India’s Humane Law: Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), 2019

ok, Sam. I caught it when you said you became a US citizen a long time ago. Your post on the Indian law came across as one coming from a native of India. Bonds with the “old country” can be very strong.

The new clause you described that says “Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan, who entered India illegally on or before the 31st of December, 2014, will not be treated as illegal immigrants; and they will be entitled to be citizens of India.”

That wording is FULL of religions. It also, apparently, is exclusive to those religions, stated. It absolutely would effect the establishment of religions. (Those stated and those excluded.) And what about atheist immigrants? The law does not make them citizens. Every religion cited gets more citizens in their congregations. Those religions are favored by the law.

If the law said ANYONE “who entered India illegally on or before the 31st of December, 2014, will not be treated as illegal immigrants; and they will be entitled to be citizens of India.” then I think it would be within Constitutional parameters.

But, instead, it cites specific religions (Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians). It would therefore not get by the Supreme Court of the U.S. The argument is moot, however, as I presume that the Constitution of India does not have the same proscription. It is probably a law that is in India’s best interest. Hence, I support their passing it. The same exactly written law WOULD NOT BE ACCEPTABLE IN THE USA.

Since you are a citizen, you should know that, but don’t feel badly, since most naturally born citizens probably don’t know it, or could care less about it.

Tim, I know the 1st Amendment as much as there is to know and as much as most other well-educated Americans do. What I see here is a difference in interpretations by you and me. The sentence, “Religion is stupid.”, is all about religion; but it does not favor religion. So, the wording is full or religions does not necessarily mean it favors some religions over some others. Again, to me, helping victims of religious hatred and favoring the victims’ religions are not the same thing; and without submitting this argument and your counter-argument to the US Supreme Court, we would not know with whom the wise court would agree.

Well, Sam, we DO know what the Courts said about T rump’s attempted Muslim ban. He tried to ban all Muslims from entering the US. The Courts struck it down. And they continued to block other iterations of that T rump ban, until it had nothing directly and specifically tying it to religion per its text.

How can you say that the law you cite, does not favor Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians, over other religions and atheism. IT MAKES CITIZENS OF MEMBERS OF THE Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians immigrants. That seems pretty darn favorable to me. Don’t get me wrong, I like them being favored over the purveyors of Islamic theocracies. But it is blatantly contrary to our 1st Amendment, for a law to be made like that which is based on religion.

There are two significant differences between Trump’s Muslim ban and India’s CAA. The former prevents Muslims from immigrating legally to the USA, the latter does not prevent Muslims from immigrating to India legally. They can still go through the normal process as any other foreigner can do. The former does not involve helping any persecuted group from anywhere in the world, the latter involves helping persecuted and brutalized people from India’s neighboring countries; most of those people have been living in India as stateless people in for decades, which by itself is dehumanizing.

I think, for example, if the US Congress passed a law allowing the brutalized Yazidis of Syria to get preferential immigration to the USA, the Supreme court would not have found it to be against the 1st Amendment. Again, helping victims of religious hatred and favoring the victims’ religions are not the same thing.

Sam said: “There are two significant differences between Trump’s Muslim ban and India’s CAA. The former prevents Muslims from immigrating legally to the USA, the latter does not prevent Muslims from immigrating to India legally.”

Nobody, except lawbreakers, criminals and those assessed by Homeland Security as posing risks, is prevented from immigrating legally to the USA. Please correct me, if I am wrong.

The 1st thing I found for your elucidation, Sree, is https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-administration-announces-rule-limit-legal-immigration/story?id=64924601

Wherein, we see that T rump is planning to limit who is allowed to enter and stay in the United States based on that person’s need for various public benefits.

Also, I suppose it has slipped your mind, all of the dastardly steps to punish lawful seekers of asylum at our Southern border that the T rump administration has imposed.

And here https://immigrationimpact.com/2019/01/29/travel-ban-thousands-citizens-separated-families/#.XgpSiW5Fy1s

is the current damage of the travel ban that started out as T rump’s Muslim ban, (which eventually mutated just enough to get past the Courts.)

Sam, I suppose we are at an impasse on whether the India law would pass Constitutional muster in the USA. I will not argue further with you about it. I do appreciate your addition to the political conversations on the Forum.

Nobody, except lawbreakers, criminals and those assessed by Homeland Security as posing risks, is prevented from immigrating legally to the USA. Please correct me, if I am wrong. -- Sree
Have you looked into what "assessed by Homeland Security" means? It can be a few minutes spent with a single officer who has limited skills and information, might not even have a good grasp on your language. You, the immigrant might be very young and not have any idea what is being asked or the consequences of your answers. The odds of you having legal representation are slim.

Sree: Nobody, except lawbreakers, criminals and those assessed by Homeland Security as posing risks, is prevented from immigrating legally to the USA. Please correct me, if I am wrong.

SamB: Trump’s Muslim (travel) ban did not have such criteria. It included anyone from some countries, most of them overwhelmingly Muslim-majority.

TimB to SamB: I do appreciate your addition to the political conversations on the Forum.

SamB: Thanks Tim; I have been mostly away from this and other forums for quite a while, due to my professional and personal life.

Lausten: “Have you looked into what “assessed by Homeland Security” means?”

I am fully aware of the implications. Forget assessment by Homeland Security, it doesn’t take much to get pulled off at Immigration and sent away for further processing. And I am not talking about visitors but citizens and green card holders coming home at US ports of entry. I travel often enough to know why there is resistance to our immigration policy.