Should countries be allowed to only accept refugees with certain religious beliefs?
Linked Table of Contents
Millions of refugees flee from their home countries every year due to war, violence, or persecution based on race, religion, or political opinion. They have to leave behind everything and start a new life in a different country with an unfamiliar language, culture, and laws. Refugees face several difficulties in their new homeland, from seeking a job to learning a new language. They also had to go through several mental health issues from the past trauma. By leaving their homeland, they are also leaving behind their identity. The laws of accepting refugees differ for each country, and some countries explicitly state that they prefer refugees only from certain religious groups. Is this acceptable?
CAA Act in India
In 2019, Parliament amended the citizenship act. The Parliament passed this act to enable "illegal" immigrants from Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Bangladesh who migrated to India before 2014 and belonged to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian groups to quick citizenship. People consider this amendment non-inclusive as it did not include the Muslim community. Even Muslims from specific communities are persecuted in Muslim majority countries like Pakistan or Bangladesh. For example, Muslims who belong to the Ahmadiyyas are discriminated against and persecuted by Muslims from other communities. Sadly, the Bill ignores the Muslim community's refugees from India who have escaped persecution and singles them out based on religion, making it discriminatory. Instead of restricting themselves to the minority communities except for Muslims from the neighbouring countries, the country should include people from persecuted minorities irrespective of the religious beliefs that they hold on.
Bias in the European union
Several European Union countries like Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Hungary have openly criticised "Christian countries" accepting Muslim minorities. Slovakia has even made an outright statement that it will not accept Muslim refugees. Overwhelmed by people escaping from the Syrian War, Hungary has built a razor-wire fence along the border to prevent people from entering their country. There is no agreement among nations that letting people from other countries seek asylum in their countries is a crime. Though Hungary has a wired fence, it has still let people seek refuge in their country. Other countries should support their concern about security threats and lack of resources. Western European countries should start supporting these countries instead of condemning Eastern European countries like Hungary and Slovakia for not accepting refugees. They can do this by providing monetary support or other benefits. Europeans should share the responsibility.
Conclusion
The refuge is grounded in the notion that surpasses religion, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other factors. The world community has agreed on this fundamental human right. Using discrimination as a criterion for aiding one group while refusing to help another. I'll reiterate that it's a humanitarian issue in terms of the societal impact. These individuals, we know, are in desperate need of foreign assistance.
Book a FREE class NOW and let your kids become masters in creative writing!
FAQs:
Refugees flee from their home countries every year due to war, violence, or persecution based on race, religion, or political opinion.
-
When and who amended the citizenship act?
In 2019, Parliament amended the citizenship act.
-
Which country made an outright statement that it will not accept Muslim refugees?
Slovakia has made an outright statement that it will not accept Muslim refugees.
-
Why did Hungary build a razor-wire fence?
Overwhelmed by people escaping from the Syrian War, Hungary has built a razor-wire fence along the border to prevent people from entering their country.
People who read this blog, also read this:
