>Are you suggesting that there were not conflicts between say Catholic Americans of Irish descent and other Americans?

I didn't say that. I even noted

>Boston Irish support for the Nationalists in Ireland may not have been a wonderful thing to other Americans, but at least Americans did not have to deal with the conflicts on their own soil.

And yes, I am well aware of the Fenian raids, as well as the (myth of) the "no dogs or Irish" signs, and other aspects of Irish American history. I can tell you what "26 + 6" means.

My point is that the Irish Americans that supported NORAID, and predecessor organizations in earlier decades, at least did so regarding activities that occurred outside the US. Same with the Fenian raids; Irish Catholic Americans did not launch quasi-military expeditions against British/Irish Protestant entities located on US soil. And, more importantly, as the decades passed the American assimilation engine won out, just as I expect any intra-South Indian conflicts that go beyond name-calling to go away as long as giant waves of newcomers don't keep arriving and refreshing the impetus.

>No, the onus is on my country to uphold the charter of rights for every citizen. If I was the victim of caste based discrimination I would absolutely expect my government to protect me, not deport me or reduce my rights in any way, simply because the issue originated abroad.

I agree that the Canadian or US government's responsibility is to defend your rights as well as those of others.

That is not the same thing as, if intra- or inter-ethnic conflicts become a serious societal concern—a concern great enough to require the enshrinement of yet another protected class (to use the US legal term; I am sure Canada has some equivalent) into US law—being willing to indefinitely support the entry of the group or groups that are involved in such conflicts, whether they are the victims or oppressors. It is always possible for the people (speaking collectively) to decide that the net benefits to their society do not justify the continued fueling of such conflicts through the indefinite entry of the kindling, so to speak. As I said, it is their right to do so.

Further, as a non-US citizen your rights are legally limited in the US. Unless you have a green card you do not have the right to indefinite residency in the US, and even if you do, said right comes with some requirements (such as being present in the US for a certain number of years for each given period, and otherwise obeying the law). Beyond which, the US can at any time change the law and remove indefinite residency, and tell any non-citizen (whether permanent resident or not) to leave immediately. Canada can do the same for its landed immigrants. Ultimately, any country can change the rules as it sees fit for non-citizens within its borders (or those seeking entry) at any time. Again, it is the country's people's right to decide to do so.

>Keep in mind she is non-Hindu, and grew up in a big city more insulated from caste based identities & issues. Nevertheless, any kind of blanket prejudice would apply to her (and me) as well.

Interesting. From what little I know of caste I gather that it is a Hindu-specific thing? That Christians are excluded from it?