From an American policy or geopolitical perspective, Hong Kong as an island is meaningless. Its people are its capital.
> the standards should also apply to mainland and Tibetan residents
Perfect is the enemy of good.
You are not going to win against CCP in this scenario. They have bigger army diplomacy AND they don't have rule of law.
Continue protesting, but figure away out, and Get out!
By staying, you are helping the CCP. You work, spend, and play in HK, you are giving the CCP money and power to continue doing this to you. By leaving, you take value out of the equation.
When people leave en masse. You can then form groups and communities elsewhere. Tell people of your plight, teach your kids the lessons you learned, and take on the CCP from a better position.
You think Newsome would would be indifferent if China grabbed Catalina Island?
Strategically speaking, yes. Nobody is landing troops or planes on Hong Kong. And China's ability to project military power onto it is unconstrained, today, by non-diplomatic factors.
Between leaving the population in place in hopes it makes Beijing's life more difficult, and offering them relief, the advantage--to the people and outsiders--seems heavily one sided.
> You think Newsome would would be indifferent if China grabbed Catalina Island?
Most Americans would be pissed if anyone grabbed any sliver of American territory. That doesn't make every inch of American territory high ground.
It's economically meaningful. But from a foreign policy or geopolitical perspective, strategically, it's not worth expending force over.
> having a tiny outpost of liberalism as a check on the worst impulses of the mainland
I'd prefer this too. But Beijing has made its intentions clear. Short of the U.S. deploying force to defend Britain's 1997 agreement, Hong Kong--as it exists today--has fallen.
A Chinese invasion of HK would make a great setting for the next "Fallen" movie, if only Hollywood wasn't so busy sucking up to the CCP.