I would give shelter to Rohingyas

@vandana7 (65123)
India
September 22, 2017 12:21am CST
With conditions of course. Those being a) You need to ensure that there are no crimes happening inside the country...crime rates should drop drastically. b) Citizenship will be offered only after 60 years on fulfillment of other conditions such as one woman one child hereon and there should be no protests or anger at that point of time. Citizen ship cannot be inherited for another 40 years, meaning every child born would have to continue with the conditions for 60 years. And that they will never join hands with the minorities in the country or groups identified as terror groups by the country. If they do, they all will be deported irrespective of the fact whether they were or were not guilty. Effectively, they have to monitor their community. They have to generate their own employment during the 60 years, and can only buy food, clothing, medicines, and material to build shelter from government certified shops. Modalities can be worked out. c) There will be no demand for places of worship, jobs, travel to Mecca, housing, education etc. You gotta do it yourself. We can only offer TEMPORARY shelter. They gotta spend their labor to make it habitable. Government will only spare for sanitation and water, with charges. Ok..that is in brief. Why do I say this? If I turn down such refugees, it is not guaranteed that they are not national threat to my nation. Imagine them spreading across a larger area and me having to disperse my intelligence across various quarters to find out where somebody is plotting to bomb my country. Here I would know where they are confined so it would be easier for me to keep tabs. Your call?
10 people like this
11 responses
@dpk262006 (56170)
• Delhi, India
22 Sep
Your conditions are to the point and these make sense. Giving shelters to these people is like inviting more troubles. We already have many issues and troubles to deal with.
5 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
22 Sep
What I am saying is, if we don't, they will be recruited by some terror group or the other. Our choices are limited. We either expend our intelligence, and remain unsure from where the attacks are coming, or we confine them, and restrict those attacks more easily. If they are safe, then Kashmiri separatists are likely to rethink. Hey, this country is good and humane. Agreed there are stiff conditions, but there are reasons for those. And there is recognition to prolonged service to the nation too. In other countries that we are aligning to, such thing is not there. So we gotta rethink. May be I am carrying it too far, but it is a possibility. Likewise, muslims in the country will rethink whether it is worth having a muslim agenda every time when the country has extended such olive branch to muslims. You reminded me of some dialogue in "Kuch kuch hota hai" movie. Farida Jalal I think said Na bologi to kaun sa aabad rahogi, ( if you don't tell, you still aren't going to be happy). Situation is heads we lose, tails they win.
3 people like this
@dpk262006 (56170)
• Delhi, India
22 Sep
@vandana7 I agree with you point of view but I doubt that Government is going to think on the lines suggested by you.
3 people like this
@ptrikha_2 (8314)
• India
24 Sep
Yes I agree @dpk262006
2 people like this
@LadyDuck (158018)
• Switzerland
22 Sep
I think that most nations recognize the principle of "Jus Solis" (from Lating "right of blood). It's a principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having one or both parents who are citizens of the state. You seem very hard to those people.
5 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
22 Sep
No Anna, the object is to ensure that the country gets some time to absorb additional population. Within our homes, in a family of five members, a sixth member means sacrificing something, or attempt to earn more to keep up with the need. Giving a 100 year time to the entire country is good enough for absorbing that much of population and its future growth gradually. In any event, that can be negotiated. We do have Nepalis in our country. They make them useful by taking up jobs such as guards, and in armed forces. I am asking these people not to expect free lunches, that is all. Once they work hard towards it, they will develop loyalty towards it, and not resort to joining any terrorist gangs.
3 people like this
@LadyDuck (158018)
• Switzerland
23 Sep
@vandana7 I agree that too many additional people coming to live in a country can be a problem. This surely has become a problem in Italy. Too many refugees from Syria, too many people from North Africa. They do not want to be integrated, they want to come to our country, have a home, receive help from the Government, do nothing and bring their habits. This is wrong and unacceptable, NOW our Government realises that they made a bad move letting too many people stay.
1 person likes this
@topffer (34219)
• France
22 Sep
As these people are victims of a genocide in their country, they can obtain a 1954 Convention travel document and settle in any country having signed the convention without having to follow your conditions. There are very few countries who have ratified this convention in Asia : Australia, the Philippines and South-Korea, but all Europe will welcome them, including UK.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search A 1954 Convention travel document issued in Germany in 2008 A 1954 Convention travel document is a travel document, unlike a Stateless travel document (stateless person by a signatory to the
4 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
22 Sep
I am fine with them leaving for wherever they want to go. Those conditions are only applicable, if they want to stay in our country - INDIA. Yes, it is genocide, that is why I say they need a home and we give them one. But if somebody is coming into our home as a guest, we don't surrender the keys of lockers and banks to them, do we? If they want to be permanent baggage, then they have to spend time learning how to blend in, just like the new daughter in law. And security of the nation is important too. We don't want ISIS recruits in there, spending time in recruiting more within the country.
4 people like this
• Mombasa, Kenya
22 Sep
@vandana7 mmmmm.....
3 people like this
@bunnybon7 (36548)
• Holiday, Florida
22 Sep
@vandana7 i love your ideas, you should be president. preferably here in US ! lol
3 people like this
@ilocosboy (34325)
• Philippines
22 Sep
That's a heavy conditions
4 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
22 Sep
That is also heavy responsibility. As I see it, they have no choice but to take help or leave the country alone. We would not have refused help.
4 people like this
@jstory07 (67239)
• Roseburg, Oregon
22 Sep
Your conditions make good sense and would be good to use.
3 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
22 Sep
I felt they need help. But I also felt that our security is in jeopardy considering the problems in kashmir, and ISIS. So I came up with some loosely framed suggestions. In fact, such things should be there even in the US.
2 people like this
@bunnybon7 (36548)
• Holiday, Florida
22 Sep
@vandana7 absolutely
2 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
22 Sep
@bunnybon7 .. LOL..I have been saying that for ages now. I said that when you all had Camp David convention with Jimmy Carter, and then when Clinton came to India, just that my voice is very small. lol.
2 people like this
@shshiju (10494)
• Cochin, India
22 Sep
Your conditions are pointing the seriousness of the problem. There is high responsibility. Monitoring them is a huge risk. If the problem would solve in the beginning in Myanmar it will be the best remedy. I don't understand why they brutally devastating a community.
3 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
22 Sep
But if we don't confine them to one place monitoring them will be even more difficult as that would be like cancer cells spreading like metastases. That is my contention. And there will be enough support within the country thanks to politicians like Mani Shankar Aiyyar.
3 people like this
@hora_fugit (5442)
• India
23 Sep
I am too dense to understand point b here... and don't get how point a can be ensured by them, but I like your idea. Harshness always appeals to those who have been taken advantage of. And for sure our country falls in that group......
2 people like this
@ptrikha_2 (8314)
• India
24 Sep
@hora_fugit for long India has been victimized by its own people who unduly appease those who ought to have lived like other citizens, and the appeased start biting the very hand that fed them. Don't you think so?
2 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
24 Sep
Point a is to say that they will not indulge in anything that incites hatred, and will try to find ways and means to prevent crimes especially in which they would be drawn in, because as long as they are not citizens, they will not have rights under our civil code. So their women, they have to protect, their food, clothing, shelter, they have to protect. They would have bank accounts. They would have to save. The idea is, we are not going to spare police force to resolve differences that arise between them. They gotta have system to do that themselves.
2 people like this
@just4him (117534)
• Green Bay, Wisconsin
22 Sep
I don't know what Rohingyas are. Your plan for them is very harsh. However, it might also be a good solution.
2 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
22 Sep
Rohingyas are poor muslim communities in myanmar (formerly Burma). There is something like ethnic cleansing going on. Bangladesh and India have borders touching Myyanmar. They need to flee somewhere. Bangladesh has closed its borders, and Chinese territory is much too harsh to cross over into. Plan for them is harsh because they have taken to becoming rebellions and some have joined hands with the likes of ISIS and other terrorist outfits, to help them carry on the rebellion. In the light of ongoing Kashmir crisis, and other problems in the country, that can emerge within no time, government is against letting them stay in our country. My contention is, it is not guaranteed that they will not turn into terrorists harming us if they are out of our country.
2 people like this
@just4him (117534)
• Green Bay, Wisconsin
22 Sep
@vandana7 Thank you for the explanation. Now it makes more sense.
2 people like this
@ptrikha_2 (8314)
• India
24 Sep
@vandana7 One way also is helping Myanmar to tackle terrorists there, and if Myanmar is not genuine, ask them not to victimize its own citizens so that they do not have to flee their country. Sometimes, I feel that some really victimized among these people also suffer due to excesses of others.
• United States
22 Sep
If only governments would think like you do Vanny..all of this makes perfect sense to me.
2 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
22 Sep
I think all countries should modify their citizenship rules. I believe Canada did that. Though the rules are still not strict enough.
2 people like this
• United States
22 Sep
@vandana7 I agree Vanny 100%
2 people like this
@bunnybon7 (36548)
• Holiday, Florida
22 Sep
sounds like a great plan. our country worked a similar plan in the 40's and i thought it worked very well. but have since changed all that so we are bombed and taken advantage of now from most all except a few countries
2 people like this
@vandana7 (65123)
• India
22 Sep
Dilution in the name of humanity is not good. People need to develop loyalty towards land that feeds them. The only way it can be done is to make them work towards it. Pretty much like the home we build. Anybody tries to take it away or break, we fight and take care, isn't it? Same here. Let them work to build that bit our nation before claiming any rights from others who have worked hard for it all.
2 people like this
@YrNemo (12662)
23 Sep
That is a good way to stop terrorists from being settled down too easily then later biting the hand that feeds them.
2 people like this