People should note that it only applies to refugees that entered India before 2014. It is specifically for minorities fleeing persecution from the neighbouring Muslim countries, and thus Muslims...
People should note that it only applies to refugees that entered India before 2014. It is specifically for minorities fleeing persecution from the neighbouring Muslim countries, and thus Muslims are excluded.
How does that excuse make it any better? Sunnis, Shias, Ibadis, Sufis and all the other Islamic schools/sects/branches haven't exactly gotten along with each other either, historically speaking....
How does that excuse make it any better? Sunnis, Shias, Ibadis, Sufis and all the other Islamic schools/sects/branches haven't exactly gotten along with each other either, historically speaking. So Muslim refugees could still have been minorities legitimately fleeing persecution in the neighboring Muslim countries too. And it's not like Muslim refugees are any less worthy of potential citizenship than non-Muslim refugees.
There aren’t really significant populations of those coming into India at this point. The main group affected is likely to be Rohingyas from Burma, but India’s Northeast is already on the brink of...
There aren’t really significant populations of those coming into India at this point. The main group affected is likely to be Rohingyas from Burma, but India’s Northeast is already on the brink of civil war from absorbing Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants so it makes sense that the government would want to staunch the influx in the name of political stability.
Oh, it's mostly just affecting the Rohingyas, and being done in the name of "political stability" and "staunching the influx" of people fleeing from genocide and still ongoing persecution? Well...
Oh, it's mostly just affecting the Rohingyas, and being done in the name of "political stability" and "staunching the influx" of people fleeing from genocide and still ongoing persecution? Well then, I guess it's totally okay and justifiable to exclude them but not non-Muslim refugees. /s
Being as how India’s NorthEast has been in an active state of on-and-off insurgency for about a decade now, owing in very large part to domestic opposition to influx of undocumented people from...
Being as how India’s NorthEast has been in an active state of on-and-off insurgency for about a decade now, owing in very large part to domestic opposition to influx of undocumented people from Bangladesh and Burma, then yeah they do have a sensible cause to want to prioritize political stability in the area. You know, because civil wars are bad. There happens to a big a one between the Meitei and Kuki happening right now, in fact. Most of these regions are clan and tribal lands that don’t have particularly strong property or land registry, so random settlements popping up can and often do explode into violence.
people fleeing from genocide and still ongoing persecution? Well then, I guess it's totally okay and justifiable to exclude them but not non-Muslim refugees.
Nobody is being sent back, they’re just not getting fast-tracked into citizenship and would have to go through the normal process that they do now.
Yeah, “Political Instability” is not an excuse, it’s a major issue in Northeastern India, one which you would have known about if you actually bothered researching. Currently, there’s been a...
Yeah, “Political Instability” is not an excuse, it’s a major issue in Northeastern India, one which you would have known about if you actually bothered researching.
Currently, there’s been a conflict going on between two ethnic groups of a state for months at this point, with even the armed forces involved to some extent.
Even before that, there’s been a lot of conflicts between Assamese and Bengalis.
There are entire states and regions in the Northeast that even non-local Indians require special permits to visit.
The act is specifically for persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who entered India before 31 December 2014. Muslims are not a minority in any of these three countries.
The act is specifically for persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who entered India before 31 December 2014. Muslims are not a minority in any of these three countries.
Islam is not a monolith. Even in Muslim majority countries there are Muslim ethnic and sectarian minorities who are regularly killed and persecuted by the majority, refugees of whom this bill...
These are examples of religious majority targeting a minority group within that majority group. The Act excludes these cases. It is for persecution of minorities by majority in those three...
These are examples of religious majority targeting a minority group within that majority group. The Act excludes these cases. It is for persecution of minorities by majority in those three countries. Historically Muslims are majority and Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and Buddhists, etc. minority in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
Not really. The lion’s share are from Burma and Bangladesh and they come through illegally. In the Northeast the central government’s reach into the countryside can be pretty tenuous at best, so...
Not really. The lion’s share are from Burma and Bangladesh and they come through illegally. In the Northeast the central government’s reach into the countryside can be pretty tenuous at best, so there’s no good way to track. They don’t even have a great sense for how many native-born Indians there are there.
In a more abstract, big picture sense, it seems that Rohingya refugees fleeing from Burma are primarily Muslim and would be excluded? Also, the Rohingya genocide happened in 2017, so they would be...
In a more abstract, big picture sense, it seems that Rohingya refugees fleeing from Burma are primarily Muslim and would be excluded? Also, the Rohingya genocide happened in 2017, so they would be excluded by year, too?
They’ve been coming in for years even before tensions exploded into full-on genocide. Plus, since it’s mostly undocumented, it’s pretty ambiguous how much is asylum seeking versus just economic...
They’ve been coming in for years even before tensions exploded into full-on genocide. Plus, since it’s mostly undocumented, it’s pretty ambiguous how much is asylum seeking versus just economic migration.
I think the year is just pegged to when the bill was first voted on. It’s been held up in administrative and constitutional challenges for a while.
How difficult is getting Indian citizenship in other ways? After 10 years of waiting, I wonder how many people this new law helps. Also, how much it matters in daily life.
How difficult is getting Indian citizenship in other ways? After 10 years of waiting, I wonder how many people this new law helps.
The process is quite slow in India. I don’t know the process for refugees but for naturalisation you need to have lived in India the entire previous year and for 11 years in the thirteen years...
The process is quite slow in India. I don’t know the process for refugees but for naturalisation you need to have lived in India the entire previous year and for 11 years in the thirteen years preceding that. So it would take 12 years if you entered India and never left. And that’s ignoring bureaucracy. It takes 7 years even for someone who marries an Indian citizen.
Not sure how much it matters in daily life though. There are many illegal Bangladeshi immigrants working in Mumbai for example but then they also don’t really have good office jobs but more like labourers.
Spouses of an Indian citizen are eligible for an OCI after just two years of marriage although that does expire in the event of divorce or the Indian citizen's death. That seems very generous to me.
Spouses of an Indian citizen are eligible for an OCI after just two years of marriage although that does expire in the event of divorce or the Indian citizen's death. That seems very generous to me.
It’s pretty similar to the US’ I think. It’s like 10-15 years of residency and, I assume, various checks on not accruing a criminal record and the like. Or you could just marry someone. But there...
It’s pretty similar to the US’ I think. It’s like 10-15 years of residency and, I assume, various checks on not accruing a criminal record and the like.
Or you could just marry someone.
But there are various tracks to expedite it, mostly around incorporating Indians who were sent elsewhere under the British Raj. So there used to be a fast-track process if you were of Indian origin before Independence, so as long as your grandfather had a provable origin in India you could sort of repatriate yourself. But everyone who was gonna do that has by now and they’re starting to crack down on the various forms of “overseas” citizenship.
The Indian Ministry of Home Affairs announced the rules Monday, ahead of India’s general election in the spring, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi will seek a rare third term in power.
The Citizenship (Amendment) Act provides a fast-track to citizenship for immigrants from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan – provided they are not Muslim. The controversial law would apply to religious minorities persecuted on religious grounds, including Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians.
The bill, originally passed by India’s parliament in 2019, could not come into effect until the rules were notified.
Despite being well-received by Modi, a Hindu nationalist, the bill was heavily protested by opposition parties, which claimed it was unconstitutional and marginalized India’s 200-million Muslim population.
People should note that it only applies to refugees that entered India before 2014. It is specifically for minorities fleeing persecution from the neighbouring Muslim countries, and thus Muslims are excluded.
How does that excuse make it any better? Sunnis, Shias, Ibadis, Sufis and all the other Islamic schools/sects/branches haven't exactly gotten along with each other either, historically speaking. So Muslim refugees could still have been minorities legitimately fleeing persecution in the neighboring Muslim countries too. And it's not like Muslim refugees are any less worthy of potential citizenship than non-Muslim refugees.
There aren’t really significant populations of those coming into India at this point. The main group affected is likely to be Rohingyas from Burma, but India’s Northeast is already on the brink of civil war from absorbing Bangladeshi and Rohingya migrants so it makes sense that the government would want to staunch the influx in the name of political stability.
Oh, it's mostly just affecting the Rohingyas, and being done in the name of "political stability" and "staunching the influx" of people fleeing from genocide and still ongoing persecution? Well then, I guess it's totally okay and justifiable to exclude them but not non-Muslim refugees. /s
Being as how India’s NorthEast has been in an active state of on-and-off insurgency for about a decade now, owing in very large part to domestic opposition to influx of undocumented people from Bangladesh and Burma, then yeah they do have a sensible cause to want to prioritize political stability in the area. You know, because civil wars are bad. There happens to a big a one between the Meitei and Kuki happening right now, in fact. Most of these regions are clan and tribal lands that don’t have particularly strong property or land registry, so random settlements popping up can and often do explode into violence.
Nobody is being sent back, they’re just not getting fast-tracked into citizenship and would have to go through the normal process that they do now.
Yeah, “Political Instability” is not an excuse, it’s a major issue in Northeastern India, one which you would have known about if you actually bothered researching.
Currently, there’s been a conflict going on between two ethnic groups of a state for months at this point, with even the armed forces involved to some extent.
Even before that, there’s been a lot of conflicts between Assamese and Bengalis.
There are entire states and regions in the Northeast that even non-local Indians require special permits to visit.
The act is specifically for persecuted minorities from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan who entered India before 31 December 2014. Muslims are not a minority in any of these three countries.
Islam is not a monolith. Even in Muslim majority countries there are Muslim ethnic and sectarian minorities who are regularly killed and persecuted by the majority, refugees of whom this bill would exclude. E.g.
Persecution of Sufis - Pakistan
Suppression of Sufi practices in Afghanistan
Persecution of Ahmadis - Pakistan
Persecution of Ahmadis - Bangladesh
Anti-Shi'ism - Pakistan
These are examples of religious majority targeting a minority group within that majority group. The Act excludes these cases. It is for persecution of minorities by majority in those three countries. Historically Muslims are majority and Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, and Buddhists, etc. minority in Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan.
Hey now. There are plenty of Muslims being persecuted in those Muslim countries!
I’m wondering how many there are who fled to India before 2014? Would it be possible to identify people who are excluded by this law?
Not really. The lion’s share are from Burma and Bangladesh and they come through illegally. In the Northeast the central government’s reach into the countryside can be pretty tenuous at best, so there’s no good way to track. They don’t even have a great sense for how many native-born Indians there are there.
In a more abstract, big picture sense, it seems that Rohingya refugees fleeing from Burma are primarily Muslim and would be excluded? Also, the Rohingya genocide happened in 2017, so they would be excluded by year, too?
I wonder how the Indian lawmakers chose the year?
They’ve been coming in for years even before tensions exploded into full-on genocide. Plus, since it’s mostly undocumented, it’s pretty ambiguous how much is asylum seeking versus just economic migration.
I think the year is just pegged to when the bill was first voted on. It’s been held up in administrative and constitutional challenges for a while.
How difficult is getting Indian citizenship in other ways? After 10 years of waiting, I wonder how many people this new law helps.
Also, how much it matters in daily life.
The process is quite slow in India. I don’t know the process for refugees but for naturalisation you need to have lived in India the entire previous year and for 11 years in the thirteen years preceding that. So it would take 12 years if you entered India and never left. And that’s ignoring bureaucracy. It takes 7 years even for someone who marries an Indian citizen.
Not sure how much it matters in daily life though. There are many illegal Bangladeshi immigrants working in Mumbai for example but then they also don’t really have good office jobs but more like labourers.
Spouses of an Indian citizen are eligible for an OCI after just two years of marriage although that does expire in the event of divorce or the Indian citizen's death. That seems very generous to me.
The OCI card is basically just India’s equivalent of a PR though.
It’s pretty similar to the US’ I think. It’s like 10-15 years of residency and, I assume, various checks on not accruing a criminal record and the like.
Or you could just marry someone.
But there are various tracks to expedite it, mostly around incorporating Indians who were sent elsewhere under the British Raj. So there used to be a fast-track process if you were of Indian origin before Independence, so as long as your grandfather had a provable origin in India you could sort of repatriate yourself. But everyone who was gonna do that has by now and they’re starting to crack down on the various forms of “overseas” citizenship.
From the article:
The CAA by itself while it oddly excludes some groups and countries, is still fine but what is to be seen is how it plays out with the NRC.