> It is not the citizen's responsibility to prove he is a citizen, it is the government's responsibility to prove that he isn't.
> Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?
By this rationale, couldn't one claim citizenship to any country? When I arrive at a foreign border I don't say, "Allow me entry, I am a citizen, prove otherwise."
I understand that further from the border this encroachment is less justified, but still I don't think citizenship is granted until proven otherwise.
We didn't arrive at the border today, we were born here, and now we are being asked to stand in line to submit documentary proofs of not only ours but of our parents and grandparents.
You cant just wake up one day and suddenly proclaim everyone a non citizen. In that case this is a non-government having been elected by non-citizens! Right?
You can when that was the campaign promise of the election and you won the super majority to do so. Regardless of personal opinion, they did this the democratic way. We will see what the Supreme Court rules.
It is a violation of India's obligations under international law. Specifically, Part 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which India is a signatory of.
No, this is not a violation. It is a crime to enter India illegally, so detention cannot be considered arbitrary.
The single point of controversy is whether the Citizenship Amendment Act can omit a refugee on the basis of religion. The supreme court can issue a ruling on this and end the matter.
Naive comment as I don't know much about India... but I suppose people that were able to participate in the elections did so because they already have some form of ID and are in a census, so they would remain citizens?
Crossing a border and simply existing are very different. One is a very conscious action, and generally people are doing it on their own volition and know there are restrictions to exit and entry.
People simply living in their hometown don’t have a choice.
> Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?
By this rationale, couldn't one claim citizenship to any country? When I arrive at a foreign border I don't say, "Allow me entry, I am a citizen, prove otherwise."
I understand that further from the border this encroachment is less justified, but still I don't think citizenship is granted until proven otherwise.