Starving Pelican wrote:Negative, Cowboy. It's based on the experience of people who have been affected by illegal Bangladeshi immigration. Typical idiocy - be sympathetic to those you're told to be sympathetic to, and call anyone who isn't sympathetic a bigot.Marmite wrote:Starving Pelican is oversimplifying it or is taking the Myanmar government line at face value. There have been Rohingya Muslims in Rakhine state (Arakan) for hundreds of years, long before Bangladesh even existed as a country. That's not to say that there weren't thousands who arrived after being displaced by the Banglideshi conflicts, but it's not as simply as dismissing them all as illegal immigrants.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What's negative, injun?
You can't argue with the fact that they have been in that part of the world for centuries. It's a historical fact. The biggest influx of rohingya into Rakhine wasnt illegal - several hundred thousand of them were encouraged into the area by the British when they took control of Burma in the nineteenth century. There was an active policy of bringing in Bengalis to work as cheap labour. Are they and their ancestors 'illegals'? If you think that then you would have to call West Indians encouraged to emigrate to the UK in the fifties illegal, or the Irish in America.
Yes, there are some illegals there but to dismiss the entire issue of Rohingya as recent illegal immigrants is simplistic to say the least.