh, and another is you personally arrived from that country prior to 2015. How did you determine that enforcement of this law will not require providing some form of proof that one is eligible?
@durvasa youre doing your bigtexxx impression here or got your account hijacked. There’s no point in arguing with someone that is willing to defend something so blatantly discriminatory
