Nankana Sahib Altercation: News & Discussions

[US North Won]

Whether they are or not is a security issue, not their religious affiliation.

It is also a discrimination issue, because of a specific caveat that exists in your Asylum law. Whether your reasons are because of religion or security does not matter. The point made is all asylum laws are discriminatory for various reasons. BTW, these people have been in residing in Pakistan for close to decades in many instances. How does security become an issue now?

I clearly argued the case against CAA by describing how it impacts on those who cannot prove their legal status for various reasons and how the fallout of failing to do so will negatively impact Muslims, not non-Muslims. Where did I state it has anything to do with those who can already claim legal status? You have not read my post, let alone NRC or CAA. You are deliberately obfuscating because you know my claim is right and you also know this is precisely the intention of CAA. I have no doubt that you followed the history of NRC and were aware that it affected more Hindus and fewer Muslims than it was intended to. You also know full well that CAA came in response to that failed effort in order to allow Hindu non-citizens a route back, thus short circuiting NRC to the detriment of Muslims.

Your first sentence proves what I've been saying about you not having read the CAA law. Quote "I clearly argued the case against CAA by describing how it impacts on those who cannot prove their legal status".

CAA does not force anyone to prove their legal or illegal status! ALL CAA applicants apply 'Voluntarily' and are thereby voluntarily declaring they are not legal residents.

CAA is for exclusively non residents in neighboring countries to apply or and illegal in-country residents.

Worse yet you try to intertwine others laws into the CAA. NRC & CAA are two independent laws. NRC is only in one state- Assam. You have a NRC in Pakistan too where citizens and lawful residents of pakistan have to prove they are as a such.

Asylum laws have several statues, immigration laws have several statues in every country. India's CAA is one such asylum statue that is for 'persecuted religious minorities' in Islamic republics. Ever figure out how Pakistani artists get Indian residency rights and or citizenship? Because they can apply under 'other' asylum statues.

refer to the above answer. Under the NRC/CAA double play, such a potential deportee will be saved by being a non-Muslim.

You keep trying to bring a NRC into CAA showing you have not read either. The NRC is a separate law, albeit an incomplete law, partially in place in Assam to make all residents prove their are citizens. Not unlike laws in Pakistan, which IK and his supporters ignore.

CAA is indeed where the discrimination comes in blatant form. NRC was intended to covertly remove the "termites" (Shah terminology) I.e. Muslim bengalis without raising eyebrows or blatantly stating It was an assault only on Muslims. When that failed, and the numbers showed as many Hindus would also be eliminated, Shah needed a plan B, CAA, which was more blatant in its wording. You know this already though.

Again, after repeatedly failing to read CAA you bring NRC and plan B theories in the mix. Even so your example above is flawed under the NRC. If one is an illegal resident and a Muslim originally from a neighboring Islamic republic. How can he/she say they are 'persecuted religious' minority?

I understand your logic here but the immigration laws under CAA are still discriminatory against Muslims whether they are a majority in their origin country or not.

All asylum laws are inherently discriminatory in every democracy, worse in dictatorships or under communism. It is the sole prerogative of a country to set its asylum statues.

Be clear and transparent please. SCOTUS accepted the argument that these individuals were to be barred on the basis of them being a SECURITY RISK. While it remains a violation of your 1st Amendment and highly dubious, with many many professional judges calling it out as discriminatory on religious grounds, the reasoning behind it is at least ostensibly due to security of the state. NO SUCH REASONING is given for CAA. I.e. CAA is based purely and unashamedly on a desire to discriminate on the basis of religion. We can strongly speculate that Trump's law are discriminatory on the basis of religion but he cites security as the motivator and we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt to the contrary. He gets the benefit of the doubt. With CAA there is no doubt as it is openly touted and by definition a means of removing illegal Muslims while saving illegal jains, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians and parsees. Nowhere is there even the facade of "security".

I'm being transparent when I say you seem to have selective argument on discrimination. Discrimination is not just based on religion. If SCOTUS says it is legal it is legal and cannot be a violation of the laws, period.

You cannot apply for asylum under 'persecuted religious minority' in the US as a Christian if you come from most parts of Europe. BTW, US designated 10 countries as “countries of particular concern” for their particularly severe violations of religious freedom, and for the first time the Secretary named Pakistan to a Special Watch List. Why not look in your own house first Mr. Khan, over playing politics.

US shows favoritism to Christians in Islamic countries over Muslim under its religious persecuted asylum laws.

I would add here that if Pakistan was to deport any afghans, it would follow the Trump model of declaring it a security issue, not a demographic issue.

That's odd, no security concerns for the decades they lived in Pakistan, but now suddenly the whole lot becomes a threat? What you have effectively said is that you are discriminating them with a false excuse to adapt to your situation. You could not be any more surreptitious in your concern for Indian Muslims.

.Whether they are actually persecuted or not is irrelevant to this discussion. If they are however claiming as such when they flee to India, they should not be discriminated against and turned back by India on the basis of their religion. That's what I'm saying. I am holding India to account by the high moral standards it sets for itself by declaring itself "secular". If India wishes to admit it is now simply a Hindutva state and remove this fig leaf of secularism, fair enough, I shall respect their honesty and withdraw my complaint and leave Indian muslims to their fate. It bugs me that Hindustan makes a mockery out of "secularism".

What do you mean by "Whether they are actually persecuted or not is irrelevant to this discussion." lol. They are applying under "persecuted religious minority" statue. How is not relevant then? What I find telling is that you've now confessed that your concern for Muslims is really a non concern for them, as much as it really about politics. Holding some to a standard, not because of what you think is ethical and non discriminatory to dos so, but because they claim to be secular. Muslims butchered in communist countries, in non secular countries; that's all fine with you because they've declared themselves as being non secular.

Regarding China, it is of no relevance because again, they don't claim secularism as their guiding principle. Moreover, China wouldn't tolerate Hindu supremacists as much as Islamic ones. In this regard, they treat everyone equally, brutally, but equally.

I therefore have no complaints about China's policies towards uighurs.

Clearly you think this is about Islam or the ummah. No. It's about fair treatment of Muslims.

Did you actually write above that you don't care about Muslims being butchered and mistreated because a country is non-secular? And then in the same breath, couple of sentences later proclaim to be for the fair treatment of Muslims?

 

[FOOLS_NIGHTMARE]

It is also a discrimination issue, because of a specific caveat that exists in your Asylum law. Whether your reasons are because of religion or security does not matter. The point made is all asylum laws are discriminatory for various reasons. BTW, these people have been in residing in Pakistan for close to decades in many instances. How does security become an issue now?




Your first sentence proves what I've been saying about you not having read the CAA law. Quote "I clearly argued the case against CAA by describing how it impacts on those who cannot prove their legal status".

CAA does not ask anyone to prove their legal or illegal status! ALL CAA applicants apply 'Voluntarily' and are thereby voluntarily declaring they are not legal residents.

CAA is for exclusively non residents in neighboring countries to apply or and illegal in-country residents.

Worse yet you try to intertwine others laws into the CAA. NRC & CAA are two independent laws. NRC is only in one state- Assam. You have a NRC in Pakistan too where citizens and lawful residents of pakistan have to prove they are as a such.

Asylum laws have several statues, immigration laws have several statues in every country. India's CAA is one such asylum statue that is for 'persecuted religious minorities' in Islamic republics. Ever figure out how Pakistani artists get Indian residency rights and or citizenship? Because they can apply under 'other' asylum statues.



You keep trying to bring a NRC into CAA showing you have not read either. The NRC is a separate law, albeit an incomplete law, partially in place in Assam to make all residents prove their are citizens. Not unlike laws in Pakistan, which IK and his supporters ignore.




Again, after repeatedly failing to read CAA you bring NRC and plan B theories in the mix. Even so your example above is flawed under the NRC. If one is an illegal resident and a Muslim originally from a neighboring Islamic republic. How can he/she say they are 'persecuted religious' minority?




All asylum laws are inherently discriminatory in every democracy, worse in dictatorships or under communism. It is the sole prerogative of a country to set its asylum statues.

Be clear and transparent please. SCOTUS accepted the argument that these individuals were to be barred on the basis of them being a SECURITY RISK. While it remains a violation of your 1st Amendment and highly dubious, with many many professional judges calling it out as discriminatory on religious grounds, the reasoning behind it is at least ostensibly due to security of the state. NO SUCH REASONING is given for CAA. I.e. CAA is based purely and unashamedly on a desire to discriminate on the basis of religion. We can strongly speculate that Trump's law are discriminatory on the basis of religion but he cites security as the motivator and we can't prove beyond reasonable doubt to the contrary. He gets the benefit of the doubt. With CAA there is no doubt as it is openly touted and by definition a means of removing illegal Muslims while saving illegal jains, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Christians and parsees. Nowhere is there even the facade of "security".[/quote]

I'm being transparent when I say you seem to have selective argument on discrimination. Discrimination is not just based on religion. If SCOTUS says it is legal it is legal and cannot be a violation of the laws, period.

You cannot apply for asylum under 'persecuted religious minority' in the US as a Christian if you come from most parts of Europe. BTW, US designated 10 countries as “countries of particular concern” for their particularly severe violations of religious freedom, and for the first time the Secretary named Pakistan to a Special Watch List. US shows favoritism to Christians in Islamic countries over Muslim under its religious persecuted asylum laws.


That's odd, no security concerns for the decades they lived in Pakistan, but now suddenly the whole lot becomes a threat? What you have effectively said is that you are discriminating them with a false excuse to adapt to your situation. You could not be any more surreptitious in your concern for Indian Muslims.




What do you mean by "Whether they are actually persecuted or not is irrelevant to this discussion." lol. They are applying under "persecuted religious minority" statue. How is not relevant then? What I find telling is that you've now confessed that your concern for Muslims is a non concern for them a much as it really about politics. Holding some to a standard, not because of what you think is ethical and non discriminatory to dos so, but because they claim to be secular. Muslims butchered in communist countries, in non secular countries; that's all fine with you because they've declared themselves as being non secular.



Did you actually write above that you don't care about Muslims being butchered and mistreated because a country is non-secular? And then in the same breath, couple of sentences later proclaim to be for the fair treatment of Muslims? [/QUOTE]
Brevity is the soul of wit.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

It is also a discrimination issue, because of a specific caveat that exists in your Asylum law. Whether your reasons are because of religion or security does not matter. The point made is all asylum laws are discriminatory for various reasons. BTW, these people have been in residing in Pakistan for close to decades in many instances. How does security become an issue now?




Your first sentence proves what I've been saying about you not having read the CAA law. Quote "I clearly argued the case against CAA by describing how it impacts on those who cannot prove their legal status".

CAA does not force anyone to prove their legal or illegal status! ALL CAA applicants apply 'Voluntarily' and are thereby voluntarily declaring they are not legal residents.

CAA is for exclusively non residents in neighboring countries to apply or and illegal in-country residents.

Worse yet you try to intertwine others laws into the CAA. NRC & CAA are two independent laws. NRC is only in one state- Assam. You have a NRC in Pakistan too where citizens and lawful residents of pakistan have to prove they are as a such.

Asylum laws have several statues, immigration laws have several statues in every country. India's CAA is one such asylum statue that is for 'persecuted religious minorities' in Islamic republics. Ever figure out how Pakistani artists get Indian residency rights and or citizenship? Because they can apply under 'other' asylum statues.



You keep trying to bring a NRC into CAA showing you have not read either. The NRC is a separate law, albeit an incomplete law, partially in place in Assam to make all residents prove their are citizens. Not unlike laws in Pakistan, which IK and his supporters ignore.




Again, after repeatedly failing to read CAA you bring NRC and plan B theories in the mix. Even so your example above is flawed under the NRC. If one is an illegal resident and a Muslim originally from a neighboring Islamic republic. How can he/she say they are 'persecuted religious' minority?




All asylum laws are inherently discriminatory in every democracy, worse in dictatorships or under communism. It is the sole prerogative of a country to set its asylum statues.




I'm being transparent when I say you seem to have selective argument on discrimination. Discrimination is not just based on religion. If SCOTUS says it is legal it is legal and cannot be a violation of the laws, period.

You cannot apply for asylum under 'persecuted religious minority' in the US as a Christian if you come from most parts of Europe. BTW, US designated 10 countries as “countries of particular concern” for their particularly severe violations of religious freedom, and for the first time the Secretary named Pakistan to a Special Watch List. Why not look in your own house first Mr. Khan, over playing politics.

US shows favoritism to Christians in Islamic countries over Muslim under its religious persecuted asylum laws.


That's odd, no security concerns for the decades they lived in Pakistan, but now suddenly the whole lot becomes a threat? What you have effectively said is that you are discriminating them with a false excuse to adapt to your situation. You could not be any more surreptitious in your concern for Indian Muslims.




What do you mean by "Whether they are actually persecuted or not is irrelevant to this discussion." lol. They are applying under "persecuted religious minority" statue. How is not relevant then? What I find telling is that you've now confessed that your concern for Muslims is really a non concern for them, as much as it really about politics. Holding some to a standard, not because of what you think is ethical and non discriminatory to dos so, but because they claim to be secular. Muslims butchered in communist countries, in non secular countries; that's all fine with you because they've declared themselves as being non secular.



Did you actually write above that you don't care about Muslims being butchered and mistreated because a country is non-secular? And then in the same breath, couple of sentences later proclaim to be for the fair treatment of Muslims?

I shall try to be brief.

The issue of afghan refugees is in constant flux because of their changing position regarding affiliation to the Pakistani state. If they become restive through various incitements, most notably the incitements from your precious Indian state, Pakistan will need to adapt its approach to them.

You claim moral parity between security and religion as discriminators regarding asylum. This is your subjective opinion. My opinion is different. I can respect genuine security concerns as a discriminator. Muslims will be profiled more at an airport, burkhas will be removed at checkpoints - I get that. I do not hold pure religious affiliation as an equivalently justifiable discriminator. You may see them as comparable. I do not. In a democracy, security can trump personal freedom, but religious discrimination is just that - religious discrimination. Jews being expelled purely for being Jews in Nazi Germany is the closest moral equivalent to expelling Muslims because they're Muslim.

CAA is a route back from NRC for Hindu or other non-Muslim illegals. I didn't mention its impact on legal citizens. You keep mentioning that, not me. You're obfuscating and misdirecting your readership. I don't know why.

My point about CAA being used to short circuit NRC is valid and is the major reason for the protests we see, despite your denials.

"What do you mean by "Whether they are actually persecuted or not is irrelevant to this discussion." lol."

I mean the actual truth beyond reasonable doubt is irrelevant. Refugees can claim anything to get into country x or y. Even if they're lying, as long as they present an identical argument and show identical weight of evidence, a Muslim should receive the same treatment as a non-Muslim by Indian authorities. We're debating India's rules, not whether or not Pakistan oppresses minorities - again, you're misdirecting and distracting your readership.

And yes, on your final points, I don't care how countries run themselves as long as all faiths are treated equally as far as is logical. So if communist China keeps all religions down, no problem. If China suddenly favoured Hindus over Muslims, yeah I'd have a problem. Even the American security issue is understandable, still problematic but understandable. Hindustan is purely engaged in demographic engineering. Plain and simple.

 

[Areesh]

If you try to protest and also shoot at the police then you deserve to get show. Doesn't matter whether you're muslim or hindu

Nobody shot at police you dumb f*ck. It is your hindutv police that killed 2 dozen muslims and raped muslim kids in police stations

 

[Flight of falcon]

US North run probably didn’t bother reading about CAA from the neutral site and instead reads RSS propaganda.....

https://www.newagebd.net/article/95570/giant-rallies-slam-indian-govts-citizenship-law

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Regarding Indian Muslims, I will expand on my earlier comments. Pakistan has a complex relationship with Indian Muslims. In all honesty, their elders made a decision and threw their lot in with Hindustan and its supposed secularism, which now stands exposed as fraudulent.

Pakistanis will certainly argue on their behalf, as Hindustan has no right to call itself democratic or secular on the basis of its actions against Muslims. It is straightforward enough to present these arguments at international fora to expose the fraud of what has become the common enemy of Pakistan and Indian muslims - The Hindutva state.

That said, it remains for now a marriage of convenience. Pakistan has equal interests in supporting any group that destabilises the existential threat of Hindutva. Indian Muslims, naxals, khalistanis and other groups fulfil such criteria. However, Indian mainland Muslims have frequently sided against the Pakistani state, often more vigorously than indian Hindus (another trait that Jinnah brilliantly predicted btw), hence it remains to be seen to what extent it is in Pakistan's interests to actually support their cause. India must be broken up - this much is true.

For now, I wholeheartedly support our Indian Muslim brothers in their righteous crusade against the hindutva centre that occupies Delhi. India should be further exposed as a fraud, an imposter on the world stage, not a democracy but a Hindu mullahocracy, a fundamentalist Nazi state.

Once Delhi finally discards its pathetic disguise and the civil war begins in earnest, good luck to all Indians. Pakistan will take back Kashmir, its rightful territory, and the rest of India can slug it out without any further cost in human lives to Pakistan. In such a theoretical scenario, we should certainly supply arms and diplomatic relief to our preferred allies, Indian Muslims and other anti-Hindutva forces. However I would be against any full blown invasion of India by Pakistani troops alone under the present circumstances.

 

[Rusty]

Get some help. Medical is free in Canada.

I know you are frustrated as I humiliated you with your own argument but no need to get personal