Hacker News Reader

Comment by observationist | Hacker News Reader

>>> Barring them from leaving the country feels a bit sinister for people who haven't been accused of committing any crimes.

This is standard operating procedure for the CCP. They are a truly ruthless, sinister group who have no scruples about ensuring compliance and using leverage on behalf of Chinese interests. Just look at what happened to Jack Ma.

View on HN

Gemini, Give me examples of people that the US has retained passports pending investigations

It's standard procedure in every country for some investigations.

This is false equivalence.

Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail. That power can only be granted by a judge.

China arbitrarily traps people in China without any such thing or any due process whatsoever.

> China arbitrarily traps people in China without any such thing or any due process whatsoever.

What makes you think there's no legal process for blocking nationals from leaving China?It's a very common instrument and in a bunch of countries it's an administrative measure with even less scrutinity than a judicial mandate. Do you consider France or the UK to be a countries without rule of law or due process?

But to the point in the US, for example, the government can just issue a warrant for you as a material witness or flag your passport and then you can't leave; these are hardly due processes and more like legal workarounds to do exactly the same thing; the US has disappeared plenty of people in much more sinister ways than that, however, so I agree that there's no equivalence here: the US is worse.

America is not exactly a shining moral example for the world, particularly these days, but these Chinese apologist takes can be a bit baffling to read at times.

It mostly doesn't make any sense and seems to be motivated by some kind of animus or bigotry. But maybe understandable given the current administration's behavior.

> Outside of immigration issues, you can only be made to surrender your passport if you have been arrested and indicted for a crime, as a part of bail

This has historically not been the case, for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haig_v._Agee and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Robeson

Anyone with a child support order that makes decent money is only one misrecorded or bounced payment away from being ineligible for a passport. The trigger is only 4 digits of USD.

In the US, the Passport Denial Program, since 1998 (other developed countries enacted similar legislation), following the 1992 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) [2]:

> The Child Support Enforcement Passport Denial Program was enacted as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. While authorized in 1996, the program was jointly implemented by the U.S. Department of State and the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in June 1998.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_support#Enforcement

[1]: "The [US] Child Support Enforcement Passport Denial Program" https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IN12660

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._ratification_of_the_Conve...

So were these founders found violating a child support order?I'm still unclear on what crime they actually committed and what they're being investigated for.

Is it possible that they are merely pawns in a political dispute between two rival countries?

It's one thing to block an acquisition because you don't want your rival to gain an advantage, an action which is not limited to the CCP.

It's another thing to detain an individual when no crime was committed.

"Missing" (but quite often only due to a clerical misreporting) a payment isn't facially criminal and isn't even established as "violation" without a contempt hearing where you can argue why you didn't actually violate it. So the passport denial is even looser than that.

I'm just pointing out the bar isn't much different except dressed up in a think of the children meme. I'm not justifying either one.

Understood. I'd note that the difference is that with a missed payment, you can simply make that payment (which can be a relatively small one as you noted) and you're free and clear.

With these Chinese founders, I'm not sure it's quite so simple.

The first case makes sense: ex-CIA officer explicitly outing CIA officers. Naturally, the government is going to step in and it's a false equivalence to compare to restricting random citizens.

As for your second case, US schools teach about the perils of McCarthyism. You neglected to link to the subsequent Supreme Court ruling in 1958 overturning the confiscation of the passport over protected speech. Note how long ago that was and how it's taught as a black stain on US history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_v._Dulles

These aren't random citizens, these are people accused of violating export controls of sensitive, dual-use technology.

They seem to be the poster children for a flight risk.

You didn't have to bring out the big gun usernames, we get it, you run a bot farm.

Did you respond to the wrong post?

And what exactly are these founders being investigated for?

Breaking the export rules. Tech workers should be used to the idea of a "Invention Assignment Agreement".

Manus was built in China and all of its development happened there. In order to skirt Chinese review of the deal they tried to close down shop there and move to Singapore.

I don't think China is being unreasonable. I'm sure the US would act exactly the same way if an American tech company raised money from China and then tried to close down in the US and move all of its IP and technology to a different country so that it can be bought out by Alibaba or Bytedance without having to deal with US approval

There is no equivalent exit ban in the US that can be instituted on a whim for regulatory or business disputes. If you want to know more, you can read up on it in this Stanford Journal of International Law publication:

"Legal Strategy for Commercial Hostage-taking and Business Exit Bans" https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/SJIL_60-...

I love that there is an actual 48-page research paper on the exact comment that you were responding to and completely refutes their assertion.

What a mic drop.

Do you read the news? Whether or not to stop Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel was being discussed everywhere. On what basis was that power?

> Nippon Steel's acquisition of U.S. Steel can be stopped by the US President based on a recommendation from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), citing risks to national security under Section 721 of the Defense Production Act.

National security risks. Exactly what China is citing. It's literally the exact same situation.

EDIT: In fact, the US regularly stops acquisition of US companies by China https://hvmilner.scholar.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2...

> Two days ago, President Trump issued an order blocking the $1.3 billion sale of a Portland, Ore.-based company called Lattice Semiconductor to private equity firm Canyon Bridge Capital Partners. The stated rationale for Trump’s order was national security.

https://hvmilner.scholar.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2...

Oh come on. Look what happened to Russian enterpreneur, Pavel Durov in France, and what happened to Julian Assange and to Edward Snowden. It's the same thing just wrapped in different colored package. You don't cooperate with the government, you have some suffering.

I don't know what Durov did, but Assange and Snowden released classified government documents.

Is that what these two founders did?

They are good actually.

Jack Ma is fine. If that's what you mean by ruthless then it's not really a big deal.

He's fine because he complied with the authorities.

All states, by definition, are authorities that demand compliance. You're not saying anything that distinguishes Jack Ma's condition from anyone else's just about anywhere.

That is nonsense. There is the rule of law and there is the arbitrary actions of regimes that are a law unto themselves.

How much do you know about Chinese law, actually?

that's true in every country.

Not at all. In non totalitarian/authoritarian countries you're fine if you stay on the right side of the law, instead of the whims of the regime.

Who writes the laws?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com