3 ms·

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? Ho

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?

vageli 7y ago
> 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.
- goombastic 7y ago
  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?
  - lenkite 7y ago
    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.
    - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
      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.
      - lenkite 7y ago
        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.
  - Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
    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?
- gagorder 7y ago
  > When I arrive at a foreign border 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.
  - yumraj 7y ago
    Not sure if you're referring to your specific case or generalizing. But if you're talking of your specific case, were your parents and/or grandparents born here or did they come to India after 1947?
- PhasmaFelis 7y ago
  Expecting citizens to produce proof of their right to exist at a moment's notice is a famous signifier of a police state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_papers,_please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_papers,_please If you have a specific reason to suspect and investigate an individual, that's a different matter.
  - paulddraper 7y ago
    > at a moment's notice That's not a requirement in this case.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- fiblye 7y ago
  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.
shafkathullah 7y ago
Very well said
sbmthakur 7y ago
It is. India follows jus sanguinis (citizenship by right of blood) as opposed to the jus soli (citizenship by right of birth within the territory). The state cannot just assume that a person has the Right of blood.

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?

vageli 7y ago

> 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.

goombastic 7y ago
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?
- lenkite 7y ago
  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.
  - TheCoelacanth 7y ago
    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.
    - lenkite 7y ago
      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.
- Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
  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?
gagorder 7y ago
> When I arrive at a foreign border 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.
- yumraj 7y ago
  Not sure if you're referring to your specific case or generalizing. But if you're talking of your specific case, were your parents and/or grandparents born here or did they come to India after 1947?
PhasmaFelis 7y ago
Expecting citizens to produce proof of their right to exist at a moment's notice is a famous signifier of a police state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_papers,_please https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_papers,_please If you have a specific reason to suspect and investigate an individual, that's a different matter.
- paulddraper 7y ago
  > at a moment's notice That's not a requirement in this case.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
fiblye 7y ago
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.

shafkathullah 7y ago

Very well said

sbmthakur 7y ago

It is. India follows jus sanguinis (citizenship by right of blood) as opposed to the jus soli (citizenship by right of birth within the territory). The state cannot just assume that a person has the Right of blood.