[goombastic]

It is not the citizen's responsibility to prove he is a citizen, it is the government's responsibility to prove that he isn't.

Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?

[vageli]

> It is not the citizen's responsibility to prove he is a citizen, it is the government's responsibility to prove that he isn't.

> Guilty until proven innocent? How is that fair?

By this rationale, couldn't one claim citizenship to any country? When I arrive at a foreign border I don't say, "Allow me entry, I am a citizen, prove otherwise."

I understand that further from the border this encroachment is less justified, but still I don't think citizenship is granted until proven otherwise.

[gagorder]

> When I arrive at a foreign border

We didn't arrive at the border today, we were born here, and now we are being asked to stand in line to submit documentary proofs of not only ours but of our parents and grandparents.

[goombastic]

You cant just wake up one day and suddenly proclaim everyone a non citizen. In that case this is a non-government having been elected by non-citizens! Right?

[PhasmaFelis]

Expecting citizens to produce proof of their right to exist at a moment's notice is a famous signifier of a police state. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Your_papers,_please

If you have a specific reason to suspect and investigate an individual, that's a different matter.

[fiblye]

Crossing a border and simply existing are very different. One is a very conscious action, and generally people are doing it on their own volition and know there are restrictions to exit and entry.

People simply living in their hometown don’t have a choice.

[sbmthakur]

It is.

India follows jus sanguinis (citizenship by right of blood) as opposed to the jus soli (citizenship by right of birth within the territory). The state cannot just assume that a person has the Right of blood.

[shafkathullah]

Very well said