CAA Simply Needs One Modification

If you consider the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), there are positives : I see no problems with granting citizenship to folks who have landed up here while escaping persecution elsewhere. [Also see note at the end.]

But we cannot refuse this option to Muslims who face persecution. And there are some Muslim communities that do in some places! Shias, Sufis and Ahmadis are Muslim communities that have faced persecution in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. They have to be accommodated.

And here is why Shias, Sufis and Ahmadis can be included in CAA but not Rohingyas:

If you go through this (fairly detailed) article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_people , you will come across the following paragraph:

"In other cases, in Myanmar and in Bangladeshi refugee camps Hindu (particularly women) are reported to have faced kidnapping, religious abuse and "forced conversions" by Muslim Rohingyas.[278][280]"

We are nice, not stupid. We cannot risk our citizens in the name of being good.

To the best of my knowledge, Shias, Sufis and Ahmadis offer no such threat. They come in peace. We can absorb them.

Muslims belonging to the Sunni majority who might have come illegally just for economic reasons need to go back. I agree with that. Just as folks from Nepal who have illegally entered our country need to go back. We have a large scale unemployment problem ourselves and cannot accommodate illegal immigrants.

But the minority groups that face persecution elsewhere need to be accommodated. That they will need to abide by the laws of our land is a given. But who says they won't? Where's the problem? Why should we imagine problems when none exist?

Note: Apparently there are some voices of dissent that are objecting to the CAA on the basis that people who will be given refuge will "affect the culture" of their states. This is just pathetic! If someone is in trouble, we help them. If this is not a part of your "culture", you are simply not cultured enough. Grow up!