Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Rohingya crisis in myanmar essay
Rohingya in myanmar essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Rohingya crisis in myanmar essay
The article “The Rohingya: Myanmar’s outcasts” was written by Akbar Ahmed published on 30 January 2012 by Aljazeera. The author mentioned about the Rohingya as being a stateless Muslim minority group. They are considered as foreigners to their own country. They have no rights to stay in their country and many countries around Myanmar do not recognize them because the lack of medial flashing light on them. They have difficulties of being thus ethnic group in Myanmar and when they flee to other countries, they do not get satisfy assistance. The author claimed that every people must be given citizenships without any regard for their race or religion. According to the author’s point of view, I entirely agree that the Rohingyas must be able to stay in Myanmar and have rights to live and work there as citizens. Firstly, the author said that the Rohingyas have no right in their homeland. Base on what the author said, every people must have rights to stay in their country. It is not fair for the Rohingyas who were born there but have no rights to live as citizens. He reported that the Rohingyas were not allowed to own land or property, unable to travel outside their villages, their education and marriages were unacceptable. They worked there as slave as they do not have rights to find jobs. The violence was spread out in Myanmar by that some were raped, tortured, jailed and dead. Many Rohingyas were then forced to flee to neighboring countries such as Bangladesh and Thailand (Ahmed, 2012). According to the author, I truly support his idea as that every people have the rights to receive what they deserve. Clements (2012) said that having citizenship is the key concept of realizing a person’s range of human rights. Citizens have the freedo... ... middle of paper ... ...Myanmar is their homeland so there is no other reason for them to be driven out of their country of birth. Therefore, it is compulsory to give the Rohingyas the citizenship in Myanmar. Works Cited Ahmed A. (2012 January 30). The Rohingya: Myanmar’s outcasts. Aljazeera. Retrieved from http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/01/201212710543198527.html Clements K. (2012 October 9). Burma’s Rohingya: beyond the communal violence. U.S. Department of State. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/prm/releases/remarks/ 2012/198757.htm Myanmar: UN can’t force Rohingya citizenship. (2013 November 21). Journalgazette. Retrieved from http://www.journalgazette.net/article/20131121/NEWS0402/131129838/1179/ news0402 Myanmar: what next for the Rohingyas?. (2012 March 29). IRIN. Retrieved from http://www.irinnews.org/report/95190/myanmar-what-next-for-the-rohingyas
These attacks are cited to have their roots in religious, ethnic and economic disparities between the majority Buddhist population, and the minority Rohingya . Arendt argues that the constitutional inability of the nation state to guarantee human rights to minorities, makes it possible for the persecuting governments to impose their standard of values even upon their opponents . By denying the Rohingya official citizenship and refusing to recognize them as one of the country’s 135 official ethnic groups, the government of Myanmar has come to view them as illegal immigrants. Denying the ethnic group, the right to vote or travel without government permission, is framed as a national security decision – why would the government allow illegal immigrants to access the same privileges as their legal citizens? The protection of national sovereignty is favored over the protection of human rights; and unfortunately, human life in certain extreme
Though immigration is not a new phenomenon in the world’s history, it has been notice that now days immigration has increased more than ever. This is mainly caused because of better ways of communication and transportation, which it makes it possible to people to move and enter other countries. However there are many types of immigrations such as economical, retirement immigrants or even ‘natural disasters’ immigrants. People sometimes seek a new life to save themselves from poverty and misery, thus they decide to enjoy the benefits of another country. Still there are other immigrants who are forced to leave their countries because of wars or even natural disasters, such as the tsunami in Japan 2011. Some philosophers consider closed borders to restrict people freedom of movement and that global justice is been violated. On the other hand Miller and other philosophers argued that immigration causes more disadvantages than advantages into the country they enter. Also they agree that states have a moral right to limit immigrations in order to prevent any changes in their culture, as immigration affects several things, even if this means that they will violate human rights. Another concern for the states is the welfare state where sometimes it may be limited and countries cannot afford any immigrants. However, is it right to oppose people rights of freedom, or is it correct for states to limit immigration?
According to the 1951 Refugee Convention, refugee is a term applied to anyone who is outside his/her own country and cannot return due to the fear of being persecuted on the basis of race, religion, nationality, membership of a group or political opinion. Many “refugees” that the media and the general public refer to today are known as internally displaced persons, which are people forced to flee their homes to avoid things such as armed conflict, generalized violations of human rights or natural and non-natural disasters. These two groups are distinctly different but fall ...
Through this we see that the author’s point of view is someone who understands that the events that took place that morning in Burma, were not humane and degrading.
Each individual is given fundamental rights for solely being a human being. Regardless of his or her nation, language, or religion everyone is given these
“Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” (Article 2, Declaration of Human Rights, )
What is homicide and what are homicidal offenses? Homicide has been defined as the taking of the life of one human being by another. Homicidal offenses vary by degrees of the offense, penalties, and manor in which the offense occurred. These offenses include: First-Degree Murder, Second-Degree Murder, Felony, Justifiable and Excusable Homicide. These are some of the main topics and can be broken down into subcategories within and amongst themselves. Some of the earliest recorded cases of murder date back to the 12th century with the King’s Bench or Queen’s Court in England; we will cover some of the earliest establishments of these laws and/or cases in history.
Davies, K. (2008). The Murder Book: Examining Homicide. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
Those who do not fear persecution are not considered in this definition, for instance, people escaping from natural disasters, because they do not have a fear of persecution. In addition, even though the individuals do face persecution, they are not considered as refugees if they are not ‘on the basis of’ of one of the protected grounds. Even those who face persecution on the basis of a protected ground, they cannot be declared as refugees because they are not outside their country of citizenship. The most controversial notion is that those who have been driven from their homes but who have not crossed international borders, so-called ‘Internally Displaced Persons’ (IDPs), are not in the definition of refugee, even though they have all the characteristics of a refugee except that they have not crossed an international border. The UNHCR has played their part in helping such persons in the last thirty or so years, but has still not considered them as refugees which makes them hard to have full benefits of what refugees should get. Hence, Lister aims to portray that these restrictions have a rational
When lines of identity inevitably blend, relative jurisprudence must be exercised. Lines make excluding circles and methods of excluding people from asylum; our international community divides into unwelcome and welcome nations. As discourse, cultural identity means translating beliefs and feelings from one culture to another. In the process of translation, a screen of cultural values filters understanding of the values and experience of the “other.” The simple word “refugee” evokes images and stories particular to a collectively defined identity, invoking “an image of the radicalized other” (Daniel 272).
There is such a thing as universality of human rights that is different from cultural relativism, humanity comes before culture and traditions. People are humans first and belong to cultures second (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.109), this universality needs to take priority over any cultural views, and any state sovereignty over its residing citizens.
The reality has always been somewhat different. Most nation-states have had groups on their territory not considered capable of belonging, and therefore either denied citizenship or alternatively forced to go through a process of cultural assimilation in order to belong. Moreover, even those with formal membership have often been denied some of the rights vital to citizenship, so that they have not fully belonged. Discrimination based on class, gender, ethnicity, race, religion and other criteria has always meant that some people could not be full citizens. Securing the participation of previously excluded groups has been seen as the key to democratisation.
In her article ‘From Citizenship to Human Rights: The Stakes for Democracy’ Tambakaki notes that apart from playing a political role, human rights are in principal moral and legal rights. Like moral norms they refer to every creature that bears a human face while as legal norms they protect individual persons in a particular legal community (pp9).
The issue of immigrants’ rights versus preserving dominant cultural traits in a society has only become more pressing as globalization has increased. This increased globalization has caused mass migration from certain areas of the world, often afflicted with famine, strive and poverty, to the West. As nations tackle these pressing issues and attempt to deal with their new residents, certain questions have to be answered. Are all cultures equal? Do nations have a right to assert the dominance of their culture over those brought in from the outside? Or, rather, do individuals have the right to legally move between nations while preserving their cultural ties...
Pugh, C.L. (2013) 'Is Citizenship the Answer? Constructions of belonging and exclusion for the stateless Rohingya of Burma.', p. 3.