UK extends visa rights to 3 million Hong Kongers

[Eddie Teach]

Such a modest people.

[Monoriu]

Part of the reason, I think, is because China seldom found itself short on manpower 

[Josquius]

Japan's nationalisation process isn't that hard from what I've heard and looking at the rules.
The trouble with it that stops many going through it is it requires renouncing your previous citizenship and most westerners just don't see the point of going through the trouble.
I think a lot of the perception of Japanese difficulty comes from their census not recording ethnicity or the vast majority of foreigners thus giving 99% Japanese figures.

[Sheilbh]

Totally agree with Lord Patten's comments:

Hong Kong's last British governor criticizes China over proposed national security legislation
Dake Kang
BEIJING
The Associated Press
Published June 5, 2020

The last British governor of Hong Kong criticized the Chinese government on Friday over proposed national security legislation, calling it part of an "Orwellian" drive to eliminate opposition in violation of the agreement on handing the territory over to Beijing.

Chris Patten defended London's announcement that it would grant residency and a path to citizenship for nearly 3 million Hong Kong residents if Beijing goes through with passage of the legislation.

The law is seen as potentially imposing severe restrictions on freedom of speech and opposition political activity in the former British colony that was handed over to Chinese rule in 1997. China has denounced the offer of citizenship as a violation of its sovereignty.

"If they've broken the (Sino-British) Joint Declaration, if they've thrown it overboard, how can they then use the joint declaration as though it stops us doing something that's a sovereign right of ours?" said Patten, now chancellor of the University of Oxford, in an online talk with reporters.

The declaration is a bilateral treaty signed as part of the handover process. China has essentially declared it null and void, while Britain says Beijing is reneging on its commitments made in the document that was supposed to be remain in effect until 2047.

China shocked many of Hong Kong's 7.5 million people when it announced earlier this month that it will enact a national security law for the city, which was promised a high level of autonomy outside of foreign and defence affairs.

An earlier push to pass security legislation was shelved after massive Hong Kong street protests against it in 2003. However, Beijing appeared to lose patience after months of sometimes violent anti-government protests in Hong Kong last year that China said was an attempt to split the territory off from the rest of the country.

Patten said the security legislation is unnecessary because Hong Kong's legal code already includes provisions to combat terrorism, financial crimes and other threats to security.

"What Beijing wants is something which deals with those rather worrying Orwellian crimes like sedition, whatever that may be," Patten said.

China may also be seeking grounds to disqualify opposition candidates from running in September's election for the local legislature by accusing them of being disloyal, he said.

Beijing has ignored promises that Hong Kong could democratize of its own accord after the handover, Patten said. The U.S. should unite with other democratic countries to oppose underhanded tactics by Beijing, he said.

"It's the Chinese Communist Party which attacks us, which hectors, which bullies, which tells companies which have roots in our countries, that unless they do what China wants, they won't get any business in China," Patten said. "That's the way the Mafia behave, and the rest of the world shouldn't put up with it, because if we do, liberal democracies are going to be screwed."

[Monoriu]

It really shouldn't come as a shock that they decided to impose the national security law. 

Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law provides that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region "shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."

This was added to the Basic Law after Tiananmen.  Basically, the party wanted to prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for anti-party people.  In 1990 or so, they wanted to write the national security law and include it in the Basic Law.  There was a lot of push back, and the party compromised by adding the "on its own" part. 

The Basic Law is supposed to last 50 years after 1997.  This year is 2020, 23 years after the handover, i.e. almost reaching the halfway point.  Last year HK was rocked by almost continuous riots, with lots of people openly calling for secession, asking for foreign military intervention (Mr Trump please send the marines to liberate us), asking for the destruction of the HK economy as a bargaining chip, etc.  There was no sign that HK would implement Article 23.

Is it any surprise or totally unreasonable for Beijing to consider that HK has failed to safeguard national security?  They did wait 23 years for HK to implement that Article on our own.  We didn't.  A reasonable person would probably be wondering if the other party had no intention of fulfilling their part of the bargain if he failed to act after 23 years. 

[Admiral Yi]

Is there any debate in You Kay over all HKs vs. just the 3 million?

[Sheilbh]

Honestly I always thought that the 50 years 2 systems, 1 country approach was in the joint declaration, which Hong Kong wasn't a party to. So is the party in breach China?

Is there any debate in You Kay over all HKs vs. just the 3 million?

There is some. I think the next focus will be on making sure it's easy for the family members of the 3 million to get residence here - especially the young, riotous family members

Eg - from Johnson's former magazine:

[Valmy]

Nice touch with the umbrellas.

[Monoriu]

The umbrellas look odd to me.  Presumably one uses an umbrella to slow down the fall and land safely, right?  The landscape is clearly of Hong Kong, not Britain.  So it implies that Britain is giving Hong Kongers tools to land...in Hong Kong?  I just don't get it. 

[Syt]

Nice touch with the umbrellas.

Mary Poppins would be proud.

[Admiral Yi]

The umbrellas look odd to me.  Presumably one uses an umbrella to slow down the fall and land safely, right?  The landscape is clearly of Hong Kong, not Britain.  So it implies that Britain is giving Hong Kongers tools to land...in Hong Kong?  I just don't get it.

They're flying out of HK like Mary Poppins.

Shelf: That 3 million seems very classist to me.  As if they are "our kind of people" (like the knighted Chinese lady who gave the speech way back) but we sure don't want everyone.  Kind of weiird.

[Josquius]

If you need a law to ban secession then you're a shit country.

[Barrister]

The umbrellas look odd to me.  Presumably one uses an umbrella to slow down the fall and land safely, right?  The landscape is clearly of Hong Kong, not Britain.  So it implies that Britain is giving Hong Kongers tools to land...in Hong Kong?  I just don't get it.

Using the umbrellas Mary Poppins-style to fly away.

City on the ground is HK, which a Chinese dragon stomping through the streets.

[Sheilbh]

Shelf: That 3 million seems very classist to me.  As if they are "our kind of people" (like the knighted Chinese lady who gave the speech way back) but we sure don't want everyone.  Kind of weiird.

I don't get the class angle. The 3 million is the people who are already eligible for a British passport (just not a full British passport). They're the people who were there at handover.

[Valmy]

The umbrellas are also a symbol of the Pan Democratic movement so it works in two different ways.