Hacker News Reader

Comment by dirtyid | Hacker News Reader

Alternate title: China doesn't give carte blanche to foreign fraudsters and spies.

In context of Victor and Cynthia Lu, the siblings father is accused of embezzling 1.4 billion. From memory, millions of assets was put under their names in form of US real estate making them legally culpable. More importantly:

>The Chinese Foreign Ministry defended the holding of the three family members, saying: “The people you mentioned all own legal and valid identity documents as Chinese citizens. Because they are suspected of economic crimes, they are restricted from exiting the country by the Chinese police in accordance with the law.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/us/politics/china-exit-ba...

China doesn't allow dual citizenship, Chinese nationals (including HKers) who naturalize abroad is suppose to renounce their Chinese citizenship. Many don't, choosing to travel on Chinese papers for expediency (no need for VISA) etc which subjects them to Chinese law. There's no extradition treaty to China which makes these dumb administration hacks backfire. The article also covered spouse of suspects arrested on suspicion of spying... which no shit justifies exit bans.

E: I think the greater story is that white expats in some countries no longer get preferential treatment due to trade war (US + Canada), and ex Chinese nationals are not safe from CPC reach just because they have a passport with no PRC extradition treaty, but especially if they're being dumb and travelling to China using Chinese papers they were suppose to renounce.

View on HN

Some of these exit bans might be in the situation you describe, but other ones are not. US citizens, born in the us, who also never had chinese passports, who aren't under any known investigations have also been held back in exit bans. Also, holding someone's adult children because their father is suspected of something is never acceptable.

The fact that these bans are only becoming more frequent now with the trade war is evidence that they aren't just a neutral exercise.

>> US citizens, born in the us, who also never had chinese passports,

The simplistic American system of citizenship is not universal. Being born in a country does not always make one automatically a citizen of that country. So too does being born in country A not negate one's automatic citizenship in country B.

From the perspective of China, that a person was born in the US is immaterial. If they are born to Chinese parents then they are Chinese, especially when now standing inside China. This is why one should always talk to a lawyer before visiting "the old country" with kids born elsewhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_nationality_law

Bigger horror story: First generation Iranian-Canadian family fly to Iran to introduce canadian-born grandchildren to Iranian-born grandparents. At airport for flight home. 19 years old? Male? born to Iranian parents? standing inside Iran? Have you done your military service?

Whether one can "disavow" a citizenship is a big question. Citizenship is not a hat. You cannot just move to Canada, marry a Canadian, and suddenly expect not to owe US taxes ... or not be drafted into a US war.

Sounds like there's not a lot of difference between "citizen" and "subject". The claims of ownership across generations for births that occurred elsewhere are the most astonishing part of this for me.

Then don't look into who can acquire Israeli citizenship. They are open to "all Jewish persons", both people born to jewish mothers and converts "who are not a member of another religion". So citizenship, or not, can turn on the specifics of religious faith and ritual. (Isreal is not alone in this, they are just the most western-leaning nation for whom religious dogma is used in determining citizenship.)

You've really got an axe to grind, don't you?

Israel GRANTS citizenship to people of Jewish ancestry. It doesn't claim ownership of them like China is doing in this scenario.

I think you're confusing the word "can" and "must". A Jew can become an Israeli citizen. The issue here is that many of these people are not choosing to be China's citizens and yet are considered such.

I did not use the word "can" or "must". Those are not my words.

I said Isreal was "open to" certain people, which is an accurate description of the policy. Where citizenship suitability is at issue, such as an asylum claim or immigration/visa application, religious factors then come into play. I made no mention of Israel claiming control or forcing citizenship on anyone.

So it's not like a "claim of ownership" to people and not relevant to the comment you replied to?

Did these people enter China with a visa? Many Chinese parents sign a document to give up foreign citizenship for their children on entrance into China, so their children don't need a visa, and can enjoy benefits like health care and free education in China. That's how China can claim their Chinese citizenship.

Happened to a friend of mine though it was Syria in that case(before the war, 2008~9). Guy was 20 and had never set foot in the country, wasn't really aware this was even a thing. Managed to get out of it after being detained for a few days through connections and lobbying but it was scary AF. Their military service is 2 years long...

Happened to a friend of mine in Austria, of all places. I can't remember exactly how he got out, but I think he might have left the airport and crossed the border to Hungary.

The point is not what the US believes citizenship to be. It is what rights do people have and what is the response of a civilized government to those rights?

A civilized government will protect the rights of its citizens. An uncivilized one believes that the citizens somehow belong to it and must do its bidding and be dependent upon it.

The CCP does not have the best interests of these people in mind - it only has its own interests in mind and is using these people as pawns.

>> An uncivilized one believes that the citizens somehow belong to it and must do its biddin

Those in glass houses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System

"All male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens, who are between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays"

Registration! Scary! It's an index-sized paper form you fill out. That's it.

The draft isn't coming back and there has been no instance of it coming back in any capacity in over 50 years. So no glass houses here, thanks.

Also even if drafted after registration it was avoidable. You can be a conscientious objector. You can leave the country bc. in the us we don't check your Id when you leave, unlike China. You could go to Canada. And we don't draft people anymore but we do register them. There's a tiny tinge of comparison but it's not the same as holding your kids hostage if you are on the political outs.

During the Vietnam war, you could "go to Canada" basically only because Pierre Trudeau instructed the border guard to allow Americans who seemed like they might be draft dodgers to immigrate illegally. No guarantees there will be another arrangement like that next time.

Doesn't being a CO sometimes result in prison? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

> but other ones are not

But what are these others. The article's examples are: billion+ fraud, espionage, and political corruption by family members. The last one is optically the most senselessly punitive. Clearly political retaliations which I oppose. For financial crimes, in absence of extradition treaties, China's hands are tied, we shouldn't expect them to just allow mass fraud to go unanswered. Punishing billionaires, albeit with bias, is one of the few things China does partially right. Espionage rationalizes itself.

> holding someone's adult children because their father is suspected of something is never acceptable.

From NYT: >The couple sold the Arcadia home in 2004 and bought a house in a gated community in Armonk, N.Y., an affluent town, records show. The home was transferred to Cynthia Liu’s name in 2011 and sold in 2014 for almost $900,000.

There's shenanigans suggesting the kids were used to launder assets which makes them directly culpable. There's no telling how much of this is actually a family affair. They're not kids. They're adults who have benefited from embezzled money.

>aren't just a neutral exercise.

No they're not, Chinese law was never neutral when it comes to expats, but it's hard to feel sorry when western drug dealers or spies complain losing white privilege. The point is, China-US-Canadian relationships are cooling. If you have GOOD reason to be targeted by China, then don't go there. There are hundreds of thousands of expats in China, when some of them get arrested, the question should really be, why them in particular.

> billion+ fraud, espionage, and political corruption by family members

Detaining the estranged daughters of a suspected fraudster is not due process. It’s the sort of shenanigans that make Chinese courts the laughingstocks they are held to be.

How is this different than the US requiring passport surrender of a citizen charged with a crime along with their father?

The US doesn’t let dual citizens just fly away when charged, why should China?

> How is this different than the US requiring passport surrender of a citizen charged with a crime along with their father?

Source?

For your passport to be surrendered, you need to be charged with a crime. Being related to the accused isn’t a crime. (The black eye that is Guantanamo notwithstanding.)

More critically, many of these people have been charged with nothing. No process is pending. They are held with no next steps. There is simply no analog for this behaviour in countries with the rule of law, whether that be Taiwan or Japan or Germany or the United States.

How does one mention Gitmo and forget about it in the very next sentence???

> How does one mention Gitmo and forget about it in the very next sentence?

One doesn’t. Gitmo is a black eye on our judicial system.

But there is a difference between a widely-debated exception and a generally-accepted baseline. Gitmo is abnormal in America. It is a baseline for Xi’s regime.

Excellent point. It's horrible and needs to become regular court based but it's an exception, not the standard. I still hate that it happens in my country.

By noting that gitmo is legally controversial, has a bunch of asterisks next to what can happen there (afaik they cannot send people on US soil there), and it's been used on a grand total of 800 "enemy combatants" In the last 20 years.

It is in every sense an anomaly, and is not even remotely comparable to what is discussed here.

Are they charged with a crime?

Due process would be served if they are being charged.

TBC, it’s not like all the people in gitmo got their due process but still, either charge the kids or* let them go.

My understanding is that SCOTUS has found gitmo prisoners to have a right to due process in Federal courts.

If China has evidence that these young adults were complicit in crimes, why haven't they been charged with these crimes?

China doesn't have an in independent judiciary. This is the country that stole Micron's chip design, then found Micron guilty of infringing on its own design (manufactured by a Chinese company). China is a clearly a country capable of inventing crimes for its political opponents when it sees fit.

Chinese forecasts always seem to assume a slow march in a particular direction.

What happens if cooling becomes a rapid heat up in tensions?

The US is unpredictable and has always flourished when the world is in chaos. Good luck predicting when and how and who decides it is time to go over the waterfall

Are they becoming more frequent or is the press mentioning them more often? Citations needed.

>The article also covered spouse of suspects arrested on suspicion of spying... which no shit justifies exit bans.

As a Westerner I have a lot of trouble understanding how you can consider what you just wrote as obvious. Could you describe your thinking about this more? I know you said it's obvious but I don't get why.

It’s right there in the sentence you quoted (albeit awkwardly written)! The spouse is also suspected of spying!

Do you think the Chinese are idiots? Or that we don’t do the same??

Do you consider the exit ban placed on Huawei's CFO as obvious?

She's been indicted and is subject to an extradition proceeding in a court of law. What legal process is this guy's spouse subject to that prevents her from leaving?

Ah sorry I misread

When I read this reply I thought you said "Huawei's CFO's spouse" (since my question was about spouses or family members) and I was shocked and didn't know what you were talking about, I certainly didn't know that happened, couldn't think of any reason for that to happen or for it to be obvious it should/would happen. Then I realized you didn't say spouse. I am asking about the spouse part!

Can you tell me more of the parent poster's thinking? They implied it's really obvious, so I'd like to understand it.

I realize you think it's obvious but I don't understand it and can't imagine what you and the other poster mean. Could you put it into words?

I can't find corroboration for most of that. Per the Times story, the younger sibling was born in the US. None of the sources for this story seem to indicate that these two were travelling on PRC passports or otherwise in the country as citizens. Nor is there any claim of espionage on their part.

I mean, the arc of your claim (that this is just fallout of an otherwise legitimate crime investigation and not a deliberate punishment for these kids or the US in particualr) is probably true. But still, fabricating arguments against them doesn't make it OK for them to be held against international law.

There's no espionage claims, I think it's purely over economic crime. I don't know if they're complicit, their parents may have moved laundered assets under their name without their knowledge. I'm not even sure if their detainment is for the purpose of investigate, coercion or they're merely being made an example of to others.

As for Chinese papers, this is speculation territory but with some personal knowledge. You can buy Chinese identities, there's a market for it. I know people who previously revoked their PRC citizenship but later acquired a dead persons identity to buy property and start business in mainland among other perks.

> I'm not even sure if their detainment is for the purpose of investigate, cohesion or they're merely being made an example of to others.

This is the crux of the problem. We have no idea whether they are legitimately being investigated, or if they are innocent people being held in the country to apply pressure on someone else.

A low-level employee who travels to the PRC for work might end up in the same situation if his company faces accusations, and anyone who travels to the PRC, or an HK citizen who might face extradition for trial in the near future, needs to be aware of this.

Punishing relatives for the crimes of family members is barbaric. I’d be surprised to see anyone at HN defending this sort of legal system.

>I’d be surprised to see anyone at HN defending this sort of legal system.

Not surprising at all if you check his comment history.

It looks like OP has different experiences that let’s them see the situation more clearly.

Wait, why should the spouse of a spy be subject to an exit ban?

Because China doesn't believe in individualism. You are defined by your party affiliation, friends, family, race (Han vs non-Han), and skin color (brown/"dirty"脏 Asian vs white Asian).

This is underrated comment.

Mainlanders firmly believe in collectivism; whereas, western audiences in individuality.

Therefore, Chinese people believe it is okay to kill a person to save the group. Whereas, other countries do not.

Mainlanders think that is being selfish.

Actually, it's more of a conformist than collectivist society. The misconception comes from studies done in China regarding collectivism vs individualism in the 80s and 90s, that were 'Margaret Mead'ed: sitting people down in a formal classroom to take a test being administered by scientists with government permission didn't have the same effect in China and the western countries it was being compared to.

Collectivism is commonly seen as a valuable presentation in conformism-driven social environments.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.561...

This isn't killing sometime to save a group, though. This is guilt by association. And it isn't even that (that's just the dishonest justification), it's just a shady hope that by detaining this fraudster's incident offspring, they can lure him back to China to arrest him. It's disgusting and reprehensible.

I don't think the government thinks the kids are guilty, I think the parent is implying something even worse: that they'd be willing to essentially throw these innocent kids under a bus to arrest the parents.

No, I definitely got that (and apparently mistyped "innocent" as "incident"). The issue isn't that I object to "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few". I think that is appropriate in some situations. But this doesn't feel like that; arresting this guy won't go and help or save a bunch of people. It's just revenge, and they're throwing the likely-innocent kids under the bus to get it.

Again you have your individualist lens on and you are judging the situation purely based on that moral framework.

I don't think I am.

The idea of prioritizing collective good means that it's ok to sacrifice one (or more) people if even more people will benefit from that action by a certain threshold amount.

This... isn't that. Arresting this guy won't help or save a bunch of people. The government just wants revenge for his financial crimes, and they're unethically using his kids to try to get it.

Other countries will make up terms like “collateral damage” when they drone strike a wedding just to kill one target.

Mainlanders believe that progress requires unity and sometimes it's okay that progress or unity costs lives.

1. There’s a good chance they have information relevant to the spying.

2. To get leverage on the spy.

3. To send a message to other spies and spouses.

Those are three common-sense reasons I can think of. I’m sure there are a dozen others.

Sounds more like how the mafia operates than a legal system.

For the same reason the spouse would be taken in, questioned, and possibly passport taken away in the US - to ensure the spouse doesn’t know anything of interest to investigators.

I mean, let’s not be daft. If Snowden hadn’t shielded his g/f as well as he did, Ms. Mills would have never been allowed to leave the US.

She either would have been charged with espionage, or for breaking one of the innumerable laws we all break in a daily basis.

The US hasn’t held the spouses or children of any Chinese people accused or convicted Of spying. Please stop with the obviously false claims.

Consider it being put on the No Fly List.

You don’t have to be charged to be put on it.

> For the same reason the spouse would be taken in, questioned, and possibly passport taken away in the US

Only if that person is actually charged with a crime, has due process.

This isn't about that. This is about China not charging someone with a crime, and not giving them due process.

If you want to take away someone's passport, then you should charge them with a crime first.

Your post doesn't cover all the cases where there is no valid reason for this ban on people who did nothing wrong and are just being denied because of the trade war.

Do you have examples?

I agree, there was a big story about China'a arrest of an Indian business man, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-16381464

Years later it turned out he was one of the main scammers in Dubai https://gulfnews.com/uae/expose-trading-scam-masterminds-unm...

Despite your attempts to dress them up as being somehow "legally culpable" they have been charged with no crimes despite being detained for more than a year.

Their mistake was traveling to a totalitarian communist dictatorship and expecting not to be at risk of arbitrary detention.

Remember the case of the German engineer who was arrested in Florida while trying to return home after his vacation?

https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20171206/vw-executive-arr...

...who was complicit in a billion dollar fraud in the US. How is that comparable, exactly?

Because those siblings are believed to be complicit in a billion dollar fraud.

Hardly works as a counterpoint, because doesn't satisfy what the original commenter said: "Despite your attempts to dress them up as being somehow "legally culpable" they have been charged with no crimes despite being detained for more than a year."

wouldn't an equivalent counterpoint then be to ship them to Guantanamo?

and waterboard them there while saying publicly you remain committed to human rights -> despite never charging them?

Yeah that 19 year old Georgetown undergrad was definitely complicit in a billion dollar fraud that happened when he was 10.

Are they charged with a crime?

The answer is no. They have not been charged with any crimes.

So the siblings did it!

You nailed the jackpot

You mean the one who was charged with an actual crime and had a fair trial and due process of law?

China has to walk a tightrope where if they're too humane they're accused of randomly treating arbitrary innocent bystanders like criminals, and on the other extreme they'd be letting co-conspirators walk free.

They seem to be taking a sensible path down the middle? Lets be realistic, the kids aren't significant co conspirators if the dollar values of the supposed identity thefts or conspiracies are really small compared to the whole (at least... as far as the authorities can publicly announce, LOL, maybe they are in deeper than they can announce), and you can't expect relatives to testify or cooperate against each other reliably anyway. On the other hand they're literally members of a "crime family" and if this happened to mafia members, people would not be overly surprised to hear semi-clean conspirators are having a rough time with the law.

Much like "anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time", arbitrary detention is hardly limited to one specific country or political system. I'm sure Assange, Snowden, and the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay would beg to differ with your opinion.

> China has to walk a tightrope where if they're too [harsh] they're accused of randomly treating arbitrary innocent bystanders like criminals, and on the other extreme they'd be letting co-conspirators walk free.

Is this not a tight rope that every single country walks? What's being described above doesn't sound very middle road to me. Though I prefer that when systems fail criminals go free vs innocent lose their freedom (Blackstone's Formulation).

It is, and while Blackstone's Formulation is foundational in western legal systems, I also acknowledge that other countries may choose different lines to draw. At the very least it's a grand experiment into what works the best.

> At the very least it's a grand experiment into what works the best.

I really hate this phrase. Because implicitly it is using the wrong metric. So far we've seen the democracy, free speech, and advancement actually compliment one another. But we're at a turning point. We're already redefining what advancement means. Does it mean most powerful? Being able to feed and provide basic needs to everyone? Most scientific? Richest? Most humane? Historically most of these just correlated with wealth, so that metric became the target. But we're getting to the point where you can have many of those things without wealth, simply because they are so cheap. And soon they will be trivial cheap.

So a grand experiment into what? I think we had a good metric before but it isn't so clear anymore.

> China has to walk a tightrope where if they're too humane they're accused of randomly treating arbitrary innocent bystanders like criminals

What do you mean by this? Why would being too humane cause accusations of arbitrarily treating people like criminals?

Haha, Spot on :)

so capitalist democracies never detain people for a year without charges?

First, they shouldn't. Second we do have the rule of law which can get them out and get them penalties. There's one significant exception for the US, and it's has besmirched our reputation, perhaps forever. We have the situation where people are held for life in Guantanamo Cuba at a US military base, accused of being terrorists related to 9/11 and they don't have access to the us judicial system generally. There were many people held there who were found only after years of time to not have been terrorists. Then don't forget the cia tortured people on our behalf too.

This was wrong. It doesn't excuse what China is doing.

> This was wrong. It doesn't excuse what China is doing.

Unless, of course, you are still doing it.

No, someone else doing a bad thing doesn't make doing that bad thing okay.

Er no: if the largest, most powerful country on earth - with the most amount of allies and friendly trading partners is doing something and is getting away with it, then - by definition - it acceptable to the 'norms of the times'.

Which means others can do it to.

I think what's happening here is a difference in how we view our governments.

In the West, and especially in America, we don't highly internalize "being American" (insert country). A lot of us just think of it as a circumstances. And right now there's a lot of distaste for what the government does. You'll probably find that most of the people are upset at their own country about exactly what you're upset about what America does (I know I am, and it looks like the parent does too. At least in the specific example).

We don't always condone what the government does. We don't see that as "us" but "them". You'll see many people speaking out against the government here when they do things we don't like (that's democracy in action. The belief that governments need to be put in check). So when we don't like something we try to get it changed, and this frequently works. More often than not actually, and the nots are usually that it takes longer than we want.

So an American won't see themselves as a hypocrite for calling out a country for doing something that America does if they also disagree that America does it. We just don't see our government in that way.

Edit: The parent is also making reference to a phrase that most of our mothers taught us: "just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right" (or some variation)

These are dubious claims considering the rise of populist leaders in various western democracies. It’s also annoying to see westerners comment on how “those” people think politically. Chat with any Chinese taxi (well, didi) driver for a bit and you’ll hear plenty of complaints and the occasional wild conspiracy theory, although they’re obviously careful not to go too far for their own good (didi started recording audio for passenger safety reasons).

This dissociation from government is also just generally disingenuous. You reap the benefits of all these policies you are supposedly against, and get to feel good about yourself because “well, I didn’t condone it”. Is this really any different from a Chinese police officer saying “I was just following orders”?

In your complaint you even note the difference, so I'm a little confused.

> although [Didi drivers are] obviously careful not to go too far for their own good

I don't think any Westerner seriously feels that they could be jailed for anything short of telling some official that they're going to kill the president or some major leader. Person to person, you can say whatever. As much as I don't like the NSA's overreach I don't think they are listening or don't bother themselves with these acts (one of the two has to be true given the last decade).

So I'd say that's one big difference.

You're also talking about a time when America has record distaste and distrust for their politicians and president. It wasn't always like this and I think your argument would be fine if the majority of people supported the state, but that's just currently not the case.

> You reap the benefits of all these policies you are supposedly against

How do I not? Seriously. I didn't choose to be born in this country. I can't just not reap the benefits. There is no method for me to pick and choose my benefits based on my personal beliefs. So I'm not sure what you expect me to do. There's no country I can move to that is doing significantly better. The only action I can see is to attempt to change what is happening here. But if you see more that I can do I would appreciate the advice (I'm serious). I'm not resigning to my "fate". A defeatist attitude is a step backwards.

> Is this really any different from a Chinese police officer saying “I was just following orders”?

Yes. I'm not sure why you think the populous is the same as state actors (police). They are different entities. Also, "just following orders" isn't an excuse in the military, let alone international law. It doesn't hold up here in America. You can go to jail for committing crimes that you were ordered to commit. Doesn't matter if you're the head of the military following the president's orders (you may notice that generals do ignore presidential orders, see the Muller report) or a police officer following the chief. Authorization does not protect you in a court of law.

> So I'm not sure what you expect me to do. There's no country I can move to that is doing significantly better. The only action I can see is to attempt to change what is happening here.

The difference is that in the western world, you're allowed to make as much of stink as you possibly can about the system you disagree with. Surely, you'll meet opposition, but you and your family aren't going to be whisked away to a secret prison because you disagree with a particularly powerful person or political party.

> we don't highly internalize "being American"

True for a subset of people but drive out to the red states and that is definitely not true.

I used to live in a red state. Deep red. I learned a lot while there, having grown up in the deep blue. We're all talking past one another because we all make assumptions about the other side that just aren't true. So if you're in the deep blue, drive out and have a beer with the reds. But listen, don't fight. Conversely if you're in the deep red, do the same. You'll be surprised how much everyone agrees on things. The differences are how to reach the goals. But we're too caught up in being morally superior and winning.

No, it does not make it okay. If it is morally questionable, then no matter who does it, it remains so.

Actually no, allow me to give you another example:

Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders (Go ahead an try travelling as a Swiss national and then again as a Sudanese).

I think this is reprehensible and I suspect others will one day too. Right now - its not even discussed. Hence 'acceptable to the norms of the times'.

And here's the rub: not only am I considered a naive quack on this issue, but it would be quickly pointed out when a nation state with strict border visa requirements told of another state for doing the same.

You need to work through your assumptions more.

You're starting to make less sense the more you reply, sorry.

> Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders

And? The point is that people are not their government. They disagree with what they govt is doing and speak out. What's your point exactly?

Again, your bad actions are not justified by the bad actions of others. I think you need to work through your logic, otherwise, you might end up justifying murder because.. well... people do it, right?

I am not entirely sure, but I believe what you are referring to is double standard, and/or being inconsistent. Is this correct? If so, then I agree that - unfortunately - it happens a lot. If X does A, it is fine, but if Y does A, then it is not fine. Yes, I know, this happens, but this does not make A any less wrong if one is consistent about it.

It loses its authority when X is never called to stop doing A.

They aren't supposed to. Which is why when it happens a lot of people speak out against it. I mean there's still plenty of talk about gitmo (which I'd also put suspected terrorists as a different level than suspected fraudsters). There's even politicians that have talking points of shutting it down because the people aren't happy.

In the West we openly complain when our government is doing things that we don't like and doesn't align with our personal beliefs. But like all countries, China included, we do have internal propoganda that causes people to be quiet about or support things against their own interests and beliefs.

It really isn't just so simple and can't be boiled down to a "got you" phrase. But neither is China (and I'm happy to so the "got you" remark in this thread about China is also down voted).

Great summary. Thanks for your bravery!

Most readers who have the knowledge about China instantly know the author is misleading audience by put up half truth and remove important relevant context. But those readers might not dare to speak out because it would be heavily down voted because truth doesn't match the popular belief that Chinese government is an evil authoritarian regime. It's sad that quite large portion of population still can not differentiate facts and their own belief. HNer's are already much better than other online communities.

China's place in the world as an evil authoritarian regime isn't seriously debated by anyone who has read even a little history.

It's not a "belief", it's fact. Mao killed 45 million people.

Real life is not a fantasy novel, it's far too complex to reduce down to good and evil, despite the temptations.

Our founding fathers would probably be considered terrorists to the Crown.

Our founding fathers didn't murder 45 million people.

Plenty of people were living on this land before europeans arrived.

Edit: to elaborate, if you asked them who was more evil, you'd get different answers. Trevor Noah has a great section on this in his book about an upbringing in South Africa:

> “The name Hitler does not offend a black South African because Hitler is not the worst thing a black South African can imagine. Every country thinks their history is the most important, and that’s especially true in the West. But if black South Africans could go back in time and kill one person, Cecil Rhodes would come up before Hitler. If people in the Congo could go back in time and kill one person, Belgium’s King Leopold would come way before Hitler. If Native Americans could go back in time and kill one person, it would probably be Christopher Columbus or Andrew Jackson. ”

And Washington was a big player in the Native American genocide. While Churchill’s actions led to the Indian famine, resulting in millions of deaths.

If we are going to judge a country by its history, then no country is “good.”

You're playing whataboutism. Whether or not everyone else is perfect is not relevant to the statement I made. China has clearly and unapologetically established its place in the world.

> The article also covered spouse of suspects arrested on suspicion of spying... which no shit justifies exit bans.

So mere association is the justification for the spouse's exit ban?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18771384

Reply on news.ycombinator.com