Talk:Immigration to Bhutan/Archive 1

message: About
UNHCR is not the expert on Bhutanese terms as proved by their misuse of that term. to use the term 'Lhotshampa' to refer to bhutanese of nepalese ethnicity is incorrect because of other ethnic groups who also live in southern bhutan.
* I would be glad if you could state this to UNHCR and make them change the terminology. They are the most respected global bodies representing this field. Most of the people know about this issue through them or learn from them. So, as per the verifiability criteria, I think this term is appropriate unless proven otherwise as I do not have any authority as an editor in wikipedia to introduce neologism to denote a standard terminology here.
About
how about 'nepalese bhutanese' as in 'chinese american'? sound better? at least it is more accurate. you are also assuming (again)that there is absolutely no possibility of non-citizen nepalese living in bhutan or claiming to have been living in bhutan. how about 'illegal immigrants of nepali ethnicity'?
* Nepalese Bhutanese may sound better to some but there are problems pertaining to it. Even by your own sandards, as you medtioned in Bhutanese refugee talk page, there are 15% of Bhutanese of Nepalese origin who are not affected by the conflict. This term is unsuitable even by your own terms and conditions as you can not be protesting about "Lhotsampa" in one hand and proposing "Nepalese Bhutanese" in the other. It is called biasing in general terms.
* I could not make out the sentence "you are also assuming (again)that there is absolutely no possibility of non-citizen nepalese living in bhutan or claiming to have been living in bhutan." Please rephrase it.
* As regards 'illegal immigrants of nepali ethnicity', the legal aspect of these refugees will be determined by UN and its related bodies. The "illegal" tag placed by Government of Bhutan is challenged by the claims of the refugees of being legitimate citizens of Bhutan. As Bhutan could not solve this problem and created a regional crisis involving its neighbouring states, the issue has been moderated and monitered by global organizations and their verdict counts for legitimacy. Hence, such a statement demonstrates an inclined point of view which is not allowed in wikipedia or any other civilized encyclopedia outside the realms of Bhutanese government. However, such a statement may be placed while quoting the Bhutanese Government side and should be placed in double quotes.
* About quotations from selected books, I have mentioned them in the discussion page of Bhutanese refugee. Please refer to the page. A person who is inclined to the refugee side may quote many such books and articles which are published by well known publishers which support their claim. It had already been discussed in your page to put the claims of both sides under two different headings and to put a neutral point of view from globally accepted bodies as the main focus.
*Specifically about the quotation under consideration, it does not provide any references to the data which the writer obtained before making such a claim which has been refuted by the refugee side who, on the other hand, have shown multiple proofs of them being Bhutanese, including their citizenship, in numerous instances. Hence, unless some recognized data are presented for the verification of the claims (eg: the people who have been driven from the North-Eastern states are the same people who, after failing to provide necessary documents or criteria accepted in civilized world for citizenship, were deported from Bhutan without any physical, mental or psychological assult/torture and were not forced in any manner considered offensive by standards compatible to human rights, as maintained by UN), the theory of the writer can be considered no more than a supporting reference to the Bhutanese Government point of view or maybe a progeny of it.--Eukesh 17:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well that shouldn't be hard then. isn't the flashing about of forged and fake bhutanese ID cards the basis on which these organizations were so convinced? Divinemadman 03:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Abt various issues being discussed

message: There needs to be an Immigration in Bhutan page that is separate in content from the Bhutanese refugees page, and this should be easy enough to accomplish. There is a history of (im)migration in the region that became Bhutan that is much longer than what is indicated here. Rather, there appear to be at least four discrete instances of mass movement:
1. By the 600s, many Tibetan people had migrated into Bhutan; theretofore indigenous peoples such as the Monpa and Sharchop populated the region and practiced a pre-Buddhist religion. (Chapter 6 - Bhutan: Origins and Early Settlement, A.D. 600-1600) There is plenty to write about in regards to these migrants' motivations, conditions, and imported culture. Parallels with Sikkim might also be drawn. 
2. By the early 20th century, many Nepalese (Lhotshampa) had migrated to the polity founded by Tibetans. Those who could demonstrate their residence in Bhutan through 1958 could obtain de jure citizenship.
3. In 1959, Bhutan granted refuge to several thousand refugees from Tibet in the wake of Chinese annexation. 
4. Since the 1960s, development projects, as well as development itself, attracted immigrants from India (and Nepal?). (I've read it on Wiki, but does anyone have a cite?)
These four mass movements are all significant in a country with a population whose historical peak is near 700,000. There could easily be a history section with each of these four movements as subsections, and probably a paragraph or two about the indigenous groups that existed before any (im)migration occurred. Whatever (sub)section deals with Lhotshampa should 1) direct the reader to the main articles (Lhotshampa; Bhutanese refuees), and 2) be BRIEF and avoid presenting sides in a modern, ongoing controversy.
Aside from history, most countries have an immigration/naturalization process, or at least laws about citizenship. Legal procedures, requirements, and de jure and de facto effects of immigration/naturalization should be covered. It seems Bhutan's current immigration policy could probably be described as assimilatory, given the apparent legal emphasis on cultural norms. I understand Bhutanese laws and decrees may be difficult to locate on the internet, but even references in Dzongkha (which I don't speak) would be helpful. I'll start making some of these changes soon, but it would be nice to have some help from readers of Dzongkha who have access to Bhutanese law. JFHJr (㊟) 09:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than Lhotshampas