Britain to give millions of HKers a path to citizenship | Hacker News Reader

Britain to give millions of HKers a path to citizenship

scmp.com

173 pointskalium-xyz217 comments

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23701333

As someone from a country that was formerly part of the British Empire, I am viewing the situation in Hong Kong with horror. There are many negative things about the British legacy, but they gave us a global language, institutions, law, and notions of personal and economic freedom. The idea of all that being eaten by China...

Might makes right, nothing we can do about it unless people are willing to die to protect them.

And also to kill. And there are a lot of mainland Chinese people.

Frankly, I don’t know how anyone has the stomach to sit behind a heavy machine gun and turn 200 mothers’ sons into rotting meat. I’d probably reach for my pistol.

Not that the PLA likely uses the same tactics as they did in the 1950s.

HK is just too close to China, you wouldn't want to throw your forces to defend it. Taiwan is probably defendable although it's better for everyone if it remains de facto independent but not risk China's ire.

It is a little ridiculous that the Republic of China can't be a member of world health organization though.

"Freedom isn't free"

Freedom is extremely expensive in terms of blood required to achieve it, so I'm always amazed at how easily people are convinced to give it up one inch at a time until it's all gone again.

Most people don’t realize that the equilibrium state of humanity is definitely not freedom.

Just check your nextdoor app, or facebook: humans love telling other humans how to behave, if you give them force, they will use it.

And in plenty of fields, people do actually have this option. Correcting society is an explicit goal of social work and psychology, both in research and practice. From "youth work" (50%+ unwanted by both youth and parents, and when it comes to residential treatments 85%+ unwanted, and 12% residential treatment is convicted youth) to "social work" for adults (again, majority is unwanted)

And of course, unwanted means that for the "clients" there is at the very least a threat of violence against them (or their kids/family/...) in the majority (for kids VERY large majority) of cases.

In some countries, "the social sector" is the biggest public sector, in all countries it's very, very big. Including the US, but at least here it doesn't exceed education or the medical sector in size.

Of course, these don't let themselves be stopped by the longstanding research pointing out that without client's cooperation (and of course unwanted means no cooperation), there is little to no point to treatment, and very significant downsides. Which is why horror stories like this happen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noa_Pothoven#:~:text=3%20Publi....

Such horror stories are anecdotal evidence. The real proof comes from large scale statistical studies:

https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30180-4

Or, for the youth case:

https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583

As the American Declaration of Independence states "..all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"

What a truly, extra-ordinary document on the human condition. Coming up with that text in that era..I wish I had that kind of insight and wisdom.

It has literally all been eaten by China with this latest law.

The idea of HK as separate from China is just over.

Which was always the endgame for China.

Sure, they agreed to transition period until 2050 or so... But when that was signed HK was a significant part of the Chinese economy.

Even though HK is still significant, it's been eclipsed by China itself, and China can afford to kill (part) of HK to finally end this humiliation, as they see it.

The Sino-British Joint Declaration was a mistake. What did they think would happen? If not now then what about in 2047?! Were they hoping that was enough time to warm the new generations to the idea of giving up their rights?

There is no fixing this, but I appreciate the effort by the British. Many will not want to leave, understandably. But the threat of draining HK is an interesting sort of pressure to put on China..

Mistake what? Risk a war with China?

Ultimately, the UK had absolutely zero chance at holding HK against the Chinese, HK was a tiny colony that could be seized basically instantly, and at the time decolonialization was still a global hotbutton issue.

A few decades before negotiations began between China and the UK, India seized the Portuguese colony of Goa[1]. Nobody acted on behalf of the Portuguese. With the USA having just a few years beforehand suffered defeat in the Vietnam war, and extremely unlikely to have the public support for another land war in Asia, but this time against a vastly stronger opponent for a relatively much less important parcel of land, There is little reason to believe anyone would have, or could have seriously contested China seizing Hong Kong.

Consider as well, during the Korean war, A China still badly crippled by World War 2 almost single handedly defeated an entire coalition of western powers, including a USA at the zenith of their conventional arms power.

The declaration was an alternative to a military annexation of Hong Kong by the Chinese.

The British probably acquiesced more than they had to, and didn't guarantee enough rights for Hong Kong citizens (especially the really lame part about not giving them a path to citizenship in the UK proper), but make no mistake, the alternative to the declaration wasn't Hong Kong remaining a part of the UK, it was Chinese invasion.

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

>Consider as well, during the Korean war, A China still badly crippled by World War 2 almost single handedly defeated an entire coalition of western powers, including a USA at the zenith of their conventional arms power.

Isn't that because China got the drop on the western powers?

They would certainly get the drop on a tiny landmass like HK.

> got the drop on the western powers

Meaning what exactly?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/get_the_drop_on

From what I've read it was mostly hubris. Intelligence knew of the build up of Chinese Troops at the Yellow River. China has also shared through diplomatic channels that if UN troops got with 300 miles (? can't remember the exact number), China would stop them.

China did do a good job of attacking where the UN wasn't expecting as well.

A China still badly crippled by World War 2 almost single handedly defeated an entire coalition of western powers

I think the 1.5M North Korean who died might disagree that China "almost single handedly defeated the coalition".

China paid a huge price for that war that ended in a stalemate. 200,000 dead and probably the same wounded/missing. That's ~12% of the Chinese military at the time.

By contrast the US lost ~1M dead/wounded in WW2 out of a peak strength of 12M.

Interesting, one reason why the US strategy in Vietnam was limited was the fear of China entering the war. Based on a few accounts I've read, China had zero intention of actually engaging in combat as they were still smarting from the Korean war.

Mao was happy to sacrifice any number of his troops for the sake of the war. China can always call up new soldiers from its immense population.

The troops sacrificed were also mostly former Nationalist units from the civil war that ended the year before.

China also spent like a third of the government's budget on the war in the relevant years. It was a massive sink of manpower and materiel.

During the 1967 protests in Hong Kong, the British killed enough protestors to quash it and pave the way for a new generation that accepted the situation.

I wonder if that is the game plan China is following? They have given up on the current generation , and are now hoping the next generation will follow them?

Do as I say, not as I do

This is hidden whataboutism. The 1967 riots had gotten out of control and the rioters were killing people on a regular basis. This has not happened during the 2019-20 protests.

There was no alternative really, China would have just seized HK by force. Jolly good show by the Brits to standby the people of Hong Kong though with this immigration offer. Politicians rarely do the right thing instead of the self-interested thing, but you have to hand it to Johnson's government on this one.

>"Politicians rarely do the right thing instead of the self-interested thing, but you have to hand it to Johnson's government on this one."

Not to worry, they'll still have a chance to turn it into Windrush Generation later on.

> Jolly good show by the Brits to standby the people of Hong Kong

This is very much a long term, self-interest thing. Britain (just like any other developed country) heavily depends on immigration to not fall into Japanese-style deflation, since nobody wants to have kids any more. Hong-Kongers will probably make for some really good immigrants.

That's what good business is like: win-win. The only downside is the possible retaliation by the CCP. And let's see if they actually let people leave HK en masse, or will they just lock all exits. And let's see how many people will actually want to go, even if you open all the doors for them. Whoever really wanted to leave has probably left quite a while ago.

> Jolly good show by the Brits to standby the people of Hong Kong

Having a new source of immigration when you have just screwed yourself over in attracting European immigrantes due to Brexit is common sense rather than altruism.

> Having a new source of immigration when you have just screwed yourself over in attracting European immigrantes due to Brexit is common sense rather than altruism.

Immigration is not actually something you need to have.

This is a fact that is hated by many people for some reason. There birthrate of Japan is considered low, but they are growing still and the homogeneous society has social harmony, with none of the ills of multiculturalism. It's a trade-off for immigration boosting economies in the short term they don't think is worth it.

None of the benefits of multiculturalism either.

What do you define as the benefits?

Living with and being able to interact with different cultures? That’s one of the main reasons I love the USA.

> There birthrate of Japan is considered low, but they are growing still

I don't know where you are getting your information that the population of Japan is still growing. Japan's population is already declining.

http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/pdf/2017all.pdf "Statistical Handbook of Japan" Table 2.2

https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/2020/ ( https://www.populationpyramid.net/sources )

https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/japan-demographic...

https://qz.com/1295721/the-japanese-population-is-shrinking-...

https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00705/ "Japan’s Population Falls for Ninth Straight Year"

https://www.ft.com/content/29d594fa-5cf2-11e9-9dde-7aedca0a0... "Japan’s population decline accelerates despite record immigration"

https://japan-forward.com/mythbusters-foreign-reporting-on-t...

My first link is the official statistics compiled by the Japanese government itself (Statistics Bureau, MIC; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; Geospatial Information Authority of Japan) and their projections.

Even your link confirms that the population is in decline, just not as quicky as some reporters say.

"While the fertility rate declined from 4.32 in 1949 to a low of 1.26 in 2005, the total population was increasing >>until 2011<< "

"Japan’s Population Decline Not as Rapid as Media Portrays".

I just noticed I could replace 2017 with 2019 in the official statistics link and did so, resulting in http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/pdf/2019all.pdf

It is the same Table 2.2 That still shows a decline and projected decline.

I am not seeing anything that backs up your assertion that

> birthrate of Japan is considered low, but they are growing still

If you still want to assert this as fact then you are going to have to provide a reason that the Japanese government's own statistics and projections over at least the last 5 or so years are incorrect and what should be used as authoritative data instead.

My point is that the Japanese population ebbs and flows, but that was old news and I am wrong now about the years.

Yes you do. The paradigm has changed and now you must. In fact it’s abhorrent to have a homogenous population.

That's not fact, but opinion.

Obviously

Immigration is a must if you don't have a high enough birthrate to sustain economic growth - because we don't know how to manage a declining economy - and why would you accept that when you have the tool of immigration? Not because there is any fundamental need for a racially or culturally diverse population. Those things seem like they would be beneficial in my opinion, but not required.

I think we are getting to a point in the world where being able to deal with different cultures could start to be seen as a requirement, similar to knowing English in a global world.

I feel like Indians already benefit from this which is why they seem to be making very effective managers.

> Immigration is not actually something you need to have.

It's something the UK needs to have. We don't have enough qualified doctors, nurses, AHPs, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, electronic engineers, (any engineers), architects, etc etc etc.

The steady state for this kind of thing is a very long credentialing process that mostly serves to constrict [word choice is deliberate] entry into the field(s).

In the absence of immigration, assuming the void you describe were perceived, I would expect the UK to accelerate the qualification process for doctors, engineers, nurses, AHPs, engineers, architects, etc., without much affecting the quality of the doctoring / nursing / engineering that got done.

This is, for example, how people were trained to understand spoken Japanese when that became important in World War II. The first attempt involved approaching universities with Japanese programs, who all solemnly declared that learning to understand Japanese was a deliberate process involving multiple years of study. The second attempt involved a course developed for the purpose, not by the universities, that turned out functioning translators in six months.

> without much affecting the quality of the doctoring / nursing

In England "registered nurse" is a protected title. The requirements for being a registered nurse have changed over time. You used to be able to qualify then register, or work then register without getting the qualification. So we have a natural experiment with older nurses in England. Some are qualified and registered, some are unqualified and registered. We see from research that the qualification helps with patient safety.

I hope you can see that there are significant differences between learning a language and treating patients.

> So we have a natural experiment with older nurses in England. Some are qualified and registered, some are unqualified and registered. We see from research that the qualification helps with patient safety.

As described, you see from research that nurses with the qualification are better than nurses in the same cohort without. This is confounded all kinds of different ways; it doesn't come close to establishing that the qualification helped.

(The most obvious confound, though -- say, do nurses with a bachelor's degree outperform nurses with "some college"? -- does tend to suggest that, in the absence of immigration, overall quality levels will go down if the average quality of immigrants is higher than the average quality of natives.)

> I hope you can see that there are significant differences between learning a language and treating patients.

Of course, but I don't see that those differences are relevant here.

They had no choice. Not due to military might (Gibraltar would be just as defenceless against Spanish invasion, and yet it doesn't happen). But simply because holding on to colonies became morally unsustainable.

And the idea at the time was certainly that China would change in the five decades until unification. This was shortly after the end of the cold war, after all, which demonstrated that such change is possible, if not inevitable.

Thinking may have changed on that point. But I wouldn't fully exclude the possibility that China 2047 is more democratic than it is today. Things remain the same, until suddenly they don't.

> This was shortly after the end of the cold war, after all, which demonstrated that such change is possible, if not inevitable.

In 1997 most people wouldn't have thought it would be possible (or at least likely) for China to both be such a powerful country and be such an authoritarian country.

China also wouldn’t have taken this step if a certain other world power hadn’t gone AWOL the last few years.

There’s a reason they decided to ratchet up the pressure on HK the last few years. They figured that in the worst case slapping a specific brand on a few hotels in a few major Chinese cities is a cheap price to pay.

> They figured that in the worst case slapping a specific brand on a few hotels in a few major Chinese cities is a cheap price to pay.

Did they do that?

The Sino-British Declaration is the only thing allowing UK to rationalize giving HKers this citizenship path

Everything that has happened in HK so far conforms to the HK constitution as well as Beijing’s, whether it meets the spirit of the declaration or not

The new National Security Law actually contradicts the Basic Law (our Constitution) in many ways but the NSA explicitly overrides the Basic Law.

Most people believe there was no choice. Most of the territory was on a lease that was expiring and would have legally returned to China in 1997, splitting the city in two.

What the Brits should have done was to push reforms for democratic governance before they left. They could have allowed a fully democratic local government that would have survived the handover and been enshrined in the Basic Law. Instead, all promises of letting HK some democratic autonomy have been broken and stepped on, leading to the current situation.

China didn't like this idea of introducing democratic reforms in HK before the handover but the Brits are still at fault. A colony is a dictature, the British had no interest in having any type of self-governance framework for HK.

In the past 10 years -until the events of last year- there was little outspoken hate for China in HK. Most people were OK with the notion of being Chinese and part of China as long as their rights and freedoms were still honoured.

China could/should have used HK as an experiment to show that its overall control didn't fear some level of local democratic process. Instead the CCP just showed the opposite: how fragile and fearful the it is of any potential dissent.

[edit: spelling]

They did make some effort, and some of what they put in place was dissolved fairly quickly. Ultimately, no matter what they did, reforms wouldn't have lasted.

> What the Brits should have done was to push reforms for democratic governance before they left.

> the British had no interest in having any type of self-governance

That is false. In the 1960s, the UK did want to introduce democratic reforms.

> China didn't like this idea of introducing democratic reforms in HK

That is the understatement of the year. The correct historic account is that the CCP threatened use of military force, so the UK reacted expediently by backing off.

> But the threat of draining HK is an interesting sort of pressure to put on China.

I suspect that if the trickle shows any sign of becoming a significant exodus, a state of emergency will be called and all HK-ers passports will be cancelled, probably under the pretext of issuing new documents. While the US is shifting it's focus to the Asia Pacific region [0], that's probably hollow posturing. Even if the US had the willingness, what could they do on China's doorstep (beyond bluster) that wouldn't trigger a major military crisis? If Hong Kong is China's Anschluss, will Taiwan be its Poland? I sincerely doubt the current US administration has the diplomatic nouse to out-maneuver China here. The failure to check China is likely to send a shockwave around the world, signalling to allies the truth of what they already suspect - that is, that an increasingly withdrawn and internally focused US will not willingly elect to spend its blood and treasure defending anything but its immediate interests. In Australia, the government has signalled a huge (by our standards) increase in military spending in the next decade, as a consequence of this reality [1].

The times, they are a changin'.

[0] https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Tho...

[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-30/australia-unveils-10-...

aside from the fact that China was going to get Hong Kong one way or another I think there was a naive belief in the power of democracy infecting and changing the authoritarian government for the better.

Which I suppose this naive belief is part of the fear that is causing the current situation.

Laws/Declarations etc is moot when Britain took HK as colony through weapon & war, after the 1840 opium war. Remember, the British tried to sell opium to China, the government at the time refused to take the shit the British merchants tried to sell to China, and the British was like you know what, I'll shove this down your throat. It's so weird when people talk about HK, they don't talk about how it all started, or as if they take colony and war as granted. Good thing China has nuclear these days : )

All these is to say, I don't believe at all that Britain cares about democracy in HK. It's all virtue signaling and economic/political incentives.

Yeah, a lot has happened since 1840. Two world wars. During the second of which the British and the USA were allied with China against Japan during the Second Sino-Japanese war. After which of course Mao Zedong came into power and orchestrated the death of upwards of 45 million of his own countrymen through famine and murder.

Great history lesson. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the younger generations in HK suffering their freedoms, and perhaps human rights, being stripped away in 2020.

Yeah, good thing China "has nuclear". /s

They should have just done it from the start,

> Britain’s ‘disgraceful’ pre-handover efforts to deny nationality to Hongkongers revealed in declassified cabinet files

> Officials repeatedly pressured Portugal not to grant rights to Macau residents to prevent Hongkongers from asking for similar treatment

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2156385...

I wish the U.S. could make a New Hong Kong territory on the west coast somewhere. I think that would give the HKers access to the Pacific and a place to rebuild. I'd love to have those brilliant entrepreneurs and engineers over here.

we (US) should just give them all path to citizenship. No, special territory is a horrible idea.

Nah I think in HK's case it would be awesome. They'd have the autonomy to set up their own laws and regulations similar to what they currently have. I know this is a pie in the sky proposal but in my ideal world this would be a thing.

That sounds like a terrible idea. That would give china an excuse to try to kick the us out of asia.

If you mean our military bases in Japan and South Korea, who have no great trust of China, I'm not sure why China's opinion would be relevant there. If it's not controversial for Britain to offer them citizenship then it shouldn't be for US either. Even if it is...you gotta stand up to communism.

> If it's not controversial for Britain to offer them citizenship then it shouldn't be for US either

China objects strongly. It says these are Chinese citizens and Britain ceased to have any claim over the territory decades ago.

Of course since Britain's offer exists only on paper (there is no mechanism proposed by which a typical person in Hong Kong should actually make use of the offer to leave) the Chinese objection likewise extends only to paper.

Unless China proposes to keep its own citizens prisoners there’s not much it can do to stop them taking up the offer.

Which it has been known to do....

China would inevitably claim that it's part of China since it was granted to Hong Kongers exclusively, and Hong Kong is part of China.

It'd be like Crimea all over again, except China could have a legal argument that it's theirs instead of just claiming soldiers are vacationing there.

>It'd be like Crimea all over again

I don't see China invading the west coast of the USA without a fight. A really big fight. And for what?

Give Hong Kongers a piece of land and they wouldn’t even claim it’s an invasion. It’d be a piece of land given exclusively to people from China. In what world would China say that it isn’t theirs? They’ve claimed land with far shakier backing. Literally all they’d need to do is bus in a few loyal people, set them up to take power, and have them hand it over to Beijing.

Because that’s exactly what’s happening with HK now and people here are saying it was a dumb idea. Why repeat it?

It would be flatly illegal per the fourteenth amendment. We don't have special classes of citizens in the USA, period. Doing this constitutionally would require something like ceding the territory to a new government or something.

I think we should let the UK pay for its sins for a change. Setting up anything "autonomous" with its own laws and customs is a terrible idea. Assimilation should be a requirement for immigration.

Really, are Puerto Rico and Guam really that bad of a concept? I don't think so. Most of the western US was simply U.S. territory for decades.

Puerto Rico doesn't make much sense to me - they should either be a state and have the full rights and federal oversight that every other state does, or be their own thing entirely. Living in this limbo world where you're a citizen but sometimes in name only if you're on the island seems wrong.

They’re in a limbo because they don’t agree on what should happen. In the most recent real referendum (2012), a plurality slightly short of a majority wanted to maintain the status quo. But the rest were split: some wanted statehood, but the others wanted to be independent.

Note that Puerto Ricans are fully citizens. The island itself doesn’t have representation in Congress because it’s not a state. (Which is a legal thing that’s distinct from the people who live in the state! The “United States” isn’t just a name, it has legal significance.)

I agree for the historical reasons, but I don't think it should be left to Puerto Rico if they can't decide. The US should just say we are (state-hooding/evicting) you, unless you decide one way or the other. Along those same lines, I also think DC should gain representation in congress in some manner, either by largely becoming part of VA, or by becoming a 51st state(DC has more people than Wyoming or Vermont, and about as much as Alaska).

The people of Hong Kong are "paying" a hell of a lot more than the British.

That's always the case in anything colonial-like. I don't see why we should intervene though. "Autonomy" in the US means Sharia Law in Minnesota, unfortunately. We don't know how to do it well, if it can be done "well" at all.

I wish HKer in the U.S. and Britain can have their own system (One country Two system). Otherwise it is worse than China.

Rather than just downvoting I'll ask: how do you see the US and UK being worse than China?

>I think that would give the HKers access to the Pacific and a place to rebuild. I'd love to have those brilliant entrepreneurs and engineers over here.

Not many special "brilliant entrepreneurs". Just regular ole entrepreneurs taking advantage of the specific spot HK was in, and the specific relationship between Britain and China for global trade.

Merely bring the same people elsewhere would accomplish no great miracle.

It's not like taking SV-based VCs and programmers into e.g. Oklahome (where they'd just make a new hotspot, since their skills are carried with them).

It's more like taking the people in the tourist industry of Miami and moving them to Maine. It just wont work as well, since it was all about location in the first place...

There's nothing particularly special about SV VCs /programmers. Just a crapload of capital allocated there. Programmers are abundant throughout the country.

>There's nothing particularly special about SV VCs programmers. Just a crapload of capital allocated there

A crapload of capital tends to statistically attract the best programmers. Some of the biggest problems to solve/employers being there, ditto.

In other words, my comment wasn't about born and raised SV VC/programmers. It was about VC/programmers working in SV.

Not sure if I agree. Maimi tourism shifting to Maine is totally different beast since tourism by definition relies on local sights.

SV-based entrepreneurs are already going to places like Austin and Portland. It takes time.

It would quicker if we get 3 million people situated in an abstract region of US since the critical mass to get the ball rolling would already have been achieved. It would be a challenge, but not for the reasons you've dilineated.

>Not sure if I agree. Maimi tourism shifting to Maine is totally different beast since tourism by definition relies on local sights.

But that's my point. The success of HK businesses also relies on the location (and it's special status).

I checked the special status, that's pretty compelling - their tax haven incentives.

I think these types of regions can be created elsewhere but I totally see your point.

Tax haven status, plus the mere location -- being an port in that (very important) area, with ties to two very important countries...

Sorry but after watching the organized demonstrators against the CCP regime, I strongly disagree. And Miami itself is an interesting example you chose. Miami is made up of largely Cuban immigrants and their descendants who fled communism in Cuba only to succeed by and large in capitalist USA. They created a thriving ethnic community in South Florida and were given opportunities they would never have been able to achieve under the thumb of Castro.

While it wouldn't be exactly like HK, being a semi-autonomous territory of the US would allow the new goverment/economy to be in a unique position. Imagine, for example, if New-HK was allowed to set their own tariffs and taxes for goods coming into/out of their ports, while maintaining 100% free trade with the continental US.

>Imagine, for example, if New-HK was allowed to set their own tariffs and taxes for goods coming into/out of their ports, while maintaining 100% free trade with the continental US.

So this new territory could undercut every US-based port on tariffs, then ship everything to the USA consumer anyway? I don't see anyone agreeing to that deal.

No one wants to live in planned cities. Virtually all of them are failures. What's to stop any of them simply getting on a bus to Seattle or San Diego? Are you going to put the army around this territory?

It's quite amusing the hypothetical lengths people will go to "caring" but still straight up open about not letting foreigners into their actual country.

The UK stands to benefit tremendously from this olive branch to the HK people. It could rival Operation Paperclip (but without the war crimes coverups)

The "happy coincidence" to a genuinely welcome offer is a huge boost to a collapsing real estate market.

It would be highly advantageous for the US to offer the same (assuming they even want to come here still)

Seems unlikely at the moment; the US seems very focused on doing the opposite.

While it's true the trump administration is very anti immigrant at, it is also very anti ccp.

I don’t understand where people get that idea from.

In practice nothing the US has done has hurt the CCP. If anything, it has strengthened them domestically.

The major actions the Trump administration has taken against China are: 1) Tariffs which only served to hurt American farmers, considering there was hardly any drop off in Chinese exports to the US (and that’s on paper, since a lot of Chinese exports are now hidden as Vietnamese exports, etc) but significant drop offs in American exports to China. 2) A long sustained battle against 1 Chinese company. While Huawei is suffering, the likes of Xiaomi, etc are still doing just fine. 3) Whining about the nomenclature around SARS-COV-2.

On the flip side, the administration dismantled TPP, which was a decade+ long effort spanning multiple US administrations, and nearly every non Chinese country on the Pacific, that would have actually dealt a huge blow to Chinese bullying by providing companies doing manufacturing in China much more attractive alternatives in the countries surrounding China.

Xiaomi is only in end-user electronics and has nothing on infrastructure hardware - AFAIK it is not competing with US companies in deploying 5G hardware.

I do not consider a +20% drop in Chinese exports to the US as "hardly any drop".

Trump has put an end to e-packet which was killing US small-scale businesses: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/trump...

TPP was a nightmare opposed both by the left and right - and even by Hillary Clinton - at-least formally in her campaign. Only corporate shareholders supported it. It even pushed copyright terms further! See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/whats-wrong-tpp

I lived in China since 2008, and in between also in Hong Kong for a few years (2013-2014). Hongkongers are absolutely different people, and even if there is be a formal annexation by China, cultural assimilation will take a few generations of unrest at least. It was always a very different feeling stepping on the East Railway after crossing the border in Shenzhen. The phone alive with all the missed Gmail messages and Telegram chats.

For me there is no Hong Kong anymore. There is Xianggang city, Guangdong province.

It's worth noting that this article is 11 days old. A more recent dispatch would be more meaningful since things have happened since then.

Not to make light of the offer (and I personally know people who may be affected), but why would someone from HK really want to move to the UK?

Cold weather, mediocre food, expensive prices, expensive housing, and an economy and system on the verge of entering a highly destabilized period.

That's an attractive offer?

... compared to a authoritarian regime with literal concentration camps?

That is not in HK, let's be clear with the facts. And neither is it an imminent possibility that people in HK are about to be subjected to that crime. Until China marches across the border.

A market for improvement in food and you think china is doing good? China is a literal welfare state that relies on the east of China. Most intake wealth while the East actually generates it, the Pearl River Delta is also where most of the economic progress occurs.

> cold weather

South of England, particularly London gets pretty low rainfall and decent weather temperatures

> Mediocre food

You don't know what you are talking about!

> expensive prices

Compared to what?

> and an economy and system on the verge of entering a highly destabilized period.

Yea HK definitely won't experience any of that

You are delusional

On what point precisely? Which of my rebuttals of unanchored relative criticism above do you have issue with?

I'll help contribute. The food you talk of -- sure you may have some good food at the top of the scale, but for an every day person's budget, food options in the UK pale in comparison with most any country in Asia.

As for Brexit, the additional economic fallout (already, and coming) from that self-inflicted problem will be worse than the general downturn for most other places.

all of them

Constructive.

I hope this doesn't get ugly when people try to actually leave.

On the bright side, I wonder what good things this will do for the UK. I doubt many of these people will vote Torry.

Many immigrants who fled communism to come to the US remain strong Republican voters. Cubans are still registered Republicans 2:1. Even as of 2008, Vietnamese Americans were registered Republicans by a significant margin.

Unlike Trump, Johnson has done a good job pulling in minority voters. About half the Indian MPs in the U.K. Parliament are Tories.

Your comment is particularly inexplicable given that Labour just ran someone who wants to put a call for collectivizing property back in Labour’s platform.

Of the four “Great Offices of State”, two are held by people of South Asian heritage, as is the AG, and another Cabinet Member. Two of those people are also women. Got to imaging Sajid Javid will be back there soon. Three of those five families that went via the empire in Africa. Conspicuous absence of black people tho.

I imagine Javid will battle it out with Sunak if the Tories decide Boris can't cut it against Keir

I imagine Priti will throw her hat in the ring too, although God forbid it comes to pass. I think Sunak would be a strong choice, where Javid doesn’t have the charisma.

People are not leaving Hong Kong because of the Mainland's leftist economic policies. This isn't 1960s Mao-led China we are talking about.

Cuban Floridians who came of age after the Cold War have very different politics. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-cuban-ameri...

Vietnamese Americans: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/vietnamese-americans-ar...

> I wonder what good things this will do for the UK.

Firstly this would bring UK a lot of respect from the world community as any country prepared to stand up to the rule of law will always look good.

Next, before China started messing with HK it was the financial hub of Asia, but as China starts to erode the rule of law in HK that title will most likely move on to Singapore.

This then means the UK has a great opportunity as it then means they will most likely see an influx of:

1. Well educated HK citizens

2. HK citizens bringing in their wealth (some of whom will no doubt be super rich) which is always good as it helps to build up the national wealth.

> some of whom will no doubt be super rich

Surely the super rich already have Cyprus passports? This doesn’t really seem like a meaningful offer for the rich, they’d have no trouble with immigration anyway.

It would be more lower upper class who collectively spend more than the ultrarich who are misers proportionally.

To keep them from leaving, they'd have to forbid travel for either tourism or business. That's possible, but 1) a bad look and 2) harmful to business.

And, with rayiner I suspect that many will remember which party opened the door for them, even decades from now.

London is currently in a life or death battle with HK over its future as a financial trading hub. Brexit was making prospects difficult for the UK, but an exodus of the wealthy upper class and their businesses to London would change that.

This seems like the only way forward for HK citizens :-/

You would think China would be happy to have everyone just leave HK so it could fill it with its own people.

First Hong Kong, next Taiwan?

That’s what I keep thinking: this is a dry-run sewing if they’ll get meaningful backlash from the next U.S. President.

Taiwan and Hong Kong couldn’t be more different though. Hong Kong legislature (heavily influenced by China) passed this law (edit: this turns out not to be true). Hong Kong is already part of China. You don’t have 200km of water to cross against a country that’s prepared for just that. There’s no TSMC. If it’s a dry run for Taiwan, it’s a really shitty one.

This is factually incorrect.

China's legislature amended Hong Kong's constitution to add the new national security law precisely because the Hong Kong legislature - even under heavy influence by mainland China - was unable to pass it.

Sure. Regardless, legislative means were used, not force.

Legislative means we’re not used. China had no legal authority to do what they did... but no one will stop them.

You are correct to point out that force was not used (n/m the divisions of tanks that have been on the border), and Taiwan is different.

> Legislative means were not used. China had no legal authority to do what they did

You are in disagreement with the BBC on this point:

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

> The Basic Law says Chinese laws can't be applied in Hong Kong unless they are listed in a section called Annex III - there are already a few listed there, mostly uncontroversial and around foreign policy. These laws can be introduced by decree - which means they bypass the city's parliament. Critics say the introduction of the law this way amounts to a breach of the "one country, two systems" principle, which is so important to Hong Kong - but clearly it is technically possible to do this.

It is a breach of the one country, two systems non-interference pact which the handoff was conditional on, therefore not legal.

The Central Government did have the authority under Article 18 of the basic law. Let's not kid ourselves here.

This is because Article 18 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong allows China to promulgate certain laws related to national security. Taiwan doesn't have this.

Taiwan is much harder, but I was thinking more about precedent: if there is not much international blowback, that’s going to tell them that there won’t be major consequences if they try to ratchet Taiwan into their orbit. The U.S. provided a big shield to Taiwan for years but China has built up a lot and Trump has been ceding power as quickly as he can. It’s not clear to me that the other countries in the region or the EU would set a line and hold it for very long. The international businesses acquiescing to expansion in Hong Kong are probably setting the tone.

Remember, this almost certainly wouldn’t just be a straight-up invasion. I’d assume something more like funding pro-China political parties, expanding business and other ties, and then at some point an incident involving a friendly politician asking for help which never leaves. TSMC is important but just one business and not one many people are going to go to war over when business is going to continue mostly as usual.

"US provided big shield to Taiwan...trump has been ceding power as quickly as he can". This is utterly false. Trump has further strengthened ties with Taiwan compared to the previous administrations.

https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/trump-quietly-signs-legislat...

He was also the first US president to speak with a Republic-of-China president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Tsai_call

Taiwan is currently its own independent country, regardless of what China believes.

Unless something seriously changes, such as a full scale invasion by China, in which hundreds of thousands get killed on both sides, the situation is not even close to the same thing.

Can someone correct the typo in the title?

China is a horrific, authoritarian monster. I hope this century sees their vision checked and reduced back to the edges of humanity.

Nationalistic flamewar is not ok here, let alone drive-by flamebait like this that is as grandiose as it is cheap. We ban accounts that post like this.

No, that's not because we're defending China or are secret communist agents. We're defending HN against vandalism. Not to mention arson.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23807418.

Apologies to the community. This post was after a few beers, but inexcusable nonetheless. Won’t happen again.

I've been there. Thanks for the kind reply to a rather harsh chiding.

Does anyone follow British domestic politics? They can't stand Polish (et al) immigrants amongst their numbers, much less browner skinned Indians and muslims. Brits are an increasingly irrelevant, racist, and post-Imperial bitter and reckless island nation (the size of Morocco) that can't feed itself. As an American citizen, I advocate a 2nd 1776, whereupon we set their miserable Brit "ship of state" adrift forever. Our future is better secured by a fully reciprocal "nationalism" that does not sanction racist jingoism. Consult John Mearsheimer for broader exposition of a fruitful and respectful reciprocal nationalism without pretenses to "universalism."

There are too many generalisations here to take any of your points seriously. Racism exists in all countries, not just Britain. It may be worse or better in Britain than elsewhere but it's certainly not alone.

If your point is that the potential influx of HKers will create social tensions and feed into racism then I would agree, but that's not specific to the UK. Having 3M people suddenly popping up on your doorstep can be a challenge.

However, while I hope that many HKers take on the opportunity to get a real British passport, I know most will do this as a backup plan. They will funnel their families and finances out of HK (to the benefit of the UK) but still live in HK for the most part.

Most HKer know they can't just show-up in the UK and be successful there as they are in HK. Some will enjoy some opportunities and will manage to build or rebuild their success but most have their lives strongly anchored in the economic fabric of HK, and that's not easy to transpose elsewhere.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com