As an American I'd think very carefully about working in China right now for the same reason. No matter where you are in the world, you're always breaking some law, and they can pick you up and throw the book at you to make a PR point whenever they please. Same as for a Chinese person in the US.
Feel bad, because the guys travelling to work or study really do just want to meet each other and have interesting idea exchanges, maybe make some friends, etc.
But then the political type people get involved, and it just gets a bit too complicated and you start weighing the potential risks differently.
That's not exactly true. While China doesn't detain US citizens (yet!) it detains several Canadian citizens presumable because the Huawei's CFO has been arrested in Canada by a US request. See https://time.com/5626289/china-canada-arrest-yantai/
Which makes things even worse - you may become a hostage due to US/China conflicts even if you happened to be a citizen of a US ally.
> We interred Japanese after Japan commuted one of the largest terror attacks in US history, that’s it.
1.) "We" did not inter Japanese. Those who made the rules and followed them during that time did. If by "We" you mean "Americans" then that leads to the next point...
2.) Many of the "Japanese" you say were interred were Americans. They were put into camps not because of any actual reason than how they look and where their ancestry hailed from.
3.) Imprisoning people who have done nothing wrong and have lived their lives in this country should make painfully clear the quote, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
In the US, Trump says mean things about certain types of immigrants.
In China, you can be jailed with no due process for speaking out about human rights abuses. Also, better hope you're not in a religious minority. Don't say anything bad about the government, because they're watching you!
It includes visa restrictions and harassment (e.g., computer seizures, pressuring your job to fire you) from agencies like the FBI and NIH. It also impacts people who have no connection to China, like the Taiwanese Wen Ho Lee.
I knew a Chinese exchange student who would debate all sorts of things, but when you brought up the Chinese government she would come to a hard stop and say "I don't talk about that."
It's probably smart if you're from an authoritarian country.
If she's considering immigrating to the United States at any point in the future, she would be wise to not debate anything that has to do with the United States, in any electronically recorded medium.
All visa/status adjustment applicants now have to turn over their social media identities. It would be prudent for her to not express a viewpoint[1] that might have an adverse impact on her immigration.
[1] What are those viewpoints? We don't know - CBP won't tell anyone. And whatever they will tell, may very well change in the future.
The Chinese government is not overly concerned with individual citizens sharing anti-government sentiment. It's not a problem for most people that aren't activists. Most people are concerned with much more basic aspects of life... supporting their families, getting good jobs, time for leisure...
It doesn't mean it's acceptable, but assuming that every Chinese citizen lives in fear of the government cracking down on their political complaints is totally unfounded. The exchange student you know could just as well have been sick of westerners thinking they know more about the CCP than someone raised in China.
The Chinese government has been actively monitoring [0] all popular online messaging platforms, and shutting down any opinion that is considered by the government anti-government.
There is also some new network security law [1] that enforces companies, from ISP to website operators, to self-censor, and to pinpoint every action from every user, such that officials could collect the data as they wish [2].
The whole process is already well organized and somewhat automated. Now that the social credit score system is being deployed to more major cities, the threat of free speech is climbing to the next level.
You may say they don't fear. But I argue that many Chinese citizens don't even realize why they feel very uncomfortable and insecure to talk about politics. They think people who voice out are stupid. The reason deep down, is fear.
[0]: https://twitter.com/0xDUDE/status/1101909112131080192
[1]: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/content/china-passes-network-securi...
[2]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/chinas-cybersecurity-law-updat...
If you think the extent of America's hostility against certain types of immigrants is limited to Dump Truck saying mean things on Twitter, I'm not sure what to tell you. [1]
DT doesn't exist in a vaccum. There's a powerful, xenophobic political movement that has made him president, and there's a mainstream political party that wins more elections than it loses, that panders to that constituency.
[1] I also find it incredibly ironic that you are dimissing anti-immigrant sentiment as 'it's just words' - as in - words aren't a big deal, while in the same breath, pointing out that words are in fact a big deal, because there are many that you can't say in China. [2]
[2] Are 'just words' a big deal or not? You can't have it both ways.
So very powerful, winning so many elections, yet they barely made a dent in even just legal immigration - it is still above 1 million per year, and the white population went from 85% in 1960, to 63% in 2010 [1] - a period during which the party that panders to xenophobia won more than half the elections, as you say.
Meanwhile the non-xenophobic China has 1 million immigrants total, and is 91% Han-Chinese [2] - homogeneity and demographic isolation beyond anything depicted in works criticizing fascism like Man in the High Castle.
That the country taking in the most immigrants, and so rapidly changing its demographics, gets labeled as the racist xenophobic one, while the closed ethno-state gets no criticism of its immigration policy, is a sick joke.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...
If you read the entirety of my post, you may notice that I did not label the United States as a xenophobic country.
I labeled a particular, but currently politically powerful subset of the population as a xenophobic one. If you doubt that it exists, you can find a good representation of it at your nearest MAGA rally.
If you have any immigrant friends, I recommend bringing them with you... And ask them what they think of what they'll see. They may find their eyes more persuasive than your assurances that everything is fine.
There may be a lot of xenophobic rhetoric, but actions speak louder than words, and what precious little action there was (bans for Muslim countries that account for a negligible number of immigrants, and detention of children at the border) was both very ineffective and very politically damaging - the exact opposite of what one would do if one wanted to limit immigration.
All that was accomplished in the three years that this rhetoric has gone mainstream - and not at 'great expense of public opinion'. I don't think a single American has had their mind changed on this subject, since the last election.
What do you expect 2020 will bring, in the event of another Trump victory?
There's a very clear message to immigrants, here. A lot of people think they are the cause of the country's ills, that they want them gone, and they have just gotten started on this project.
So to answer your question, in the event of another Trump victory, I expect immigration to the US to continue at near-record rates, while they continue to be called xenophobic.
[1] https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2017/tab...
[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/number-of-people-...
[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/17/key-finding...
Allow me to provide the context:
If you're a Chinese internantional student living in the USA where the #1 guy in the country uses Identity Politics as its arsenal to win and lead the country, you, as an outsider, will feel insecure w.r.t of races.
If you're a Chinese international student coming back home to your country of origin, you're used to the situations there: that's what you were born with and that's your culture that you're used to for 18 years of your life. I mean, you're still free to roam the streets, eat any food, continue with your life as-is. It's not like you live in a jail.
If you're a typical Americans who doesn't like the government to limit virtually anything (yes, I'm dead serious, Americans want everything and they don't like rules), you probably look at other countries as some sort of un-democratic, nazi-like state. I've seen a few people here criticized Singapore! If you go to Singapore, there's only a limited number of citizens who dislike the leaders.
Context is very important when comparing two countries/cultures.
For example, I live in a no-gun country so I scratched my head hard whenever I see mass-shooting in the US every week killing your children just because folks love their guns. That's just... crazy.
Step inside a land/house by accident and gets killed by the homeowner's M14 is just... nuts (yes I know I'm exaggerating a bit).
In the present day, if you're a black American you may also have a different perspective on life in the US than if you're white.
Just like Americans can’t stop Middle Eastern civilians from being drone striked, Chinese can’t stop their government either.
What about those drones the Americans sent to kill random people?
What about police brutality?
Per-individual base, human also tend to use phrases like "human rights" to cover up their problems. I find it interesting that in the US, the people argue a lot about Abortion vs Right-to-Live meanwhile in California, they glamorized Sex for all ages. American Pies and a bunch of other chick-flick/high-school football movies that often highlights sex-on-prom-day. Social pressure of having sex between unmarried couple. I wonder if those contributes to the need for abortion just because they're not ready.
"human rights"
Best not be so serious: You're mistaken.
Is a whipping a proper punishment for chewing gum left on a Singapore sidewalk?
> Step inside a land/house by accident and gets killed by the homeowner's M14 is just... nuts (yes I know I'm exaggerating a bit).
Does the dead seriousness lead you to believe Americans approve of this nutso reaction?
The last time I stepped in chewing gum I felt the answer was an unequivocal yes.
70% of gun deaths are suicides. The majority of the rest are inner city unlawful gang-on-gang violence.
Most people never even see a gun in the US in their lifetime. Stop spreading misinformation and fear-mongering propaganda.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_...
You count the number of people who got killed. You should also included the number of people who "almost" got killed (paralyzed), traumatized, etc.
Somehow your statement also made the whole thing looks "insignificant". I'm not sure why that is because in other countries, there will be a huge uproar leading to change in laws and regulations to the point of banning.
So if hundreds died due to repeated mass-shootings and only 30% of the incidents that makes gun to be a non-issue in the States? because the other 70% gun-deaths are suicides? So just because the largest piece of the Pie-chart is for "non-violent" gun-death then there is no gun-issue?
What about domestic conflicts that leads to shooting? (glad they missed ... )
Damn...
I saw Dana Loesch went on CNN one time and I saw her speaking in some sort of Townhall. She's really good at her job and the NRA should pay her TONS of money. That lady can sell you anything including MySpace.com today.
You should talk to the victims of mass-shootings and learn the truth.
The type of Chinese immigrants who are likely to get Ph.Ds and work in high tech are generally not religious minorities (if they were, they likely wouldn't have gotten that far in the educational system). They're also not particularly interested in getting involved in politics or speaking out about human rights abuses. Usually if they get to that level of education and have the choice between staying in the U.S. to work for a tech company or research lab or going back to China, it's because they've devoted their life to mastering a specific scientific or technical subject. For someone in that position, likelihood of facing employment discrimination or being deported is generally a much bigger threat than lack of political freedoms.
Selection bias is the most powerful force in nature. The U.S. benefitted very significantly from dictatorships in the 1930-80s that actively repressed academics and educated people, because it forced all of them to move to the U.S, where we welcomed them with open arms. Most of these governments wised up (or rather, facing selection bias, they were overthrown by the consequences of raping their own nations), and now most of the rest of the world is quite welcoming of people with scientific and technical knowledge. The U.S. risks going down the same path if it adopts the same attitudes that didn't work for our competitors.
Many authoritarian governments of the past made the mistake of trying to tinker too hard with economics, with horrible results. China is run by technocrats who know how not to sabotage the money supply.
In the US, Trump says mean things about certain types of citizens.