What's new

Featured Joe Biden seeks restoration of peoples' rights in Kashmir; disappointed with CAA, NRC

But now she is in a Cock Fight with Hillary Clinton. I think her future as a Democrat coming to an End. She is more GOP then a Democrat.

Both Bernie and Trump camp promoted her, it means they were promoting a rabid Islamophobe who is a confirmed Indian agent and militantly anti-Pakistan.

I am not hearing good things about Kamala Harris either. It seems US is allowing Indian agents into its government to give more power to India in US affairs.

Even Obama used Preet Bharara to hunt down Pakistanis and Kashmiris involved in politics. He notoriously brought cases against Ghulam Nabi Fai.

This led to an exodus of Pakistanis from NY state, which may have been the goal all along as Pakistanis had become too powerful.

Linda Sarsour (MB mouthpiece) apparently loves Preet Bharara, draw your own conclusions.
 
Kashmir's status was changed under US approval. The plan didn't work.

This statement from Joe Biden suggests the USA is looking to take an alternate path, but it doesn't mean they will work to harm India. India is a local and sizeable ally against China and Americans will NOT do anything that weakens their ally. Consider this statement that will give India an exit strategy in Kashmir but it is not a step towards the independence of Kashmir.
 
Her Twitter was full of Islamophobic garbage, even when Bernie picked her for VP.

That was my first real red flag on Bernie, he was planted just like the rest of them.

When he just now dropped out for Biden, that was the end of his political career. He served his purpose.

All his supporters were shafted.

Barnie never picked her or anyone else for that matter. He never got to that stage of the race.
 
Barnie never picked her or anyone else for that matter. He never got to that stage of the race.

It gets deeper.

But in 2016, a couple months after voting to bar the resettlement of Syrian war refugees, Gabbard quit the DNC and endorsed Bernie’s run for president, cutting ads for his campaign that built this Iraq veteran up as an opponent of war. She has since been rewarded with a fellowship at The Sanders Institute, a think tank led by Bernie’s wife, Jane Sanders, and prime speaking gigs at its events.

https://arcdigital.media/bernie-sanders-internationalism-and-his-tulsi-gabbard-problem-36a0d99a74ad
 
It gets deeper.

But in 2016, a couple months after voting to bar the resettlement of Syrian war refugees, Gabbard quit the DNC and endorsed Bernie’s run for president, cutting ads for his campaign that built this Iraq veteran up as an opponent of war. She has since been rewarded with a fellowship at The Sanders Institute, a think tank led by Bernie’s wife, Jane Sanders, and prime speaking gigs at its events.

https://arcdigital.media/bernie-sanders-internationalism-and-his-tulsi-gabbard-problem-36a0d99a74ad

That was 2016 before Trump. Bernie didn’t get to name a running mate since he wasn’t the nominee and was never the front-runner
 
Democrats are the real bastards when it comes to devastating Pakistan from within and doing long-term damage.

1993 Bill Clinton their slave Peoples Party comes to power, and US policy change in 1992. IMF 1994, electricity policy 1994 when Pakistan was blocked from constructing own dams in shabby IPP policy, food inflation sky high, educated Pakistanis run out fo the country, bureaucracy filled with loyalists who did open corruption, Rupee devalued and never recovered again.
2008 Obama Administration again PPP installed drone strikes on Paksitani citizens with support from Zardari, another catastrophic IMF program 2008 food inflation touched record 135% and people literaly ended up begging. Pakistan goes through worse terrorist attacks in its history. Security and economy both reduced to banana republic.

US is not our friend, Pakistani ch*tiyas shuld stop collaborating with PAksitani American ch/tiyas.
 
the Act itself seems Unconstitutional. A law can apply to ALL persecuted minorities, not a specific set.

The keyword is highlighted.

As of now it is a law, legally passed by the parliament and not stayed by the Supreme Court.

The case is in the SC. If and when it is declared constitutional (which is a very high probability) what will your stance be?
 
The keyword is highlighted.

As of now it is a law, legally passed by the parliament and not stayed by the Supreme Court.

The case is in the SC. If and when it is declared constitutional (which is a very high probability) what will your stance be?
How did you know it is "very high probability"?
 
How did you know it is "very high probability"?
May be SC judges are compromised and biased towards BJP. What taking it so long to decide. Why not a stay order?
See Babri Masjid Verdict in the past.

May be they waiting if Modi has to reversed the order it will be done through SC verdict.
 
May be SC judges are compromised and biased towards BJP. What taking it so long to decide. Why not a stay order?
See Babri Masjid Verdict in the past.

May be they waiting if Modi has to reversed the order it will be done through SC verdict.
It's possible. But SC benches will overrule the decision in the long run. Judges are also quite aware that they are making a legacy. They did overturn 377.

I have a degree in law. I can tell you, that in most Common Law countries, even a sessions court judge can see that this is Unconstitutional.
Article 14 explicitly states that all people will be protected equally by the State. The BJP argument that since the applicants themselves are not Indian citizens, this doesn't apply to them DOES have some legal merit. But it is still on very thin ice.
 
The US immigration laws are based on nationalities (which is basically discriminatory based on nationality then) but not based on Religion - the CAA+NRC is looking at religion of people and only singling out Muslims. If a law states that illegals from Bangladesh shall not be allowed, that may be acceptable. But if it says only illegal Muslims won’t be allowed and rest can get rights, then your issue is not with Illegal immigrants but only with Illegal Muslims (i.e discriminatory based on religion). Imagine if US law said that Hindus from India shall not be granted visas? But Sikhs, Christians etc. can?

You are right about Indian supreme court, for Indians it can surely decide what ever it wants by declaring Muslims as less equal humans. Joe Biden and rest of the world is not obligatory to follow Indian supreme court and is entitled to formulate its own policies. And then in the end Indian muslims can also decide what political discourse they want to take as well, they can either accept their status as second class citizens or do something else about it.

Well that's the law. When Bangladesh has declared itself to be Islamic state, and this law is supposedly for discriminated minorities, then questions will arise how it will be given to majority of those countries.

Remember India hasn't banned migration. Every year people get citizenship. From Pakistan, BD, Iraq etc. We prefer to treat our illegals differently due to unique historical incidents in 1947. Basically everyone can be treated equal only if they are from a place where everyone is equal. Since they are not, the question of discrimination arise, and is also the basis of India's caste based reservation system which I wholeheartedly support.

As for the US, their discrimination is based on race, then nationality and religion. Whoever tells otherwise is kidding. I would say Canada is one of the few really open countries around at this time. But at the rate they are doing, I would not be surprised if there is another local Trump in next 15 years.

Yes few countries have Free Visa policy with USA and it works both ways like American don't need any Visa to enter those countries either. But that didn't give them the right to work in USA without a work permit. I know Brits Canadian and European citizens who got deported because they were found working without a work permit.

I mentioned about minimal paperwork if you read my post. If a company in US wants to hire someone from white majority nations, the process is almost fast. A week or 2 at best. I can't remember the countless times I have got job interview offers across the border assuming I am Canadian. Its not the same when trying to hire from non white majority countries. I mean if India were to be offered reciprocal visa opportunity India would lap it. But would US do?

There you go- discrimination.

You're wrong again. You cannot.. Again cannot work in the united states without proper work documentation. You can only work if you work off the books. There are countries that the United States has agreements with and you can visit those countries without Visas but they cannot work here and you cant work there. Don't spread misinformation because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Lastly, the US is a migrant-friendly country and has immigration quotas for most countries. It also provides work visas for people across the world. Certain people are not allowed in the United States because they break immigration laws. It has nothing to do with racism or discrimination. If you are from a poor country and visit the US, you are more likely to break the immigration laws for work opportunities but it has nothing to do with color.
America is not a banana republic like India so do not spew bs here, please.


Gosh. How tough it is to even read my post properly? Or suddenly US is now Pakistanis Supreme buddy after bashing them all week long to support China?

I said 'minimal paperwork'. Do you know what it means? It means US company can hire someone from white majority countries in 2 weeks at best. Paperwork is fast for them. Can the same companies do the same for countries like India or any African countries for that matter? Even good African ones? Hell NATO partner Turkey hasn't got that. You know the reason. They aren't white nor Christian.

I have seen my Canadian friends move across the border for work as if changing another company. Its easy.

Discrimination is discrimination. The way we want to call it differs. If me and another guy applied for the same green card or citizenship, both have contributed equally to US, and yet only I have to wait longer to get the same just cos I am from a country where application is longer or non white country? The Americans call it law and it's their land their rules. The way India treats her foreign illegals is also our land our rules. If anyone should fight it, it's Indians that should do it. Not an American white guy.
 
How did you know it is "very high probability"?
1 there is a clearly defined criteria. There is a very settled principle of law that special laws can be made for specific group of people when there is a clearly defined criteria. For example reservation
2 The law does not grant automatic citizenship - it merely fast tracks it. Also the existence of this law does not prevent Muslims from these countries from applying for citizenship. An Adnan Sami would still be able to apply for and get the citizenship through the usual routes
3 There is a definite cut-off date of 31st December 2014. So there will be a finite number of people who will be benefitting from this law
4 The NRC has already been done in Assam under the SC. The NRC law merely extends the same to all across the country. Since there is a freedom of movement between the states - a Bangladeshi in Assam can easily move to say a Delhi or Mumbai. How can an illegal Bangladeshi be a problem in Assam and not Delhi or Mumbai?
 
US is not our friend, Pakistani ch*tiyas shuld stop collaborating with PAksitani American ch/tiyas.

Pakistani Americans do not have an independent policy in the US, our people have been co-opted through Islamic organizations in the US to support Muslim Brotherhood, which has even pushed Muslims to support gay rights.

Muslim Brotherhood is trying to become a political piece of the ultra-liberal progressive movement, but they are viewed with suspicious from all (rightly so.)

What they are doing is giving reason for Trumpists and Republicans to increase their hate towards Muslims, viewing us in the same vein as Black nationalists, LGBT radicals, and pro-immigrant Latin groups.

Most Muslims are not politically involved and stay out of the tussle between bipartisan politics, but we are being marketed as ultra-liberal by CAIR and Linda Sarsour types to the Democrats for more votes.
 
1 there is a clearly defined criteria. There is a very settled principle of law that special laws can be made for specific group of people when there is a clearly defined criteria. For example reservation
2 The law does not grant automatic citizenship - it merely fast tracks it. Also the existence of this law does not prevent Muslims from these countries from applying for citizenship. An Adnan Sami would still be able to apply for and get the citizenship through the usual routes
3 There is a definite cut-off date of 31st December 2014. So there will be a finite number of people who will be benefitting from this law
4 The NRC has already been done in Assam under the SC. The NRC law merely extends the same to all across the country. Since there is a freedom of movement between the states - a Bangladeshi in Assam can easily move to say a Delhi or Mumbai. How can an illegal Bangladeshi be a problem in Assam and not Delhi or Mumbai?
An illegal immigrant is obviously not welcome. The problem arises when you say -

1. There is only religious persecution and that too to only certain adherents. Ahmadiyas who are declared heretics in Pakistan are excluded. For the record, they believe in Krishna being one of the earlier prophets. I am surprised no opposition party had looked into that. Does BJP hate Krishna bhakts?

2. Why exclude Sri Lanka? It's a neighbouring country where ethnic Tamils (mostly Hindus) have also faced persecution at the hands of Buddhist Sinhala.

3. Why stop at religious persecution? What about those who are persecuted on the basis of their sexual orientation, their ethnicity or any other factor?

I am fine with having a law which applies to all persecuted peoples. The onus of proving persecution lies on the persecuted. No one gets a free pass.

But we must continue to give refuge to the Chinese citizen who beg to come here.
 

Back
Top Bottom