In a camp for Syrian refugees in east Lebanon, Mohammad and his three sisters fear they will be out of school for a third consecutive year because remote learning is out of reach.

'I want to study': Lebanon crisis cancels school for many

Spain has deployed troops to Ceuta to patrol the border with Morocco after thousands of migrants swam into the northern African enclave amid heightened diplomatic tensions, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska said on Tuesday.&nbsp;

Footage from local Faro TV channel showed soldiers in armoured vehicles guarding the enclave's beach as dozens of migrants emerged from the water while hundreds of potential migrants stood on the Moroccan side of the fence between the enclave and Morocco.&nbsp;

Soldiers started patrolling the border along with Spanish police, Grande-Marlaska told state broadcaster TVE. As many as 6,000 Moroccans, including about 1,500 minors, swam into Ceuta on Monday and Tuesday, he said. &nbsp;

A spokesman for Ceuta's government delegation said soldiers will also work with police in sensitive locations within the enclave to maintain order on the streets. &nbsp;

One person died in Monday's crossing, the spokesman said. &nbsp;

The adult arrivals are being transferred to a local football stadium to be deported back to Morocco. About 1,500 have already been handed back, Grande-Marlaska said. &nbsp;

Minors are being sent to an industrial building.&nbsp;

Ceuta, with a population of 80,000, is an enclave located on the northern tip of Morocco across from Gibraltar. &nbsp;

The Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and nearby Melilla on Morocco's northern coast have long been a magnet for African migrants trying to reach Europe in search of a better life. &nbsp;

TV channel 24h reported on Tuesday morning that as many as 85 migrants climbed the border fence to break into Melilla, which is located about 300km east of Ceuta.&nbsp;

The arrival of the migrants took place at a time of increased tension between Spain and Morocco over the fate of Brahim Ghali, the leader of the Western Sahara's Polisario Front, who is in hospital in Spain.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Spain has deployed troops to Ceuta to patrol the border with Morocco after thousands of migrants swam into the northern African enclave amid heightened diplomatic tensions, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska said on Tuesday.

Spain has deployed troops to Ceuta to patrol the border with Morocco after thousands of migrants swam into the northern African enclave amid heightened diplomatic tensions, Interior Minister Fernando Grande-Marlaska said on Tuesday. Footage from local Faro TV channel showed soldiers in armoured vehicles guarding the enclave's beach as dozens of migrants emerged from the water while hundreds of potential migrants stood on the Moroccan side of the fence between the enclave and Morocco. Soldiers started patrolling the border along with Spanish police, Grande-Marlaska told state broadcaster TVE. As many as 6,000 Moroccans, including about 1,500 minors, swam into Ceuta on Monday and Tuesday, he said. A spokesman for Ceuta's government delegation said soldiers will also work with police in sensitive locations within the enclave to maintain order on the streets. One person died in Monday's crossing, the spokesman said. The adult arrivals are being transferred to a local football stadium to be deported back to Morocco. About 1,500 have already been handed back, Grande-Marlaska said. Minors are being sent to an industrial building. Ceuta, with a population of 80,000, is an enclave located on the northern tip of Morocco across from Gibraltar. The Spanish enclaves of Ceuta and nearby Melilla on Morocco's northern coast have long been a magnet for African migrants trying to reach Europe in search of a better life. TV channel 24h reported on Tuesday morning that as many as 85 migrants climbed the border fence to break into Melilla, which is located about 300km east of Ceuta. The arrival of the migrants took place at a time of increased tension between Spain and Morocco over the fate of Brahim Ghali, the leader of the Western Sahara's Polisario Front, who is in hospital in Spain. (With inputs from agencies)

Spain deploys army in Ceuta to patrol border with Morocco after thousands break in 

President Joe Biden announced that he is raising the maximum number of refugees allowed into the United States this year to 62,500 up from the 15,000 cap imposed by his predecessor Donald Trump. This comes after Biden faced heavy criticism from his allies.

Biden raises number of refugees allowed in the US to 62,500 after criticism

Facing swift blowback from allies and aid groups, the White House said President Joe Biden plans to lift his predecessor's historically low cap on refugees by next month, after initially moving only to expand the eligibility criteria for resettlements. 
 
In an emergency determination signed by Biden earlier Friday, he stated the admission of up to 15,000 refugees set by former President Donald Trump this year remains justified by humanitarian concerns and is otherwise in the national interest. But if the cap is reached before the end of the current budget year and the emergency refugee situation persists, then a presidential determination may be issued to raise the ceiling. 
 
That set off a deluge of criticism from top allies on Capitol Hill such as the second-ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, who called that initial limit unacceptable.&nbsp;White House press secretary Jen Psaki said later that Biden is expected to increase the refugee cap by May 15, though she didn't say by how much. 
 
Biden has been consulting with his advisers to determine what number of refugees could realistically be admitted to the United States between now and October 1, the end of the fiscal year, Psaki said. Given the decimated refugee admissions program we inherited,&nbsp;she said it's now unlikely&nbsp;Biden will be able to boost that number to 62,500, as he had proposed in his plan to Congress two months ago. 
 
But Biden, she said, was urged by advisers to "take immediate action to reverse the Trump policy that banned refugees from many key regions, to enable flights from those regions to begin within days; today's order did that." The new allocations provide more slots for refugees from Africa, the Middle East and Central America and lift Trump's restrictions on resettlements from Somalia, Syria and Yemen. 
 
Critics from both sides of the political spectrum had accused the president of bowing to political pressure that has been mounting over the record pace of unaccompanied migrants crossing the US-Mexico border. 
Stephen Miller, a key architect of Trump's immigration policies, tweeted that keeping Trump's cap "reflects Team Biden's awareness that the border flood will cause record midterm losses."&nbsp;The White House indicated the border situation was partly why Biden had not acted before now, even though migrants at the border do not go through the same vetting process as refugees. 
 
"It is a factor",&nbsp;said Psaki, noting that the Office of Refugee Resettlement ?has personnel working on both issues and so we have to ensure that there is capacity and ability to manage both.? Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said he didn't buy that. 
 
"This cruel policy is no more acceptable now than it was during the Trump Administration,"&nbsp;Blumenthal said. "To be clear: the asylum process at the southern border and the refugee process are completely separate immigration systems. Conflating the two constitutes caving to the politics of fear".&nbsp;Since the fiscal year began last October 1, just over 2,000 refugees have been resettled in the US. 
 
Secretary of State Antony Blinken notified Congress on February 12 of a plan to raise the ceiling on admissions to 62,500, but no presidential determination followed. The law does not require congressional approval and past presidents have issued such presidential determinations that set the cap on refugee admissions shortly after the notification to Congress. 
 
New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Biden in a letter Friday that his inaction "undermines your declared purpose to reverse your predecessor's refugee policies."&nbsp;Menendez said it also makes it unlikely that the program can hit its target next budget year of 125,000, which Biden has pledged to do. 
 
Refugee resettlement agencies said it was important that admissions go higher even if it's not possible to meet the target to send a message that America will be a leader again in offering safe haven to the world's oppressed. 
 
Some 35,000 refugees have been cleared to go to the United States, and 100,000 remain in the pipeline and their lives remain in limbo, said David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. 
"This leadership is sorely needed,"&nbsp;he said. 
 
Under Biden's new allocation, 7,000 slots are reserved for refugees from Africa, 1,000 from East Asia, 1,500 from Europe and Central Asia, 3,000 from Latin America and the Caribbean and 1,500 from the Near East and South Asia. A reserve of about 1,000 slots can be used as needed. 
 
The State Department, which coordinates flights with resettlement agencies, booked 715 refugees to come to the United States with the anticipation that Biden would have acted by March, but those flights were canceled since the refugees were not eligible under Trump's rules, according to resettlement agencies. 
 
Most of the refugees are from Africa and fleeing armed conflict or political persecution. Trump limited most spots to people fleeing religious persecution, Iraqis who have assisted US forces there, and people from Central America's Northern Triangle.

Facing swift blowback from allies and aid groups, the White House said President Joe Biden plans to lift his predecessor's historically low cap on refugees by next month, after initially moving only to expand the eligibility criteria for resettlements.

Facing swift blowback from allies and aid groups, the White House said President Joe Biden plans to lift his predecessor's historically low cap on refugees by next month, after initially moving only to expand the eligibility criteria for resettlements. In an emergency determination signed by Biden earlier Friday, he stated the admission of up to 15,000 refugees set by former President Donald Trump this year remains justified by humanitarian concerns and is otherwise in the national interest. But if the cap is reached before the end of the current budget year and the emergency refugee situation persists, then a presidential determination may be issued to raise the ceiling. That set off a deluge of criticism from top allies on Capitol Hill such as the second-ranking Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, who called that initial limit unacceptable. White House press secretary Jen Psaki said later that Biden is expected to increase the refugee cap by May 15, though she didn't say by how much. Biden has been consulting with his advisers to determine what number of refugees could realistically be admitted to the United States between now and October 1, the end of the fiscal year, Psaki said. Given the decimated refugee admissions program we inherited, she said it's now unlikely Biden will be able to boost that number to 62,500, as he had proposed in his plan to Congress two months ago. But Biden, she said, was urged by advisers to "take immediate action to reverse the Trump policy that banned refugees from many key regions, to enable flights from those regions to begin within days; today's order did that." The new allocations provide more slots for refugees from Africa, the Middle East and Central America and lift Trump's restrictions on resettlements from Somalia, Syria and Yemen. Critics from both sides of the political spectrum had accused the president of bowing to political pressure that has been mounting over the record pace of unaccompanied migrants crossing the US-Mexico border. Stephen Miller, a key architect of Trump's immigration policies, tweeted that keeping Trump's cap "reflects Team Biden's awareness that the border flood will cause record midterm losses." The White House indicated the border situation was partly why Biden had not acted before now, even though migrants at the border do not go through the same vetting process as refugees. "It is a factor", said Psaki, noting that the Office of Refugee Resettlement ?has personnel working on both issues and so we have to ensure that there is capacity and ability to manage both.? Connecticut Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal said he didn't buy that. "This cruel policy is no more acceptable now than it was during the Trump Administration," Blumenthal said. "To be clear: the asylum process at the southern border and the refugee process are completely separate immigration systems. Conflating the two constitutes caving to the politics of fear". Since the fiscal year began last October 1, just over 2,000 refugees have been resettled in the US. Secretary of State Antony Blinken notified Congress on February 12 of a plan to raise the ceiling on admissions to 62,500, but no presidential determination followed. The law does not require congressional approval and past presidents have issued such presidential determinations that set the cap on refugee admissions shortly after the notification to Congress. New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told Biden in a letter Friday that his inaction "undermines your declared purpose to reverse your predecessor's refugee policies." Menendez said it also makes it unlikely that the program can hit its target next budget year of 125,000, which Biden has pledged to do. Refugee resettlement agencies said it was important that admissions go higher even if it's not possible to meet the target to send a message that America will be a leader again in offering safe haven to the world's oppressed. Some 35,000 refugees have been cleared to go to the United States, and 100,000 remain in the pipeline and their lives remain in limbo, said David Miliband, president and CEO of the International Rescue Committee. "This leadership is sorely needed," he said. Under Biden's new allocation, 7,000 slots are reserved for refugees from Africa, 1,000 from East Asia, 1,500 from Europe and Central Asia, 3,000 from Latin America and the Caribbean and 1,500 from the Near East and South Asia. A reserve of about 1,000 slots can be used as needed. The State Department, which coordinates flights with resettlement agencies, booked 715 refugees to come to the United States with the anticipation that Biden would have acted by March, but those flights were canceled since the refugees were not eligible under Trump's rules, according to resettlement agencies. Most of the refugees are from Africa and fleeing armed conflict or political persecution. Trump limited most spots to people fleeing religious persecution, Iraqis who have assisted US forces there, and people from Central America's Northern Triangle.

After outcry, White House says Biden will lift refugee cap in May

Britain will introduce new rules for those seeking asylum, making it more difficult for refugees entering illegally to stay in the country, interior minister Priti Patel said on Wednesday, calling it a firm but fair system.&nbsp;

Since Britain completed its exit from the European Union at the end of last year, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been keen to set out a new independent vision for the country, unveiling new policies on defence, foreign affairs to immigration.&nbsp;

In what the government says is the biggest overhaul of the asylum system in decades, the 'New Plan for Immigration' sets out a plan to resettle refugees at urgent risk more quickly while making it more difficult for those arriving illegally.&nbsp;

"Under our New Plan for Immigration, if people arrive illegally, they will no longer have the same entitlements as those who arrive legally, and it will be harder for them to stay," Patel said in a statement.&nbsp;

"Profiteering from illegal migration to Britain will no longer be worth the risk, with new maximum life sentences for people smugglers ... I make no apology for these actions being firm, but as they will also save lives and target people smugglers, they are also undeniably fair."&nbsp;

She also said those arriving after travelling through a safe country, such as France would not have immediate entry into the system, and that the government 'would stop the most unscrupulous abusing the system by posing as children'.&nbsp;

Reducing immigration was one of the promises made by the Vote Leave campaign, for which Johnson was a figurehead, during the 2016 referendum on membership of the EU, and the government has said it would toughen up its post-Brexit asylum system.&nbsp;

But the main opposition Labour Party said the policy was defined by 'a lack of compassion', saying successive Conservative governments had failed the immigration system.&nbsp;

Charities have also criticised the proposals, saying they would create an unfair two-tiered system.&nbsp;

"This is inhumane,” British Red Cross chief executive Mike Adamson said.&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Britain will introduce new rules for those seeking asylum, making it more difficult for refugees entering illegally to stay in the country, interior minister Priti Patel said on Wednesday, calling it a firm but fair system.

Britain will introduce new rules for those seeking asylum, making it more difficult for refugees entering illegally to stay in the country, interior minister Priti Patel said on Wednesday, calling it a firm but fair system. Since Britain completed its exit from the European Union at the end of last year, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been keen to set out a new independent vision for the country, unveiling new policies on defence, foreign affairs to immigration. In what the government says is the biggest overhaul of the asylum system in decades, the 'New Plan for Immigration' sets out a plan to resettle refugees at urgent risk more quickly while making it more difficult for those arriving illegally. "Under our New Plan for Immigration, if people arrive illegally, they will no longer have the same entitlements as those who arrive legally, and it will be harder for them to stay," Patel said in a statement. "Profiteering from illegal migration to Britain will no longer be worth the risk, with new maximum life sentences for people smugglers ... I make no apology for these actions being firm, but as they will also save lives and target people smugglers, they are also undeniably fair." She also said those arriving after travelling through a safe country, such as France would not have immediate entry into the system, and that the government 'would stop the most unscrupulous abusing the system by posing as children'. Reducing immigration was one of the promises made by the Vote Leave campaign, for which Johnson was a figurehead, during the 2016 referendum on membership of the EU, and the government has said it would toughen up its post-Brexit asylum system. But the main opposition Labour Party said the policy was defined by 'a lack of compassion', saying successive Conservative governments had failed the immigration system. Charities have also criticised the proposals, saying they would create an unfair two-tiered system. "This is inhumane,” British Red Cross chief executive Mike Adamson said. (With inputs from agencies)

Britain toughens its post-Brexit asylum system 

The Joe Biden administration is granting temporary protected status to Venezuelan migrants living in the United States and is also working to coordinate international pressure against President Nicolas Maduro to hold free and fair elections.

US grants temporary protection to Venezuelan refugees

Malaysia sent more than 1,000 Myanmar nationals back to their strife-torn homeland on Tuesday despite a court order to halt the deportation, a move rights groups said could endanger the deportees' lives.&nbsp;

The 1,086 Myanmar citizens were sent back on three navy ships sent by Myanmar's military, which seized power in a February 1 coup, sparking weeks of protests from pro-democracy activists. Malaysia had initially said it would deport 1,200.&nbsp;

Malaysia vowed not to deport Rohingya Muslims or refugees registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). But the agency has said at least six people registered with it were among the deportees. Refugee groups also say asylum seekers from the minority Chin, Kachin and non-Rohingya Muslim communities fleeing conflict and persecution at home are among those being deported.&nbsp;

Malaysia's Immigration Department director-general said the repatriated Myanmar citizens did not include Rohingya refugees or asylum-seekers.&nbsp;

"All of those returned had agreed to be sent back voluntarily without being forced by any party," Khairul Dzaimee Daud said in a statement.&nbsp;

He did not respond to queries on why the repatriation was carried out despite the court-ordered halt.&nbsp;

The Kuala Lumpur High Court had granted a stay until 10 am on Wednesday, when it was scheduled to hear an application by rights groups for a judicial review to suspend the deportation.&nbsp;

Just before the ruling, the migrants were sent by bus from across the country to the naval base at Lumut in western Malaysia where the Myanmar ships were docked.&nbsp;

Those deported had been detained for immigration offences. Malaysia does not formally recognise refugees, treating them as undocumented migrants.&nbsp;

Amnesty International, one of the groups, which requested the judicial review, called the decision to deport without a proper assessment of the returnees 'inhumane and devastating'.&nbsp;

"Using indirect means to push people back to face grave human rights violations is essentially constructive refoulement," Katrina Maliamauv, Amnesty Malaysia director, said in a statement.&nbsp;

"There are still huge, deeply concerning question marks over the status of those sent back today."&nbsp;

The rights groups in their court filing said among the deportees were three people registered with the UNHCR and 17 minors, who have at least one parent in Malaysia.&nbsp;

Malaysia sent more than 1,000 Myanmar nationals back to their strife-torn homeland on Tuesday despite a court order to halt the deportation, a move rights groups said could endanger the deportees' lives.

Malaysia sent more than 1,000 Myanmar nationals back to their strife-torn homeland on Tuesday despite a court order to halt the deportation, a move rights groups said could endanger the deportees' lives. The 1,086 Myanmar citizens were sent back on three navy ships sent by Myanmar's military, which seized power in a February 1 coup, sparking weeks of protests from pro-democracy activists. Malaysia had initially said it would deport 1,200. Malaysia vowed not to deport Rohingya Muslims or refugees registered with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). But the agency has said at least six people registered with it were among the deportees. Refugee groups also say asylum seekers from the minority Chin, Kachin and non-Rohingya Muslim communities fleeing conflict and persecution at home are among those being deported. Malaysia's Immigration Department director-general said the repatriated Myanmar citizens did not include Rohingya refugees or asylum-seekers. "All of those returned had agreed to be sent back voluntarily without being forced by any party," Khairul Dzaimee Daud said in a statement. He did not respond to queries on why the repatriation was carried out despite the court-ordered halt. The Kuala Lumpur High Court had granted a stay until 10 am on Wednesday, when it was scheduled to hear an application by rights groups for a judicial review to suspend the deportation. Just before the ruling, the migrants were sent by bus from across the country to the naval base at Lumut in western Malaysia where the Myanmar ships were docked. Those deported had been detained for immigration offences. Malaysia does not formally recognise refugees, treating them as undocumented migrants. Amnesty International, one of the groups, which requested the judicial review, called the decision to deport without a proper assessment of the returnees 'inhumane and devastating'. "Using indirect means to push people back to face grave human rights violations is essentially constructive refoulement," Katrina Maliamauv, Amnesty Malaysia director, said in a statement. "There are still huge, deeply concerning question marks over the status of those sent back today." The rights groups in their court filing said among the deportees were three people registered with the UNHCR and 17 minors, who have at least one parent in Malaysia.

Defying court order, Malaysia deports over 1,000 Myanmar refugees

Holocaust Remembrance Day: A look at Israel's hidden memorial

Bangladesh to send the second batch of Rohingya refugees to the isolated island of Bhashan Char on Tuesday, More than 1500 refugees are moved to Bhashan Char camps.

Bangladesh moves second batch of refugees to the Bhashan Char island

Bangladesh is set to move a second batch of Rohingya refugees from neighbouring Myanmar to the remote island of Bhasan Char in the Bay of Bengal this month, officials said on Sunday, despite calls by rights groups not to carry out further relocations. 
 
Around 1,000 Rohingya refugees, members of a Muslim minority who have fled Myanmar, will be moved to the island in the next few days after Bangladesh relocated more than 1,600 early this month, two officials with the direct knowledge of the matter said. 
 
"They will be moved to Chittagong first and then to Bhasan Char, depending on the high tide," one of the officials said. The officials declined to be named as the issue had not been made public. 
 
Mohammed Shamsud Douza, the deputy Bangladesh government official in charge of refugees, said the relocation was voluntary. "They will not be sent against their will." 
 
The United Nations has said it has not been allowed to carry out a technical and safety assessment of Bhasan Char, a flood-prone island in the Bay of Bengal, and was not involved in the transfer of refugees there. 
 
Bangladesh says it is transferring only people who are willing to go and the move will ease chronic overcrowding in camps that are home to more than 1 million Rohingya. 
 
But refugees and humanitarian workers say some of the Rohingya have been coerced into going to the island, which emerged from the sea 20 years ago. 
 
Bangladesh Foreign Minister Abdul Momen told Reuters earlier this month the United Nations should first assess and verify how conducive the environment in Myanmar`s Rakhine state was for repatriating the refugees, before carrying out an assessment of Bhasan Char. 
 
Several attempts to kickstart repatriation of Rohingya to Myanmar have failed after refugees said they were too fearful of further violence to return.

Bangladesh is set to move a second batch of Rohingya refugees from neighbouring Myanmar to the remote island of Bhasan Char in the Bay of Bengal this month, officials said on Sunday, despite calls by rights groups not to carry out further relocations.

Bangladesh is set to move a second batch of Rohingya refugees from neighbouring Myanmar to the remote island of Bhasan Char in the Bay of Bengal this month, officials said on Sunday, despite calls by rights groups not to carry out further relocations. Around 1,000 Rohingya refugees, members of a Muslim minority who have fled Myanmar, will be moved to the island in the next few days after Bangladesh relocated more than 1,600 early this month, two officials with the direct knowledge of the matter said. "They will be moved to Chittagong first and then to Bhasan Char, depending on the high tide," one of the officials said. The officials declined to be named as the issue had not been made public. Mohammed Shamsud Douza, the deputy Bangladesh government official in charge of refugees, said the relocation was voluntary. "They will not be sent against their will." The United Nations has said it has not been allowed to carry out a technical and safety assessment of Bhasan Char, a flood-prone island in the Bay of Bengal, and was not involved in the transfer of refugees there. Bangladesh says it is transferring only people who are willing to go and the move will ease chronic overcrowding in camps that are home to more than 1 million Rohingya. But refugees and humanitarian workers say some of the Rohingya have been coerced into going to the island, which emerged from the sea 20 years ago. Bangladesh Foreign Minister Abdul Momen told Reuters earlier this month the United Nations should first assess and verify how conducive the environment in Myanmar`s Rakhine state was for repatriating the refugees, before carrying out an assessment of Bhasan Char. Several attempts to kickstart repatriation of Rohingya to Myanmar have failed after refugees said they were too fearful of further violence to return.

Bangladesh set to move second batch of Rohingya refugees to remote island

Ethiopian refugees are evacuating border camps as aid resources are diverted to Um Rakouba camp. The countries main camp, where many still lack food and shelter.

Ethiopian refugees evacuate Sudan border camp

1,600 Rohingya refugees now have a new home in Bangladesh's Bhasan Char, but some international organizations are slamming Bangladesh for relocating them.

Bangladesh begins transfer of Rohingyas to Bhasan Char Island

Hundreds have died, more than 40,000 refugees have fled to Sudan, and there has been widespread destruction and uprooting of people from homes in the northern Tigray region.

Ethiopia: Innocent civilians caught in crossfire

Bangladesh is re-locating nearly 1,00,000 Rohingya Refugees to the Bhashan Char Island. WION's Lakmina Jesmin Soma brings you a ground report from Bangladesh.

Gravitas: Bangladesh is re-locating 1,00,000 Rohingya Refugees

India has been invited for a global aid conference for Rohingya Refugees that is being co-hosted by US, UK, EU and UN Refugee Agency. The aim of the conference is to generate funds to support Rohingya Refugees who have been displaced from Myanmar.

Ministry of external affairs spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said, "On the issue of displaced persons from Rakhine state, you would know...as a neighbour of both Bangladesh and Myanmar, India has stakes in the issue. We are committed to ensuring early, safe and sustainable repatriation of the displaced persons to the Rakhine state in Myanmar and towards this end we have committed resources to both countries"

The UN has appealed for more than $1 billion in aid to meet the humanitarian needs of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh this year, but so far less than half has been contributed. The conference will take place virtually and takes place on October 22.

India has been invited for a global aid conference for Rohingya Refugees that is being co-hosted by US, UK, EU and UN Refugee Agency. The aim of the conference is to generate funds to support Rohingya Refugees who have been displaced from Myanmar.

India has been invited for a global aid conference for Rohingya Refugees that is being co-hosted by US, UK, EU and UN Refugee Agency. The aim of the conference is to generate funds to support Rohingya Refugees who have been displaced from Myanmar. Ministry of external affairs spokesperson Anurag Srivastava said, "On the issue of displaced persons from Rakhine state, you would know...as a neighbour of both Bangladesh and Myanmar, India has stakes in the issue. We are committed to ensuring early, safe and sustainable repatriation of the displaced persons to the Rakhine state in Myanmar and towards this end we have committed resources to both countries" The UN has appealed for more than $1 billion in aid to meet the humanitarian needs of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh this year, but so far less than half has been contributed. The conference will take place virtually and takes place on October 22.

India invited for global aid conference on rohingya refugees 

A migrant rescue boat financed by Banksy called for help after it was stranded in the Mediterranean Sea. After which Italian coastguard came forward to help Banksy's boat.

Italian coastguard helps rescue boat funded by Banksy

According to UN Refugee Agency official, Turkey is the country that has hosted the largest number of refugees for five consecutive years, including more Syrian refugees than any other country.

Turkey hosts 4 million refugees, migrants cross country to enter Europe

In the sprawling desert premises of the Zaatari refugee camp, small oases of greenery are now dotting the landscape. Plants and herbs like mint, tomatoes, and cucumbers are thriving despite the infertile land, thanks to two simple elements - water and some old mattresses.

Syrian refugees grow crops in old mattresses

United Nations' World Refugee Day on Saturday (June 20), will be the same as every day for Marwan Kuwaik, a 70-year-old Palestinian in Gaza, who will be focused on trying to eke out a living by selling snack food on the street. This year's event is aimed at reminding the world that everyone, including refugees, can contribute to society, the U.N. said on its website.

On World Refugee Day, Palestinian tries to scrape by in Gaza

A record 50.8 million people worldwide were internally displaced last year due to conflict or disaster according to the data revealed by a recent report.

This is the highest number ever, and 10 million more than in 2018.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-covid-19-can-push-half-a-billion-people-into-poverty-291463">How COVID-19 can push half a billion people into poverty?</a>

The report published by the Norwegian Refugee Council’s&nbsp;Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), also said that&nbsp;Covid-19 may add further risks to millions of already vulnerable people.

It showed that the majority of new cases of displacement last year were in poorer countries.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/when-will-coronavirus-end-in-us-uk-france-india-study-predicts-dates-month-295324">When will COVID-19 end in US, UK, France, India? Study predicts dates &amp; month</a>

The data used&nbsp;in the study was calculated at the end of 2019. It was revealed that 45.7 million people were internally displaced&nbsp; and effectively became&nbsp;refugees in their own country,&nbsp;as a result of violence in 61 countries.

An additional 5.1 million people in 96 countries had been displaced by natural disasters&nbsp;such as earthquakes and floods.

Contributing to the figures, it says, are 33.4 million new displacements recorded in 2019, the highest annual figure since 2012.

Alexandra Bilak, the IDMC director, said she had hoped internal displacement would receive more global attention this year, following the launch in October of a&nbsp;UN high-level panel&nbsp;to address the problem and find long-term solutions. The panel held its first meeting in February.

A record 50.8 million people worldwide were internally displaced last year due to conflict or disaster according to the data revealed by a recent report. This is the highest number ever, and 10 million more than in 2018.

A record 50.8 million people worldwide were internally displaced last year due to conflict or disaster according to the data revealed by a recent report. This is the highest number ever, and 10 million more than in 2018. Also read: How COVID-19 can push half a billion people into poverty? The report published by the Norwegian Refugee Council’s Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (IDMC), also said that Covid-19 may add further risks to millions of already vulnerable people. It showed that the majority of new cases of displacement last year were in poorer countries. Also read: When will COVID-19 end in US, UK, France, India? Study predicts dates & month The data used in the study was calculated at the end of 2019. It was revealed that 45.7 million people were internally displaced and effectively became refugees in their own country, as a result of violence in 61 countries. An additional 5.1 million people in 96 countries had been displaced by natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods. Contributing to the figures, it says, are 33.4 million new displacements recorded in 2019, the highest annual figure since 2012. Alexandra Bilak, the IDMC director, said she had hoped internal displacement would receive more global attention this year, following the launch in October of a UN high-level panel to address the problem and find long-term solutions. The panel held its first meeting in February.

Report reveals record 50 million people internally displaced

Two boats carrying hundreds of Rohingya refugees have been stranded outside of Bangladesh for the last few weeks.

International authorities are now urging Bangladesh government to allow entry of the boats via its ports which have been shut in the face of COVID-19.

Urgent care required

It is feared that most of these people would now not require food and water, but also urgent medical care.

According to The Guardian, over 500 people including children are onboard the boats, which were recently spotted in the Bay of Bengal.

Last week, Abdul Momen, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh refused to allow entry of boats into the country and announced, “Bangladesh is always asked to take care of the responsibility of other countries.”

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="wionews.com/south-asia/nearly-400-rohingya-rescued-by-bangladesh-coast-guard-from-boat-over-30-dead-293154" hreflang="en">Nearly 400 Rohingya rescued by Bangladesh coast guard from boat; over 30 dead</a>

Earlier in April, another boat was rescued by Bangladesh. According to reports, the boat was stranded in the ocean for over two months and was heading to Malaysia. 
 
The charity responsible for treating them - Médecins Sans Frontières claimed that the boat had 400 survivors, mostly youngsters aged between 12 and 20. On that boat alone, over 70 had died.

According to MSF, most of the survivors were on the verge of death when they were rescued.

This particular boat was trying to escape the horrid living conditions in Cox Bazar, Bangladesh where Rohingya have been placed in overcrowded camps.

<h6><img alt="pp" data-entity-type="file" data-entity-uuid="7ab3f879-b288-43ff-b8b1-81e3f77b0399" src="//cdn.wionews.com/sites/default/files/inline-images/Untitled%20design-10_0.jpg" /> 
Rohingya refugees arrive on boats after crossing the Naf river from Myanmar into Bangladesh in Whaikhyang on October 9, 2017 | AFP 
 
&nbsp;</h6>

More boats at bay?

As of now, only two boats have been spotted by authorities, but they fear that many more such boats could be drifting in the ocean.

Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights recently wrote to Momen, and referred to the situation as “a human tragedy of terrible proportions”.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-icj-tells-myanmar-to-end-rohingya-genocide-276215/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

“I appeal to you in the strongest terms to open your ports and allow the boats to land… The reportedly more than 500 men, women and children aboard these boats have been at sea for an extended period of time, and we understand that they require urgent rescue, food, medical care and other necessary humanitarian assistance”, she added.

The boat, like many others was turned away by Malaysia due to the fears triggered by the coronavirus pandemic.

Momen further retorted by claiming that Bangladesh could not rescue any more people, adding that the country had “no room to shelter any foreign people or refugees”.

Over 700,000 Rohingya fled from Myanmar where an ethnic cleansing began in August 2017.

Two boats carrying hundreds of Rohingya refugees have been stranded outside of Bangladesh for the last few weeks. International authorities are now urging Bangladesh government to allow entry of the boats via its ports which have been shut in the face of COVID-19.

Two boats carrying hundreds of Rohingya refugees have been stranded outside of Bangladesh for the last few weeks. International authorities are now urging Bangladesh government to allow entry of the boats via its ports which have been shut in the face of COVID-19. Urgent care required It is feared that most of these people would now not require food and water, but also urgent medical care. According to The Guardian, over 500 people including children are onboard the boats, which were recently spotted in the Bay of Bengal. Last week, Abdul Momen, the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh refused to allow entry of boats into the country and announced, “Bangladesh is always asked to take care of the responsibility of other countries.” Also read: Nearly 400 Rohingya rescued by Bangladesh coast guard from boat; over 30 dead Earlier in April, another boat was rescued by Bangladesh. According to reports, the boat was stranded in the ocean for over two months and was heading to Malaysia. The charity responsible for treating them - Médecins Sans Frontières claimed that the boat had 400 survivors, mostly youngsters aged between 12 and 20. On that boat alone, over 70 had died. According to MSF, most of the survivors were on the verge of death when they were rescued. This particular boat was trying to escape the horrid living conditions in Cox Bazar, Bangladesh where Rohingya have been placed in overcrowded camps. Rohingya refugees arrive on boats after crossing the Naf river from Myanmar into Bangladesh in Whaikhyang on October 9, 2017 | AFP More boats at bay? As of now, only two boats have been spotted by authorities, but they fear that many more such boats could be drifting in the ocean. Michelle Bachelet, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights recently wrote to Momen, and referred to the situation as “a human tragedy of terrible proportions”. “I appeal to you in the strongest terms to open your ports and allow the boats to land… The reportedly more than 500 men, women and children aboard these boats have been at sea for an extended period of time, and we understand that they require urgent rescue, food, medical care and other necessary humanitarian assistance”, she added. The boat, like many others was turned away by Malaysia due to the fears triggered by the coronavirus pandemic. Momen further retorted by claiming that Bangladesh could not rescue any more people, adding that the country had “no room to shelter any foreign people or refugees”. Over 700,000 Rohingya fled from Myanmar where an ethnic cleansing began in August 2017.

UN urges Bangladesh to rescue two stranded boats carrying Rohingya refugees

COVID-19 is hitting refugees camps, these camps could become the worst victims of coronavirus pandemic. Indiscriminate in targeting its victims, COVID-19 exposes the needs of tens of millions of refugees and displaced persons in destitute camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Bangladesh and shantytowns across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

Overcrowded migrant camps at high risk of contracting COVID-19

Indiscriminate in targeting its victims, the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) casts a very different light on the need to enforce international law governing wars as well as human and minority rights. It exposes the needs of tens of millions of refugees and displaced persons in destitute camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Bangladesh and shantytowns across Asia, Africa, and Latin America.

It also puts issues of basic rights, poverty, homelessness, and equitable income distribution from a different perspective. Refugees, displaced persons, and embattled minorities that have been for the longest time viewed as humanitarian or political problems that needed to be contained and kept beyond one’s borders. now constitute a global public health hazard.

The public health hazard is enhanced by punitive, crippling sanctions and blockades designed to impose the will of one country on another with little measurable effect beyond economic degradation, making often weak health systems even more feeble.

In Iran, one of the world’s hardest-hit countries, and the Gaza Strip, that reported its first infections in recent days, the hazard is enhanced not only by corruption and mismanagement but also punitive and crippling sanctions and blockades designed to impose the will of one country on another with little measurable effect beyond economic degradation and making often weak health systems even more feeble.

It’s a hazard that raises the threat level not only in the current pandemic that has already wreaked havoc on lives, economies, and social life, but also in future ones.

“The storm will pass, humankind will survive, most of us will still be alive — but we will inhabit a different world,” predicted historian Yuval Noah Harari.

“Pandemics are a part of biologic history. They reshape economics, they reshape sociology,” added Mike Leavitt, a former Republican US Secretary of Health and Human Services and Governor of Utah.

Writer and activist Susan Sontag noted some four decades ago that “illness as a metaphor for political disorder is one of the oldest notions of political philosophy.”

By implication, Harari and Leavitt and Sontag suggest that pandemics create opportunities to rethink political, economic, and social relations. That may be what is needed but the odds are against it.

More likely is that a different world will mostly be shaped by elements of reactive measures taken by governments across the globe who failed to initially take the coronavirus seriously on day one—Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan being notable exceptions.

Leaving aside the fundamental issues of striking a balance between privacy and surveillance, those reactive actions and procedures are likely to amount to band-aids rather than lessons learned. They will not lead to a fundamental rethinking of issues that pose a major threat to millions of lives far beyond the boundaries of refugee camps and shantytowns. And they are unlikely to result in the social cohesion needed to confront the inevitable next crisis.

The coronavirus also spotlights the inherent threat posed by the lack of transparency and the politicization of a global health crisis by civilizationalist and illiberal, authoritarian or autocratic leaders. Such leaders, including US President Donald J. Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Egyptian General-turned-President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Turkey’s leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who prioritize domestic political and geopolitical gain and economic preservation rather than timely public health policy and simple decency and humanity.

Even though senior government officials across the globe have been infected, it’s the hundreds of thousands of victims of the coronavirus and the hundreds of millions whose social and economic lives have been disrupted that pay the price of delayed and inadequate responses.

“Sanctions are the number one cause of Iran’s limited access to medicine and other basic resources. These pressures are severely compounded during this global health crisis and are felt acutely in the day-to-day lives of Iranian citizens . . . Just as outbound travel has been suspended, the import of aid coming into Iran is limited, if at all, furthering the sense that even when dealing with a concern that affects the whole world, Iranians are largely on their own,” reflected comparative literature PhD candidate Donna Honarpisheh from self-isolation during a family visit to Shiraz.

The fact that a contagious health hazard in one country threatens public health worldwide, makes ensuring the universal existence of robust national healthcare systems a global concern.

The fact that a contagious health hazard in one country potentially threatens public health worldwide, makes ensuring the universal existence of robust national healthcare systems a global rather than a national concern.

Prioritising politics rather than common sense self-preservation that fails to strike a balance between humanity, global public health, and national security is likely to harden positions rather than create opportunities for conflict resolution.

As a result, Iran’s isolation and Gaza’s blockade by Israel and Egypt for the past 13 years are likely to be reflected in longer-term Iranian and Palestinian political wrath and other hostile attitudes towards the outside world.

The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar – the only countries to have come to Iran’s aid – were among the few in the international community to recognize that how the world handles the crisis has consequences that go far beyond healthcare.

That is true even if the UAE and Kuwait acted to ensure that they would not be targets in any future US-Iranian confrontation. Whereas Qatar honoured its relations with Iran since Tehran provides crucial logistical support, enabling Doha to withstand the almost three-year-old UAE-Saudi-led economic and diplomatic boycott of the Gulf state.

Adding to the woes of Iran, like other countries with governments that are untransparent or at best economical with the truth, is the fact that the regime’s trust deficit complicates getting public compliance with extraordinary measures and raises the specter of protests at a time of quarantines and social distancing.

Egyptian authorities arrested four prominent women in recent days for protesting in demand of the release of prisoners as a healthcare measure. Hundreds of Egyptians reportedly attempted to storm public laboratories to obtain a coronavirus test.

The locked-down Philippines capital of Manila is awash with rumours of food shortages and fears of rioting and looting.

It’s at best a matter of time before the human carnage hits camps for refugees and displaced persons across the Middle East and in Asia and Africa as well as countries like Venezuela that have failing health systems as a result of mismanagement and corruption. All failures are compounded by sanctions.

“Millions of conflict-affected people are living in cramped refugee and displacement sites with desperately poor hygiene and sanitation facilities. There will be carnage when the virus reaches parts of Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela where hospitals have been demolished and health systems have collapsed,” said Jan Egeland, Secretary-General of the Norwegian Refugee Council.

Yemen already knows the consequences. It suffered in 2017 a dramatic surge of cholera, a disease that had been virtually eradicated from the planet.

The question is not only what happens when disease and death on a large scale or food shortages and/or famine hit the world’s most vulnerable holed up in inhuman conditions with nothing more to lose.

It is also whether governments and elites have the foresight and political will to build a new world order that is not only equitable but also creates the political, economic, and social conditions for the management of future pandemics at a potentially lower social and economic cost for all.

That may be a tall order in a world dominated by civilizational and nationalist leaders whose primary concern are not ensuring robust structures capable of fighting indiscriminate global threats but short-term political gain, self-aggrandizement, the settling of political scores, and narrow visions of ethnic or religious supremacy.

It’s an approach that adds to already mounting threats of increased political instability and violence as well as migration in magnitudes that could dwarf the world’s current problem of coping with large-scale dislocation. 
 
(The article was first published on<a href="https://insidearabia.com/refugees-and-shantytowns-in-mena-and-beyond-imperil-global-public-health/"> Inside Arabia</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp;

Indiscriminate in targeting its victims, the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) casts a very different light on the need to enforce international law governing wars as well as human and minority rights.

Indiscriminate in targeting its victims, the latest coronavirus (COVID-19) casts a very different light on the need to enforce international law governing wars as well as human and minority rights. It exposes the needs of tens of millions of refugees and displaced persons in destitute camps in Turkey, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Bangladesh and shantytowns across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It also puts issues of basic rights, poverty, homelessness, and equitable income distribution from a different perspective. Refugees, displaced persons, and embattled minorities that have been for the longest time viewed as humanitarian or political problems that needed to be contained and kept beyond one’s borders. now constitute a global public health hazard. The public health hazard is enhanced by punitive, crippling sanctions and blockades designed to impose the will of one country on another with little measurable effect beyond economic degradation, making often weak health systems even more feeble. In Iran, one of the world’s hardest-hit countries, and the Gaza Strip, that reported its first infections in recent days, the hazard is enhanced not only by corruption and mismanagement but also punitive and crippling sanctions and blockades designed to impose the will of one country on another with little measurable effect beyond economic degradation and making often weak health systems even more feeble. It’s a hazard that raises the threat level not only in the current pandemic that has already wreaked havoc on lives, economies, and social life, but also in future ones. “The storm will pass, humankind will survive, most of us will still be alive — but we will inhabit a different world,” predicted historian Yuval Noah Harari. “Pandemics are a part of biologic history. They reshape economics, they reshape sociology,” added Mike Leavitt, a former Republican US Secretary of Health and Human Services and Governor of Utah. Writer and activist Susan Sontag noted some four decades ago that “illness as a metaphor for political disorder is one of the oldest notions of political philosophy.” By implication, Harari and Leavitt and Sontag suggest that pandemics create opportunities to rethink political, economic, and social relations. That may be what is needed but the odds are against it. More likely is that a different world will mostly be shaped by elements of reactive measures taken by governments across the globe who failed to initially take the coronavirus seriously on day one—Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan being notable exceptions. Leaving aside the fundamental issues of striking a balance between privacy and surveillance, those reactive actions and procedures are likely to amount to band-aids rather than lessons learned. They will not lead to a fundamental rethinking of issues that pose a major threat to millions of lives far beyond the boundaries of refugee camps and shantytowns. And they are unlikely to result in the social cohesion needed to confront the inevitable next crisis. The coronavirus also spotlights the inherent threat posed by the lack of transparency and the politicization of a global health crisis by civilizationalist and illiberal, authoritarian or autocratic leaders. Such leaders, including US President Donald J. Trump, Chinese President Xi Jinping, Egyptian General-turned-President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and Turkey’s leader, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who prioritize domestic political and geopolitical gain and economic preservation rather than timely public health policy and simple decency and humanity. Even though senior government officials across the globe have been infected, it’s the hundreds of thousands of victims of the coronavirus and the hundreds of millions whose social and economic lives have been disrupted that pay the price of delayed and inadequate responses. “Sanctions are the number one cause of Iran’s limited access to medicine and other basic resources. These pressures are severely compounded during this global health crisis and are felt acutely in the day-to-day lives of Iranian citizens . . . Just as outbound travel has been suspended, the import of aid coming into Iran is limited, if at all, furthering the sense that even when dealing with a concern that affects the whole world, Iranians are largely on their own,” reflected comparative literature PhD candidate Donna Honarpisheh from self-isolation during a family visit to Shiraz. The fact that a contagious health hazard in one country threatens public health worldwide, makes ensuring the universal existence of robust national healthcare systems a global concern. The fact that a contagious health hazard in one country potentially threatens public health worldwide, makes ensuring the universal existence of robust national healthcare systems a global rather than a national concern. Prioritising politics rather than common sense self-preservation that fails to strike a balance between humanity, global public health, and national security is likely to harden positions rather than create opportunities for conflict resolution. As a result, Iran’s isolation and Gaza’s blockade by Israel and Egypt for the past 13 years are likely to be reflected in longer-term Iranian and Palestinian political wrath and other hostile attitudes towards the outside world. The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar – the only countries to have come to Iran’s aid – were among the few in the international community to recognize that how the world handles the crisis has consequences that go far beyond healthcare. That is true even if the UAE and Kuwait acted to ensure that they would not be targets in any future US-Iranian confrontation. Whereas Qatar honoured its relations with Iran since Tehran provides crucial logistical support, enabling Doha to withstand the almost three-year-old UAE-Saudi-led economic and diplomatic boycott of the Gulf state. Adding to the woes of Iran, like other countries with governments that are untransparent or at best economical with the truth, is the fact that the regime’s trust deficit complicates getting public compliance with extraordinary measures and raises the specter of protests at a time of quarantines and social distancing. Egyptian authorities arrested four prominent women in recent days for protesting in demand of the release of prisoners as a healthcare measure. Hundreds of Egyptians reportedly attempted to storm public laboratories to obtain a coronavirus test. The locked-down Philippines capital of Manila is awash with rumours of food shortages and fears of rioting and looting. It’s at best a matter of time before the human carnage hits camps for refugees and displaced persons across the Middle East and in Asia and Africa as well as countries like Venezuela that have failing health systems as a result of mismanagement and corruption. All failures are compounded by sanctions. “Millions of conflict-affected people are living in cramped refugee and displacement sites with desperately poor hygiene and sanitation facilities. There will be carnage when the virus reaches parts of Syria, Yemen, and Venezuela where hospitals have been demolished and health systems have collapsed,” said Jan Egeland, Secretary-General of the Norwegian Refugee Council. Yemen already knows the consequences. It suffered in 2017 a dramatic surge of cholera, a disease that had been virtually eradicated from the planet. The question is not only what happens when disease and death on a large scale or food shortages and/or famine hit the world’s most vulnerable holed up in inhuman conditions with nothing more to lose. It is also whether governments and elites have the foresight and political will to build a new world order that is not only equitable but also creates the political, economic, and social conditions for the management of future pandemics at a potentially lower social and economic cost for all. That may be a tall order in a world dominated by civilizational and nationalist leaders whose primary concern are not ensuring robust structures capable of fighting indiscriminate global threats but short-term political gain, self-aggrandizement, the settling of political scores, and narrow visions of ethnic or religious supremacy. It’s an approach that adds to already mounting threats of increased political instability and violence as well as migration in magnitudes that could dwarf the world’s current problem of coping with large-scale dislocation. (The article was first published on Inside Arabia) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Refugees could become the worst victims of coronavirus pandemic

A Turkish delegation was in Russia on Monday for talks on Syria, following reports that Russian-backed attacks there were forcing tens of thousands more Syrians to flee towards Turkey.

Turkey already hosts about 3.7 million Syrians - the world's biggest refugee population. President Tayyip Erdogan said on Sunday it could not handle a new influx and was urging Russia to stop the strikes in Syria's northwestern Idlib province.

The Turkey-based Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) said on Monday 120,000 Syrians were fleeing towards the Turkish border - higher than Erdogan's estimate of 80,000.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/china-objects-to-malaysias-un-submission-on-south-china-sea-scmp-268661">UN</a>&nbsp;Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an immediate end to the hostilities, which he said had displaced 30,000 people in the last week alone, his spokesman said.

"The Secretary-General reminds all parties of their obligations to protect civilians and ensure freedom of movement," UN&nbsp;spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has vowed to recapture the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/russia-backed-syrian-forces-gain-ground-in-idlib-269853">Idlib region</a>, the last significant area of Syria still under rebel control after 8-1/2 years of civil war.

Russia and Iran have supported Assad's forces during the Syrian conflict while Turkey has backed Syrian rebels fighting Assad.

Russian and Syrian army jets have been targeting civilian convoys trying to flee the Idlib city of Maarat al-Numan, leaving hundreds of families still trapped there, activists and aid groups have said.

"It's a tragic situation for civilians remaining in the city since Russian jets are hitting any convoy that leaves the city, while those who were able to reach areas closer to the border have nowhere to shelter," said Mohamad Rasheed, an activist in the area.

&nbsp;

LIBYA ALSO IN FOCUS

The Syrian army said on Monday it had fought fierce battles in southeastern Idlib and seized several villages after killing large numbers of what it called terrorists.

"People are lying on the ground sleeping in the open with no blankets and under rain and cold," said Feras Saad, who fled the city with his family and found shelter in the border village of Harabosh.

Moscow and Damascus both deny allegations of indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and say they are fighting al Qaeda-inspired Islamist militants.

A Turkish diplomatic source said the delegation in Russia will also discuss Turkey's potential troop deployment and military support to Libya, after Ankara and Tripoli signed a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/erdogan-says-turkey-will-increase-military-support-to-libya-if-necessary-269588">military cooperation</a> accord last month.

Russia has said it is concerned about any such deployment.

Erdogan said on Sunday Turkey could increase military support to Fayez al-Serraj's UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), which has been fighting off an offensive by east Libya forces led by <a href="wionews.com/world/eastern-libyan-force-warns-against-transporting-military-equipment-in-civilian-planes-269619">Khalifa Haftar</a>.

Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have backed Haftar's forces.

Later on Monday, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu held a phone call with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to discuss developments in Syria and Libya. It did not give further details.

A Turkish delegation was in Russia on Monday for talks on Syria, following reports that Russian-backed attacks there were forcing tens of thousands more Syrians to flee towards Turkey.

A Turkish delegation was in Russia on Monday for talks on Syria, following reports that Russian-backed attacks there were forcing tens of thousands more Syrians to flee towards Turkey. Turkey already hosts about 3.7 million Syrians - the world's biggest refugee population. President Tayyip Erdogan said on Sunday it could not handle a new influx and was urging Russia to stop the strikes in Syria's northwestern Idlib province. The Turkey-based Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH) said on Monday 120,000 Syrians were fleeing towards the Turkish border - higher than Erdogan's estimate of 80,000. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called for an immediate end to the hostilities, which he said had displaced 30,000 people in the last week alone, his spokesman said. "The Secretary-General reminds all parties of their obligations to protect civilians and ensure freedom of movement," UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric said in a statement. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has vowed to recapture the Idlib region, the last significant area of Syria still under rebel control after 8-1/2 years of civil war. Russia and Iran have supported Assad's forces during the Syrian conflict while Turkey has backed Syrian rebels fighting Assad. Russian and Syrian army jets have been targeting civilian convoys trying to flee the Idlib city of Maarat al-Numan, leaving hundreds of families still trapped there, activists and aid groups have said. "It's a tragic situation for civilians remaining in the city since Russian jets are hitting any convoy that leaves the city, while those who were able to reach areas closer to the border have nowhere to shelter," said Mohamad Rasheed, an activist in the area. LIBYA ALSO IN FOCUS The Syrian army said on Monday it had fought fierce battles in southeastern Idlib and seized several villages after killing large numbers of what it called terrorists. "People are lying on the ground sleeping in the open with no blankets and under rain and cold," said Feras Saad, who fled the city with his family and found shelter in the border village of Harabosh. Moscow and Damascus both deny allegations of indiscriminate bombing of civilian areas and say they are fighting al Qaeda-inspired Islamist militants. A Turkish diplomatic source said the delegation in Russia will also discuss Turkey's potential troop deployment and military support to Libya, after Ankara and Tripoli signed a military cooperation accord last month. Russia has said it is concerned about any such deployment. Erdogan said on Sunday Turkey could increase military support to Fayez al-Serraj's UN-backed Government of National Accord (GNA), which has been fighting off an offensive by east Libya forces led by Khalifa Haftar. Russia, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates have backed Haftar's forces. Later on Monday, the Turkish Foreign Ministry said Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu held a phone call with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov to discuss developments in Syria and Libya. It did not give further details.

Turkey, Russia talk Syria as thousands flee bombing

Turkey's President Erdogan: We Will Not Take More Refugees #Gravitas #Turkey #Erdogan #WION

Gravitas: Turkey Says No To More Refugees

States&nbsp;have&nbsp;pledged&nbsp;more&nbsp;than&nbsp;$3&nbsp;billion&nbsp;(£2.34&nbsp;billion) to support&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;and about 50,000 resettlement places, the&nbsp;United Nations Refugee Agency said on Wednesday at the end of a ministerial conference.

UN&nbsp;High Commissioner for&nbsp;Refugees&nbsp;Filippo Grandi said that the Global Forum on&nbsp;Refugees&nbsp;had broadened responsibility, sharing for 25.9 million&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;who have fled war and persecution, mainly exiled in poor neighbouring countries.

Grandi told a final news conference that the $3&nbsp;billion&nbsp;was in addition to the World Bank and other&nbsp;pledges. The private sector&nbsp;pledged $250 million, but all the figures were preliminary, Grandi said.

Germany, which has taken in hundreds of thousands of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/40000-refugees-expelled-from-istanbul-262461">Syrian&nbsp;refugees</a>,&nbsp;pledged some 1.7&nbsp;billion&nbsp;euros, Grandi said. The Inter-American Development Bank&nbsp;pledged $1&nbsp;billion&nbsp;to communities hosting&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;in Latin America, while the World Bank announced it was expanding funding for projects supporting&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;by 10 per cent to $2.2&nbsp;billion, Grandi added.

States&nbsp;pledged 50,000 new resettlement and other legal pathways for&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;to remain in host countries, he said.

The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump said in September that it planned to allow only 18,000&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;to <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-administration-plans-to-slash-number-of-refugees-for-us-resettlement-252364">resettle</a> in the&nbsp;United&nbsp;States&nbsp;in the 2020 fiscal year, the lowest number in the history of the modern refugee programme.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/few-immigrants-fit-the-legal-definition-of-global-refugees-239846">right to claim&nbsp;asylum</a>, enshrined in international law, remains "under threat", Grandi said, without naming names.

"The reality is there has been no real systematic burden and responsibility-sharing," he said.

"We cannot go into a world in which responsibility-sharing&nbsp;means some&nbsp;states&nbsp;keep all the&nbsp;refugees&nbsp;and some&nbsp;states&nbsp;pay all the money. We cannot do that, that is why we have resettlement, why we have different types of partnerships.

"That is why&nbsp;asylum&nbsp;has to remain a reality in all parts of the world including in the rich countries and even&nbsp;more&nbsp;in rich countries that have so many responsibilities," Grandi said.

States have pledged more than $3 billion (£2.34 billion) to support refugees and about 50,000 resettlement places, the United Nations Refugee Agency said on Wednesday at the end of a ministerial conference.

States have pledged more than $3 billion (£2.34 billion) to support refugees and about 50,000 resettlement places, the United Nations Refugee Agency said on Wednesday at the end of a ministerial conference. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi said that the Global Forum on Refugees had broadened responsibility, sharing for 25.9 million refugees who have fled war and persecution, mainly exiled in poor neighbouring countries. Grandi told a final news conference that the $3 billion was in addition to the World Bank and other pledges. The private sector pledged $250 million, but all the figures were preliminary, Grandi said. Germany, which has taken in hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees, pledged some 1.7 billion euros, Grandi said. The Inter-American Development Bank pledged $1 billion to communities hosting refugees in Latin America, while the World Bank announced it was expanding funding for projects supporting refugees by 10 per cent to $2.2 billion, Grandi added. States pledged 50,000 new resettlement and other legal pathways for refugees to remain in host countries, he said. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump said in September that it planned to allow only 18,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2020 fiscal year, the lowest number in the history of the modern refugee programme. The right to claim asylum, enshrined in international law, remains "under threat", Grandi said, without naming names. "The reality is there has been no real systematic burden and responsibility-sharing," he said. "We cannot go into a world in which responsibility-sharing means some states keep all the refugees and some states pay all the money. We cannot do that, that is why we have resettlement, why we have different types of partnerships. "That is why asylum has to remain a reality in all parts of the world including in the rich countries and even more in rich countries that have so many responsibilities," Grandi said.

United Nations: States pledge more than $3 billion for refugees, asylum rights 'under threat'

A delegation of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/why-aung-san-suu-kyi-is-in-the-hague-defending-myanmar-against-allegations-of-genocide-267828">Myanmar</a> officials visited the sprawling Bangladeshi refugee camps on Wednesday (December 18), where they spoke to several dozen Rohingya refugees in an effort to kickstart a process to repatriate them.

Myanmar says it has been ready to accept back the refugees since January last year and has built camps near the border to receive them.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/myanmar-seizes-boat-carrying-173-rohingya-muslims-military-spokesman-268720">Rohingya</a> leaders say they want Myanmar to recognise them as an ethnic group with the right to Myanmar citizenship before they return. Rohingya representatives said no progress had been made at Wednesday's talks.

Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya who remain inside Myanmar are mostly denied citizenship and live in conditions Amnesty International has likened to apartheid, confined to camps and villages and unable to travel freely.

Myanmar does not consider the Rohingya a native ethnic group. Many in the Buddhist-majority country call the Rohingya "<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-has-softened-stance-following-icj-hearing-bangladesh-foreign-minister-268492">Bengalis</a>", suggesting they belong in Bangladesh.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmar-aung-san-suu-kyi-warns-genocide-case-could-reignite-rohingya-crisis-268065">Gambia</a> accused Myanmar of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention over a military campaign that drove more than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar to Bangladesh. It has asked the International Court of Justice to order "provisional measures" to prevent more harm.

A delegation of Myanmar officials visited the sprawling Bangladeshi refugee camps on Wednesday (December 18), where they spoke to several dozen Rohingya refugees in an effort to kickstart a process to repatriate them.

A delegation of Myanmar officials visited the sprawling Bangladeshi refugee camps on Wednesday (December 18), where they spoke to several dozen Rohingya refugees in an effort to kickstart a process to repatriate them. Myanmar says it has been ready to accept back the refugees since January last year and has built camps near the border to receive them. Rohingya leaders say they want Myanmar to recognise them as an ethnic group with the right to Myanmar citizenship before they return. Rohingya representatives said no progress had been made at Wednesday's talks. Hundreds of thousands of Rohingya who remain inside Myanmar are mostly denied citizenship and live in conditions Amnesty International has likened to apartheid, confined to camps and villages and unable to travel freely. Myanmar does not consider the Rohingya a native ethnic group. Many in the Buddhist-majority country call the Rohingya "Bengalis", suggesting they belong in Bangladesh. Gambia accused Myanmar of violating the 1948 Genocide Convention over a military campaign that drove more than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims from Myanmar to Bangladesh. It has asked the International Court of Justice to order "provisional measures" to prevent more harm.

'We are ready to go back': Rohingya refugees meet with Myanmar delegates

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law. The marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, had seen some passionate flow of emotions both in favour and against the bill.

Before opening up the case for further analysis, it’s important to understand who is a refugee and an illegal migrant?

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone, “Who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Such a refugee has a right to seek asylum in another country in order to get lawful recognition, shelter, legal protection and material assistance.

The main framework document to deal with international refugees is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, ratified by 145 countries, of which India is not a signatory. However, India respects the mandates of these protocols and grants asylums to a large number of neighbouring and non-neighbouring refugees as per ‘non-refoulment’ principle of the UNHCR, meaning, India doesn’t force the refugees or asylum seekers to go back to their respective countries from where they have emigrated and where they’re liable to face persecution again.

India has been a centre of a consistent flow of migration of mixed nature that has often created complexities of various natures. At the one side, there are various minority groups coming from the neighbouring Muslim countries after escaping religious persecution while at the other side are ‘economic migrants’ who infiltrate into India simply in search of better life opportunities.

While the first groups of refugees are the ones who come to India to save their lives and honour, the second groups of migrants are nothing but opportunist infiltrators who emigrate from their countries of nationalities looking for better opportunities that, at times, also jeopardises the security interests of the host nation. The first group consists mainly of those religious communities who consider India as their natural home.

The growing security concerns have forced India to shrink its asylum space and adopt mixed policies to deal with different refugee groups, than to have one universal policy paradigm as per the UNHCR framework. In accordance with this, the central government decided to bring the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) - first in 2016 and again in 2019 – aimed to grant citizenship to the six specific communities, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christian migrating in India from three countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan.

These group of migrants settled mainly in the North-east and in other different parts of the country, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946, were declared ‘illegal migrants. As per the provisions of the two Acts, anyone who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents, like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period, is a foreigner and an illegal migrant.&nbsp;

In normal conditions, such illegal migrants are liable to be imprisoned or deported. However, the Central Government, through two separate notifications in 2015 and 2016, had exempted these six specific religious migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts, thus, allowing them to continue in India on long-term visas even without valid documents. However, still they were not eligible to get Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But, now, with the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, all such illegal migrants from the six religious groups will become eligible to get Indian citizenship. &nbsp;

The opponents of the CAB can be broadly divided into two groups - the first having existential, while the other having ideological concerns.

Those with existential concerns are the residents of the North-East, who have a genuine concern of loss of their identity as well as of various opportunities for them in the new order. They, naturally, fear being overwhelmed by the new immigrants - mostly settled around Assam, Tripura and nearby areas - who will vie with them for the available resources and opportunities. The ones, with ideological concerns, are people and groups - including most of the political parties opposing it - who believe that the law would violate the basic principles of the constitution and would run against the idea of India.

While the concerns of the first group are genuine, requiring some deft political handling on the ground, the concerns of the ideological camp are more phantasmagorical and motivated than having any real substantive value.

With the bill becoming legislation, the same is all set to be challenged in the courts. Badruddin Ajmal, the chief of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), has already expressed his intention to move to the Supreme Court against the proposed Act. Similarly, the Congress Party is also studying options to challenge the Act in the Supreme Court, and so are many other small-big organizations across the country. However, despite all their zealous intentions, the Supreme Court is unlikely to quash the bill and reverse the position. Let’s examine how.

The opponents of the bill, the Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI(M) and a few other political parties, have based their arguments on the basic premise that CAB is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that India's constitution "insists on the fundamentals of equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language" - as elaborated by a group of 600 intellectuals from different fields. They believe that the bill, now the Act, violates one’s constitutional Right to Equality as it intends to differentiate among the refugees and that, it proposes to give citizenship on the basis of religion.&nbsp;

Apparently, the argument looks sound and plausible, though in reality, it is hardly so.&nbsp;

Despite all claims of the naysayers, who have been shouting from the rooftop that the new Act violates basic frameworks of the Indian constitution, the fact of the matter is that CAB is sound in constitutional legality, both in its letter and spirit.

Article 14 of the Indian constitution says that State shall ensure equality before the law for all citizens within the territory of India and each of them shall have equal protection of the law. The article means that no one is above the law of the land and thus, it goes to establishes the concept of 'Rule of the Law'.

However, one should not infer that under Article 14, all laws must be general in character; it never means that the same laws should invariably apply to all persons in all circumstances or that every law must have universal application

The concept of “Equal protection of the law”, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, has been taken from the constitution of the United States from section 1 of the 14th amendment act, which elaborates the meaning of equal protection of the law. It says that 'Equal Protection of law' means that each person within the territory of the nation will get equal protection without discrimination of age, sex, caste, religious status, ethnicity, language or opinions. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and that, there should be no discrimination between one person and another in a similar circumstance, as equality can't be “cribbed, cabined or confined”. In plain words, equals should be treated equally.

However, the concept of equals presupposes the existence of 'unequals' where some may have distinct attributes from the rest, hence such people need to be 'classified' accordingly as distinct from the others.

The supreme court of India, over years of interpretation of Article 14, have evolved a doctrine of 'classification' where citizens demonstrating distinct attributes can be classified among the population on the basis of which the State can make different laws for such classified groups of people. However, the classification needs to be 'reasonable classification' where the test of reasonableness will be to see (a) whether the classification so made is 'intelligible', meaning whether it is based on an objective and transparent criteria, and (b) whether the law so applied on such classified group has a rational relation with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation or the executive action. If the above conditions are met, the courts are satisfied with the reasonableness of the classification, else the classification is treated as 'arbitrary', breaching the premises of Art 14 and resulting into 'negation of equality'.

In the historical case of Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney &amp; Others Vs Union of India, 1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to equality as one of the basic features of the Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens only. Hence, Article 14 is applicable also to the refugees and illegal migrants living within the territory of India, as recognized by the government.

However, the six religious groups, namely, Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christians, have been classified by the Government of India in 2015 and 2016 as 'persecuted minorities' from the three neighbouring countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and on the same classification, such groups were allowed to stay within India through exemptions underclause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 will be treated as a logical extension of that classification, thus meeting the criteria of 'reasonableness' evolved under Article 14. 
 
The opponents of the Act emphasise that the Act intends to award citizenship on the basis of religion, thus violating the provisions of Art 14. However, each country may devise its own methodology for the classification of refugees and for according reasonable treatment to them. 
 
In the current Act, the basis of the classification of the 6 religious groups is not religion per se, but 'religious persecution' in the three countries as explained in the 'objects and reasons' of the original Bill - “Since the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific State religion, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on the grounds of religion.” 
 
Thus, by the above statement, religion alone becomes a basis of persecution for the 6 minority communities in the said three countries, hence their classification and resultant naturalization in India on the basis of religion meets the essential test of 'reasonableness', as sought under Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, exceptions for religious groups in the matter of granting citizenships can certainly be made without violating the provisions of Article 14, as the same meets the criteria of 'reasonable classification' evolved by the SC. A sound analogy can be inferred from the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992), where 'caste' was accepted as basis of social backwardness during the Mandal Commision hearing by the Supreme Court, and thus, despite the equality criteria under Article 14, exception was made in favour of castes in the matter of giving them reservation in government jobs and employments. 
 
Going by the above, the Act giving citizenship to the refugees from the six religious groups wouldn't be an outlandish proposition, impinging on the secular credentials of India. 
 
Further, as per the defined parameters, the Muslim settlers migrating in India from any of those three countries will always remain 'illegal migrants', as legally speaking they don't qualify to become a refugee by any global standards that define the term. 
 
In 2011, the UNHCR itself expanded the definition of the term 'refugee' as mentioned in the 1951 UN Convention, by categorizing those as refugees, "Who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order." Further, the minimum standards definition of refugee by the European Union also reproduces the same definition of refugee offered by the 1951 UN Convention.

Therefore, the Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, sadly, don't qualify to be recognized as a “refugee” as they're not migrating into India as a result of any of the said conditions. Hence, they can't hope to be eligible for any international protection, much less for citizenship. The Supreme Court, going strictly by the legality and technicality of the entanglement, wouldn't miss these essential facts.

The central government has made a sound case for implementation of the Act by introduction of historical elements into the debate. The Home Minister Amit Shah mentioned the 'Nehru-Liaquat Pact' of 1950, signed after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and invoked the commitments given by the two Prime Ministers in the pact to protect the rights, interests and lives of the minorities in the respective countries.

As it's well known, the pact wasn't honoured in either of East or West Pakistan, leading to continued exodus of the six minorities from Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 positions itself as India's sincere response to the complex historical legacy borne on account of failures of its neighbours to protect the life and honour of their minorities. It also gives India the moral high ground to own up those minorities who once lived in the one undivided country prior to the partition.

Because of this very angle (Nehru-Liaquat Pact), the case of refugees from other countries, such as that of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, can't be clubbed in the present Act, as its specifically designed to set right a historical wrong, i.e. partition of India, that was done on religious lines.

Further, the Indian constitution recognises the religious minorities as one single religious group, without categorising them into sects, sub-sects and other denomination, and extends all benefits and protections to them accordingly. For this specific reason, the Ahmadiya community, as invoked by some people, won't qualify for getting any kind of international protection as refugees in India, as the constitution recognises all Muslims as one religious community, 'Umma'.

Hence, in view of the above, one can understand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has, both on the substantive and procedural grounds, a water-tight case in its favour and that's why the Supreme Court, even if the matter is taken to its doorsteps, is unlikely to reverse the position. 
&nbsp;

(Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law.

With the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAB), 2019 from both houses of Parliament and with the assent of the President yesterday, the much-politicised bill has now become a law. The marathon debates in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, had seen some passionate flow of emotions both in favour and against the bill. Before opening up the case for further analysis, it’s important to understand who is a refugee and an illegal migrant? The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) defines a refugee as someone, “Who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.” Such a refugee has a right to seek asylum in another country in order to get lawful recognition, shelter, legal protection and material assistance. The main framework document to deal with international refugees is the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 protocol, ratified by 145 countries, of which India is not a signatory. However, India respects the mandates of these protocols and grants asylums to a large number of neighbouring and non-neighbouring refugees as per ‘non-refoulment’ principle of the UNHCR, meaning, India doesn’t force the refugees or asylum seekers to go back to their respective countries from where they have emigrated and where they’re liable to face persecution again. India has been a centre of a consistent flow of migration of mixed nature that has often created complexities of various natures. At the one side, there are various minority groups coming from the neighbouring Muslim countries after escaping religious persecution while at the other side are ‘economic migrants’ who infiltrate into India simply in search of better life opportunities. While the first groups of refugees are the ones who come to India to save their lives and honour, the second groups of migrants are nothing but opportunist infiltrators who emigrate from their countries of nationalities looking for better opportunities that, at times, also jeopardises the security interests of the host nation. The first group consists mainly of those religious communities who consider India as their natural home. The growing security concerns have forced India to shrink its asylum space and adopt mixed policies to deal with different refugee groups, than to have one universal policy paradigm as per the UNHCR framework. In accordance with this, the central government decided to bring the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) - first in 2016 and again in 2019 – aimed to grant citizenship to the six specific communities, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christian migrating in India from three countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. These group of migrants settled mainly in the North-east and in other different parts of the country, as per clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946, were declared ‘illegal migrants. As per the provisions of the two Acts, anyone who: (i) enters the country without valid travel documents, like a passport and visa, or (ii) enters with valid documents, but stays beyond the permitted time period, is a foreigner and an illegal migrant. In normal conditions, such illegal migrants are liable to be imprisoned or deported. However, the Central Government, through two separate notifications in 2015 and 2016, had exempted these six specific religious migrants from provisions of the 1946 and the 1920 Acts, thus, allowing them to continue in India on long-term visas even without valid documents. However, still they were not eligible to get Indian citizenship under the Citizenship Act, 1955. But, now, with the passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, all such illegal migrants from the six religious groups will become eligible to get Indian citizenship. The opponents of the CAB can be broadly divided into two groups - the first having existential, while the other having ideological concerns. Those with existential concerns are the residents of the North-East, who have a genuine concern of loss of their identity as well as of various opportunities for them in the new order. They, naturally, fear being overwhelmed by the new immigrants - mostly settled around Assam, Tripura and nearby areas - who will vie with them for the available resources and opportunities. The ones, with ideological concerns, are people and groups - including most of the political parties opposing it - who believe that the law would violate the basic principles of the constitution and would run against the idea of India. While the concerns of the first group are genuine, requiring some deft political handling on the ground, the concerns of the ideological camp are more phantasmagorical and motivated than having any real substantive value. With the bill becoming legislation, the same is all set to be challenged in the courts. Badruddin Ajmal, the chief of All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), has already expressed his intention to move to the Supreme Court against the proposed Act. Similarly, the Congress Party is also studying options to challenge the Act in the Supreme Court, and so are many other small-big organizations across the country. However, despite all their zealous intentions, the Supreme Court is unlikely to quash the bill and reverse the position. Let’s examine how. The opponents of the bill, the Congress, Trinamool Congress, CPI(M) and a few other political parties, have based their arguments on the basic premise that CAB is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, asserting that India's constitution "insists on the fundamentals of equality, regardless of gender, caste, religion, class, community or language" - as elaborated by a group of 600 intellectuals from different fields. They believe that the bill, now the Act, violates one’s constitutional Right to Equality as it intends to differentiate among the refugees and that, it proposes to give citizenship on the basis of religion. Apparently, the argument looks sound and plausible, though in reality, it is hardly so. Despite all claims of the naysayers, who have been shouting from the rooftop that the new Act violates basic frameworks of the Indian constitution, the fact of the matter is that CAB is sound in constitutional legality, both in its letter and spirit. Article 14 of the Indian constitution says that State shall ensure equality before the law for all citizens within the territory of India and each of them shall have equal protection of the law. The article means that no one is above the law of the land and thus, it goes to establishes the concept of 'Rule of the Law'. However, one should not infer that under Article 14, all laws must be general in character; it never means that the same laws should invariably apply to all persons in all circumstances or that every law must have universal application The concept of “Equal protection of the law”, enshrined in Article 14 of the Indian constitution, has been taken from the constitution of the United States from section 1 of the 14th amendment act, which elaborates the meaning of equal protection of the law. It says that 'Equal Protection of law' means that each person within the territory of the nation will get equal protection without discrimination of age, sex, caste, religious status, ethnicity, language or opinions. Equal law should be applied to all in the same situation and that, there should be no discrimination between one person and another in a similar circumstance, as equality can't be “cribbed, cabined or confined”. In plain words, equals should be treated equally. However, the concept of equals presupposes the existence of 'unequals' where some may have distinct attributes from the rest, hence such people need to be 'classified' accordingly as distinct from the others. The supreme court of India, over years of interpretation of Article 14, have evolved a doctrine of 'classification' where citizens demonstrating distinct attributes can be classified among the population on the basis of which the State can make different laws for such classified groups of people. However, the classification needs to be 'reasonable classification' where the test of reasonableness will be to see (a) whether the classification so made is 'intelligible', meaning whether it is based on an objective and transparent criteria, and (b) whether the law so applied on such classified group has a rational relation with the objectives sought to be achieved by the legislation or the executive action. If the above conditions are met, the courts are satisfied with the reasonableness of the classification, else the classification is treated as 'arbitrary', breaching the premises of Art 14 and resulting into 'negation of equality'. In the historical case of Indra Sawhney (Indra Sawhney & Others Vs Union of India, 1992), the Supreme Court recognized the right to equality as one of the basic features of the Indian constitution. Article 14 applies to all persons and is not limited to citizens only. Hence, Article 14 is applicable also to the refugees and illegal migrants living within the territory of India, as recognized by the government. However, the six religious groups, namely, Hindu, Sikhs, Buddhist, Jains, Parsis and Christians, have been classified by the Government of India in 2015 and 2016 as 'persecuted minorities' from the three neighbouring countries - Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, and on the same classification, such groups were allowed to stay within India through exemptions underclause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 3 of the passport (Entry into India) Act, 1920 and also of the provisions of the Foreigners Act 1946. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 will be treated as a logical extension of that classification, thus meeting the criteria of 'reasonableness' evolved under Article 14. The opponents of the Act emphasise that the Act intends to award citizenship on the basis of religion, thus violating the provisions of Art 14. However, each country may devise its own methodology for the classification of refugees and for according reasonable treatment to them. In the current Act, the basis of the classification of the 6 religious groups is not religion per se, but 'religious persecution' in the three countries as explained in the 'objects and reasons' of the original Bill - “Since the Constitutions of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh provide for a specific State religion, many persons belonging to Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi and Christian communities have faced persecution on the grounds of religion.” Thus, by the above statement, religion alone becomes a basis of persecution for the 6 minority communities in the said three countries, hence their classification and resultant naturalization in India on the basis of religion meets the essential test of 'reasonableness', as sought under Article 14 of the constitution. Therefore, exceptions for religious groups in the matter of granting citizenships can certainly be made without violating the provisions of Article 14, as the same meets the criteria of 'reasonable classification' evolved by the SC. A sound analogy can be inferred from the famous Indra Sawhney case (1992), where 'caste' was accepted as basis of social backwardness during the Mandal Commision hearing by the Supreme Court, and thus, despite the equality criteria under Article 14, exception was made in favour of castes in the matter of giving them reservation in government jobs and employments. Going by the above, the Act giving citizenship to the refugees from the six religious groups wouldn't be an outlandish proposition, impinging on the secular credentials of India. Further, as per the defined parameters, the Muslim settlers migrating in India from any of those three countries will always remain 'illegal migrants', as legally speaking they don't qualify to become a refugee by any global standards that define the term. In 2011, the UNHCR itself expanded the definition of the term 'refugee' as mentioned in the 1951 UN Convention, by categorizing those as refugees, "Who are outside their country of nationality or habitual residence and unable to return there owing to serious and indiscriminate threats to life, physical integrity or freedom resulting from generalized violence or events seriously disturbing public order." Further, the minimum standards definition of refugee by the European Union also reproduces the same definition of refugee offered by the 1951 UN Convention. Therefore, the Muslim migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan, sadly, don't qualify to be recognized as a “refugee” as they're not migrating into India as a result of any of the said conditions. Hence, they can't hope to be eligible for any international protection, much less for citizenship. The Supreme Court, going strictly by the legality and technicality of the entanglement, wouldn't miss these essential facts. The central government has made a sound case for implementation of the Act by introduction of historical elements into the debate. The Home Minister Amit Shah mentioned the 'Nehru-Liaquat Pact' of 1950, signed after the partition of the subcontinent in 1947, and invoked the commitments given by the two Prime Ministers in the pact to protect the rights, interests and lives of the minorities in the respective countries. As it's well known, the pact wasn't honoured in either of East or West Pakistan, leading to continued exodus of the six minorities from Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. Hence, the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 positions itself as India's sincere response to the complex historical legacy borne on account of failures of its neighbours to protect the life and honour of their minorities. It also gives India the moral high ground to own up those minorities who once lived in the one undivided country prior to the partition. Because of this very angle (Nehru-Liaquat Pact), the case of refugees from other countries, such as that of Tamil refugees from Sri Lanka, can't be clubbed in the present Act, as its specifically designed to set right a historical wrong, i.e. partition of India, that was done on religious lines. Further, the Indian constitution recognises the religious minorities as one single religious group, without categorising them into sects, sub-sects and other denomination, and extends all benefits and protections to them accordingly. For this specific reason, the Ahmadiya community, as invoked by some people, won't qualify for getting any kind of international protection as refugees in India, as the constitution recognises all Muslims as one religious community, 'Umma'. Hence, in view of the above, one can understand that the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 has, both on the substantive and procedural grounds, a water-tight case in its favour and that's why the Supreme Court, even if the matter is taken to its doorsteps, is unlikely to reverse the position. (Views expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Here's why Supreme Court is not likely to quash Citizenship Amendment Act

The United States on Tuesday blacklisted four Myanmar military leaders, including the commander-in-chief, in the toughest action taken yet by Washington for alleged human rights abuses against the Rohingya and other minorities.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/myanmars-suu-kyi-told-to-stop-the-genocide-in-united-nations-court-over-rohingya-crisis-267445">The sanctions</a> targeted the commander-in-chief of the Burmese military, Min Aung Hlaing, on the same day that Myanmar's leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, attended the first day of hearings in a genocide case against Myanmar at the UN's highest court.

A 2017 military crackdown in Myanmar drove more than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh. United Nations investigators have said Myanmar's operation included mass killings, gang rapes and widespread arson and was executed with "genocidal intent."

The military in Myanmar has denied accusations of widespread abuses and said its actions were part of a fight against terrorism.

The US Treasury Department said in a statement on Tuesday Burmese military forces had committed "serious human rights abuse" against ethnic minority groups in Myanmar and that Min Aung Hlaing's forces were responsible for the 2017 military crackdown.

"During this time, members of ethnic minority groups were killed or injured by gunshot, often while fleeing, or by soldiers using large-bladed weapons; others were burned to death in their own houses," the statement said.

Washington's sanctions also targeted Min Aung Hlaing's deputy, Soe Win, and two brigadier generals, Than Oo and Aung Aung, freezing any US&nbsp;assets they have and prohibiting Americans from doing business with them.

The four generals, who were previously barred from entering the United States in July, are not known to have assets in the United States.

The US&nbsp;action falls short of reimposing economic sanctions on Myanmar lifted after a transition from full military rule that began in 2011. It does not target military-owned companies that dominate some sectors of Myanmar's economy.

Some analysts and diplomats have tipped Min Aung Hlaing as a potential presidential candidate in the next election in 2020, when Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy is likely to face opposition from nationalists aligned with the military.

His political ambitions could be damaged by the sanctions, as well as an earlier US&nbsp;travel ban and Facebook's decision in August 2018 to remove the army chief's page that had been his main channel of communication with the public.

The sanctions Tuesday were among a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/as-suu-kyi-looks-on-gambia-asks-un-judges-to-stop-genocide-in-myanmar-267424">round of targets</a> announced on International Human Rights Day.

The United States on Tuesday blacklisted four Myanmar military leaders, including the commander-in-chief, in the toughest action taken yet by Washington for alleged human rights abuses against the Rohingya and other minorities.

The United States on Tuesday blacklisted four Myanmar military leaders, including the commander-in-chief, in the toughest action taken yet by Washington for alleged human rights abuses against the Rohingya and other minorities. The sanctions targeted the commander-in-chief of the Burmese military, Min Aung Hlaing, on the same day that Myanmar's leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, attended the first day of hearings in a genocide case against Myanmar at the UN's highest court. A 2017 military crackdown in Myanmar drove more than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims to flee to neighbouring Bangladesh. United Nations investigators have said Myanmar's operation included mass killings, gang rapes and widespread arson and was executed with "genocidal intent." The military in Myanmar has denied accusations of widespread abuses and said its actions were part of a fight against terrorism. The US Treasury Department said in a statement on Tuesday Burmese military forces had committed "serious human rights abuse" against ethnic minority groups in Myanmar and that Min Aung Hlaing's forces were responsible for the 2017 military crackdown. "During this time, members of ethnic minority groups were killed or injured by gunshot, often while fleeing, or by soldiers using large-bladed weapons; others were burned to death in their own houses," the statement said. Washington's sanctions also targeted Min Aung Hlaing's deputy, Soe Win, and two brigadier generals, Than Oo and Aung Aung, freezing any US assets they have and prohibiting Americans from doing business with them. The four generals, who were previously barred from entering the United States in July, are not known to have assets in the United States. The US action falls short of reimposing economic sanctions on Myanmar lifted after a transition from full military rule that began in 2011. It does not target military-owned companies that dominate some sectors of Myanmar's economy. Some analysts and diplomats have tipped Min Aung Hlaing as a potential presidential candidate in the next election in 2020, when Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy is likely to face opposition from nationalists aligned with the military. His political ambitions could be damaged by the sanctions, as well as an earlier US travel ban and Facebook's decision in August 2018 to remove the army chief's page that had been his main channel of communication with the public. The sanctions Tuesday were among a round of targets announced on International Human Rights Day.

US blacklists head of Myanmar military for alleged rights abuses against Rohingya

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/australia-tourists-found-alive-two-weeks-after-going-missing-265885">Australia</a> on Wednesday removed the right of doctors to order sick asylum seekers be evacuated from two remote Pacific detention centres for medical treatment, a repeal that opponents said risks the lives of refugees.

Under Australia's controversial immigration policy, asylum seekers intercepted at sea are sent to camps in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. They can never settle in Australia, even if they are found to be refugees.

In February, independent lawmakers and the opposition joined forces to give doctors the right to order sick asylum seekers be sent to Australia if they required medical care.

After securing re-election in May, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said his government would seek to repeal the legislation, though he needed the support of independent lawmakers as the coalition does not enjoy a majority in Australia's upper house Senate.

After weeks of negotiations, the repeal legislation passed Australia's Senate by 37 votes to 35.

"You can take advice from doctors, but doctors aren't elected. They aren't accountable to the public," independent lawmaker Jacqui Lambie, who cast the decisive vote, told the Senate.

Around 500 people remain on the two island centres, many suffering mental health issues after more than six years in detention, aid organisations say.

The United Nations has repeatedly criticised Australia's remote detention centres, insisting they lack adequate medical and mental health care.

"To now deny medical professionals from taking decisions in patients’ best interests,&nbsp;and to effectively hand that power back to unqualified officials... puts those most sick and vulnerable at risk," Paul McPhun, Executive Director of Médecins Sans Frontières Australia said in a statement.

Morrison rejected those allegations, insisting Canberra has provided significant medical aid, while those unable to get necessary treatment can be sent to Australia if the minister for home affairs approves it.

As a result, Morrison said the medical evacuation legislation is unnecessary and undermines Canberra's border policy, designed to discourage asylum seekers from undertaking dangerous sea voyages to Australia.

In 2016, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/amid-china-spy-concerns-australia-launches-anti-espionage-task-force-265625">Australia agreed a deal with former US&nbsp;President Barack Obama</a> to offer refuge to up to 1,250 asylum seekers. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump said it would only honour that deal to maintain a strong relationship with Australia, and then only on condition that refugees satisfied strict checks.

Around 650 refugees have been resettled in the United States, with a further 250 in PNG and Nauru approved to go at a future date, Peter Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday.

Australia has rejected offers from neighbouring New Zealand to take a further 150 asylum seekers, fearing refugees will use it as a 'backdoor entry' into Australia.

Media reported Lambie has sought a commitment that Canberra will now accept Wellington's offer. Morrison and Lambie declined to comment.

Australia on Wednesday removed the right of doctors to order sick asylum seekers be evacuated from two remote Pacific detention centres for medical treatment, a repeal that opponents said risks the lives of refugees.

Australia on Wednesday removed the right of doctors to order sick asylum seekers be evacuated from two remote Pacific detention centres for medical treatment, a repeal that opponents said risks the lives of refugees. Under Australia's controversial immigration policy, asylum seekers intercepted at sea are sent to camps in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. They can never settle in Australia, even if they are found to be refugees. In February, independent lawmakers and the opposition joined forces to give doctors the right to order sick asylum seekers be sent to Australia if they required medical care. After securing re-election in May, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said his government would seek to repeal the legislation, though he needed the support of independent lawmakers as the coalition does not enjoy a majority in Australia's upper house Senate. After weeks of negotiations, the repeal legislation passed Australia's Senate by 37 votes to 35. "You can take advice from doctors, but doctors aren't elected. They aren't accountable to the public," independent lawmaker Jacqui Lambie, who cast the decisive vote, told the Senate. Around 500 people remain on the two island centres, many suffering mental health issues after more than six years in detention, aid organisations say. The United Nations has repeatedly criticised Australia's remote detention centres, insisting they lack adequate medical and mental health care. "To now deny medical professionals from taking decisions in patients’ best interests, and to effectively hand that power back to unqualified officials... puts those most sick and vulnerable at risk," Paul McPhun, Executive Director of Médecins Sans Frontières Australia said in a statement. Morrison rejected those allegations, insisting Canberra has provided significant medical aid, while those unable to get necessary treatment can be sent to Australia if the minister for home affairs approves it. As a result, Morrison said the medical evacuation legislation is unnecessary and undermines Canberra's border policy, designed to discourage asylum seekers from undertaking dangerous sea voyages to Australia. In 2016, Australia agreed a deal with former US President Barack Obama to offer refuge to up to 1,250 asylum seekers. The administration of U.S. President Donald Trump said it would only honour that deal to maintain a strong relationship with Australia, and then only on condition that refugees satisfied strict checks. Around 650 refugees have been resettled in the United States, with a further 250 in PNG and Nauru approved to go at a future date, Peter Dutton, the Minister for Home Affairs told reporters in Canberra on Wednesday. Australia has rejected offers from neighbouring New Zealand to take a further 150 asylum seekers, fearing refugees will use it as a 'backdoor entry' into Australia. Media reported Lambie has sought a commitment that Canberra will now accept Wellington's offer. Morrison and Lambie declined to comment.

Australia restricts medical evacuations of refugees from Pacific camps

Bangladesh is blocking hundreds of thousands of Rohingya children from accessing meaningful education, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday, urging authorities to lift restrictions on schooling in refugee camps.

In a report called 'Are we not human?', Human Rights Watch accused Bangladesh of violating the rights of 400,000 school-age children who have fled Myanmar and are currently living in the Cox's Bazaar refugee camps.

"Depriving an entire generation of children of education is in no one’s interest," Bill Van Esveld, associate childrens' rights director at Human Rights Watch told Reuters. "The international community needs to act and demand that Bangladesh and Myanmar change course."

More than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar to neighbouring Bangladesh since a 2017 crackdown by Myanmar's military, which followed attacks by Rohingya insurgents.

The Human Rights Watch report said Bangladesh had banned Rohingya refugees from enrolling in schools outside the camps or taking national exams and also barred UN&nbsp;agencies and foreign aid groups from giving formal accredited education.

It accused Myanmar of not agreeing to recognise the use of its school curriculum in the camps.

Bangladesh’s Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commission Chief Mahbub Alam Talukder said it was untrue that children in the camps were not being educated and that there were 4,000 learning centres in the camps.

"Rohingya will have to go back to Myanmar," he told Reuters. "They are not our citizens and we can’t allow them to use our national curriculum."

The Myanmar government did not respond immediately to a Reuters request for comment.

Bangladesh is blocking hundreds of thousands of Rohingya children from accessing meaningful education, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday, urging authorities to lift restrictions on schooling in refugee camps.

Bangladesh is blocking hundreds of thousands of Rohingya children from accessing meaningful education, Human Rights Watch said on Tuesday, urging authorities to lift restrictions on schooling in refugee camps. In a report called 'Are we not human?', Human Rights Watch accused Bangladesh of violating the rights of 400,000 school-age children who have fled Myanmar and are currently living in the Cox's Bazaar refugee camps. "Depriving an entire generation of children of education is in no one’s interest," Bill Van Esveld, associate childrens' rights director at Human Rights Watch told Reuters. "The international community needs to act and demand that Bangladesh and Myanmar change course." More than 730,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled Myanmar to neighbouring Bangladesh since a 2017 crackdown by Myanmar's military, which followed attacks by Rohingya insurgents. The Human Rights Watch report said Bangladesh had banned Rohingya refugees from enrolling in schools outside the camps or taking national exams and also barred UN agencies and foreign aid groups from giving formal accredited education. It accused Myanmar of not agreeing to recognise the use of its school curriculum in the camps. Bangladesh’s Refugee Relief and Repatriation Commission Chief Mahbub Alam Talukder said it was untrue that children in the camps were not being educated and that there were 4,000 learning centres in the camps. "Rohingya will have to go back to Myanmar," he told Reuters. "They are not our citizens and we can’t allow them to use our national curriculum." The Myanmar government did not respond immediately to a Reuters request for comment.

Rohingya child refugees in Bangladesh being denied education: Human Rights Watch

refugees

Refugees, News on Refugees, stories on Refugees, articles on Refugees, Refugees stories at Wion, Refugees news, Refugees latest news