Hong Kong: UK makes citizenship offer to residents | Hacker News Reader

Hong Kong: UK makes citizenship offer to residents

bbc.co.uk

353 pointssjcsjc377 comments

I live in Vancouver.

The pattern for many Hong Kong immigrants is to have the mother and children live in Canada while the father works in HK.The family doesn't declare the foreign income in Canada.

So they enjoy the benefits of a low tax HK income. And they get all the nice things that go with living in high tax Canada while not contributing to it -free healthcare, subsided University, safe communities, clean environment, low income benefits.

It's so common it has a name, satalite family/astronaut dad.

This isn't a good deal for Canada and Canadians.

https://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/the-unsettled-live...

It's also not a good deal for the kids who do not get to see their father.

If the dad stays an astronaut, he will get lost in space once China finishes engulfing HK. I don't think HKers are going to be as worried about reducing their tax rates as staying free right now..

The whole reason for getting Canadian citizenship is for the day that China engulfs HK and they want to leave. China isn't going to restrict the movement of hundreds of thousands of foreigners legally living in HK.

300,000 Canadians living in HK right now.

Yep, the CCP is going after political dissidents. Expats that keep their head down while making money in HK aren't going to be affected.

> China isn't going to restrict the movement of hundreds of thousands of foreigners legally living in HK.

At least, they are less likely to do so than they are people who aren’t foreigners, although even them I wouldn’t want to bet my life on it.

China ending the two-systems arrangement in Hong Kong despite the Joint Declaration is basically saying “As far as HK (and, implicitly, anything we consider Chinese territory) is concerned, we aren't concerned about what other countries think, or international law or agreements, only power.”

Now you know how Iran feels :)

Well, not just Iran—the US does the same thing pretty blatantly a lot, and it's pretty much Israel’s only mode of operation. There's an argument that it's essentially all of international politics, masked by the fact that most countries, on all but the most existential issues, see the power vs interest calculus as favoring adhering to consensus international law and direct agreements.

> mother and children live in Canada

When these children grow up - they will pay taxes in Canada.

It looks like a good deal for Canada. Even if father's income is taxed in Hong Kong only.

It would be an even better deal if the father worked in Canada and paid Canadian taxes.

Besides, you are assuming that the children of this tax evader aren't going to figure out some other method of avoiding Canadian taxes - like doing literally exactly the same thing.

Are you sure? Or maybe they'll go work in Hong Kong too with the knowledge their Canadian passport gives them a nice escape plan.

It isn't a good deal for Canadians because we can get immigrants that will contribute to Canada, pay taxes, and have children who will do the same.

And many of the children of Hk immigrants will go back to HK to earn more money.

They will do whatever is in their best interest.

> They will do whatever is in their best interest.

Just like every other living being

At the individual level, yes. But at the aggregate level, certain patterns can be observed.

This is extremely common in many countries. Even in the US, there are many families that simply omit reporting income earned abroad. Sure, it's technically illegal, but it's not like the Chinese government is going to help enforce US tax laws.

Same is true for Chinese families in New Zealand and Australia as well. ...and it's not restricted to Chinese people either - obviously.

It's the curse of high tax jurisdictions.

Canada, in general, is famous for massive tax loopholes and hiding income. It is not really a hk issue and is in the news on its own “merits” all the time. There are so many wealthy Canadians avoiding taxes that apparently the national debt could be cleared if we could find a way to make them pay

Yes, also so common that it has a name: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_washing

"The global elite, as well as criminals and foreigners avoiding economic sanctions, can set up shell companies to 'make suspect transactions seem legitimate' under the cover of Canada's reputation for fiscal integrity."

Then shouldn't the government be closing this loophole and taxing whatever vehicle they use to transfer wealth?

I'd criticize an individual for evading taxes, but a "group" of people is just doing what people do.

EDIT: If you want to talk about the "functional" value of immigrants, then you need to get to the root purpose and bring in whoever is having the most kids.

Legislation that has any kind of a racial (or perceived to be racial) aspect to it cannot really be discussed freely. Even though closing such loopholes may be perfectly legitimate, if exploitation of the loophole happens to correlate to a racially identifiable group, in the current age of social media based hyper propaganda it is a very dangerous political move for a career politician (or their party) to touch.

Is that why they have not closed the loophole or are you speculating?

Weren’t they talking about taxing vacant properties in Vancouver recently? Was there social media backlash?

There were significant quantities of racism accusations in social and mainstream media, as there also had been for years during the money laundering in casinos debacle, that most politicians and right thinking news reporters also wouldn't touch.

Who knows what's really true, but there sure seem to be a lot of correlative coincidences, with similar stories in many different countries.

Even if that's the case (and I disagree that it is), I'm sure there are "satellite families" with the breadwinner working in Europe.

And I doubt there'd be an issue with racism making people reluctant to discuss the issue if they were the majority of the cases.

You are assuming that money ever gets to Canada. Half the time it's just kept in an account in Panama to be used when the family is on vacation or wants to buy a second home in another country.

Either that or it's brought in in literal cash. That's why the stories of Chinese home buyer showing up with literal briefcases in cash are all over the place.

The later should be tracked and treated as tax evasion.

It depends on your job. Software Engineer wage is way lower in Hong Kong than Canada. Low income tax in Hong Kong does not make it attractive at all.

What do you think Canadians that work in the Middle East do? Report their incomes?

> mother and children live in Canada while the father works in HK.The family doesn't declare the foreign income in Canada.

Why would the father pay taxes in Canada when he lives and works in HK (or anywhere else) and (likely) is not a Canadian tax resident? It doesn't make any sense.

After all they pay local taxes in Canada while spending (GST, PST, property tax etc.)

Count this as evidence for consumption tax being fairer than income tax.

Earning money and sitting on it doesn't hurt anyone. But in buying a nice life in Canada, you are in part buying what the government provides.

Agreed, there’s something to be said for GST or property taxes that are paid by all regardless of citizenship or legal residence.

Yeah it’s confusing.

At first, I was also going to post about how Canada uses a residential income tax system: even if you’re a citizen, you don’t pay income tax if you live and work overseas. But it turns out where your spouse lives is relevant for determining residency. [1]

Regardless of whether the “astronaut” dads are evading taxes, the bigger question is about designing a tax system that’s both fair and easy to enforce.

[1]: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/interna...

Income tax is by far the largest and most progressive tax.

Sales taxes are small and regressive.

It's a monster difference.

How is the sales tax regressive when there is a fixed percentage?

Like the more I spent the less I pay in sales tax? I don't think so.

It is regressive when you consider the position of the buyer. People need to buy large items, and low income people are disproportionately hurt by taxes on those items.

That doesn't mean it's regressive. It's just a demagogy.

Low income people buy less things and pay lower sales tax proportionally. Wealthy people spend more on luxurious goods and pay way higher tax in absolute numbers. Everyone is hurt the same.

On top of that, necessities (food, medication, books) are usually exempt from the sales tax.

The logic of calling a flat sales tax regressive is (I think) that poor people spend most of their income, while rich people save more, and thus pay a lower percentage of their income.

Agree that this isn't a great way to look at things. And that (as you say) there are often different rates of sales tax on potatoes vs yachts.

Fixed rate sales tax is regressive. A loaf of bread, a car, and a yacht should not be taxed at the same rate, and not only because of the demographic of the buyers, but also because of the introduced externalities.

Variable rate sales tax on the other hand is more progressive than any income tax.

If I was China, I would love for the US and the UK to take the law-aware and dissident people off my hands.

Pretty soon the law-abiding and obedient people will become aware that life outside of authoritarianism is better and safer, and they will either run away or revolt.

And they'll be even more weakened because they are fewer in numbers.

This is exactly why I'm trying to move out of the USA.

I see the USA as more chaotic than authoritarian.

Why trying?

If it is so bad in the US, what is keeping you there? Many developed countries have relatively few immigration hurdles for US Americans to pass. UK in particular, European countries are lax in general in these regards (I live in Germany).

"Relatively few" usually means a significant employment barrier - you usually have to be making a certain amount of money which is hard to come by at the lower rungs of STEM employment, especially if you're restricted to applying for companies you can interview with from overseas.

"Relatively few" for Germany means e.g.

- if you're looking for a job here, as an US citizen you get 3 months visa without questions asked

- there is no minimum amount of money needed in Germany for US citizens, neither as a deposit nor as pay

I believe that in all countries in Europe, there's a requirement that the pay be at market level to avoid the exploitation of immigrants (there's no distinction based on country of origin as you seem to imply), and that the job be advertised first with the EU's job agency (whatever that is called, I forgot now) and EU citizens are able to apply before an immigrant may be allowed to apply and take the job.

" the pay be at market level "

I believe that is called minimum wage? So that would be already a given.

there's no distinction based on country of origin as you seem to imply

there is a distinction: There is a German by-law as well as a EU-decree that classifies US Americans as citizens of a "priviliged country" (§ 26 BeschV (Verordnung über die Beschäftigung von Ausländern)).

https://www.bdae.com/journalbeitraege/dezember-2016-leben-un...

You then also need to make more, as you continue to be taxed in the USA, until you've lived abroad long enough to qualify for citizenship in your new host country, and can give up your USA citizenship.

Because the US has an incredibly restrictive immigration policy towards most of the world, most countries retaliate by having an incredibly restrictive immigration policy against americans.

It's very hard to give up your home, your friends, your connections, and potentially your family even if you have an opportunity for a better life.

Yes, a lot of those connections can potentially move to the same city & country as you but will your neighbor still be your neighbor? Will the bar at the end of the street you go to after a hard day still be there and know exactly what you want when you walk through the door?

The revolt started almost 15 months ago against this kind of crap from China. Emigration may protect you from getting arrested but you're giving up everything you know and love in exchange. That's not much of a deal.

And of course: Beijing will label the emmigrants as home-abandoning traitors.

Not just that they also pressure family members that are left behind so that the defectors who left come back; then they arrest them. [0]

[0] https://www.hrw.org/news/2018/01/31/china-families-interpol-...

Better than being ruled by communists, that's for damn sure. That was my experience, anyway.

I’m really curious: what is your experience that you’re referring to?

Not the person you’re replying to, but I know a number of people with this sentiment. They’re all former residents of the Soviet Union and were able to get out as refugees to the US when it collapsed.

I grew up in a communist country. Good riddance to them, only a shame that so few were prosecuted for ruining the lives of so many.

Who in their right mind downvotes this ^? If you do downvote, I'd really like to know why.

Communism is manifestly a negative influence on mankind's well-being... don't know how anyone could rationally think otherwise (unless you grew up in a communist country and believe the propaganda).

> unless you grew up in a communist country

No, chances are the person who downvoted you is someone who never has actually lived in a communist country and likely did so from the comforts of an overpriced western coffee shop. They probably think they're an intellectual who wouldn't be first against the wall in such a situation.

Take the downvote with pride, since you're speaking truth to abuse.

In particular as GP didn't even make a political statement about theoretical political systems whose veracity could be discussed on some abstract grounds, but made a personal statement about themselves and their direct experience.

This makes me wonder:

USSR : "The Gulag Archipelago" :: modern China : ?

Anyone got a suggestion for a well written modern book that exposes the sins of the CCP?

My wife grew up in the PRC. Before Communism they were a very prominent family (her great uncle was a literary pioneer; his brother, her grandpa, a judge prominent enough that he was mentioned in the movie Lust Caution; and their brother a successful MD), and as a result were "black" under the Communist regime.

With the exception of my wife's grandmother, every member of her extended family spent time in either prison or forced-work camps. One of her aunts translated for me the "confession" she was forced to sign. None of this was related to what we'd consider crimes, but was entirely political.

The Communists took the family's house. They had a refrigerator and a piano, which the Red Guard destroyed on the basis that if everyone didn't have such bourgeois goods, then no one should. When TVs were made available for neighborhood viewing, my wife wasn't allowed to attend.

And there's the malnutrition and squalor they were subjected to. They shared one floor of a brownstone with 2 other families - so, 3 entire families sharing one kitchen and 1.5 baths. There was insufficient food, to the point where they had to eat insect-infested grain - while Party members got plenty.

So, all in all, my wife's experience with Communism wasn't positive, and having lived through that, she's the first to speak up against anything that exhibits any of those traits.

This is of course terrible, and I'm sorry your family went through any of it.

I though think it's worth mentioning that the China of today is absolutely not the China of the 50's.

I've personally spent quite a bit of time in China, and it's never seemed particularly "communist" - the middle class has long since been established and continues to grow, and capatalism is very much thriving. On a personal note, I've always really enjoyed my time in China.

I'm not saying it's a model of wonderdrous virtue either of course; there is a lot of corruption (hardly unique to China, mind), many people wouldn't even dream of openly criticising the CCP, there is little press freedom, and of course the Uigher (spelling?) camps are an abomination. Yet the overwhelming majority of the population have never had it better, and are happy with the way things are (of course, few will know everything about the way things are).

There's a lot of truth in your response. My own personal feeling, from my visits to the country from the 90s to the present, is that in some ways the day-to-day life on the streets of Shanghai seem more free than America. It seems like the government has been mostly laissez-faire toward the individual people, so long as those people leave the oligarchy alone.

The thing is, it's very much a pendulum. The Cultural Revolution, when my wife was growing up, was one of the worst times. The couple decades starting in the 90s was relatively quite good. The thing is, since Xi took control the pendulum has been swinging back in the other direction. That's most obvious back in Hong Kong, but is also evident within the mainland, as reported by family members and we can see ourselves through online interactions (e.g., on multiple occasions my wife's WeChat comments have been censored).

The CCP has not at all let up on its persecution of people, groups, and ideas that are deemed "enemies of the state": Christians who do not meet in a State-registered/3-self (= state-controlled) church (persecution of those Christians has worsened significantly), Falon Gong practitioners, and minority group members, among others.

In addition to religious and ideological persecution, we see grave human rights abuses continue unabated: forced abortions, arbitrary (non-rule-of-law) treatment of citizens, lack of habeas corpus, ruling officials and legislators who are unelected (or who are only eligible for election if they are CCP members), a secret police, massive slave labor camps, long prison sentences for journalists and human rights activists, etc.

Perhaps the only difference we're seeing since the 1950's is that capital and property ownership in themselves are not seen as anti-state.

Eastern bloc country. Grandfather tortured for being a priest after his house got confiscated and family ran out of town. My other grandfather had a similar experience but got his house back eventually. Constant persecution. Fear of anyone who was not family because they could be spies for the state. Food rationing. 6 day workweek. Bribe doctors so you don't die on the operating table and everyone else too. Can't read in public. Tons of censorship. I was very young and my family was doing well, the communist equivalent of middle class. Others had it much worse. Being a child I was shielded from a lot but children are not stupid. Imagine having murderous hate for your president at seven, eight years old. Education was quite good though, but I missed most of that. Highly doubt China much different in many respects from my visit there.

My grandfather spend time in jail as well (also a priest), in uranium mines. That was a favorite for "enemies of the state".

Apart from reading in public and murderous hate for the president, can relate to everything you wrote. Never been to China to comment.

Of course it is better to live in a liberal as opposed to an authoritarian system, but this type of thinking (an inherent inevitability of liberalism to win over authoritarianism) breeds complacency and can ultimately be the downfall of western liberal democracy.

There is no guarantee that the system that is more just will win out. That's the reason why we have to do everything we can to make sure that liberal democracy works and to impede authoritarianism in all its forms and guises. The CCP should never have had the amount of international investment and export markets it has had, given the overall strategy of the party to hoard power and crush dissent.

I'm not sure we need to impede authoritarianism or any other form of government. It is more than likely that level of investment that has gone into China over the last few decades have put the country in the a strong position. But I think the CCP and the Chinese people in general can take a lot of credit for what they have achieved. And to my point...if the end result is rising incomes for all, better life expectancy and an overall better quality of life does it matter that it came about through an authoritarian regime?

>if the end result is rising incomes for all, better life expectancy and an overall better quality of life does it matter that it came about through an authoritarian regime?

And when this growth ends, what will happen? An authoritarian system is able to withstand challenges with the full power of the state behind it. People that dissent are crushed, and many times the people that dissent do so with the most honourable of intentions. Viewed under the prism of authoritarianism this matters not. It's a system that remains not because of consent and merit, but ultimately due to suppression of dissent.

Just because China is able to catch-up some of the growth that it completely missed out on due to the turmoil of the Communist revolution and the turbulent 50s and 60s, doesn't validate this system one bit. Other countries were ahead of China, with more growth and sustainability, minus the cruelty.

>Just because China is able to catch-up some of the growth that it completely missed out on due to the turmoil of the Communist revolution and the turbulent 50s and 60s, doesn't validate this system one bit. Other countries were ahead of China, with more growth and sustainability, minus the cruelty.

The most powerful countries in the world were literally coasting on stolen Chinese wealth for 100 years of so. When the UK couldn't coast anymore, it lost world reserve currency status.

That era ended long before the Communists took power. Which they did by allowing the KMT to deplete their resources by fighting the Japanese first. They contributed surprising little in the war effort.

Now, can we get back on the subject of how the CCP is treating dissidents (and neighbouring countries)?

>doesn't validate this system one bit. .

India springs to mind as a good 1:1 comparison candidate and it seems to be doing much worse than China in most economic metrics.

Was India next to a financial hub like Hong Kong and a electronics and manufacturing hub like Taiwan that rapidly industrialised in the 60s and 70s? India is also further positioned from the Pacific and the sea routes to the US market, but that's a secondary reason, not the primary one.

Just because they both have large populations don't make them alike.

Life in China is fine right now. They are living about 50x better off than their parents. They are educated.

The CCP is super clever and imbued a sort of nationalistic pride from birth. Instead of the US's more complicated dualistic individualism/patriotism combo, the Chinese people actually get some sort of pride for being a cog in the CCP machine.

It's a completely different paradigm and obviously super dangerous because it allows the people at the top who aren't elected to pull the strings on a machine of 1.4 billion people. If they run the system correctly, it can be much more "effective".

Democracy has lots of pressure outlets, and it is definitely much more healthy longterm. That's why I think it's the better system, even vs a well-run (and let's even assume benevolent) CCP.

So I think you're saying that, people are brainwashed to believe in the party?

Not brainwashed, but socialized. In East Asian countries and China especially, collectivism and Confucianism are pervasive, with deep cultural roots. The CCP is, of course, supporting and reinforcing those ideals, but it's just as much simply taking advantage of the pre-existing culture. Just like how the US is strongly culturally capitalist and individualistic -- as we value bootstraps capitalism and the "American Dream", the people of mainland China value supporting each other and the state, even when it's not explicitly in their best interests.

> In East Asian countries and China especially, collectivism and Confucianism are pervasive, with deep cultural roots.

In East Asian countries and China especially, nobody gives a flying .... about collectivism and Confucianism, and cultural roots.

It's by far the most egoistic, conflict driven, cut throat society I've ever been.

So you are basically saying that the cohesion of China is because they are doing better economically these past few decades... and thus people's egos are at an all-time high. Thus they support the regime.

> Thus they support the regime.

Ahem... most Chinese can't get more curses for it. Even unranked CPC members, and civil servants quietly hate them.

One needs to read a lot of People's Daily to drink this koolaid

The few who do almost all are the poor, underachieving, and angry "little pink" flag waving youth, or are the actual accessories to the system.

Which is not far off the mark. In China there is a pervasive feeling that the reason it is behind in development is due to the Imperialism in the 1800s and the domination of Western powers over China. This developed into some sort of inferiority complex. With economic development they claim that China is no longer the 'sick man of Asia', the shaking off of which imbues them some sort of pride. That pride is the source of support for the CCP, not any inherent properties of the system.

It should be pointed out that life in Hong Kong is definitely not markedly better for young people than it was for their parents.

Yup, and exactly part of the reason they are protesting. Goes to show how much "relative" economic success is important to peoples' satisfaction of government.

Even in the US, that is the #1 issue in every Pres election. How's the economy? Aka do people with 401k's think that they are better off, and thus do they think they are doing better against their peers (their competition for finding a mate/maintaining their mate)

Extremely insightful. I'd never considered this perspective. Thank you for this.

It will disproportionately take away the more wealthy and better educated. The majority of HKers live in public housing, pay no tax and are unlikely to have the means to live in the UK since there will be no recourse to public funds.

This level of brain drain, as in the other mass migration events away from HK, could trigger the government to loosen their grip.

> This level of brain drain, as in the other mass migration events away from HK, could trigger the government to loosen their grip.

I've heard that HK is no longer as important to China as it was 20 years ago. HK's contribution to China's GDP has declined in relative terms as the rest of China has developed. With regards to the brain drain I get the impression that there are plenty of people from the mainland that could fill the gap.

Our biggest advantage is that we are a trilingual society with a deep understanding of both western and Chinese culture. Although there are many people in the mainland who have studied abroad, the ability to understand the needs of Chinese and Western business is definitely not as pervasive. But I agree that HK isn't anywhere as near valuable to China, especially in terms of finance.

> biggest advantage

Plus the rule of law, I'd say. Well, historically.

That's only dubiously a net advantage, even historically, of HK for the PRC. It's instrumental in some of the business advantages, but it also contributes to it's big political liability for a national regime for which the law is a convenience, not a limitation.

Good point. I meant advantage for companies (or individuals) to base themselves there (rather than eg in China), not advantage in terms of benefit to China.

That's in GDP terms. But lots of money flow through Hong Kong. If HK was to fail and get disconnected, China will lose a significant portion of their exports. Hong Kong imported around $264bn of products from China. These are unlikely going to HK mainland but rather re-routed to other parts of the world.

It doesn't help that China is in bad terms with the U.S. and India. India is on track to become the third-world economy. China is gradually isolating itself from the rest of the world.

Just because HK couldn't facilitate it anymore doesn't mean the world will stop buying $260bn worth of goods and services. It would just be 'rerouted'.

Sure, just as New York is not as central to the American economy as it was in the 19th and early 20th century. It would still be a very heavy cost to lose it. A few percentage points of GDP might seem small on paper, and won’t be the end of the country, but it’s not something to scoff at.

There is no risk of a brain drain. There are plenty of well educated mainlanders who will be happy to take jobs in HK.

I mean there are even plenty of HKers who are happy to stay and make money under China.

There are but then HK won't be HK anymore and the thing that attracts mainlanders to HK won't be there anymore.

> It will disproportionately take away the more wealthy and better educated.

Which for Hong Kong as the universe of analysis would be a travesty, but for China is probably not a significant consideration against removing that population as a source of unrest which can spread beyond HK.

From what I've heard almost everyone tries to get out, so I expect that the alleged hope of the CPC will come true.

Nonetheless it is the right thing to do for the UK (where are the EU nations on this?), and exile doesn't have to mean abandoning the future of your birthplace. Hong Kongers might be able to achieve more for HK from the UK than under a Beijing cyber-dictatorship.

That's if their children don't assimilate and forget their HK identity. Children of Asian migrants in anglophone countries losing touch with their language and heritage is a very common phenomenon.

Actually that raises an interesting comparison with the Tibetan diaspora that mostly left during around 1950. How many of their descendants growing up in India/US/UK still know how to speak Tibetan?

True.

IMO assimilation isn't a bad thing, rather an indicator of a culture they bring with them which is accustomed to concepts of citizenry (or even more evolved) and the state (confucianism?).

Assimilation means the next generation won't be willing to fight the the memories of a HK half a world and century away. Also, most of the Asian diaspora in the anglophone sphere assimilate simply because there's not enough population, not because of some special cultural quality. 5% of the US is Asian American, and that's divided among all the different Asian nations. The Asian diaspora in Southeast Asia do a much better job of preserving their languages and culture.

Assimilation means the next generation won't be willing to fight the the memories of a HK half a world and century away.

But it doesn't mean they are forgetting about their ancestors struggle or their heritage either.

not because of some special cultural quality

It could easily transcribed as education, no need to imply cultural patronzing.

If by remembering their heritage you mean how half the US remembers they're 1/16 Irish only when St. Patrick's day rolls around, then yes.

HK is in a catch-22. Stay where they are and get absorbed into the Mandarin speaking behemoth that's mainland China like Hakka, Wu, and Hokkien speakers once the CCP starts tearing down border and population movement restrictions, or move abroad to a dozen different countries and be absorbed piecemeal into the Anglosphere. The third option would be for 1 million or so HKers to build a new city somewhere where they could be the dominant culture. Unfortunately, Singapore is a very unusual case in world history where Malaysia didn't care about sovereignty over the land Singapore stood on and actually forced them out. Very little chance of that happening a second time.

> Hong Kongers might be able to achieve more for HK from the UK

Hong Kongers are likely to achieve more for the world - from UK rather than from authoritarian China. The fate of Hong Kong, specifically, is not that important.

>(where are the EU nations on this?)

They're silent. It's not their ex-colony and, very sorry to say it like this, but HK isn't worth angering China over.

And if I was the UK, I’d love to have the smartest, most educated, wealthiest residents immigrate. A win-win if you will.

Unless they leave with their business and assets.

Talking to a Chinese friend who is quite pro-CCP, they are pissed that UK is offering this and say that mass emigration of HKers would be a major loss of face for the CCP.

Conversely, if the HK people felt that they could prosper under CCP rule, they wouldn't bother considering emigration at all.

68% of conservative voters, 71% of labour voters, and 77% of libdem voters support this.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2020/0...

Surprising isn't it, given how much of a driving force EU immigration was in the Brexit debate.

Hong Kong was a British colony until 1997.

About a quarter of the world has been a British colony at some point!

Their two systems one county deal with China is being taken away, which effects not only Hong Kong people, but British honor.

In particular, it contravenes the treaty (the Sino-British Joint Declaration).

Hong Kong is very British, though. Most of the other colonized parts are not (Exceptions maybe Canada, NZ and Australia). But traveling from Hong Kong to Shenzhen, you can feel that there is a significant culture gap.

Also Hong Kong appears to have lots of British banking connections like HSBC and Standard Chartered.

Hongkong looks somewhat British in some aspects but not many. I think the main culture gap is that HK has kept a traditional Chinese culture that was swept away on the mainland.

> like HSBC

The name which means the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Company. A bank founded in China (Hongkong) by the British.

I think Hong Kong looks very British! At least in comparison to the other Asian nations that don't have a British Colonial history.

Sure it was founded in HongKong but at that time it's purpose was to facilitate trade and banking between the UK and mainland China. My point is that they still have lots of these relations up to this day.

It kind of depends, immigration wasn't a big part of it from talking with many business partners. Many just dont like the idea rules are being made in Brussels.

The claim that Turkey was soon going to join the EU (which isn't going to happen) and flood the country with Turkish immigrants was a major component of vote leave messaging: "Turkey/NHS/£350 million".

Edit: FYI Dominic Cummings actually blogged about the important of Turkey to their success:

https://dominiccummings.com/2017/01/09/on-the-referendum-21-...

To be fair Angela Merkel flooded Germany with millions of immigrants from the middle East.

Here's a source if you need one: https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/europes-border-crisis/germ...

Turkey has actually turned in a net labour importer not so long ago, and it has a robust industrial sector.

Rural Turkey has unemployment issue, but that's a separate matter to Turkish migrants to EU.

Turkish migration to EU is much more white collar, and urban.

P.S. The most hilarious rightist conspiracy theory I've heard of was that of Boris Johnson being a Turkish spy

They may be disappointed when they discover the rules aren't made in Brussels because the UK joined the EU, but because it's the UK's largest trading partner and the largest trade bloc in the world.

Brexit will simply make their position worse.

No. As anyone with an interest in politics in the UK will tell you, free movement literally ended yesterday.

They'd be wrong.

A bill passed its 3rd reading in house of commons. It needs to get through the House of Lords. It still has some way before becoming law.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/common...

And when the UK crashes out of EU with no deal we'll inevitably re-allow free movement of EU workers because we have no bargaining power.

> And when the UK crashes out of EU with no deal

It’s incredible how many times people have cried wolf about this.

If we have a deal that's going to include freedom of movement; if we don't have a deal we're going to be forced to include freedom of movement to get trading.

There's no version of the UK in 2022 that doesn't have freedom of movement for EU citizens.

You're right. It needs to go through Lords. It will.

Regarding your last sentence: leaving no-deal off the table, and this being unable to walk away, would have meant we have no bargaining power.

The problem with trying to threaten the EU with a no deal exit is it's like a bank robber threatening to blow his own head off - messy, undesirable, but ultimately not very persuasive.

It's mutually assured destruction. The EU doesn't want to lose billions of dollars in trade either.

I don't think the EU will be moved by this. They can easily wait till the UK exits without a deal then be in an even stronger negotiating position.

You understand the concept of 'mutual', right?

Like the bank robber, you seem to mistake a threat of self-harm by the UK for an existential threat to the EU. No deal is not mutually assured destruction, it's certain destruction for the UK and some damage to the EU.

That's not a very convincing lever in a negotiation. The final relationship will benefit the EU far more than the UK, simply because of the balance of power, regardless of delusions to the contrary and empty bombast from Johnson.

OK, you think the EU wants to deliberately damage itself, like your bank robber analogy. You're welcome to your opinion.

> but because it's the UK's largest trading partner and the largest trade bloc in the world.

The North American trade bloc (NAFTA/USMCA) is actually slightly bigger by both GDP and population, though the EU is, yes, the UK’s biggest trade partner.

OK second largest. It makes them a formidable interlocutor in negotiations, and the power imbalance means things will inevitably be decided in Berlin which impact the UK on regulations, trade, tariffs and FOM. The UK has little leverage and power in this relationship.

Immigration was a big part of it.

Although unemployment was officially low, many in low end jobs felt that the huge influx of Eastern Europeans pushed wages down.

There is also the societal aspect of it because of the demographic change caused by a large influx of immigrants into an area.

Then, the prospect of Turkey joining the EU was raised, which would mean free movement for Turkish nationals and that scared people as well.

Or repay the italian debt.

It wasn’t so much the fact of immigration, but the lack of control over immigration.

perceived lack of control.

How could the UK control it?

We could have opted in to stricter controls on migration from Eastern Europe, but no-one wanted to at the time, as there would have been no benefit to doing so.

https://theconversation.com/the-huge-political-cost-of-blair...

There’s nothing “perceived” about it—the UK was forced to admit any “EU citizen” who wanted to come and immediately grant them permanent residency, which already represents a fundamental loss of control.

Why are you putting "EU citizen" in scare quotes? It's a perfectly well-defined concept.

The UK was certainly not obliged to immediately grant them permanent residency. See e.g. here https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-ri...

While there was no obligation to grant permanent residency, the criteria that would allow removal before the five years (or two years in some cases) are narrow. If someone had a job and in some cases when they didn’t, it was impossible to remove them unless they posed a serious threat. That is, in fact, a significant limitation on the control the UK could exert over immigration from the EU.

Well, yes, there was freedom of movement. I'm not sure why being unable to remove someone who has a job is so terrible. We could have chosen to put a cap on migration from relatively poor EU countries, but we chose not to.

No - because these are RICH Asian migrants, not POOR North African and Syrian migrants.

It's a combination of differential racism and elitism.

It's a combination of differential racism and elitism.

Is it possibly more representative of your own prejudices that you see only negative motivation here?

This is the "he who smelt it, dealt it" form of logical argument.

Considering you are ascribing the worst possible motives to millions of people in a gross generalisation - it's a fair question to ask.

> "differential racism"

So basically the existing word "racism" didn't fit (because racist Brits would hate Asian HKers just as much as brown Syrians and black Africans) so you invented a new completely concept but conveniently attached the word "racism" to it for maximal emotional impact?

Despicable.

> because racist Brits would hate Asian HKers just as much as brown Syrians and black Africans

Even a racist as extreme and obsessed with whiteness specifically as Hitler deemed some nonwhite races worthy of respect, even as he plotted others' extermination. Clearly it is absurd to define 'racist' so narrowly that even the actual Nazis don't qualify

Eh? Racism judges people by their race, and judges different races differently. The word fits just fine. Adding "differential" was unnecessary, but maybe added to highlight the uneven extent of the negative judgement.

Having said that, the GP does not provide any evidence that racism was the motivating factor here.

> but maybe added to highlight the uneven extent of the negative judgement.

That was exactly the point.

Racism works fine for what is described, there is nothing about racism which requires it to be “my race good, all other races equally bad”. “Differential racism” is a perfectly good way of distinguishing a multitiered racial heirarchy from a binary one.

Though I think nationalism may be at least as much of a factor as race-based differentiation. (That is, that nationalism in the context of colonial history is why HKers are treated more favorably by opinion than other non-white, or even white, immigrants.)

“Racism” is not a very good term for privileging non-white immigrants from former colonies over white European immigrants.

Racism is a perfectly fine term for weighting East Asian race less negatively than other non-white races in a function with multiple other factors besides race, resulting in certain East Asian immigrants being favored over white European immigrants.

Though, as explained already in GP, I think nationalism is the more relevant factor here, whether or not racism (binary or differential) is also involved (which at some level it obviously is.)

The UK is not weighting Asians higher than other non-white races. It’s favouring people from the Commonwealth and others to whom we have historical commitments above countries where no such ties exist.

> The UK is not weighting Asians higher than other non-white races.

I didn't say it was. I said that the upthread commenter’s use of “differential racism” to describe their explanation in which Britain was doing that was, contrary to the claim that it was redefining “racism”, a perfectly valid use of the term “racism”.

I've also said in every post in which I've argued that point that I think that what is actually happening involves nationalism in light of the HKs colonial history, not, or at least more decisively than, racism, differential or otherwise.

There two different issues here, one about whether a hypothetical scenario is within the usual definition of “racism” and one about whether than hypothetical is the best explanation of what is factually occurring.

The explanation is the obvious one. The UK has a treaty with China intended to prevent what is happening from happening. China is in breach of the treaty and, in light of that, the UK is acting to protect people to whom it believes it has an obligation. It has nothing to do with either racism or nationalism.

No one is arguing that point. What is being debated is why very conservative racists in the UK culture are overwhelmingly supportive of Asians over Syrians and North Africans. ...and differential racism is my belief as to why.

So you’re starting from the presupposition that British conservatives are racist and then trying to explain away evidence contrary to that presupposition.

You are using “very conservative racists” and “differential racism” to explain something which is better explained by historical relationships and obligations. No such relationships or obligations exist with Syria or most of North Africa.

No country can invite everyone to immigrate. They have to be selective, and that doesn’t make them racist. No one has the right to immigrate to another country: it’s a privilege granted by the government and people of that country who make decisions about who to accept according to their own interests and perceived obligations - again, not racism.

I think most people accurately assume that not many Hong Kong citizens will come, and none of the focus of recent anti-immigrant sentiment has been on ethnic Chinese people.

Hong Kong is a part of the Empire that was severed recently, and not because the people there actively sought that outcome. I suspect that for some of the people concerned about immigration, that makes Hong Kongers more British-separated-by-ill-conceived-policy than foreigners.

Whether UK citizens approve this or not, logistical challenge of making this happen is immense. I think UK politicians know this is just a threat.

Moving people & jobs physically to UK, when people have physical investment in a house, school, bank accounts, investments is not easy. I can see people moving if CCP is literally killing non-protesting citizens like holocaust. On top of it, what is to prevent CCP from blocking people from leaving?

People will take a lot before they physically leave the country. And CCP knows that very well.

To be honest I think that the Chinese government would not care or actually be quite OK with it.

Indeed, who would leave HK? Arguably the anti-CCP, the "troublemakers". So that'd mean less 'trouble' in HK and there is a large supply of mainlanders happy to move to HK.

Obviously the Chinese government will officially be outraged but privately they may think good riddance.

Talking to a Chinese friend who is quite pro-CCP, they are pissed that UK is offering this and say that mass emigration of HKers would be a major loss of face for the CCP.

Yes, but that does not mean there would not be a silver lining.

This offer of residency is political and possibly symbolically negative for China, but in practical terms it does not hurt China at all.

The sentiment in the mainland is more or less get out and leave the us the land

One of the major phenomena of Hong Kong in the 1980s and early 1990s was families getting out if they could afford it, because everyone was nervous about the Chinese handover. This wave of emigration even plays a role in contemporary Hong Kong film of the era like Chungking Express. And even before the fears of the handover, many educated HKers were emigrating to the US for the sake of higher wages.

Yes, HKers have ties to HK that are a hassle to break, but plenty of people have broken them and up and left.

Most HKers are descended from mainland Chinese that crossed the border after WW2 in the 50s and 60s. Just mirroring their ancestor's footsteps.

> The continued relevance of these questions meant that thirty years later, in June 2020, YouGov were able to asked respondents the same questions, allowing us to discover how public opinion has changed in the intervening period. > Interestingly, the results reveal a fall in public awareness on the issue. In 2020, about half the population (51%) reported having heard about the proposals – though this figure seems likely to rise with the PM’s recent announcement. Back in 1990, the figure was a much higher 78%.

It goes on to list the coronavirus and Tiananmen as possible reasons; isn't the most obvious contributory factor that a lot of voters have been born since then, and it hasn't been on the national curriculum or often reported on?

It's interesting to see how proactive a lot of developed countries are being with getting ready to welcome refugees from Hong Kong, especially compared to the Syrian crisis a few years ago.

The UK in particular has a long historical relationship with Hong Kong. Plus, China is in clear breach of bilateral agreements with Britain.

Not surprisingly, China has clearly breached almost any agreement they've made with the rest of the developed world since they've starting making agreements

Hong Kong was a British colony for generations and is still strongly influenced by western culture. Probably why China has such an obsession with crushing it.

Adopting HK citizens is a far easier sell than Syrians. They already speak English, are highly educated, wealthy, westernized, and have special status in UK law.

Letting a ton of refugees in is a large burden on the host country. They don't share British culture and values, tend to have no education or marketable skills, are in poor health, don't speak the language, need a lot of government support, and depress wages for already poor citizens of the host country. It should still be done for humanitarian reasons but there's a lot of pushback from citizens for reasonable concerns.

After reading Open Borders by Bryan Cahlan, I’m convinced that if there is a burden on the host country it’s temporary. Long term, I think the host country has much more to gain than to lose.

This has and will be debated forever. Given the choice though, I think its much clearer that letting in wealthy educated people is a net benefit.

Your belief does not make it a reality. Studies have shown that all kinds of immigration greatly benefits host countries, and especially aging Western ones with declining populations.

This really isn't a one-dimensional question with an easy "studies have shown" answer. For a start, it would require a definition for what "benefits host countries" means -- benefits tax receipts? Proportion willing to volunteer for the army? Benefits eployers of low/high-wage labor? Number of companies founded? Strength of the literary tradition?

That said, the most obvious parallel here is the indians expelled from Uganda [1], who were essentially the merchant class of that country. And I believe have done very well in England.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand

I don't think that's exactly what eggsnbacon1 was saying.

It may be true that all kinds of immigration greatly benefit host countries in the long term, but this is more debatable than that allowing wealthy, liberal, educated immigrants is a net benefit to host countries.

We can argue about the long-term benefits of open borders. I don't believe eggsnbacon1 was stating a position there--more like pointing out that there are some short-term costs that generate popular pushback. But ushering in the cream of the crop is obviously beneficial; it's a no-brainer.

It's country dependant (and study dependant) : https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2020/01/23/un-rapport...

Most studies does not account for what people dislike in immigration : fracturing social contract and communities shattering. Frictions in the salad bowl are poorly translated to economic figures but folks live it everyday.

So look carefully at what each study says and its perimeter.

One should curb down its sureness of that matter.

It’s the reverse, the burden is definitive and ever growing. A large group of immigrants allow them to keep themselves in a cultural bubble, build a parallel economy (and society, actually), occupy some part of cities and setup political parties. Source: I’m French, and I quit my country in part for this reason.

So you emigrated to another country because people were immigrating to your country and immigration is bad? Is this sarcasm?

Seems to me that they immigrated to another country because of a specific type of cultural phenomenon that was happening in their country of origin resulting from immigration. Maybe the same type of phenomenon is not happening in their country of choice? Doesn't seem sarcastic at all.

Sure. The thread is about how immigration is beneficial to countries in long term.

It was the OP who came up with the example of France to say that is not true.

> It’s the reverse, the burden is definitive and ever growing.

So there are two possibilities

* The French example is one of the very few exceptions -> This means the point OP is trying to make is kind of useless. Exceptions are present in almost all the theories.

* French example is what will happen in all most all the countries -> In that case OP's point becomes just ironic.

So then by this logic, we should be attempting to have every person on earth living in the UK, since all migration is positive, right? Or is there an upper limit to the desirable population of the UK before life becomes intolerable?

The UK is physically large enough that everyone on Earth actually could live there with a reasonable amount of space to themselves. The issue would be feeding everyone, since even now the UK needs to import its food, and it's not clear who would grow it if literally everyone lived in Britain. But because of how markets work, as more people moved to the UK, prices would go up and people would have more incentive to stay in their own country where they could grow food for export.

Also, if it's population you're concerned about, shouldn't you also worry about people having babies?

> The UK is physically large enough that everyone on Earth actually could live there with a reasonable amount of space to themselves.

Clearly we have different ideas about reasonableness.

> if it's population you're concerned about, shouldn't you also worry about people having babies?

I do, especially in those parts of the world in which fertility is particularly high yet ability to actually look after those children is particularly low

If you divide the world population by the UK's area, you get 80,700 people/mile², which is slightly less than the population density of Mumbai, and only 13% higher than Manhattan. You might consider that "unreasonable," but it's not unlivable, or anything.

An "open border" does not mean "force everyone to live in one country". It means potentially emigrants have the choice to move. Given that, the upper limit is determined by the number of willing individuals - that they've evaluated that life is better in the target country.

The caveat is that this only works for economies that are growing, have a small natural population growth and hence actually need more people quite desperately.

Trying to apply this same logic to a country that's stagnant economically or that already has a fast growing population would be silly.

> Adopting HK citizens is a far easier sell than Syrians. They already speak English

No they don't. According to the Hong Kong government's 2011 census only 41% of residents spoke English moderately well (not even fluently, just moderately well). 20% reported not being able to speak any English whatsoever; not even a few sentences.

Only 57% of residents of Hong Kong considered themselves "bilingual".

Only 30% of students attended an EMI school (English as a Medium of Instruction).

And I doubt the numbers have become more favorable to English in the decade since that census.

> No they don't. According to the Hong Kong government's 2011 census only 41% of residents spoke English moderately well (not even fluently, just moderately well). 20% reported not being able to speak any English whatsoever; not even a few sentences.

You have to consider which ones are being adopted. It is overwhelmingly the educated and wealthy ones who will go, and a far higher percentage of them speak English.

This is irrelevant because the offer is only for the 3 million people eligible. That group includes:

==About 350,000 UK passport holders, and 2.6 million others eligible, will be able to come to the UK for five years.==

==Under the government's plans, all British Overseas Nationals and their dependants will be given right to remain in the UK, including the right to work and study, for five years. At this point, they will be able to apply for settled status, and after a further year, seek citizenship.==

41% is a lot! For comparison, only 34% of foreign-born Hispanics in the US speak English proficiently.

> 41% of residents spoke English moderately well

Do you know (or care to speculate) on how those eligible for this offer would compare to residents captured by the census?

e.g. Did lots of people arrive from the mainland post-97, who might drive down the average? Or perhaps those with overseas-british papers are older, and the younger generation speaks much more English? I don't know enough to guess.

One important reason is money. These people are going to be relatively well off or rich.

Pretty much this. In an economic migrate face-off between HK and sub-Saharan Africans we only get one winner.

Generally speaking, more people = more power. But you need people who integrate well and won’t cause trouble, and will be net contributors to the welfare system. Hong Kong people are likely a very safe bet.

I bet we'll see nearly no refugees from Hong Kong when data starts appearing in a few years.

Refugee is an official term with an official meaning. Anyone coming from Hong Kong doesn't fit that.

Of course they do: if they claim China is threatening them with prison for political reasons, they absolutely can claim asylum based on political persecution.

This is false. Simon Cheng was granted asylum today, for instance.

https://twitter.com/SimonCh15198572/status/12783360604063375...

compared to the Syrian crisis a few years ago

Please enlighten me. As a German, I have yet to see even a statement of any German politician to do as the Brits do. Is there any non-english speaking country being "proactive"?

Japan and Taiwan are seemingly being open to immigration and open to poaching skilled immigrants specifically. Both Taiwan and Japan are typically fairly difficult to immigrate to in general unless it's for temp guest workers.

Taiwan has a dedicated office for processing Hong Kong refugees. They speak Mandarin there.

https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1535138-20200701.h...

UK offer is a 5-year timed right to stay, not even permanent residence.

5 years continuous residence is typically the requirement to apply for permanent residence and ultimately citizenship.

It's more typically known as the "5-year route" and it means that after 5-years of living/working/residing in the UK they become eligible for permanent residence (which is known as "indefinite leave to remain"). So yes - it is a genuine and good offer. There will be catches though - the visa's will likely cost a fair bit of money (for example a UK spouse visa costs over £1000, and must be renewed when it is 2.5 years old) - I would imagine the BNO HK visa will be similar in cost. Similarly, the ILR (permanent residence) visa's cost around £2500. It is also possible that the BNO HK visa may have criteria on it such as a requirement to prove your current salary or available savings/funds are above a certain amount.

5 year Leave to Remain, after 2 years LTR they can apply for settled status and after one year of SS they can apply for citizenship.

That's not nothing.

Many of the richer English-speaking Hong Kong residents send their children to school in England (or at any rate did thirty years ago).

And the schools they were sent to are largely the same as the schools that the people who run the UK went to (at least when there's a Conservative government).

So when the cabinet visualise "someone from Hong Kong", they think "one of us".

US has as well to some extent [1]. I hope the entire Anglosphere follows suit (CAN/AUS/NZ).

[1]https://www.wsj.com/articles/hong-kong-police-make-first-sec...

Aus and NZ are still in futile COVID suppression mode, so they are unlikely to be taking in a million Hongkies any time soon.

I'm sure they'll get around to it though - it will reinflate their property markets which have sagged a bit this year.

Arrivals from overseas face mandatory quarantine, so I don’t see how COVID is an obstacle.

I think the Australian government is worried about further deterioration in the Australia-China relationship. I think they’ll do something if UK/US/Canada/NZ make the first move.

I'm super curious to see how this will turn out for the UK. A lot of the comments here mention HK's relative high education, English proficiency and wealth.

If those are true: the upside will be easier settlement into the UK, maybe increased entrepreneurship. The downsides are: driving up local housing prices, increased competition for jobs.

If those are false, the UK may experience an influx of lower-wage labor and increased competition for blue-collar jobs. Possibly even increased crime (maybe Triads would move to the UK?)

I have a feeling anti-Asian/Chinese racism would spike in the UK. It has popular bipartisan support right now (another comment mentioned that) because anti-China/CCP sentiment is probably at an all-time high, but you can't take in thousands/millions of people in a short amount of time from a different culture without expecting an impact on your own.

tl;dr: How do I invest in British real estate?

> tl;dr: How do I invest in British real estate?

Builders (e.g. Persimmon) and LSE-listed investment trusts buying land for development, assuming you mean residential.

If you mean commercial, there's a wider choice of funds, developers, and management companies.

And you assume that China will allow an orderly evacuation and allow HK residents to leave with their capital intact.

This might be more like the ethnic cleansing that happened in Kenya and Uganda - where people where forced out leaving behind a lot of assets.

I think you would have to be slightly crazy to invest in UK property right now. COVID is leading to mass lay offs across many sectors and destroying what little was left of the high streets.

Add in lots more working from home - property values will probably, IMO, level out across the country rather than being concentrated heavily in the south east, London and major cities as less people need to commute. Why live close to London if you don’t need to travel in everyday? Businesses will then undoubtedly scale down or reduce the burden of commercial property with more homeworkers, etc. leading to an increase in available real estate, etc. Just my opinion.

> The downsides are: driving up local housing prices, increased competition for jobs.

No, no.

Increasing housing prices are a long-standing policy in the UK (and many other Western countries, as evidenced by low credit rates and extra bonuses for mortgages) and a gift to many voters (whose personal wealth is tied to their homes), and would be a welcome boost in times of COVID.

If the UK was afraid of brain drain of London's financial elite (UK's big "export" is finance) because of Brexit just a year ago, vacuuming up HK's financial elite would be a welcome counterweight.

Nope, not buying those. Perhaps I should have defined "downside" with "for whom".

> Increasing housing prices are a long-standing policy in the UK (and many other Western countries, as evidenced by low credit rates and extra bonuses for mortgages) and a gift to many voters (whose personal wealth is tied to their homes), and would be a welcome boost in times of COVID.

Would you apply that same argument to say, Vancouver? Would you say their increased housing prices is a welcome boost? The locals certainly don't think so.

> If the UK was afraid of brain drain of London's financial elite (UK's big "export" is finance) because of Brexit just a year ago, vacuuming up HK's financial elite would be a welcome counterweight.

My understanding is that the "brain drain" is because the finance jobs would move to somewhere in the EU (and the expertise would simply move with them). It's not like they're leaving because the UK doesn't pay well in that sector (e.g., Canada vs. the US in the tech, medical sectors).

There was an idea floating around in 1989 to build a "New Hong Kong" in Scotland!

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/11920027.scotland-could-...

Edit: I'm sure we could find a bit that was fairly similar to the scenery of Hong Kong, though not sure we can do much about the weather....

Great initiative, given that most of the immigrants are educated, experienced professionals, and have English as their second native language. Definitely, democratic progressive countries should compete for the right to host Hong Kongers.

> About 350,000 UK passport holders, and 2.6 million others eligible, will be able to come to the UK for five years.

Hong kong has a population of over 7 mil so this is less than half. What's the criteria for this chance at a uk citizenship?

I found a good video about the special passports given to hong kong from the uk. It is a bit complicated but this video seems to summarise the important bits quite well.[1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jP9XB3JIa0o

The summary is that before the handover in 1997 everyone was offered a status called British National (Overseas). Anyone who accepted this offer retained their nationality after the handover, and anyone who didn't permanently lost their chance to be a BNO.

The excellent Freedom of Movement blog is publishing great explainers on this.

https://www.freemovement.org.uk/bno-visa-hong-kong-dominic-r....

tldr;

It applies to Hong Kongers who applied for British National (Overseas) Citizenship (BNO) before registration closed in 1997, and it can not be inherited. Many of the young HK protestors will therefore be ineligible for it.

BNO is an obscure post-Colonial status applicable to Hong Kongers which did not up till now grant long term residence to the UK.

BNOs who now want to take up the government's offer for long term residence in the UK will have to fork a significant up front fee. This makes it available only to wealthy BNOs. If the government wanted to they could have changed the law to allow them to skip much of this, but they haven't.

No, only to a tiny subset of HK residents on a very arbitrary basis, specifically excluding anyone under 23 (so most protestors) and any child (so most people who don't want to literally abandon their kids).

BNOs can bring their children with them, the visa restrictions have also been lifted for dependants.

A tiny subset being half of them and their dependents?

> very arbitrary basis

Arbitrary? This is the opposite of arbitrary, it's everyone who is eligible for BNO status (i.e. was alive during the handover) and their dependents.

Dependents are allowed, they just wouldn't be on their own application.

Hong Kong as a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) instead of a Special Administrative Region (SAR) would be an easy transition. Although I don't see it more appealing than other SEZ's Shanghai's Free Trade Zone or the entire Hainan Province.

But the consolidation of existing companies and operations in Hong Kong would still be pretty unique, its uniqueness still not that relevant. For regional price discovery it would be useful, like for some publicly traded companies or local futures markets.

HK has the inertia of having lots preexisting international HQs there. Any takers on how many of those will move out over the coming decades? > or < 50% of them?

Losing its special trading status with the US should already be the catalyst for that.

But the market based economies of China's Special Economic Zones should make Hong Kong as attractive as any other major financial center, instead of as a micro-state.

There are many international HQs in major financial centers under high tax regimes, whether it is Shanghai, New York City, London, Frankfurt.

I would say 30% move, so less than 50%. Incumbents in Hong Kong are already beneficiaries of the Communist Party in Beijing, otherwise corporate consensus in the LegCo would have matched the individual consensus already.

A rare display of competent politicians in the UK

I would have said that returning Hong Kong back to China was one of the biggest mistakes the UK has made, but here we are in 2020.

It would have been better if they made it into an independent city state like Singapore.

If you don't return something at the end of a contract is that theft? or piracy?

Its not like the UK had a choice. We're you expecting them to go all Hawaii on the situation and just annex it?

The government they made the contract with didn't even exist anymore. The Qing Empire made that contract with the UK. Independence or just keeping HK in the UK both make at least as much sense as giving it to a country that didn't even exist when the contract was formed.

It may have made sense technically but China has a huge army and HK is dependent on water, electricity and food which comes from the mainland. The mainland government made very clear that if HK wasn't returned, they would cut off the water supply.

That's a separate issue though. That China had the military might to take HK doesn't mean they were the legitimate government to have HK returned to.

It's not stealing from China to not give them something taken from someone else.

The UK running HK in the first place was stealing from China. They originally got it as part of the peace settlement from the Opium Wars, then signed the 99-year lease later when the Qing empire was in terminal decline and unable to resist.

If UK had not switched recognition from ROC to PRC, they could have returned it to ROC instead.

UK could have demanded a lease renewal from PRC as the price for switching recognition. Instead they just got some “alliance” against the Soviets and it is questionable what that actually delivered.

If you're gonna go pro-colonialist might makes right, that's your prerogative, but then you're just gonna have to eat it on the fact that the PRC had a lot more might nearby.

I don’t see how handing HK over to ROC would have been “pro-colonialist”.

Presuming to control HKs fate after taking it in the freaking opium wars is.

Giving HK back to China is an act of decolonization. Putting them under Taiwan and loading up the island with US weapons would not be.

Is Taiwan’s democracy “pro-colonialism” too?

PRC is itself a colonialist power. See all the Uighurs in concentration camps.

Do you think we are happier now that we have been "handed back to the motherland" or is China happy? Why does the opinion and desires of Hong Kong citizens not mater in your mind?

In my mind, that's an internal Chinese matter.

I don't want to devalue your experience, but Anglo powers have a terrible record of "colonialism for their own good", "we'll be greeted as liberators", etc.

> Instead they just got some “alliance” against the Soviets and it is questionable what that actually delivered.

China doesn't like to take credit for that, but personally I believe its alliance with the West was instrumental in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The government that ruled the territory of the Qing Empire was willing to roll tanks into HK--Deng Xiaoping said "I could take it in an afternoon". China made it clear that they were going to end up with HK one way or another.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong

Then Honk Hong should have been given back to the Republic of China (Taiwan) which is the direct successor of the Qing empire, not the PRC. RPC is not a successor of Qing nor ROC since ROC still exists.

Honestly I think so too, but I doubt the UK government wanted to start a war with China.

Hum I was half trolling half serious, having skin in the game in favour of Taiwan. Interesting the game Wargame: Red Dragon has exactly a campaign about UK vs PRC over HK.

And I spoke that after having of talk with a Japanese people today and they fear they are the next on the list. I told them Japan at like 6th or 5th powerful army despite Article 9, + US alliance (that we all understand as half trustable only), so quite able to defend themselves. A lot of people in East Asian (HK, Vietnam, Philipines, Japan) fear China. This is what I got from talking with friends from this country. Everyone think there will be war at some point, only the time and starting place is unknown.

The UK already formally recognized the PRC as the sole government of China, and, as such the successor to ROC and Qing interests. Sure, this was in large part about who has the most guns, but it's not like the UK control of HK itself was a result of a free and uncoerced agreement of the parties, either.

> The Qing Empire made that contract with the UK.

You really want to set the precedent that regime change voids all international agreements, rather than obligations and rights under them passing to successor regimes?

So if country A asks for a loan, then immediately dissolve its government and form a new one, should the loan be forgiven?

That's a wildly different situation for a couple reasons. The debt is in the opposite direction, and the UK had HK for 100 years, not "immediately". It's not really a relevant thought experiment.

While the reasoning resonates with me, it does have undertones of whataboutism in it: Do I really expect CPC-historians to label colonial era contracts to be legitimate?

Anyways, Singapore's independence wasn't a given either, they had to fight for theirs from "the mother land" as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_in_Malaysia

Edit: I stand corrected - Not "to fight". However, the point being (as with Belize, Israel, India or other colonies which became independent) by no means was it clear what entities were to became out of its former colonies.

Singapore was kicked out of Malaysia because they were majority Han Chinese and Malaysia wanted racial policies favoring Malays which would get outvoted in a democratic Malysia with Singapore in it. Singapore is one of those unusual countries where they didn't want independence but was forced into it.

Apparently contracts between nations don’t mean much given this situation we’re in is because China is violating one.

The British could have done what they did with Belize. Belize wanted independence but Guatemala claimed that it was actually a province/state of Guatemala. The British supported independence and left a battalion of troops in Belize, the British Forces Belize, in order to act as a deterrent to a Guatemalan invasion.[1][2]

While China is obviously much more powerful than Guatemala, they still wouldn't have been able to invade given that it would have caused a nuclear war. Also, at that point China was much weaker economically so an economic war would have severely hurt their economic growth, undermining the key source of their power over the past 20 years.

The real issue is that HK wasn't viable without support from the mainland -- support they would have lost had this tactic been tried.

"Although not quite a piece of "barren rock" as derided by Lord Palmerston, Britain’s foreign secretary during the First Opium War, from 1839 to 1842, the fact remains that Hong Kong isn’t endowed with the necessary natural resources to support its population of 7 million. The Hong Kong special administrative region of China gets over 70 percent of its water from Dongjiang, a river in neighboring Guangdong province. Meanwhile, over 90 percent of fresh meat and vegetables consumed in Hong Kong is sourced from the mainland. And mainland energy sources generate more than half of the electricity consumed locally."[3]

They would have had to bear a massive cost, investing in desalination plants, nuclear power plants, and imported their food from elsewhere.

That cost -- while extreme -- might be looked at in hindsight as cheaper than the current outcome with the likely significant brain drain from HK.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belizean%E2%80%93Guatemalan_te...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Army_Training_and_Supp...

[3] https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/21/hong-kongs-inconvenient...

> While China is obviously much more powerful than Guatemala,

China isn't just more powerful than Guatemala, it's more powerful than the UK.

> they still wouldn't have been able to invade given that it would have caused a nuclear war.

If Deng Xiaoping really thought the UK would accept nuclear ese as the cost of keeping China out of HK, sure, that might have kept China out. But literally no one would believe that.

They haven't invaded Taiwan with the US providing an even less direct security guarantee.

The USA previously had a mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. That was replaced by the Taiwan Relations Act of 1979.

"The Taiwan Relations Act does not guarantee the USA will intervene militarily if the PRC attacks or invades Taiwan nor does it relinquish it, as its primary purpose is to ensure the US's Taiwan policy will not be changed unilaterally by the president and ensure any decision to defend Taiwan will be made with the consent of Congress. The act states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities". However, the decision about the nature and quantity of defense services that America will provide to Taiwan is to be determined by the President and Congress. America's policy has been called "strategic ambiguity" and it is designed to dissuade Taiwan from a unilateral declaration of independence, and to dissuade the PRC from unilaterally unifying Taiwan with the PRC."[1]

If the US didn't have this agreement with Taiwan, I believe the PRC would have invaded long ago. Instead, they have been playing a long game of deeply entangling their economies and increasing their influence in the region with the hope of Taiwan following HK and joining the one country, two systems approach. I believe that is fundamentally dead now that the PRC has revealed one country, two systems to be a complete lie.

Thus, I hope Taiwan declares independence and has the backing the USA in such a manner that China won't consider invading.

Nonetheless, the point stands that China hasn't invaded Taiwan with a far less secure security guarantee than the one I proposed by the UK for HK.

No nuclear power has yet wanted to test whether or not a rival nuclear power is willing to follow through on their promise. Nuclear deterrence has been exceedingly effective. Furthermore, while China is more powerful than the UK, in 1997 the UK had a larger GDP and the EU was on the upswing.[2][3] That would have been sufficient counterweight to China then.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_Relations_Act#Military_...

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=china+gdp+1997&oq=china+GDP+...

[3] https://www.google.com/search?q=UK+GDP+1997&oq=UK+GDP+1997&a...

> Furthermore, while China is more powerful than the UK, in 1997 the UK had a larger GDP

Which, while it could reasonably have been taken as an indication of the capacity to generate power over the long term if that advantage was preserved, has pretty much nothing to do with immediate power of the relevant type, whether globally or, more to the point, locally applicable to HK. Which, actually, creates more of an incentive for China to fully exploit it's then-current power advantage.

> If you don't return something at the end of a contract is that theft? or piracy?

I'll take, “A routine practice of European (including states that are former European colonies) colonialism in dealing with non-Europeans”. So, like, no one would have been surprised with Hong Kong.

> We're you expecting them to go all Hawaii on the situation and just annex it?

The UK was pulling that kind of thing before the US existed, so, sure, why not? I lean, ignoring the poder balance in the región, which is the real issue.

The UK didn't have much of choice. Their lease on the New Territories (basically all of HK except Kowloon and the Island) expired in 1997, so that was going back to China regardless, and they concluded that HK was not viable without it.

If they still recognised ROC instead of PRC they could have returned it to ROC instead.

Alternatively, UK could have made switching recognition from ROC to PRC conditional on a New Territories lease renewal.

That would never have happened for obvious political reasons (China). If it ever had happened, I don't think it would have ended well for the HK citizens...

The UK (and other Western countries) had a massive bargaining chip over PRC as long as they recognised ROC instead. They could have demanded a higher price for recognising PRC, and I think PRC wanted their recognition enough they would have paid. (And a better deal on HK could have been part of that price.) Instead, the West gave this bargaining chip away for cheap-some short-term alliance against the Soviets which the end of the Cold War made irrelevant, which probably did little or nothing to contribute to the Soviet Union’s fall, and which cost PRC very little since PRC and USSR were already on bad terms anyway. PRC played their hand very well, the West played very poorly.

UK isn't going to be able to protect Hong Kong territory from the Chinese military. It would be a bloody fight and there will be a lot of lives lost, and likely anger from the people of Hong Kong.

The UK wouldn't have to win a stand-up fight against the PLA. Just taking China to the brink would be sufficient.

Is the CCP willing to jeopardise its position and future in the World for the sake of a few humid islands with no natural resources or strategic advantages?

And even more mind-focusing is the fact that the UK had the nuclear option on the table against Argentina in 1982.

Not like they had much of a choice. I think Deng Xiaoping said to Thatcher "we'll roll the PLA in come 1997 with or without an agreement". Basically, we can have an agreement to save face all around or will just go in. Especially since the water and food from Hong Kong are basically supplied from the mainland.

We are well pass the time when a technologically advance oceanic power can establish and hold enclaves on the heartland. That was only possible in the past because of the huge development lead the European power's developed through industrialization and colonialism.

> Especially since the water and food from Hong Kong are basically supplied from the mainland.

Hong Kong used to have a desalination plant. The British closed it because importing water from PRC was cheaper. Instead, they could have expanded desalination for water self-reliance, and built nuclear power stations to produce electricity to power it. But the UK wasn’t willing to make that investment.

I'm not sure it's best to think of that situation as an occasion when the UK made a choice.

If the US had said "we wish Hong Kong to declare independence and will provide military backing as required", I expect the UK would have gone along with it (I offer no opinion on whether that would have worked). But in the absence of that that I don't think there was much of a decision to make.

Quite possibly the UK were out-diplomatted and a somewhat better deal would have been available in principle. But ultimately (as we have seen in recent years) there's nothing that stops a superpower saying "we're now going to walk away from this treaty we previously signed".

Hong Kong was a corrupt state long before China took over.

This article lists some key provisions from the Chinese Communist Party's security law:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838

Some real kickers in here:

* Beijing will establish a new security office in Hong Kong, with its own law enforcement personnel - neither of which would come under the local authority's jurisdiction

* This office can send some cases to be tried in mainland China - but Beijing has said it will only have that power over a "tiny number" of cases

* Beijing will have power over how the law should be interpreted, not any Hong Kong judicial or policy body. If the law conflicts with any Hong Kong law, the Beijing law takes priority

Advocating for Hong Kong independence can also earn you a life sentence:

"Crimes of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces are punishable by a maximum sentence of life in prison"

I'm not sure if criticizing Chairman Xi or the CCP would qualify as subversion.

Aren't there also similar laws like that in USA? People are being recommended life sentences for throwing a molotov at an empty police vehicle during these George Floyd protests and are being labeled as terrorists by Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/us/brooklyn-molotov-lawyers-p...

Good. I don't care if it's a police car or someone's personal car or an empty cardboard box. If you're throwing around molotov cocktails you should go to jail.

I agree that they should have jail time, but life in prison after not actually harming anyone physically? That's authoritarian and exactly what I was replying to in OP's comment.

What if the car exploded, hurting people nearby? What if there was a police canine in the vehicle that wasn't see, or someone crouching on the other side of the car out of sight? Throwing a molotov cocktail into a vehicle, in my opinion, should be charged as attempted manslaughter.

Hypotheticals don't belong in criminal trials.

To be fair though, even if you think people should go to jail for that (and I don't think that's an unreasonable view), surely you'd agree that a life sentence is excessive?

A life sentence is excessive yes, but why are we trying to justify throwing molotiv cocktails in the first place? What happened to civility?

No.

You are free to criticize the government all you want.

You can also advocate for independence without fear of imprisonment. Both California and Texas have supporters of succession.

You aren't free to blow up police cars though. For that you'll face consequences.

No, as for the US there is still a difference what Leadership tweets or gaffes into a microphone and what becomes law or passes judicial review.

This stands in contrast to these "kickers" since they are already Chinese law – and let's not even start comparing Beijings supreme court with that of the US…

People give way too much weight to a handover promise with a completely different country, and not the wording of the Hong Kong constitution and the Chinese Constitution.

Both allow for everything that has happened, which suggests restraint by both Hong Kong and Chinese authories.

Hong Kong Basic Law (its constitution) allows for National Security to be controlled by Beijing.

I can see the symbolism of 50 year autonomy being undermined, but can someone explain why this topic never has a legal discussion attached, whereas other topics do?

This is not true. The basic law explicitly excludes this, because there is a provision for national security in article 23. Annex iii can contain national laws that are not covered by the basic law (e.g. foreign policy).

Isnt this the kind of thing that starts wars.

I'm really happy the UK did not leave the former colony to suffer under the communist regime. Reminds me of the situation with Jews before WWII - if they were given the same kind of refuge by any country, Holocaust would hot had happened. Sometimes I dream, who'd have offered citizenship or at least refuge to residents of Russia, to escape our ongoing Soviet Union restoration.

The US needs to join the UK and be vocal in support of the Hong Kong people.

The US has been far more vocal already.

"... the government to dissolve the people and elect another."

Pity they did not extend the same courtesy to all the descendants of the "Windrush" immigration wave from the Caribbean but then they are just poor black folk.

Wonder how many of the eligible people are TSMC employees or contractors? :)

You're thinking of a different country.

The CPP would like to have a word with you for referring to Taiwan as a “different country”

They need to stop strong-arming the rest of us into accepting their made-up-reality. They can live in fantasy land if they want, but they don't get to make me live in their fantasy.

Congratulations, you've just violated the brand-new HK National Security Law, which according to article 38 applies to everyone on Earth.

Duh. Of course. Should get coffee before reading HN. ;)

Is this an attempt to fill immigration gaps after EU immigration collapses? I don't believe the government actually cares about anything that going on in HK.

Does it matter? The UK needs skilled workers and HKers need a place to live that won't try to kill them.

I wouldn't be surprised if the government thought exactly that, but I don't think it would work - HKers are mostly urban and well-educated, especially the politicized groups that are worried by Chinese rule. It's unlikely they will happily accept to become an underclass.

Still, it is the decent thing to do. It also underlines once again this country has no real power or influence left in the superpower age. Before, we could at least try to get the EU to go to bat for our interests, and have a real impact. We have none of that now, which is probably part of the reason the Chinese accelerated the process.

> Before, we could at least try to get the EU to go to bat for our interests, and have a real impact.

the same EU that rewrote its coronavirus report several times in fear of CCP repercussions?

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/24/world/europe/disinformati...

come on

I did say "try". Now we cannot even try, and stuff like this happens.

what would you expect it to even try to do with the UK present, given that EU foreign policy can be veto'ed by a single member state?

several of which are keen to preserve or grow their CCP trade

We are as keen as anyone - see the nuclear power plant projects and 5G.

Still, is it just a coincidence that Xi accelerated his plans shortly after Brexit? Between that and Trump, we are effectively isolated and fundamentally vulnerable to this sort of power play.

> Still, is it just a coincidence that Xi accelerated his plans shortly after Brexit?

most likely, I doubt the EU or UK even register on the CCP's plans for the Chinese century

"delusions of grandeur"

They said “try”. Rest of the EU might have said “no”, but now the EU hasn’t got any more reason to listen to the UK than to listen to, say, Australia’s opinion about Hong Kong.

Then there is also the reduced power of the EU post-Brexit. Just because Brexit costs the UK influence doesn’t mean it doesn’t cost the EU too — without the UK, the EU is only about 85% of the GDP of the other two big trade giants (the USA and China are each about equal to what the EU was with the UK).

But there's no reason that an independent UK and the EU cannot work together where their interests align, is there? The idea that it's all or nothing is nothing more than yet another canard put about by anti-Brexit protagonists.

> there's no reason that an independent UK and the EU cannot work together where their interests align

But there is also no reason why they should even try, whereas before there was.

> But there is also no reason why they should even try, whereas before there was.

This makes no sense. There's countless examples of independent nations/supra-national bodies etc. with wildly diverging goals across many areas also managing to work together on shared goals.

You seem to be pushing the same false dichotomy again, that is, that it's either the UK within the EU, else a cold war type situation, and there is no possibility whatsoever of a third situation. I'd suggest that's very obviously bogus.

What I find revealing is that years on from the referendum it's the same crude, tired and spurious anti-Brexit arguments being trotted out. If after all this time the only tactic is Project Fear mk. infinity, what can one conclude about the supposed benefits of EU membership?

You’re saying this on a thread whose ancestor comment (not yours, I know) was:

> the same EU that rewrote its coronavirus report several times in fear of CCP repercussions?

And you’re saying it to people who are coming up with reasons why the post-Brexit EU doesn’t share your concerns.

This does not require a “cold war type situation”. It just requires every other EU member state to have more important things from their own perspective.

It’s not hatred you’re seeing from the EU, it is apathy.

The false dichotomy is your own.

If their interests aligned. Without the UK having a seat at the table, they ‘ain’t going to align. That is literally the point of Brexit in the first place, for the UK to diverge from the EU, because without that the members of the current U.K. government would not have campaigned for it in the first place.

And that big flashing neon “if” is still true with a competent government, let alone the current lot which (as per recent news) is pouring money into a failed multinational project that cannot fit their requirements just to avoid the embarrassment of continuing to spend money on entirely successful multinational projects that happen to be EU-branded.

Also, what do ducks have to do with anything?

> yet another canard

Definition of canard

1a : a false or unfounded report or story especially : a fabricated report The report about a conspiracy proved to be a canard. b : a groundless rumor or belief the widespread canard that every lawyer is dishonest

It's hard to say what this government cares about.

My cynical self thinks that this is not a genuine offer but one for the headlines in a time where good news are sorely needed (Leicester lockdown, general covid-19 omnishambles)

I hope my cynical self is wrong

Let's not forget there are still deeply embittered anti-Brexit forces prevalent throughout the public sector.

It's not obviously about replacing EU immigration. Hong Kong a higher GDP per capita than the UK - and about four times the GDP per capita of the eastern European countries that provide so many workers to British farms and warehouses.

Britain's motivation is they contend that this is a violation of the treaty between Britain and China from the handover of Hong Kong [1], and letting one other country violate your treaties with impunity makes other countries think they can get away with the same thing.

But at the same time there's also no appetite in Britain to go head-to-head with China - in fact, if the HK stuff wasn't going on they'd be looking for a trade deal right now.

So if you see something that's a response, but not a really tough muscular response, that's exactly what the UK government is aiming for.

[1] https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-hongkong-protests-britain/...

Typical shoddy journalism. Bandies numbers about: '150.000', 'up to 3 million' , when talking about the numbers likely to qualify to come to UK but never actually tells us what the population of Hong Kong is in the first place. So is this everyone?... 50% of the population?... 25%?.. 10%?...

A quick Google would tell you the population of Hong Kong is 7,500,700 (2019 estimate).

The point is that from a journalistic point of view the number of people eligible for citizenship is meaningless without the context of either the population of Hong Kong or of the UK or perhaps the number of immigrants the UK typically sees from Hong Kong and other countries. It's very common in articles to see numbers that have no meaning without context. Either the context should be provided or the numbers should not be mentioned.

But even the Home Office doesn't know the exact number.

They know how many current BN(O) holders there are. But they don't know how many are eligible exactly -- they have the entire list of people who have received one, but that's over 20 years ago, and a lot could have happened to them since.

Helpful hint: I find it very telling to mentally replace “up to” with “at most”. It’s the exact same inequality but sometimes (though not always) totally changes the emotional tone of a piece. The other thing is it never ceases to highlight the need for a lower bound. I think journalists (whether deliberately or unconsciously I cannot say, besides it isn’t relevant) use the term “up to X” to simultaneously proclaim the worst-case scenario AND use it to anchor your expectations (basically you become convinced that the worst case scenario is the most likely outcome because that’s the only information you have, whereas if you tell yourself “up to X” you immediately ask yourself “yeah okay but starting from what?” and the lack of knowledge is at least made explicit).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com