U.K. Plans Citizenship for Hong Kong Residents in Row with China

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-28/u-k-plans-citizenship-for-hong-kong-residents-in-row-with-china

265 264 6 years ago

Simulacra• 6 years ago

How about recognizing Taiwan?

freetime2• 6 years ago

I think this is a great idea and would be 100% in favor of recognizing the people of Taiwan in their independence. Admittedly I am not a diplomat and don't know what the repercussions of that would be. Still.. it just feels like the right thing to do.

ardy425• 6 years ago

I think this is a great idea and would be 100% in favor of recognizing the people of Taiwan in their independence. Admittedly I am not a diplomat and don't know what the repercussions of that would be. Still.. it just feels like the right thing to do.

At a minimum the PRC would break of diplomatic relations (it refuses to have relations with any country that also recognizes Taiwan). However it would be interesting (and dangerous) to see what the PRC would do if the US or an un-ignorable block of countries like the EU broke the status-quo and recognized Taiwan. The PRC is far less isolated and self-sufficient than it was when major powers last officially recognized Taiwan.

Svip3• 6 years ago

The tragedy of democracies is that it does not really encourage democracies elsewhere. As leaders of a democracy strive for high living standards within their own borders, wages and thus the cost of living goes up. But participants in a democracy (i.e. the voters) still wish to encourage their leaders for cheaper products. Be it bananas or electronics.

In an isolated system, the consequence of such advances in social structures should be that the newer higher cost of living is the price one pays for a higher standard of living. But countries aren't isolated, and thus democratic leaders try to exploit less democratic countries for their own benefits, be it via covert action, foreign aid or other forms of diplomatic pressure.

China, on the other hand, is one of the few (former, I should say) developing nations that have fought back, once they gained enough political power internationally. The Western world have become heavily reliant on China and its cheap production engine (to put it very simply), and China can thus force the same Western democracies to side with them on diplomatic issues closer to their home.

Ask an American or a Frenchman how important to their livelihood Hong Kong's freedom or Taiwan's independence is, and they would probably rate it low among their list of priorities. Their cheap electronics come first. Does it matter to a Canadian shopkeeper whether Muslim minorities in China are treated humanely? Probably not as much as access to Chinese manufactured equipment.

You may be quick to think our leaders are corrupted by the Chinese regime, but in reality, they are merely doing what their voters want them to do. Voters tend to be rather narrowly focused on what is in front of them, rather than wanting their government spent money and resources on someone else's freedom. Particularly if those regimes avoid directly attacking those democracies (see Pearl Harbor for an example of this mistake).

mattmanser• 6 years ago

You're confusing/conflating capitalism with democracy.

redis_mlc2• 6 years ago

they are merely doing what their voters want them to do

they are merely doing what their lobbyists want them to do

FTFY.

jsnider32• 6 years ago

The tragedy of democracies is that it does not really encourage democracies elsewhere.

This is actually false. The reason Russia and China care so much about Ukraine and Taiwan, is because they worry having a functional democracy next door may destabilize their own regimes.

robocat2• 6 years ago

That would be a great solution if Taiwan offered citizenship to HK citizens or political refugees. Otherwise I don’t understand how that would help HK citizens.

sswezey• 6 years ago

I don't think Taiwan is in a position to offer citizenship to HKers. That would greatly draw the ire of China, which Taiwan is not equipped to handle.

goodcanadian2• 6 years ago

As I understand it, Taiwan already has pledged support for HK political refugees. I wasn't able to find the article I remember with 10s of googling, but here is another: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/29/taiwan-plans-to-draw-a-human...

samcheng2• 6 years ago

It does sound like Taiwan is looking for ways to help Hong Kong residents:

https://focustaiwan.tw/politics/202005270012

jariel2• 6 years ago

I think the issue is realpolitick.

For now, Taiwan is free.

And 'recognizing Taiwan' might trigger an invasion.

billfruit9• 6 years ago

Yes but do the KMT want it recognised as 'Taiwan'?

billfruit9• 6 years ago

A more nuanced view of the topic:

"Taiwanese politics is full of complex subtleties that not every news report can include. But if reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic has taught us anything, it is that accuracy matters. A simple change, describing Tsai and the DPP as “pro-status quo” instead of “pro-independence,” gives readers a more accurate and nuanced account of Taiwan’s reality."

https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/no-taiwans-president-isnt-pr...

rswail• 6 years ago

The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now.

Offering them citizenship will allow residents a way of moving to the UK, but it does not guarantee them consular rights in Hong Kong. China already takes the view that a HK Chinese resident is a citizen of China, subject to its laws irrespective of other citizenships and will not allow consular assistance.

As for Taiwan, Nixon and other swapped "allegiance" from the ROC to PRC in 1972. Most nations do not havce diplomatic relations with the ROC because if they do, then PRC withdraws diplomatic recognition and negotiation with them.

Note that Taiwan's government does not want "independence". They still claim to be the legitimate government of the whole of China, even though that status was lost in the UN in 1971. Both the ROC and PRC claim that Taiwan is part of China, but differ (obviously) as to which government is "legitimate".

vkou• 6 years ago

One of the two major parties in Taiwan wants to be recognized as independent, the other wants the world to recognize them as the one legitimate government of China (Which is, of course, farcical.)

samcheng2• 6 years ago

Your view of Taiwan's government is somewhat outdated. The KMT party (which once ruled China, and for decades ruled Taiwan) has suffered a series of overwhelming electoral defeats, and the now-ruling DPP party has a platform of "Taiwan" as an independent nation, rather than the (exiled) "Republic of China."

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

nobody05• 6 years ago

Yet Taiwan still call itself Republic of China regardless of parties. There was never a country called Taiwan.

https://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=A00000...

threw43aafasdf• 6 years ago

Amusingly, the case of PRC's acceptance to UN was championed by India, which both lost to China badly in '62, and interestingly, was also the instrument by which China was destroyed in the Opium wars by Britain.

This view of India, it's fall from grace in Asia, and its transformation from a source of knowledge to the sword of imperialism was very notable in the pan-Asian movt. in Japan (whose roots are actually in the anti-Meiji rebellions). This history is unacknowledged not only in India, but in Japan too. It's not surprising that the turban-clad 'asan' view of Indians as imperial-lackeys is a distinct point in Chinese movies.

Sun-Yat Sen, the founder of the first Chinese republic wa himself supported by this clan in Japan; and very interestingly, Rash-Behari Bose who was key to the formation of the INA, and the subsequent independence of India (via the Sepoy Mutiny), was helped by Sun-Yat Sen during in his early years in Japan (when he was being hunted down by the pro-British Japanese govt.) It's also very likely that Subhash Bose fakes his death in Taiwan and escaped to Russia via then Manchuria, and was in contact with CCP heads.

All said, it's unsurprising that today, 'India', a country often sneered at by the Caucasians (I say this measuredly), is suddenly being termed 'America's best friend' in line with Obama's 'pivot to Asia' (aka, the New Opium War).

aksss11• 6 years ago

I say this measuredly

I should hope so. That’s a stunning generalization if I get your intent, and to boot, wholly inaccurate as Indians are (and many can/do identify as) Caucasians.

Are you using The term as a proxy for the Occident as a whole? The United States specifically? Ignoring the technical inaccuracy, I think America remains a bit of an Indiaphiliac and has been that way for decades. It’s entirely compatible to hope the best for a nation, respect its intellectual achievements and regional challenges, value the alignment of interests while also remaining critical of its political and humanitarian shortcomings - as The US regards India and I’m sure the feeling is mutual.

At the same time, I think the US is wise to stay out of the growing conflict in Northern Kashmir. When it comes down to dust though, I’ve no doubt the US would help India defend against existential threats. China on the other hand isn’t worried about existential threats except maybe from Japan, and is in fact demonstrating and expansionist (if not imperial) foreign policy - which is to say, they would not conceivably need help from the US in the present conflict. I don’t see India attempting to seize territory from China any time soon.

selimthegrim3• 6 years ago

A lot of people think Netaji was obsequious and ingratiating with the Japanese and they didn’t respect him as a result

baybal2• 6 years ago

Sun-Yat Sen, the founder of the first Chinese republic wa himself supported by this clan in Japan; and very interestingly, Rash-Behari Bose who was key to the formation of the INA, and the subsequent independence of India (via the Sepoy Mutiny), was helped by Sun-Yat Sen during in his early years in Japan (when he was being hunted down by the pro-British Japanese govt.) It's also very likely that Subhash Bose fakes his death in Taiwan and escaped to Russia via then Manchuria, and was in contact with CCP heads.

Thank you for bringing up this often disregarded piece of history to light again.

It's a big irony that this alignment split has lasted to these days.

There is a bigger split in India's left than in between its left, and right side of the spectrum. One is pro-China, and one is militantly against.

aksss11• 6 years ago

It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now.

This.. seems a bit strident. Or a reach, anyway. I don’t recall a similar situation in HK in the 90’s. I also recall the joint declaration’s intent was to maintain HK autonomy until about 2047, something the U.K. advocated for, not China. The liberties the people in HK are used to and fighting to retain are there specifically because of the what the U.K. set up.

hangonhn• 6 years ago

The UK granted those liberties and some measure of self governance only in the last years of its rule. The Governor of Hong Kong was never elected. The elected portion of the legislative council was implemented rather near the end of the UK’s time in HK. For most of British HK history, the governor picked the members of the council. Basic Law which gave certain guarantees to HK didn’t even exist until 1990!

That said, British rule of HK, despite the UK having fairly authoritarian levels of power, was fairly restraint. I don’t recall many HK people feeling bitter towards the UK during that time I lived there — just prior to the handover.

La1n6• 6 years ago

Basic Law article 23 also requires HK to pass a national security law similar to the one that currently is so debated. They have not done for for the last 23(?) years.

billfruit9• 6 years ago

Also geographically the major portion of HK, the New Territories has gone back to China in 1997 because the British had lease of it only till that time. Only the HK Island and Kowloon areas are the territories British yeilded to China under agreement. So post 1997 Britain had a claim only to a small part of the geographical area of HK.

barry-cotter4• 6 years ago

It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now.

I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction. On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom. Some exploitation.

terenceng2010• 6 years ago

Maybe the exploit is about:

The nationality of HongKonger was the same as other UK citizen at the time called CUKC. For other UK ex-colony, they usually had a independent election to be an independent country or so, and these countries do not have the UK nationality anymore. But HKers never had such election taken place.

La1n6• 6 years ago

Exploitation doesn't mean someone else can't gain anything, and you should know that the history of colonial Hong Kong started many, many, years earlier.

dntbnmpls3• 6 years ago

I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign jurisdiction.

That's because the UK kidnapped the entirety of hong kong.

On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble

Isn't that because that's where the colonizing brits were? You know the ones the japanese wanted to remove from asia?

and in 1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the United Kingdom.

The rise of Hong Kong's GDP entirely tracks the opening of china. Meaning the UK had nothing to do with hong kong's rise.

Also, it's a joke to compare a city ( hong kong ) to a country ( UK ). I see it done too many times in traditional and social media. Hong kong's GDP per capita is lower than london's. Using your logic, does it make that an exploitation?

throw554354• 6 years ago

Check out the 1967 Hong Kong protests. The UK directed their appointed governor to suppress the protests.

Over 50 protestors were killed and hundreds more injured.

kerng• 6 years ago

I think you statements about Taiwan are not accurate anymore - definitely not since recent elections, but even before that.

pmachinery• 6 years ago

The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997. It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now.

Britain only started paying a bit of lip service to "freedom" and "democracy" when it became time to hand the territory back to China, and even now they aren't offering citizenship, they are simply saying they're considering allowing people to stay a few months longer in Britain.

Both the ROC and PRC claim that Taiwan is part of China, but differ (obviously) as to which government is "legitimate".

We all know that if the "CCP" had lost the civil war and was reduced to ruling a tiny island off the coast, nobody would take the "PRC" any more seriously - as the true ruler of the whole country or as an independent state - than a "Confederate States of America" holed up on the Florida Keys.

gwd• 6 years ago

We all know that if the "CCP" had lost the civil war and was reduced to ruling a tiny island off the coast, nobody would take the "PRC" any more seriously - as the true ruler of the whole country or as an independent state - than a "Confederate States of America" holed up on the Florida Keys.

Perhaps not for the first 10 years. But 60 years and two generations later, it doesn't make any sense at all to refuse to recognize the independence of a self-governing group of over 20 million people.

stale20023• 6 years ago

holed up on the Florida Keys.

Taiwan is made up of 70% of native Taiwanese people. It is disingenuous to say that the people living there, are made up of escaped refugees from the china mainline.

The fact that 70% of the population living their, has ancenstry dating back hundreds of years, is what make their claim valid.

barry-cotter4• 6 years ago

Britain only started paying a bit of lip service to "freedom" and "democracy" when it became time to hand the territory back to China

They were going to make it a democracy in the 60s until China said they’d invade if they did.

China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-pus...

hyko11• 6 years ago

"It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now."

nope: https://www.economist.com/asia/2019/07/01/hong-kong-proteste...

jialutu• 6 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Hong_Kong_riots

freeflight4• 6 years ago

HK spent over 150 years under British colonial rule [0].

The vast majority of that time without any real democratic participation of HK citizens as those were considered British subjects and did not have full rights nor citizenship [1].

[0] https://www.scmp.com/week-asia/opinion/article/2122508/hong-...

[1] https://journals.openedition.org/rfcb/1613#tocto1n8

jariel2• 6 years ago

"It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now."

If by 'exploited' you mean 'foisted Hong Kong to an immeasurably higher standard of living than the mainland, and protected them from the brutal oppression of the CCP, and enabled HK to be an example Asian country, one of the most sophisticated nations, with one of the highest GDP/capita in the region and world' ... then ok.

And of course 'The CCP now' will brutally oppress HK, bring them behind the curtain, throw away any legal process, watch their every move, subject them to any number of controls and censorship ...

So that's one funny way to look at it.

krona3• 6 years ago

The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997.

They did.

Lio• 6 years ago

The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to 1997.

Yes, they should of but realistically they couldn't, life just isn't that simple. China had explicitly blocked that.

The hand over agreement to China was a very difficult and subtle balancing act.

Since the '60s China had apposed further moves towards democracy or extension of HK citizen rights with the threat of invasion.

However, as Thatcher pointed out in the 80s, China didn't even need to invade they could just cut the water supply off any time they felt like it.

robocat2• 6 years ago

How about countries provide citizenship for refugee status if someone is being politically targeted?

If not done officially, but everyone knows that by being a political activist you can get foreign citizenship, you have just motivated people to fight!

Edit: dual-citizenship for an activist puts a China into a catch-22. China can’t complain if the optics are that the activist is just a normal person asserting their rights. If China does attack the activist, then the other country can rightfully argue that the activist is a political refugee, and as a citizen of their country they can defend them properly.

ardy425• 6 years ago

If not done officially, but everyone knows that by being a political activist you can get foreign citizenship, you have just motivated people to fight!

No, I think you'd end up motivating more to flee: a lot of people won't fight unless their backs' are against the wall.

You'd also probably end up stabilizing a bunch of nasty regimes by giving them someplace to dump their dissidents without inviting much backlash.

toxik• 6 years ago

Political asylum is a very common cause for immigration though, so isn’t this already the case?

jsnider32• 6 years ago

This is a beautiful idea.

luckylion3• 6 years ago

How about countries provide citizenship for refugee status if someone is being politically targeted?

They do, just not immediately. All (most? are there any exceptions?) Western countries have a road to citizenship for accepted asylum seekers.

jonathanstrange• 6 years ago

It's called asylum law and exists in many countries, including all EU countries.

michaelt• 6 years ago

The UK's general refugee/asylum policy is, to describe it generously, not designed to project an international image that it's easy to get in. In 2016, we accepted 28% of applicants.

Would you punch a policeman if told "if you punch that policeman, there's a 28% chance we'll stop you getting in trouble for it" ? I think that's not an offer that's going to convince many people.

ardy425• 6 years ago

OP:

U.K. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab warned the government will open a path to citizenship for 300,000 Hong Kong residents unless China backs down on its planned security laws....A key question for the U.K. is how to help the 300,000 people in Hong Kong who have British National (Overseas) passports. The foreign secretary said the U.K. will offer them a haven if Beijing does not back down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)_pa...:

Holders of BN(O) passports are permanent residents of Hong Kong who were British Dependent Territories citizens until 30 June 1997 and had registered as BN(O)s....As British National (Overseas) cannot be passed through jus sanguinis to children of current BN(O)s, any children born on or after 1 July 1997 to parents with British National (Overseas) status only acquired either Chinese nationality or British Overseas Citizen status on birth (although it is possible for a BOC with no other nationalities to be registered as a British Citizen). Any British Dependent Territory Citizens with connections to Hong Kong who had failed to register themselves as British Nationals (Overseas) by the end of 30 June 1997 would also be ineligible to make further claims for BN(O) from 1 July 1997, and those people would either become Chinese nationals or British Overseas Citizens.

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

Naturalisation as a British Overseas citizen is not possible. It is expected that BOCs will obtain citizenship in the country they reside in and that the number of active status holders will eventually dwindle until there are none.[15] Currently, it is only possible to transfer BOC status by descent if an individual born to a BOC parent would otherwise be stateless.

So this doesn't affect anyone under the age of 23?

mjburgess• 6 years ago

I think it's even more limited than that. I think you had to have BNO status in 1997 -- ie., even if you're 50 now, if you didnt apply, you can't get it.

Quite easy for the british gov. to change the law on that though.

eigenvector2• 6 years ago

The history of the "British National (Overseas)" nationality is worth a read.[1][2]

During the decolonization of the British Empire, the UK did not want large numbers of non-white people immigrating to the British Isles. HK was only one instance of this. BN(O) nationality was one of many convenient bureaucratic fictions created in order to rationalize how someone born as a British subject in a British territory could lose the right to continue to live on British territory. Particularly affected were people of Indian ethnicity who had immigrated to other British colonies as civil servants; they became ethnic minorities in their newly independent countries and while their white coworkers were granted British citizenship, they were left behind.

Thousands of people became stateless as a result of this policy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_citizen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)

hyko11• 6 years ago

Yeah, time for that racist bullshit to end. Same stunt that the U.S. pulls in its colonies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territories_o...

You're either a full and free citizen of the empire or not imo; special classes of citizenship based on race and geography are an abomination to all lovers of freedom and justice.

Edited to add: why don’t people get angry when they realise there is blatant and systemic racism being funded with their money, on their behalf?

VWWHFSfQ2• 6 years ago

Puerto Rico has decided repeatedly to not become an official US state. The option is available to them anytime they want it.

ciguy5• 6 years ago

Puerto Rico can become a US State anytime it wants just by holding a referendum and getting a majority vote. They have repeatedly chosen not to, probably because they hold full uS citizenship, can live, work and travel freely to the states without a passport and overall hold all the rights of a US state with none of the tax obligations. If anything they are in a privileged position. That covers 3.5 million out of the approx 4 million residents of US territories.

EDIT: For the idiots downvoting. I know that Puerto Rico held referendums, I lived there for a while and I know a lot of people in government. The most recent referendum was massively boycotted and got extremely low turn out. Because of this many politicians in Puerto Rico consider it invalid. Bottom line, way too many rich politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the lack of taxes and oversight to allow statehood. If they want statehood they have to actually put together a delegation to handle the transition which they have NOT done yet.

bArray5• 6 years ago

Yeah, time for that racist bullshit to end.

Probably more of an economic decision than one based in racism.

You're either a full and free citizen of the empire or not

The British empire was disbanded, so there's nobody really to take your quarrel up with.

special classes of citizenship based on race and geography
are an abomination to all lovers of freedom and justice.

Again, you're assuming it's based in race and geography. It seems more like the motivation was based in economics.

irrational• 6 years ago

Isn't this how empires always have been run? In the Roman Empire the percentage of population that were citizens ranged from 1% to 55% depending on the province. The rest were non-citizens and slaves.

barking11• 6 years ago

There's lots of countries you maybe should vent your anger on before Britain, one of the most multicultural countries in the world. Maybe India with its racist caste system. Maybe any number of countries in Asia or Africa which have modern day slavery and racist policies.

all100• 6 years ago

It's very easy to hold this opinion, since you are on the "good" side by default.

Fact is however, Britain is small and cannot possibly let in an enormous number of people. How many are we talking about?

Germany let in over a million in 2015 and the effects on rents are already devastating.

How would you like if we force a small African country to potentially let in every European citizen on moral grounds?

s_dev• 6 years ago

American Samoa is the US equivalent of HK. Can hold US Passports but not entitled to live on the mainland.

rayiner4• 6 years ago

It’s not the “same stunt” in the US. Residents of all the incorporated territories, and all the unincorporated territories but Guam, are US citizens. The residents of Guam are US nationals that can apply for citizenship. Unlike subjects of the former British empire, all have a right to reside anywhere in the US.

The US system does not raise the same concerns about racism. There are different political subdivisions in the US with different relationships with the federal union. For example, those in Puerto Rico don’t pay federal taxes. Washington DC has no independent sovereignty, unlike the states, etc. But those distinctions aren’t based on race or nationality (everyone is a US national). And in many respects they are mutual decisions. Puerto Rico has repeatedly rejected ballot measures to become a state. If a Puerto Rican person wants to vote in US elections, they can just move to any other political subdivision of the US that is a full state.

mobilefriendly• 6 years ago

All citizens of the territories and Puerto Rico have full US citizenship and vote in Presidential elections. Those citizens are free to move to the US mainland at anytime. In fact, living in US territories provides special tax advantages that are not available to US citizens in the mainland. There are historical and other reasons the territories aren't states -- Puerto Rico voters in particular have't supported statehood, and the other territories are very small and remote.

krona3• 6 years ago

The Hong Kong government didn't want their citizens to leave Hong Kong, or at least wanted to disincentive them in the 90's due to a significant exodus of white collar workers. That's one of the reasons the immigration rules were changed.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwan...

gandalfian3• 6 years ago

Another way of looking at it is Britain tried to keep a fraternal commonwealth with free movement going for twenty years but couldn't carry the idea alone so it gave up and joined the European Union instead, cutting of everyone else including new Zealand and Australia. Which was a shame but how the world was going.

pjc504• 6 years ago

Well you could look at it like that but it would be .. wrong?

It was always more paternal than fraternal, quite a lot of the freedom was won with violence (e.g. Kenya), if it were equal there would be no talk of "carry the idea alone", the UK did not join the EU in 1973 it joined the EEC (EU free movement only appeared in 1992), and the British public made it clear that they were only OK with free movement so long as the number of nonwhite people in the UK remained small.

1971 and the Kenyan Asians was the trigger for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_1971 - that was the point at which Commonwealth citizens lost the right to live in the UK itself. Two years before EEC accession. (And the same year as decimalisation of the currency!)

im3w1l• 6 years ago

China is extending their tyrannical reign, and UK is trying to lend a helping hand. But let's take this opportunity to call out pass sins.

Jfc..

nujabe3• 6 years ago

This is ridiculous. What next, residents of Crimea be offered citizenship? Tibet?

If I were a UK citizen I'd be extremely upset that my country's leaders are offering foreigners citizenship en mass with such careless expedition.

loktarogar2• 6 years ago

Crimea wasn't a British colony.

nujabe3• 6 years ago

So I guess that makes residents of Kashmir eligible?

nbevans• 6 years ago

But they aren't offering citizenship. They're simply considering offering a route to citizenship - which would typically take 10 years.

High quality sources of immigrants are hard to come by - the UK is right to extend a hand - particularly considering their strong historical ties to the region.

kiplkipl• 6 years ago

If you were a UK citizen you might have better awareness of Hong Kong's history.

aksss11• 6 years ago

If the U.K. or EU do not take this opportunity to assert themselves physically here (the Joint Declaration is their baby, after all) they should at least offer refuge to HK natively-born and break HK as a financial center via policy. They could achieve the refuge offer with placement by lottery to U.K. or EU member countries. Even the US can throw in with this.

Thus far, the statements by both entities that they condemn China’s behavior and will monitor the situation carefully are hollow. These entities must realize that their known lack of will to assert themselves physically very nearly nullifies their opinion. Their suspect ability to even assert themselves with sanctions and embargoes with respect to China completely nullifies their words.

China, on the other hand, showed their hand years ago with regard to the Joint Declaration, and I have to think some segment of the U.K. government apparatus had been expecting this inflection point to come.

freeflight4• 6 years ago

If the U.K. or EU do not take this opportunity to assert themselves physically here (the Joint Declaration is their baby, after all)

The EU did not have anything to do with the Sino-British Joint Declaration.

Particularly not now after the UK decided to leave the EU.

aksss11• 6 years ago

The agreement was signed in 1984/5, when the U.K. was a member of the EU, and did so with the EU’s blessing and backing. The agreement was also registered at the U.N. in ‘85, in which the EU member nations hold membership, some with permanent veto power. It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do with it.

The EU continues to have vast regional interests in HK/China and surrounding territory, despite the U.K.’s secession. I’m not sure how that development changes things. Literally I’m not sure. Time will tell. But the EU probably shouldn’t look at this as a strictly “British” problem.

bArray5• 6 years ago

As somebody from the UK I have been watching the situation in Hong Kong with great sadness. China have clearly broken the contract by which Hong Kong was given back and I would support my government if they decided to take action in order to protect the freedoms of Hong Kong citizens.

That said, I don't believe the solution here is to move every Hong Kong citizen en mass to the UK. Regardless, there would be many trapped there under the Chinese regime.

blackrock4• 6 years ago

Why do people of the U.K. continue to think that their opinion matters anymore, in regards to Hong Kong?

All British government administration of Hong Kong, terminated at the moment of the handover in 1997.

The Chinese honorably held up their end of the agreement, of their lease of Hong Kong to the British. They could have invaded at any time, but they didn’t. And the agreement was actually made by the Qing Dynasty, so the new China government at the time, could have rendered that agreement, null and void. But they didn’t.

And let’s be honest here, when the British signed the 99-year lease, they never really expected to leave Hong Kong. They were just toying with the Chinese, by signing the lease with the Qing government. Little did they know at the time, that their exploitative empire would crumble in less than 50 years.

If the people of the U.K. truly do support the people of Hong Kong, like you say, then they should take another referendum vote, on whether they want the Hong Kong people to move to Britain, and become British citizens. This is how you can support them.

hnarn3• 6 years ago

Why do people of the U.K. continue to think that their opinion matters anymore, in regards to Hong Kong?
All British government administration of Hong Kong, terminated at the moment of the handover in 1997.

You answer your own question. The handover wasn't, but is a legally binding agreement with the United Kingdom, where among other things the "One country, two systems" principle was agreed to be in effect until 2047.

And let’s be honest here, when the British signed the 99-year lease, they never really expected to leave Hong Kong.

The 99-year lease was only in regards to the New Territories. The Treaty of Nanking stipulates that HK Island was ceded "in perpetuity" to the UK. There's also the 1860 Convention of Peking. The PRC did not "recognize" this during negotiations, but as we can all see it seems par for the course for the PRC to simply "recognize" whatever parts they agree with at the time.

If one is to draw the purely legal argument here, at least be consistent.

KaoruAoiShiho• 6 years ago

Win-win for everybody. This should've happened a long time ago.

chvid• 6 years ago

At the same time the US may revoke HK's special status removing Hong Kongers access to visa free travel in the US.

Emendo• 6 years ago

That would be hard as both the HKSAR passport and the BN(O) passport do not have visa-free travels to the US.

krona3• 6 years ago

Hong Kong people once had full British nationality, including a British passport with the right of abode in Britain. But that right of abode was removed in 1962. [0]

The history is more complicated than most people think. As a child (early 90's) I had two friends from Hong Kong after a wave of immigration that started after Tiananmen.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwan...

TechBro8615• 6 years ago

No paywall https://beta.trimread.com/articles/18676

neximo64• 6 years ago

This was also done in the 1970s with Uganda.

supernova87a2• 6 years ago

What's the appeal of moving to a country with worse problems than the one you're in?

goblin89• 6 years ago

Not HK-born, but if I were: Would I move for miserable weather and a chance to get mugged? Not really. However, throw in a near-100% probability of becoming a citizen of a vicious totalitarian regime within my lifetime, and you’ve got me thinking…

callamdelaney• 6 years ago

Thanks to global warming the miserable weather is becoming less of an issue, right guys? Also the mugging isn't really a problem outside of London bubble; which is where most UK HN'ers are posting from.

billfruit9• 6 years ago

Then why are so many expats from the West living in places like Dubai?

aembleton• 6 years ago

Because your definition of worse might differ to theirs.

ehnto• 6 years ago

Is a max expatriation not going to be of benefit to China in their move to culturally control HK? Part of me understands the need for a lifeline to those who want out, but part of me also wonders if the UK isn't more than happy to do this for China, who would probably love to have deported them anyway.

Similar to how the US no longer recognising HK as autonomous was framed as a pro HK gesture, but surely that's exactly what China wants. For people to recognize it's control over HK legitimises that control.

ericmay2• 6 years ago

I think the idea is that, it's already happened or that it's inevitable, so why not try and cause as much pain for the Chinese as possible.

thinkingemote2• 6 years ago

Let's put aside talks of colonialism and how bad China is for a little bit and look with a wider or long term lense.

HK is a world banking and financial services hub in competition with the UK in many ways. Is this move a way for the UK to move these businesses who might feel unease where they are to the UK

What else might happen in the long term? What's between the lines?

egao1980• 6 years ago

So now Russia can give away citizenship to Russian non-citizens in Baltic states? Or in Ukraine?

cygx• 6 years ago

If it wants to, sure. In fact, that already happened last year, cf https://www.dw.com/en/russia-starts-giving-passports-to-ukra...

oblio4• 6 years ago

Romania did it for Moldova, Hungary did it for Romania, Slovakia, Serbia, it's far from the first case.

LatteLazy• 6 years ago

Personally, I think it's well past time that China was forced to reconsider it's policies on HK. And also on:

* Food Hygiene and pandemics

* Rounding up minorities and religious groups

* Democracy

* Tibet and Taiwan

* Clashes with India

* Support for North Korea

The idea that 7m people should move out of Hong Kong because their requests for basic human rights is inconvenient to the CCP is frankly insane.

petre2• 6 years ago

This is why the Trump doctrine is what should be done about it. I hope the EU follows suit.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-05-28/trump-like...

jacobush2• 6 years ago

Some limited sanctions?

pjc504• 6 years ago

Forced how, exactly?

jacobush2• 6 years ago

I hope it's not a defeatist question? Certainly things could be done.

huffmsa• 6 years ago

Never should have given up the island in the first place.

The shitshow divestment of the Empire is the reason for many of the ethnographic and political conflicts the world currently faces.

frank2• 6 years ago

They didn't have a choice: if they hadn't given it up at the negotiating table, Beijing would've just taken it from them by force.

billfruit9• 6 years ago

Also like 80% of the territories of HK was due to go to China in 1997 due to they being leased by UK only for 99 years. Holding on to remaining 20% of the territories would have been really untenable.

La1n6• 6 years ago

Never should have given up the island in the first place.

They should never have colonized it in the first place.

tasubotadas• 6 years ago

Why? HKers are better off now because of that and probably the UK is now better off as well.

blackrock4• 6 years ago

From what I recall, Hong Kong was a dump, before China economically opened up. They were famous for the Kowloon Walled City. Gangs and thugs were rampant. Drugs, prostitution, everything goes. Honestly, it was a sh*thole.

These young protestors there today, seem to have a brainwashed and rose-colored-glasses view of their historical past. They think that their parent’s lives were better while still under the rule of the British, but I don’t think so.

If anything, the British created a very exploitative situation in Hong Kong. It was raw and predatory capitalism, and the rich exploited the poor. And who were the richest there? The white British man himself.

They were so damn rich from their opium exploits, that for the peasant Hong Konger, it was like basking in the presence of a god. That’s how despicable the situation was. And the British thoroughly enforced a racist and racial stratification there.

The British tends to take credit to the success of Hong Kong, but really, it was all about exploitation. They made Trillions of dollars in profit from Hong Kong, for over 100 years, by funneling opium to China, and drugging the people of China. Imagine America’s recent opioid epidemic, but 1000 times worse, and you might get an idea of the severity of the situation.

Then all the other rich businessmen in Hong Kong, they got rich by exploiting the situation for themselves, and their ability to trade with China.

But in reality, Hong Kong became successful because its residents are ethnically Chinese. It’s because of the hard work ethic, and Confucian culture, that drives them to succeed.

Otherwise, you only need to look at other British colonies, like South Africa, and see how much of a failure they are. The exploitation didn’t work so well in South Africa, when the natives hate you for your racism, and are willing to get violent for it.

Sadly, because of their misguided views, these protesters are about to turn Hong Kong into another South Africa. They just destroyed all the tourism and good will that the city had.

Anyways, the U.K. should do this. It was long in coming. They set a poison pill for Hong Kong, when they left. And now, it has finally exploded. They need to fix what they did wrong, and make amends to their historical failings of the past.

The U.K. should let the Hong Kong residents leave, and move to Britain, or other nations in their commonwealth. Or even to America, since Hong Kong gets so much support from the American politicians. It is finally, the right thing to do.

oblio4• 6 years ago

Hong Kong's GDP per capital was about 500 USD. China's was around 90 USD.

Also, the richest man there has been for quite a while (80s): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ka-shing

If you want to rewrite history, get your facts straight :-)

blackrock4• 6 years ago

I accounted for him, with the part about “other rich businessmen in Hong Kong.”

But, even his wealth, pales in comparison to what the British and Americans made from Hong Kong and China, in their illegal and immoral opium trade.

Realize that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American president, who never held a job in his entire life, and became the president, was the offspring of wealthy opium smugglers.

Harvard and Yale, built their endowment money from the opium trade.

Forbes, and all the other big American businessmen, yup, all drug money from opium.

An uncomfortable fact, is that a lot of American riches, are built on the blood of a lot of dead Chinese drug addicts. Unsurprisingly, this fact is never discussed in American history textbooks. It is far easier to just brush this under the rug, and ignore it, and let history forget about it.

throw554354• 6 years ago

Britain repeatedly put pressure on Portugal not to grant nationality to its colonial residents in Macau to prevent Hongkongers asking for the same treatment ahead of the two cities’ return to Chinese rule, recently declassified documents have revealed.

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

627467• 6 years ago

I read "we may increase the current 6 months limit for a BNO holder to 12 months possibly opening a path to citizenship [for those who fullfil all requirements to apply for citizenship]"

The title and Minister's position is very PR'ish and it sounds like a very tepid reaction.

Only 300.000 (of about 7.5million ) hk residents hold a BNO... What about everybody else? And how come those (few) BNO have been treated as less than British since 1997?

Next door Macau had given Portuguese nationality to virtually all it's population even ahead of handover. Argually, Macau population at the time represented only 5% of Portugal's population, compared to about 10% that hk population represents compared to UK's. But those BNO holders are much less than 5% of it's population...

rayiner4• 6 years ago

The anglosphere countries should offer citizenship to any Hong Kong citizen that wants it.

U.K. Plans Citizenship for Hong Kong Residents in Row with China

Related Stories