No to Immigration Ban

Five days ago, the new American President, Donald Trump, signed an executive order proposing a 90 day suspension of visas for people belonging to seven countries. 

(Photo: The New York Magazine)

While there were widespread protests across the US, the following is the letter by academics against the executive order. 

The letter is hosted at notoimmigrationban.com, and can be endorsed by sending an email to NoToImmigrationEO@gmail.com

The Petition

President Donald Trump has signed an Executive Order (EO) proposing a 90-day suspension of visas and other immigration benefits to all nationals of Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia. The unrealistic conditions required for discontinuing the suspension make it very likely that this EO will turn into a permanent ban. We, the undersigned academics and researchers from a variety of fields of study, backgrounds, and personal convictions, would like to voice our concern and strongly oppose this measure on three grounds:

1.    This Executive Order is discriminatory. The EO unfairly targets a large group of immigrants and non-immigrants on the basis of their countries of origin, all of which are nations with a majority Muslim population. This is a major step towards implementing the stringent racial and religious profiling promised on the campaign trail. The United States is a democratic nation, and ethnic and religious profiling are in stark contrast to the values and principles we hold.

2.    This Executive Order is detrimental to the national interests of the United States. The EO significantly damages American leadership in higher education and research. US research institutes host a significant number of researchers from the nations subjected to the upcoming restrictions. From Iran alone, more than 3000 students have received PhDs from American universities in the past 3 years. The proposed EO limits collaborations with researchers from these nations by restricting entry of these researchers to the US and can potentially lead to departure of many talented individuals who are current and future researchers and entrepreneurs in the US. We strongly believe the immediate and long term consequences of this EO do not serve our national interests.

3.    This Executive Order imposes undue burden on members of our community. The people whose status in the United States would be reconsidered under this EO are our students, friends, colleagues, and members of our communities. The implementation of this EO will necessarily tear families apart by restricting entry for family members who live outside of the US and limiting the ability to travel for those who reside and work in the US. These restrictions would be applied to nearly all individuals from these countries, regardless of their immigration status or any other circumstances. This measure is fatally disruptive to the lives of these immigrants, their families, and the communities of which they form an integral part. It is inhumane, ineffective, and un-American.

These bans, as proposed, have consequences that reach beyond the scope of national security. The unethical and discriminatory treatment of law-abiding, hard-working, and well-integrated immigrants fundamentally contravenes the founding principles of the United States.

We strongly denounce this ban and urge the President to reconsider going forward with this Executive Order.

Voting Rights for Tibetans in India

Shuvro Prosun Sarker

According to some newspaper reports and UNHCR India’s news update, the children of Tibetan refugees who were born in India between 1950 to 1987 will now be able to vote. The decision of the Election Commission of India came after the verdict of a Karnataka High Court Judgment in August 2013.

The petitioner of the writ petition, Tenzin C. L. Rinpochae, was born in India on 1985 and got identity certificate from the concerned Indian authority as the child of a Tibetan refugee parents. He filed an application for Indian Passport to the Regional Passport Officer at Bangalore and the application was rejected on ground that he is not an Indian Citizen. On 19.02.2013 he received an official communication regarding the denial of Indian passport to him and that decision has been taken in consultation with the Foreigners Division, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India. The reason behind the denial of the passport per the MHA’s opinion was that the children of Tibetan refugees cannot be automatically treated as Indian citizens unless they are granted a certificate upon application under Section 9(2) of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955. This denial resulted as the present writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka.

The counsel for the petitioner submitted before the court that children of Tibetans who were born in India between the period of 26.01.1950 to 01.07.1987 would automatically be Indian citizens as per the Section 3(1)a of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955. Section 3 reads as follows:

“3. Citizenship by birth:
(1) Except as provided in sub- section (2), every person born in India,-
  (a) on or after the 26th day of January, 1950 , but before the commencement of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 1986 (51 of 1986 );
  (b) on or after such commencement and either of whose parents is a citizen of India at the time of his birth, shall be a citizen of India by birth.]
(2) A person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth-
  (a) his father possesses such immunity from suits and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to the President of India and is not a citizen of India; or
  (b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.”

The counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance of an identical matter decided by the Delhi High Court in re Namgyal Dolkar vs. Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs. While delivering the judgment, Hon’ble Justice Bopanna observed that:
“Having noticed that decision rendered by the High Court of New Delhi, I am of the opinion that if a similar circumstance arises, certainly the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the conclusion reached therein inasmuch as I see no reason whatsoever to take a different view from what has been stated by the Delhi High Court.”

These two judgments and the decision of the Election Commission of India can be seen as an attempt to reconcile the issue of citizenship demand of various refugee groups present in India. However, if identical matter has risen from the Chakmas of Arunachal Pradesh and in that case no one knows what would be the executive decision, given that judicial decision would be in favor of the Chakmas. There might be another reason behind this executive decision in favor of the Tibetans that the assimilation of the Tibetans with the Indian society with full citizenship rights in the near 25 years will diminish the Free Tibet movement and thus the Indo-China relationship will get a new blossom.