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.
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?
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.
“The US system does not raise the same concerns about racism”
I have to disagree strongly with this, as we’re talking about differences of degree and not kind; the unique status of Peurto Rico is literally the result of a racist law effectively preventing non-whites from becoming US citizens: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790
This law was finally repealed...in the 1950s, decades after the US claimed the territory as spoils of war, and the 1917 act that gave them quasi-citizenship. It is in truth just a facsimile of true US citizenship, because congress can revoke it and they are not allowed to vote in presidential elections while residing in their home territory. No citizen residing in Texas or Hawaii would consider that remotely fair, because it isn’t.
The US is an unusual case in the history of empires, because it was a colonial power that seems to downplay that fact publicly. Perhaps that is because it doesn’t fit with the national mythos. Whatever the reason, part of the legacy is having different degrees of citizenship based on race and geography that must eventually be reconciled one way or the other.
Puerto Rico retains exemptions that do not apply to US states, though. They have a special designation because they are not a US State, like Texas or Hawaii. If they want the full benefit of American citizenship, they should apply for statehood -- which they have been given the option to do but refused time and time again.
It was explicitly racist, at least in the UK. The cabinet meetings discuss explicitly racist motivations, particularly from Churchill who campaigned for this in the face of the economic need for an influx of labour. Justifications were sought that could be made to appear objective. If you can watch it somewhere, this documentary was depressingly eye opening https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00068sk, but you can probably read the salient points in related articles: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/jun/24/the-unw...
> Churchill who campaigned for this in the face of the economic need for an influx of labour
It's always racism vs. economic reasons - not conservative enough for your voters, you lose votes; not economically sensible, you bring ruin upon your country. We have already saw this with Brexit.
You say this as if racism and economics aren't directly linked. Think about it for a moment. Racism has always served economic purposes in slavery, cololization, resource extraction and poverty. It's quite obviously in the self-interest of the dominating party.
Most (if not all) motivations for slavery, colonization and resource extraction have been economically related, but that's not to say that all economic decisions are based in racism.
Generally the answer to every problem in every other Country isn't to just ship them to your Country, that's an unsustainable model. Typically the people who migrate are either young, well educated or wealthy - which in the grand scheme of things does nothing to fix the problems in their originating Countries.
I hope you see the irony in downplaying economic motivations as merely related and then making an economic argument against immigration that most racists agree with.
If I choose to fire somebody of a different race because they got naked and ran around the office - it isn't racist just because racists agree with the action I took.
>> Probably more of an economic decision than one based in racism.
Yeah like denying service to "high risk" individuals(black people[0], muslims or women). It's all an economic decision which may be backed by some statistics and further keep the individuals in these statistics. Better, when you see high risk individuals (such black people) just run and gun them down because the economy tells us they may be dangerous. It's all about economy...right? Slavery was an economic decision as well.
The comment really applies to the US empire, or indeed any empire in general.
I hear why you’re saying, but the economic argument just doesn’t make any sense to me; having more citizens should benefit a national economy. Besides, there are many things we do without economic rationale; maybe slavery would boost GDP, but we’ve decided that this is irrelevant because it’s morally reprehensible.
> having more citizens should benefit a national economy
Generally that trend holds true - as long as migration is well handled. There are immediate infrastructure costs that need to be paid that the Country won't immediately see a return on.
Also governments aren't particularly profitable at the best of times, most of them are running at a deficit regardless of the number of people in their Country.
Your comment is particularly ridiculous if your intent was to apply it to “the US empire” (where everyone in the territories has the right to move anywhere in the country).
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.
Quite ironic you are using India's caste system as an example of how primitive and un-just the society and how great Britain is when Britain is the very reason the caste system exists as it does today. Prior to British rule, castes were not widely understood along the Indian subcontinent and was one of many social demographic markers for Indians until Britain made it THE defining characteristic.
From the BBC:
"In fact, it is doubtful that caste had much significance or virulence in society before the British made it India's defining social feature."
That’s why it’s all the more galling; the UK is trying to build a brand around multiculturalism while issuing BS passports for those deemed not British enough.
What are your country's policies around the issuing of passports? As for immigrants building the country up, for what it's worth, Britain is probably lower in the world rankings in terms of wealth per capita than it was before large scale immigration from the former colonies began. Immigration gives you more people, that's all we can say for certain about its effects.
The United Kingdom represented 6.42% of the world's economy in 1960 (highest point), falling to 3.42% in 2012 (lowest point). It accounted for 5.2% of the world's economy in 1820, 9.1% in 1870, and 8.3% in 1913. England, Scotland and Wales generated 1.8% of the world's GDP in 1600
Lowest point? You were the cradle of the Industrial Revolution! Sorry to break the news to you, but as more countries industrialize, Britain's relative position will only go down. 1960 was the high point from this perspective. On the other hand, the UK will still be a developed country.
Well these are your own words: "Britain is probably lower in the world rankings in terms of wealth per capita than it was before large scale immigration"
So the question again is: Do you genuinely believe that this drop in relative output was caused by inward migration, considering all the other historical factors?
Say you said using Wonderhair would prevent baldness and I said that there was no evidence for that and that in fact in the cases that I know of the people now have less hair than they had when they started using Wonderhair.
Do I then have to defend myself from questions that infer I believe that Wonderhair causes hair loss?
If you're in a discussion where you write a comment that looks like you're saying "immigration is a cause of long-term economic decline" and someone asks if that's what you're saying ... then yes you should probably clarify whether this is an accurate interpretation of your comment
I'm not sure why you're coming up with a fictional hair-care product. If you aren't comfortable sharing your answer, then that's fine.
Quite a lot of innuendo in there.
The person I responded to suggested that Britain only welcomed immigrants to help it because it was "on its back economically". I suppose that all would have been fine if, at worst, Britain was ranked exactly the same today as it was then but because it's actually ranked slightly lower (as I'd expected) the inference now is that I'm anti-immigration. Squeeze a bit more from the tube and you can openly brand me a racist and then you win. Anticipating that I might not oblige, you added your last sentence as insurance to cover that eventuality.
I made that claim and I stand by it. Britain in 1945 was effectively broke and seeking to plug massive holes in its workforce. That’s the context in which Britain spent its Marshall Plan money trying to support the flagging empire: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/modern/marshall_01.shtm...
I’m afraid I don’t understand the logic behind what you’re trying to say regarding the relationship of GDP and immigration. Obviously net inward migration can only raise the total GDP of a country. The question of what happens to average incomes is much more nuanced, but there’s a fair bit of evidence that low paid workers can be hard hit in the short term, whereas everyone benefits in the long term: https://fullfact.org/immigration/immigration-and-jobs-labour...
I am not suggesting that you’re a racist or anti-immigration, just that your views on the relationship between GDP and immigration are wrong. Besides that, they do nothing to refute my original point that we should not have different classes of citizen based on race and geography.
You seem to have a vendetta against India so we'll set that aside for a second, sounds like you had a bad experience at some point with an Indian or their family.
You are talking about the same Britain that voted in favour of Brexit because they got tired of looking at Eastern Europeans? The same that allowed Tommy Robinson to rise to fame through even the main media channels? The same one that you can be called a 'paki' in while just walking down the street with your family in 2020? The same one that still has glass ceilings in finance and industry if you're not white?
Britain is a utopia compared to many countries, but don't get carried away. Also, don't half-understand things about other nations and then try and sell them over her as fact. You are out of your depth.
I don't have a vendetta against India, that's way OTT sensitivity on your part. And if you're going to accuse me of having a simplistic view of India then I'll respond to you by saying your comments on Britain are risible. Tommy Robinson's rise to fame is somehow to be taken as a criticism of Britain.
The man's notorious, and has served prison time for it.
Does it reflect badly on a country that such a man exists?
The rest of your criticisms are similarly simplistic.
'because they got tired of looking at Eastern Europeans'. All sixteen million of them. Seeing the world in such crude categoric terms makes for a simple life I guess.
In human history, I don't think anyone comes close to Britain when it comes to spreading systems that implement race based divisions. They may not have been lynchy like the US or chopping off limbs like belgium but they are remarkably efficient at spreading systems that show them as superior and civilized because of their skin. Slavery in US colonies,caste system in india,apartheid rule in South Africa come to mind as good examples and as diverse as the UK maybe, there are still strong elements of it that hold onto the "we don't want to exterminate people but we are still superior because of our skin color" mentality. The French from what I know were not as efficient at implementing explicit systems like this. The spanish empire perhaps comes close in efficiency and similarity but not when you look at the scale and spread of the british empire.
My suspicion is the rise of darwinism (who was a brit) intersected with the rise of colonialism. Colonizers may not have been too accepting of the whole "everyone comes from adam and eve" narrative when they met locals they deemed to be savages and inferior. Not that I am saying darwinism is the cause,just that their greed and arrogance thrived on any ideology that can be abused to help them with their goals.
To add to this, the reason why the British and American system of slavery, was so evil and morally bankrupt, was because it institutionalized the racism.
We know that throughout human history, there had always been slaves. Whether they were from war conquests, prisoners, or what not. And maybe, some of them eventually got their freedoms, after serving for a term. Basically, they came and went, and no one thought anything of it.
But, what truly made the British and American system of slavery so evil, was that it became codified into laws. And written on papers, and enforced by the military, and police. And financed by the banks. This was truly, predatory capitalism, of the highest order. Thus, slavery became institutionalized.
This elevated slavery, from something that unfortunately happened to random people like prisoners, to completely enslaving, subjugating, humiliating, and genociding, a specific race of people, purely based on the color of their skin. And all this, happened in a democracy.
Yup. Once it becomes formalized people accept it. The holocaust is a good example but China's treatment of Uighur's right now is another example, the average Chinese supports what the government is doing because "they're in a cult" or "why hold radical beliefs". It's official and authorities support it. There is evil and there is evil caused and enforced by an authority the people approve of,the society at large is responsible.
The caste system is the division of Hindu society into groups based on rank, wealth and/or occupation. Everyone must be a part of the lowest caste (Shudra) in at least one life. One will move through the caste system through reincarnation based on karma. To reach moksha (enlightenment), one must be at the highest caste (Brahmin). The caste system is outdated and is no longer legally used in India; however, some Hindus still believe in it.
I would suggest that the opinions on caste you're drawing from are highly incomplete, and driven by 19th century European scholarship. Hindu scriptures talk about varna, while the British formalized and elevated the unrelated and overlapping system of jati identity as the most important identity. When people think of caste today, they're thinking of jati, which are absent in the Hindu scriptures.
I would suggest that 19th Century Indologists conflated and confused two different types of descriptions of caste hierarchy in the Hindu canon. The Vedas, Upanishads, and Puranas are descriptivist, and rather matter of factly report a stratified society, where privilege and wealth was inherited largely within the family. This is no different than any other Iron Age society anywhere in the world.
There is also a prescriptivist strain within the canon, that suggests that the status quo is indeed optimal. The varna system described in the scriptures is not too dissimilar from the paradigmatic society of Plato's Republic: a hierarchy based on rule by Philosopher-Kings, and a division of society led by people best suited to it. Each person has innate qualities that endear them to one or the other major occupations, and society is most harmonious when people do the jobs best suited to them. The Vedas also suggest that these traits are largely familial, though this is not watertight. The scriptures are full of examples of people who transcend the varna of their family, and conversely there are no shortage of wicked brahmins and kshatriyas. Nor does the historic record show varna as a hindrance to social mobility in Ancient India. The Shunga dynasty was founded by a Brahmin, and the fabled Nanda dynasty by an erstwhile barber. The most famous of all ancient Indian dynasties, the Mauryan, was founded by a former slave, who belonged to a lineage of lowly peacock hunters. For contemporary Indians, these kings were not interlopers, but rather their military prowess proved that they were indeed Kshatriyas. The son of a Kshatriya King will likely be a king, but not always, nor must a king always be the son of a kshatriya. Usually, but not always. Indeed, the Bhagavata Gita, the definitive text for Hindus, states that all humans are born as shudras, or lowly, and it is their qualities and actions in life that elevate them. The British, however, took an obscure text, the Manusmriti, and used that as the authoritative matter on caste. The manusmriti is indeed vitriolic about keeping societal classes separate, but the class of smriti texts have no inherent authority.
As to the point that enlightenment is open only to brahmins, the considered opinion of the acharyas is that this is not true, and I can only think of a single textual example where this is a stated opinion of a (minority) Hindu school. A 16th century compendium of religious sects by a Gaudiya scholar stated that another school (madhva) held that enlightenment is open only to demigods and brahmins, and is understood more as a criticism of their beliefs. Every school after the bhakti movement of the 8th century has explicitly stated that worship and moksha is open to all, regardless of caste, or gender. I think the confusion arises from debates starting from the 8th century, if moksha is only possible for sanyasis, or renunciates. Sanyasis can be from any caste, or any gender. Some schools did indeed believe that renunciation is a necessary prerequisite to enlightenment, and is not possible for the lay public.
True but it definitely doesn't do much to stamp it out.
In Britain, if you want to see racism, try being a white boy dating a non-white girl. If she's black, black males in general won't like it and if she's Indian, her family will almost definitely not like it.
> In Britain, if you want to see racism, try being a white boy dating a non-white girl
Try being a non-white boy dating a white girl. Do you think racism doesn't rear its head in that case?
In any case, this is pretty blatant whataboutism. The article is about the UK, not about other countries, and racism in other countries does not make racism in the UK less bad.
Which native communities would those be? Your comment does not sound like that of someone overly familiar with the UK. Nativist for example is not a term used in the UK.
Interesting choice of words... White Boy, Non-White girl, black male? This is the same sort of non-sense that the Feminists were warning the world about decades ago: How stereotypes and other bad properties are built-in to the culture and language, and we should address them. We seem to have all too easily forgotten that and simply replaced them with new forms of sexism and racism.
being supported by cultural norms is worse than being supported by law. Laws can be overturned by a stroke of the pen. Cultural norms still persist after the law is overturned. Case in point: black racism and prejudice in the USA.
Cultural norms typically dictate laws and not the other way round. Case in point: The US constitution granted Women right to vote on August 26, 1920 when the Nineteenth Amendment was adopted. And no, it did not happen with a "stroke of a pen". The movement began in 1771 and their rights finally enshrined in the US Constitution in 1920 (~150 years).
Are you suggesting that the current situation for blacks is worse than when there were Jim Crow laws? When racist laws are in place, there are also cultural norms that exist with them.
I didn't disagree with that. The point is that when there are racist laws, the situation is strictly worse than when there are only racist cultural norms because the former does not exist without the latter.
We’re not talking about international migration; we’re talking about having different classes of citizens within the same nation state.
The British Isles wouldn’t need to let in an enormous number of people, but they could if they wanted to. The roughly 300,000 BN(O) and 63,000 BOTC passport holders could easily be accommodated.
The UK grew by 14 million people between 1950 and today, that’s net growth of 200,000 per year for 70 years. The idea that Britain is now full is just nonsense. Now that the birth rate is below replacement levels, mass immigration is required just to sustain the current population size anyway.
That being the case, most people are understandably reluctant to leave their homes unless absolutely forced to by war.
In short: all British citizens should be free to migrate around British territories any way they please, but they probably wouldn’t exercise that right anyway.
If we're talking rents, AirBnB has had far more impact on rents.
> How would you like if we force a small African country to potentially let in every European citizen on moral grounds?
Most of them are pretty relaxed about Western immigration, or have a reciprocation policy where the rules are a mirror of the rules of your Western country of origin.
In short, what caused the increased food and housing prices was government spending leading to inflation; immigration was only one of the causes of this spending (the financial crisis in the southern European countries was another.) The expected outcome on Germany is a net-positive one.
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.
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.
And a local referendum is not how you become a state, Congressional approval is. A local referendum might help make that happen, but it's in no way the required legal mechanism or binding in any way.
Article IV (in part):
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union;
...
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States;
I lived in Puerto Rico and know lots of people in government there. The lack of action is entirely down to the Puerto Rican government and has nothing to do with the USA federal government. Turnout in the referendums was too low for it to be considered valid, at least according to one of their major political parties.
Too many rich people and politicians benefit from the lack of oversight and low taxes plus the corruption that results for them to allow statehood. If Puerto Ricans are serious about wanting statehood they can stop voting for these corrupt clowns anytime and vote in people that will complete the process of obtaining statehood.
But on 2012: of 1,878,969 voters, 515,115 (27% of turnout) left the choice between statehood, independence, or free association blank at the behest of the PPD, who’s governor elect immediately asked President Obama to ignore the results due to ambiguity, while the outgoing PNP governor asked President Obama to begin the legislation process.
It’s not even remotely as simplistic as you’re implying by dropping a 78% figure and flitting away without any further context, have the decency to at least read the links you’ve posted.
The referendums they held were boycotted by a huge majority of the population and due to the low turn out not considered valid. There is a VERY strong anti-statehood movement in puerto Rico and a minority that want full independence and a minority that want statehood.
The Puerto Rican government chose not to pursue statehood based on the low turn out, but the option is still available to them anytime. This has nothing to do with the USA federal government and everything to do with Puerto Rican politics.
It's important to note that more than a quarter of these votes were spoiled on the statehood question, so the democratic legitimacy of that portion of the vote is quite reasonable to question. The effective turnout would have been about 57%. Were the spoiled ballots to have been counted only 44% of people casting a vote would have favoured statehood.
Boycotting a vote is nonsense. If you want to have your voice heard, then vote. They were just trying to undermine the voting process because they knew they would lose.
Yeah, and I’m sure slaves got three meals a day, a job for life etc. etc.
Let’s agree that having different classes of citizenship is just a terrible idea for the precious values of freedom, justice, and democracy. No other argument really matters. Working backwards from that, we should eliminate any circumstance in our control that creates any special class of citizen, be they living in gilded cages or rusty iron ones.
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.
That's a good point, calling for reform in British/Hong Kong relations should also call for reform in US/American Samoan relations. While Hong Kong is more pressing at the moment, the purgatory-citizenship of American Samoan people is shameful. How can they be allowed to enlist in the military but they're not allowed to vote for the person in charge of the military?
There's a great NPR episode about this. Some interesting laws there, as an American citizen, you can't buy property in American Samoa if you're not Samoan.
Besides, they are already U.S. citizens by right, they don’t need to vote on anything. They are just denied full constitutional rights because reasons. It’s a disgrace and we all know it.
I lived in Peurto Rico and you really have no idea what you are talking about.
The referendums they held were boycotted by a huge majority of the population and due to the low turn out not considered valid. There is a VERY strong anti-statehood movement in Puerto Rico and a minority that want full independence and a minority that want statehood.
The Puerto Rican government chose not to pursue statehood based on the low turn out, but the option is still available to them anytime. This has nothing to do with the USA federal government and everything to do with Puerto Rican politics.
Too many politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the corruption and low taxes to allow statehood.
What is the threshold for determining whether an election is valid? If I don't like the choices can I also boycott? Would it have any effect if another 6% of the population did likewise?
I fully concede that you know more about Puerto Rico and its politics than I do, however the point I’m making is not really diminished by that.
What I’m saying is, there should be no option of quasi-citizenship. Either you enjoy all the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship, or you don’t.
It's the Puerto Rican people themselves that are balking at the idea of "full citizenship" though. Because that comes with it all kinds of other things like increased tax liabilities, social service responsiblities, jury duty, etc, etc. They've demonstrated repeatedly that they prefer their "quasi-citizenship" by boycotting the referendum vote.
The referendums they held were boycotted by a huge majority of the population and due to the low turn out not considered valid. There is a VERY strong anti-statehood movement in Puerto Rico and a minority that want full independence and a minority that want statehood.
The Puerto Rican government chose not to pursue statehood based on the low turn out, but the option is still available to them anytime. This has nothing to do with the USA federal government and everything to do with Puerto Rican politics.
Too many politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the corruption and low taxes to allow statehood.
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.
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.
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!)
I'm not quite following the idea that they were to blame for imposing freedom of movement but also for then stopping freedom of movement? I feel your link supports my suggestion that they gave it a good go for twenty years and then moved towards Europe instead? Perhaps I misread.
At the height of the Empire there were effectively no internal movement restrictions other than income inequality and the difficulties of transport; you no more needed permission to move from Delhi to London than from Glasgow.
"Imposing free movement" I thought that was what your were saying? I said they tried to continue free movement and you objected it was a paternal not fraternal policy which I thought you were saying suggesting it was imposed rather than given as I said? And again you seem to me to be agreeing with me. There was free movement in the empire and after it ended the UK continued it for several decades before giving up and joing Europe? Which I posted to contrast with the original parent post that seemed to suggest that the UK left everyone trapped after the end of empire. So why are we in disagreement? Escapes me. But hey ho. Divided by a common language I guess.
Oh and gave it a go as in gave letting everyone in the old empire continue to be able to come to UK a go.
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".
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."
That's because of (continental) China threatening invasion if Taiwan ever declares independence.
The statu quo is the only safe option for Taiwan, and that means keeping the historical claims. China prefers seeing Taiwan as a dissident government of China rather than as a successfully independentist territory.
So the Taiwanese governments have to make very gradual changes towards a fully independentist stance rather than straight up acknowledging that the island is independent.
Taiwan is like 30% mainlanders (support the KMT, families came over in 1947) and 70% native taiwanese (came from fujian before and during the Japanese occupation). The way the KMT took over the island in 1947 creates a lot of animosity between the two groups, coupled with the fact that the mainlanders control much more of the economy than the natives.
Even if the KMT wins elections in the future, they still have to cater to that 70% of the population that want very little to do with the mainland.
It depends on context. There are the original prior to Dutch trade natives (naruan, whatever) and the colonists from the mainland that came in waves over time who are now native in relation to post WWII immigrants from the mainland after Mao defeated the nationalists on the mainland.
It’s not too different from someone who is a German native but isn’t caucasian, for example.
Isn’t that the problem? The Japanese treated Taiwan as a first class province, while Chiang Kai Shek was much more authoritarian with his take over of the island (killing off a lot of the island leaders and educated people to prevent dissent). This has led to a much closer relationship between Taiwan and Japan, and a harsher relationship with the mainland.
>There is no such a thing called gradual independence.
The statement was "gradual changes towards independence". Are you saying it is not possible for a territory to take any steps that might lead towards independence or make it more likely?
Blatantly taking statements out of context and intentionally misrepresenting them is not appreciated.
Please look at the Irish, or Canadian, or Montenegrin, or Philippines examples. There are all kinds of intermediate arrangements between independence and annexation, and places can slide fairly smoothly between them.
For all purposes that matter, Taiwan is already independent.
They don't have to declare it. They just are independent already.
They control their own borders. They tax their own people. They have their own military. That makes them independent in my book, regardless of whether or not they announce it to the world or not.
The "announcement" part of it just doesn't matter that much.
> However, a country that interact with other countries, their independence is recognized by both parties.
Taiwan's independence is de facto recognized by the US and many (most?) other major powers, it's just not recognized de jure because of the PRC's diplomatic policy. For instance, the US basically has an embassy in Taiwan (they just don't call it one), which is staffed by State Department diplomats (who take a leave of absence to work there so they're not technically diplomats when there). It walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, but many have agreed to pretend it's not a duck for reasons.
This stuff isn't as black and white as you seem to think it is.
This is actually a better argument for independent status than de jure in my mind, because countries essentially "opt-in" and go out of their way to make special rules for dealing with Taiwan. There's no default recognition by virtue of UN admission and having diplomatic relations or some other standard international measure.
I'd say that puts it above many countries that might have wide de jure recognition, but limited, ineffective, or largely chilled diplomatic relations, like North Korea.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> The May 6 riot was started by the local chapter of the Chinese Communist Party (C.C.P.), which hoped to bring the colonial government to its knees. The year before, its counterpart had done just that with the Portuguese authorities in Macau, becoming the de facto ruler there....
> The local C.C.P. created more terror by issuing a list of people targeted for assassination. These included a senior Chinese official in the British administration, a top business leader, a representative of the landed class and Louis Cha Leung-yung, the publisher of Ming Pao, a Hong Kong newspaper that had criticized the riot. Lam Bun, an outspoken radio broadcaster who had also condemned the disturbances, was burned to death, along with his cousin, on the way to work....
> Sino-British relations came to a standstill. According to a highly reputable source who spoke on the condition of anonymity, it appears that Zhou Enlai, the Chinese premier, asked Mao Zedong if he intended to claim Hong Kong back from Britain. Mao said that it wasn’t time and that he would honor the treaties China had signed allowing Britain to rule Hong Kong until 1997. Zhou then ordered an immediate halt to the riot in Hong Kong.
> 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?
> 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.
Hong Kong was richer than Spain in 1980. China didn’t open for trade until the 80s. When Nixon went to China international trade was so low the leadership had to raid the entire country’s foreign reserves to get enough dollars to travel to the US. Hong Kong’s prosperity was not based on the China trade between 1945 and 1980.
People really can't help themselves: "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."
Also is that supposed to be impressive? I've never associated economic strength or wealth with 20th century spain.
> China didn’t open for trade until the 80s.
Wrong. They opened up in the 60s. They tested trade with Japan first in the 60s before opening up relations with the US in the 1970s.
There is a reason why hong kong's standing improved in the 60s and continued to do so.
> Hong Kong’s prosperity was not based on the China trade between 1945 and 1980.
Yes it was. Hong kong's only value is as an entry point/port into china. There is nothing inherently noteworthy about hong kong. It has no resources and only a few million people.
We know it wasn't based on the UK since from 1842 til china's liberation and opening up, hong kong was a dirt poor colonial outpost where only the british and a few chinese lackey's were wealthy. We know it had nothing to do with hong kong for the reasons I noted. So the only remaining option is china's opening up.
Lets put it this way, if china was still the colonized china of pre-ww2 or if china was the china of 1945-1965ish, then hong kong would still be relatively poor.
> 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.
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.
There is a mention in Paddy Ashdown's autobiography describing when he was in the SBS in the 1960s and they were sent undercover posing as tourists to beaches in Hong Kong to evaluate their suitability as evacuation points should China invade.
Britain proposed to turn HK into a self-governing dominion like (non-democratic) Singapore - aka grant HK dejure independence from China - which obviously China would reject since it would circumvent handover. Hence ZhouEnlai labeling it as a plot / conspiracy. Most of the Thatcher memo was about trying to maintain British "control"/administration post handover to help with investor confidence (and British influence).
This QZ article is repeating a fairly disingenuous interpretation of the documents to suggest some missed opportunity for democratic reforms. The original narrative was put forth by VJMedia which bias towards HK local-ism (pro-independence). There was never any effort in the 60s up until years before handover to grant subjects of HK liberties or self-governance within the context of Extension of Hong Kong Territory lease.
I thing there were large scale protests in the 60s, may be 1962 against British rule in HK.
Also did Britain do enough to protect and to take back HK during WW2.
If I remember correctly, HK was only given back to Britain after the final surrender of Japan in WW2. Japan had taken HK following the attack on the same day as Pearl Harbour attack.
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.
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.
Well BL 23 says HK will enact (on its own) a law to prevent sedition, treason against PRC. The comprehensiveness of such measures is where the present debate lies, and has since before the handover.
Recall that this was attempted prior to the handover and the PRC thought it insufficient. Sufficiency is in the eye of the beholder, and relative to the norms of each society, no?
The US has laws to prevent sedition and treason, but they are nowhere near what the PRC finds appropriate for their own country. HK’s cultural expectations are somewhat closer to the occidental norms than the expectations of China proper, it would seem.
Frankly, I think the expectation was (and for some people still may be) that China would become a more socialized (pardon the pun) citizen of the globe by 2047, rather than the angry and aggressive economic rescue dog they’re turning out to be, and so the threat of HK takeover by a repressive, totalitarian regime would have been moot. Sadly it’s not looking like China will normalize in this sense prior to the JD expiring, and in fact, China has explicitly stated that they disregard the binding nature of the JD, calling it a mere “historic document”, despite its contemporaneous binding nature.
Are you arguing that HK should adopt China’s security law and stop resisting?
Are you arguing China should have accepted HK’s proposal in the 90’s to fulfill BL 23?
Unclear what your point is. Oftentimes no law is preferable to bad law, given what’s at risk and a lack of compromise. Examples of this being “sufficient” are plentiful in any society where the people have a strong representation.
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).
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.
B) the two countries were conducting joint war games as late as last year. In fact, the US performs military exercises with India more than any other non-NATO partner.
C) since the sixties the US has provided billions in military equipment, economic aid and loans to India (US is heavily invested in their success and stability), to say nothing of remittances.
D) a strong ex-pat community in the US, one of the fastest growing, makes for political influence (did you see/watch the “Howdy Modi” rally in Texas?).
I could go on if those don’t make a compelling enough case, but I would like to address your prediction about China and India coming to blows.
I agree, until the conflict starts to threaten India existentially. I think current US policy is bending towards a preference for letting partners deal with their own regional issues to the extent they can. Witness the call for Europe to clean up its own backyard to their East and in Africa, the endorsement to Israel and Saudi Arabia for managing the Middle East, the slow unwinding if restrictions on Japan. I think this endorsement comes with a promise of air cover (literal and figurative) if things start to go sideways.
China’s “problem” is that if they directly attack any nation in Asia the others will see the writing on the wall and make an alliance that will include India and the US.
True. I would go further and say that but for the US/Russian hegemony post WW2, regional powers would have torn China to shreds over the last eighty years, to include an unbridled Japan, India, and perhaps some of its southern neighbors.
In point of fact, this process had already started in the lead-up to WW2. The war of Manchuria was in fact Russia and Japan fighting over a piece of China like two lions on the hide of a water buffalo that’s still walking upright.
Yes, China's treatment by every empire of note is the reason for the PRC's obsession with taking back every piece of land Qing China ever occupied.
> The war of Manchuria was in fact Russia and Japan fighting over a piece of China like two lions on the hide of a water buffalo that’s still walking upright.
In that metaphor, Japan was another water buffalo that was peacefully minding its own business, was told "you're next" by the lions, then shrugged and said "if you can't beat them, why not join them?"
> 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.
"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 ...
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.)
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].
> 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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
I think New Territories is the lions share of the geographical area of modern HK. If UK had not transferred the other smaller areas in 1997, it would be the UK that would be in trouble, holding on to a small untenable piece of territory (Since the territories not under the 99 year lease are dependent upon the New Territories for many essential matters.)
Being the lions’ share geographically means nothing out of context. HK Island is the urban and financial center of Hong Kong, so saying that it would never have survived with NT ceded to the PRC is like saying Manhattan and Brooklyn would never have survived being ceded to the UK because they didn’t hold New Jersey. Sure, it’s impractical to have a hostile mainland neighbor but if the place you’re occupying is one of the worlds largest harbors with all that entails, and you have the military capacity and will to defend it, it’s far from “untenable”. The main reason HK was ceded at all was because of the total decline of the British Empire, it’s not much more complicated than that.
I think there was logistical issues with power plants and water treatment, and such vital infrastructure being largely in the New Territories, is what I remember.
And if PRC had simply taken the NT at end of lease, and not reached an agreement on the other areas, what would UK have done?
Power plants and water treatment coming from the PRC is a result of history, so one cannot just look at the current state of affairs and conclude that no other outcomes were possible. As with anywhere in the world, the water and electricity comes from where it comes because it's the most economical solution, not because it's the only solution.
I'm just trying to make the point that had an empire still been in control of HK, things would have looked very different, but that's not the case so they don't. There's nothing inherently with HK's connection to mainland that makes it impossible for it to be self-sustaining, but there was never a point, or an economical or political will to do so.
The most obvious comparison to HK is Singapore, which is now a free state and has its own military, together with being one of the top financial spots in Asia. Yet the history is not that different from Hong Kong.
The different outcomes are not down to the simple fact that HK Island is a barren rock that would be technically impossible to sustain independently, but a complex result of geopolitics which today makes it impossible to release from the grasp of China.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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...
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.
> 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.
I think people view political asylum as a last resort, though, and it's generally not all that easy to get, at least in the "more desirable" countries.
It's certainly not trivially easy, but it's also not that hard, and even if you get denied, you will generally be allowed to stay unless you're from a small set of countries. Deportation is rare in Europe.
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.
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).
> 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.
Russian government use external enemy to shift attention from internal problems. All state owned media attention is on Chechnya, Abkhazia, Crimea. "The might of the russian troops"... Tsarism never ended, it just shifts masks.
> Russia has no shortage of top-notch democracies next door
Correct, but none with a Slavic majority. Similar with China. Lots of democracies. None with mostly Han Chinese.
The threat to both comes from the disabling of their argument that democracy doesn’t work for “their” people. It’s difficult for Russia to define a set of people that encompasses its population but excludes Ukrainians. Same for Beijing with respect to Hong Kong and Taiwan.
> 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.
China cared about Taiwan when it was a authoritarian dictatorship for most of its history. I don't think it's a matter of government but a matter of lost territory. Using your logic, the north was worried about the functional democracy of the confederacy.
Even if taiwan adopted communism, it wouldn't matter because it's a matter of territorial integrity. Meaning, it's just as lightly that we'd let south carolina secede than china would allow taiwan to leave.
As for russia, considering that it's a democratic republic, I don't think they are too worried about that. What they are worried about is the geopolitical issues with ukraine - especially foreign interference in ukraine.
You can argue that democracy is merely an empty shell wherein to levy opinions. And in that context, I am talking about liberal capitalist democracies. But the voters themselves are capitalist, or rather don't have a problem with capitalism, hence why they don't vote leaders out that follow a capitalistic line.
But I would not say I am conflating the two. The simple equation is that democracy does not foster democracy by itself. Capitalism in those democracies hinters that.
I too wish I could relief myself of any responsibility, and levy the blame entirely on the corrupt system, that I have little-to-no influence over. But the truth is, the people of any democracy are the true source of power. And if I asked you to join me in rising up against our current flawed political system, you'd probably hesitate as you are probably doing well enough to not wanting to rock the boat.
I know this, because I am the same. I recognise that our systems are flawed, but I also recognise that I - as a voter - am partially to blame for this. And yet, I also feel comfortable enough to let and let live.
> But the truth is, the people of any democracy are the true source of power.
They may be the horses towing the cart, but they are not the driver. You are right that they won't want to revolt and potentially destroy the system because it's working "well enough" for them, but that's far from being the ones who decide the course of the nation.
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.
> 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.
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.
Under ROC law, all PRC nationals (including HKers) are ROC nationals. So Taiwan already technically recognises Hong Kong nationals as its citizens.
However, ROC law distinguishes its nationals into two classes – those with legal residence (household registration) in the area under ROC government control (the "Free Territory"), and those without. ROC nationals without legal residence in government-controlled territory lack residence and political rights in Taiwan. However, they can apply to ROC government Immigration Department to immigrate to Taiwan, and if approved, can then apply for full permanent residence and political rights after a period of temporary residence in Taiwan.
My guess is that if China decided it wanted to unify Taiwan by force, the rest of the world -- including the US -- would stand by and allow them to do it.
"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."
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
>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.
It's overly simplistic to consider them part of the agreement because they did not veto it. The EU in 1985 is not even comparable to what it is now, this was before the Treaty of Maastricht, and well before the Treaty of Lisbon.
edit: This was literally years before the "Common Foreign and Security Policy"
Right, the EU has only gotten more powerful since ‘85 and consolidated more power across the continent. On that we agree. I’m not sure how that dynamic reduces their interest in the failure of the JD, if that’s the argument you’re trying to advance. Even they would (at least officially) seem to disagree given their statements of late.
To wit, they were in bed with the JD from the start, and have continued to voice opinion on the matter ever since, even after the U.K. seceded. Their regional interests have only increased.
The point is that this matters not if they have no follow through. Aside from some recent adventurism in “easy” Africa, as a body and a populace they show no inclination for giving the world reason to respect their dyspeptic opinions. If they can’t look after Crimea - literally their backyard, it tells China exactly how much runway they’ll give in HK.
> 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.
Could you point to such an "EU's blessing and backing"?
Evoking the UN doesn't really make that case, in that context, you could evoke some kind of "obligation" from literally every UN country.
> 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.
Imho it's overly simplistic to evoke EU obligation on the fact that in 1985 the UK only ratified the Single European Act, at that point, it was still the "European Community" which is not the same as the European Union.
Particularly in the context that back then HK was still considered UK territory, which the EC would have very little clout nor the authority to mess in. Even the modern-day EU does mostly refrain from interfering in such domestic territorial issues (Catalonia) as that's considered to be meddling too much in an individual EU country's sovereignty.
You have to remember that the EU isn't some kind of "federal European government" that dictates to member states, the EC was even less so.
The point for the UN maybe, but it still does not explain what any of that would have to do with the EU as the EU itself does not have voting rights in the UN but only holds enhanced observer status.
I also don't see the UN interfering because if the UN would be willing and able to go there, then the whole Taiwan situation wouldn't exist.
That's why as unpopular of a opinion it might be, I don't see the HK protesters getting any kind of international backing and if countries like the UK and US are so insistent on getting involved there then their best bet would be to offer people from HK citizenship, and with that, I mean actual proper citizenship and not this lip-service pseudo-citizenship.
But I don't see that happening because none of these countries actually care about that HK situation, for them, just like pretty much all Five Eyes countries, this is very much torn in China's side they can keep on twisting to justify further antagonizing of China on the international stage.
It's ice-cold and calculated geopolitics, the whole "humanitarian" angle might be pushed in the mainstream, like it's always to justify international interventions, but one has to be very naive to think any of that is rooted in serious and honest convictions and not just the "feel good" narrative it actually is.
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…
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.
On the "only London" point, really? I lived in the UK for several years and I was constantly reading news about city centre louts across the country stealing people's phones, harassing people, making life unpleasant and the police not being able to do anything about it.
That, and the cost of living in the UK so high, for such modest/low quality of life. Don't get me started on hot/cold separate water faucets.
You can tell I didn't exactly enjoy my time there.
Maybe there are better off now, but for a long time people lived under segregation and were discriminated against, the majority population had no say in any of the politics for a long time. Erasure of culture and language of the natives. Import of opium, an addictive drug, with war being fought over being able to keep selling it. Colonialism has a giant impact on a people.
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.
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.
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.
Kashmir was a princely state, not part of the Raj, even though India ran the post and telegraph and collected octroi at the borders. That being said, when Mangla dam was built a lot of Mirpuris migrated to Britain with work permits
Octroi is a tax collected when crossing a border between jurisdictions, in this case when entering J & K and leaving British India. In this case India allowed octroi to be levied (my mistake above) by J & K on departing goods.
Yeah, i'm not going to go into what makes a country eligible, but there's a clear difference between Crimea that has nothing to do with Britain and a British colony as recent as 23 years ago that had an agreement to keep relatively british levels of freedom for a few more years yet
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.
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)