Jump to content

I have just one question to ask anyone opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act!

SecondSlip

By SecondSlip
in Chit Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

Number Grand Master

Number

Posted
Posted

I think if it just mentioned religiously providing citizenship to religiously  persecuted people of Pakistan Bangladesh Afghanistan it would have been ok. 

The way it excludes Muslims in its present form it does not go with the secular constitution of India. 

That said the protests over it have reached quite an unexpected scale knowing the fact that it doesn't impact any Indian citizen. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coffee_rules Grand Master

coffee_rules

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Audiophile said:

How can you prove religious persecution? What is the process? Has anything been outlined? Or if you belong to a religious minority and from these countries, you will handed an automatic citizenship? That does not seem fair when India already has too many people. And if persecution is the key, then why limit it to certain religions.

The CAA is for people who are already here, There are 31500 odd people who are registered as refugees and have migrated because of persecution. We read about forced conversions, abductions, blasphemy laws etc every day. There are NGOs in Rajasthan, MP that vet these people and government also verfies their stories. The process takes 11 years to become naturalized citizens, they are given a 5 year rihai by this CAA. Non-muslims couldn't migrate out of Pak, while Muslims (all sects) whole heartedly wanted Pakistan creation. Why include them to get back? If they want to come back, let them give us their piece of land as well.

13 hours ago, Audiophile said:

Here in US before Trump, you can claim official refugee status on grounds of persecution. Then your case will be heard in immigration courts and you have burden of proof lies on the applicant. You have to have credible story. Otherwise anyone can come and claim citizenship.

It is the same with every country for refugees. India is no different, USA has a preferrence for persecuted Christians and Jews. If India has the same UN HR is objecting, they don't have the balls to object to USA!

 

13 hours ago, Audiophile said:

Finally, I agree some liberals equate criticism of Islam to Islamophobia. But not all. I have criticized Islam. The problem is when start painting with a broad brush and stereotyping. I am not ignorant enough to think Muslim invaders did not come and pillage the country. I read that in history in secondary school. I distinctly remember reading how tyrant Allauddin Khilji and Aurangzeb were with forced conversions and tax on non-Muslims. But some of the invaders stayed back and whether you like it or not, are part of Indian history. India is Hindu majority, but is secular country on principle with division of church and state. Some want to make it a Hindu republic, and that is not  OK with me. That is what we accuse the padosis that they let religion rule their life. However, Muslims are not a monolith. You talk about organized religion winning, Hinduism the way it is preached now in India is not an organized religion? We would far less problems in this world if we did not have organized religion.

 

 

Nobody is making a Hindu Rashtra, it is the fear-mongering of INC and Left to darao Muslims and keep BJP out of power. Not going to happen, if non-Muslims unite and vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coffee_rules Grand Master

coffee_rules

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, sandeep said:

Because your logic is quite Pakistani.  Partition was inflicted on India based on spurious reasons, the history of Pakistan and Bangladesh gives tons of evidence of the foolishness of religious secessionism and basing nationhood on religion.  And now you are attempting to use those mistakes to justify new ones.

Partition happened for only ONE reason, Muslims didn't want to live under majority Hindus. Ambedkar and others who later agreed for Partition, recommended population exchange. That would have had everlasting peace. Since, it started with that intention, when Muslims from UP/Bihar started outpouring to Sindh/Punjab, they got scared and stopped the trains. Nehru/Liaquat agreed to treat minorities with respect. But, they didn't keep their word. So, we are correcting a historical wrong imparted on non-Muslims and who are already taking refuge in India were given citizenship. India is not making a Hindu Pakistan as the fear mongering that is being carried out by INC and the Left to scare Muslims in India.

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

India is not Pakistan.  And shouldn't try to become one. 

With Hindu Majority, it will never be a Pakistan because Hinduism has always been plural and accepting all as equal. Minorities in India are the luckiest ones because of a Hindu majority. 

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

I have nothing against providing asylum, and fast-track asylum for minorities from Pak/BD.  But what the BJP has done, is politically weaponize that legislation, and market it by deploying dog-whistles of prejudice.  And now to pretend that their intent is innocent and that all they are doing is giving fair treatment to refugees is bullsh**.  It is quite clear to anybody with an objective view, that their goal isn't just to give refugees a path to citizenship - its to stir up social polarization.  And just like I have zero tolerance for those who commit violence, vandalism in the name of protest, I have zero tolerance for that kind of nonsense in the name of politics or social justice.  Whether its of the commie left-wing flavor, or the Bhakt right-wing flavor.  Both are stupid, both are expensive and harmful to the  country.  

You are contradicting yourself. You say, you have nothing against asylum seekers and fast-tracking them, but see ulterior motive of BJP when they did the very same thing you said formerly. How is this a dog-whistle of prejudice when they are not banning Muslims from taking refuge like Trump did. Read the CAA and it's purpose. It is exactly the same as "providing asylum, and fast-track asylum for minorities from Pak/BD."

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

Besides, there is just so much wrong with your topical post, so many dumb-ass inaccurate assumptions that I can only laugh at them.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sandeep Grand Master

sandeep

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

it is the fear-mongering of INC and Left to darao Muslims

The "fear-mongering" was done by Shri Amit Shah himself.  But bhakts do tend to prefer finger-pointing and blaming Congress and Left for anything and everything.  

 

And of course your political opponents are going to milk the advantage you hand to them on a platter - its the BJP's own stupidity and political choices that have made the CAA so political.  You can't play with fire, and then whine like a little baby when your pants start burning.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sandeep Grand Master

sandeep

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

You are contradicting yourself. You say, you have nothing against asylum seekers and fast-tracking them, but see ulterior motive of BJP when they did the very same thing you said formerly. How is this a dog-whistle of prejudice when

When Amit Shah repeatedly gives campaign speeches, where he touts the one-two punch of CAA + NRC, and how he will first make sure that hindus, buddhists, sikhs, christians, parsis are all protected by CAA, and then use the NRC to get rid of termites and infiltrators - that is as naked a dog-whistle as it gets.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sandeep Grand Master

sandeep

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

India is not making a Hindu Pakistan as the fear mongering that is being carried out by INC and the Left to scare Muslims in India.

Its a fool's errand when you start writing laws on citizenship that are driven by religion.  Yes, Pakistanis fabricated themselves a country for "muslims".  But India didn't do vice versa.  We are the motherland for all Indians. Pakistan's mistakes and religion based choices should not be used to selectively give preferential treatment to non-muslims, and definitely not used to hound and harass muslims.  Such a methodology goes against the founding ethos of our country.  That is what I mean when I say we should not turn into Pakistan.  

 

When folks trot out shitty logic like "muslims they voted for Pakistan, India is for Hindus", we should have a "dharmic rashtra" etc - all that is stupidity, and Pakistani logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coffee_rules Grand Master

coffee_rules

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

When Amit Shah repeatedly gives campaign speeches, where he touts the one-two punch of CAA + NRC, and how he will first make sure that hindus, buddhists, sikhs, christians, parsis are all protected by CAA, and then use the NRC to get rid of termites and infiltrators - that is as naked a dog-whistle as it gets.  

Again, don't be a blind opposition. CAA will only fast-track existing refugees. He didn't say they will fast-track grant citizenship to all minroties who will come in the future.  CAA/NRC always have a cut-off date. It is not open season to enter a soverign country. Yes, the illegals are nothing but organisms that infest in the society and eat away the weak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sandeep Grand Master

sandeep

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, coffee_rules said:

Again, don't be a blind opposition. CAA will only fast-track existing refugees. He didn't say they will fast-track grant citizenship to all minroties who will come in the future.  CAA/NRC always have a cut-off date. It is not open season to enter a soverign country. Yes, the illegals are nothing but organisms that infest in the society and eat away the weak.

See my thread that I started with the topic "CAA seems to be OK, but NRC is the problem".  I'm not "blind".  You are being intentionally disingenuous by talking about just CAA.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coffee_rules Grand Master

coffee_rules

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, sandeep said:

@coffee_rules Riddle me this, let's say I am a Bangladeshi muslim who came to India before 2014.  What is to stop me from claiming asylum under CAA as a non-muslim, and then once I become an Indian citizen, to "convert" to Islam?  

 

 

If he is claiming to be a non-muslim, he will have to prove it. He can't have a name like Hanif Choudry and claim to be persecuted. The citizenship is for those who registrer for refuge. What we have is illegal migration with no registration, but they bribe their way to get aadhar card/voter ID etc. There are more than 20 million illegals as per the data released by INC (Shashi Tharoor himself).  IEven if Hanif gets caught, he can apply for regular asylum that takes 11 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
coffee_rules Grand Master

coffee_rules

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, sandeep said:

See my thread that I started with the topic "CAA seems to be OK, but NRC is the problem".  I'm not "blind".  You are being intentionally disingenuous by talking about just CAA.  

There are no drafts of NRC released yet, all these protests are for CAA only. NRC (citizen registration cards) is there in most countries. I have said the same even in that thread. These protests are like unmarried women registering FIRs against their future wife-beating husbands! The silent majority is bearing the protests in muted restrain. Once they also start showing open support on the streets, we can see how these current protests will be subdued. It can't sustain for long. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deleted_User_1 Newbie

Deleted_User_1

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Yoda-esque said:

Yes that's why my car plate says " in God we trust"....

Sent from my Pixel 3a XL using Tapatalk
 

US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles since most of the Founding Fathers were white and of Western Europe lineage, probably more Anglo-Saxon than anything else. Mention of God does not give preference to one religion over other. No one claims that they were not religious or spiritual. However, they knew better to create clear separation of church and state. Secularism does not imply atheism. It simply mean you do not make laws based on your religious preferences and that you have the freedom to follow your religion of choice. Now do all Americans take this to heart? Of course not, I have friends who would rather US be a Christian state. However, I think most reasonable people know to respect the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...