TERRORISM DILEMMAS AND DEMOCRACY act as an impediment to Bangladeshi prosperity, but it is implicit in presenting the Rohingya as undeserving of any potential bounty. Within the context of Entman’s view of frames offering moral justification, this alienation is justified though another complementary frame that views them as economic migrants. Rohingya as economic migrants: ‘The Rakhine state of Myanmar, which borders Cox’s Bazar, is a poverty-prone area of Myanmar. This fact forces the Rohingyas to migrate to Bangladesh for economic reasons. This continuous intrusion of Rohingyas has an alarming impact on socio-economic equilibrium of Cox’s Bazar, but this fact is overlooked due to the longstanding issue of oppression on Rohingyas,’ The Daily Star reported, paradoxically arguing that the Rohingya are both ‘genuine’ refugees and not (August 9, 2012). The framing of the Rohingya as economic migrants draws from a higher order meta-frame that views ‘economic migration’ though a pejorative framework that pits them against more ‘deserving refugees’ (Samers & Collyer, 2017, p. 13). Such narratives ignore a growing body of literature that presents a cogent argument that views migration beyond a simple dichotomy of genuine refugees and economic migrants (Barcus & Halfacree, 2018). Newspaper frames in this regard tend to conceive economic prosperity though state demarcations and geographic confines. Such readings of the complex nature of migration suggests forced economic migration due to long term poverty, especially when viewed though political and economic marginalisation and persecution, are a valid form of refuge. However, the bifurcation between refugees and economic migrants, and the subsequent delineation of the two as legitimate and illegitimate, attaches a pejorative connotation to the ‘economic migrant’ label, which is then used to morally justify their mistreatment. Charity as limited by availability of economic surplus: Framing humanitarian assistance through an economic narrative enables economic rationalisation of neglect and even persecution of refugees. It suggests refugees are entitled to basic needs only once the economic needs of the state and its citizens are fulfilled, thus positioning refugee needs not as a humanitarian need, but as an economic prerogative at the discretion of the state. ‘Rohingyas settled in Teknaf and Ukhia upazilas (administrative regions), who now number over 600,000, are costing us more than US$4 million daily to feed and shelter, not counting the other half a million who came earlier,’ the newspaper wrote on 30 October 2017. The cost is not sourced and would suggest US$2,433 per annum, in country with an annual per person GDP of $1,538. The unsubstantiated figures notwithstanding, such an argument seems justifiable given the reality of Bangladesh’s own poverty. Entman asserts one of the functions of frames is to define problems (Entman, 1993, p. 52), and this frame, at least on the face of it does exactly that. However, the inherent problem with such thinking is obvious when refugees are viewed as outsiders undeserving of PACIFIC JOURNALISM REVIEW 25 (1 & 2) 2019 267