11 ms·

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

The history of the "British National (Overseas)" nationality is worth a read.[1][2] During the decolonization of the British Empire, the UK did not want large numbers of non-white people immigrating to the British Isles. HK was only one instance of this. BN(O) nationality was one of many convenient bureaucratic fictions created in order to rationalize how someone born as a British subject in a British territory could lose the right to continue to live on British territory. Particularly affected were people of Indian ethnicity who had immigrated to other British colonies as civil servants; they became ethnic minorities in their newly independent countries and while their white coworkers were granted British citizenship, they were left behind. Thousands of people became stateless as a result of this policy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_citizen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_citizen [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)

hyko 6y ago
Yeah, time for that racist bullshit to end. Same stunt that the U.S. pulls in its colonies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territories_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territories_o... You're either a full and free citizen of the empire or not imo; special classes of citizenship based on race and geography are an abomination to all lovers of freedom and justice. Edited to add: why don’t people get angry when they realise there is blatant and systemic racism being funded with their money, on their behalf?
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  Puerto Rico has decided repeatedly to not become an official US state. The option is available to them anytime they want it.
  - mchaver 6y ago
    > Puerto Rico has voted repeatedly to not become an official US state. That's not true. Look at the results from the 2012 and 2017 referendums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_refer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_refer... > The option is available to them anytime they want it. That is not true either. None of these referendums have triggered a change of status.
    - ciguy 6y ago
      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.
  - hyko 6y ago
    No, it’s not. They actually voted to become an official US state: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_ref... 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.
    - ciguy 6y ago
      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.
      - hyko 6y ago
        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. We’ve already settled this argument long ago so it’s just a question of whether we’ll fairly enforce the conclusion we came to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-class_citizen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-class_citizen
        VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
        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.
- ciguy 6y ago
  Puerto Rico can become a US State anytime it wants just by holding a referendum and getting a majority vote. They have repeatedly chosen not to, probably because they hold full uS citizenship, can live, work and travel freely to the states without a passport and overall hold all the rights of a US state with none of the tax obligations. If anything they are in a privileged position. That covers 3.5 million out of the approx 4 million residents of US territories. EDIT: For the idiots downvoting. I know that Puerto Rico held referendums, I lived there for a while and I know a lot of people in government. The most recent referendum was massively boycotted and got extremely low turn out. Because of this many politicians in Puerto Rico consider it invalid. Bottom line, way too many rich politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the lack of taxes and oversight to allow statehood. If they want statehood they have to actually put together a delegation to handle the transition which they have NOT done yet.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    > Puerto Rico can become a US State anytime it wants just by holding a referendum and getting a majority vote. What about these referendums? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_refer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_refer...
    - ciguy 6y ago
      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.
      - monocasa 6y ago
- bArray 6y ago
  > Yeah, time for that racist bullshit to end. Probably more of an economic decision than one based in racism. > You're either a full and free citizen of the empire or not The British empire was disbanded, so there's nobody really to take your quarrel up with. > special classes of citizenship based on race and geography > are an abomination to all lovers of freedom and justice. Again, you're assuming it's based in race and geography. It seems more like the motivation was based in economics.
  - hyko 6y ago
    It’s not technically disbanded yet :) https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/ 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.
    - bArray 6y ago
      > 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.
    - rayiner 6y ago
      > The comment really applies to the US empire 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).
  - guerrilla 6y ago
    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.
- irrational 6y ago
  Isn't this how empires always have been run? In the Roman Empire the percentage of population that were citizens ranged from 1% to 55% depending on the province. The rest were non-citizens and slaves.
  - zzedd 6y ago
    see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana
- barking 6y ago
  There's lots of countries you maybe should vent your anger on before Britain, one of the most multicultural countries in the world. Maybe India with its racist caste system. Maybe any number of countries in Asia or Africa which have modern day slavery and racist policies.
  - lern_too_spel 6y ago
    Unlike BN(O)/BOC, India's caste system isn't supported by law.
    - chii 6y ago
      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.
      - lern_too_spel 6y ago
        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.
        PakG1 6y ago
        It's better, but problems obviously still exist.
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        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.
      - techie128 6y ago
        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).
- all100 6y ago
  It's very easy to hold this opinion, since you are on the "good" side by default. Fact is however, Britain is small and cannot possibly let in an enormous number of people. How many are we talking about? Germany let in over a million in 2015 and the effects on rents are already devastating. How would you like if we force a small African country to potentially let in every European citizen on moral grounds?
  - yc-kraln 6y ago
    This is a hot take which is in line with some of the extreme right-wing positions in Germany. For a more balanced view of the impact of the immigration to Germany, see https://www.aicgs.org/publication/burden-or-blessing-the-impact-of-refugees-on-germanys-labor-market/ https://www.aicgs.org/publication/burden-or-blessing-the-imp... 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.
    - anskl 6y ago
      Why don't you report the poster to the Verfassungs"schutz" if that is an extreme right wing position. I hear that left-wing reporting to authorities has a good tradition in Germany.
  - hyko 6y ago
    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.
- s_dev 6y ago
  American Samoa is the US equivalent of HK. Can hold US Passports but not entitled to live on the mainland.
  - griffinkelly 6y ago
    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.
  - Timpy 6y ago
    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?
    - ericmay 6y ago
      Are they able to declare independence or vote for supporting statehood?
- rayiner 6y ago
  It’s not the “same stunt” in the US. Residents of all the incorporated territories, and all the unincorporated territories but Guam, are US citizens. The residents of Guam are US nationals that can apply for citizenship. Unlike subjects of the former British empire, all have a right to reside anywhere in the US. The US system does not raise the same concerns about racism. There are different political subdivisions in the US with different relationships with the federal union. For example, those in Puerto Rico don’t pay federal taxes. Washington DC has no independent sovereignty, unlike the states, etc. But those distinctions aren’t based on race or nationality (everyone is a US national). And in many respects they are mutual decisions. Puerto Rico has repeatedly rejected ballot measures to become a state. If a Puerto Rican person wants to vote in US elections, they can just move to any other political subdivision of the US that is a full state.
  - akavi 6y ago
    > The residents of Guam are US nationals that can apply for citizenship. Per wikipedia's interpretation of The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Guamanians are US citizens at birth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Guam#U.S._citizenship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Guam#U.S._citizenshi...
    - rayiner 6y ago
      Sorry, I meant American Samoa. (Although, a court recently struck down the distinction as unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal.)
  - hyko 6y ago
    “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 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.
- mobilefriendly 6y ago
  All citizens of the territories and Puerto Rico have full US citizenship and vote in Presidential elections. Those citizens are free to move to the US mainland at anytime. In fact, living in US territories provides special tax advantages that are not available to US citizens in the mainland. There are historical and other reasons the territories aren't states -- Puerto Rico voters in particular have't supported statehood, and the other territories are very small and remote.
krona 6y ago
The Hong Kong government didn't want their citizens to leave Hong Kong, or at least wanted to disincentive them in the 90's due to a significant exodus of white collar workers. That's one of the reasons the immigration rules were changed. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=103048&ctNode=2198&mp=9 https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwan...
gandalfian 6y ago
Another way of looking at it is Britain tried to keep a fraternal commonwealth with free movement going for twenty years but couldn't carry the idea alone so it gave up and joined the European Union instead, cutting of everyone else including new Zealand and Australia. Which was a shame but how the world was going.
- pjc50 6y ago
  Well you could look at it like that but it would be .. wrong? It was always more paternal than fraternal, quite a lot of the freedom was won with violence (e.g. Kenya), if it were equal there would be no talk of "carry the idea alone", the UK did not join the EU in 1973 it joined the EEC (EU free movement only appeared in 1992), and the British public made it clear that they were only OK with free movement so long as the number of nonwhite people in the UK remained small. 1971 and the Kenyan Asians was the trigger for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_1971 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!)
  - gandalfian 6y ago
    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.
    - pjc50 6y ago
      "Imposing free movement"? Gave what a go? 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.
      - gandalfian 6y ago
im3w1l 6y ago
China is extending their tyrannical reign, and UK is trying to lend a helping hand. But let's take this opportunity to call out pass sins. Jfc..

hyko 6y ago

Yeah, time for that racist bullshit to end. Same stunt that the U.S. pulls in its colonies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territories_of_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territories_o... You're either a full and free citizen of the empire or not imo; special classes of citizenship based on race and geography are an abomination to all lovers of freedom and justice. Edited to add: why don’t people get angry when they realise there is blatant and systemic racism being funded with their money, on their behalf?

VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
Puerto Rico has decided repeatedly to not become an official US state. The option is available to them anytime they want it.
- mchaver 6y ago
  > Puerto Rico has voted repeatedly to not become an official US state. That's not true. Look at the results from the 2012 and 2017 referendums: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_refer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_refer... > The option is available to them anytime they want it. That is not true either. None of these referendums have triggered a change of status.
  - ciguy 6y ago
    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.
- hyko 6y ago
  No, it’s not. They actually voted to become an official US state: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_ref... 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.
  - ciguy 6y ago
    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.
    - hyko 6y ago
      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. We’ve already settled this argument long ago so it’s just a question of whether we’ll fairly enforce the conclusion we came to: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-class_citizen https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-class_citizen
      - VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
        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.
ciguy 6y ago
Puerto Rico can become a US State anytime it wants just by holding a referendum and getting a majority vote. They have repeatedly chosen not to, probably because they hold full uS citizenship, can live, work and travel freely to the states without a passport and overall hold all the rights of a US state with none of the tax obligations. If anything they are in a privileged position. That covers 3.5 million out of the approx 4 million residents of US territories. EDIT: For the idiots downvoting. I know that Puerto Rico held referendums, I lived there for a while and I know a lot of people in government. The most recent referendum was massively boycotted and got extremely low turn out. Because of this many politicians in Puerto Rico consider it invalid. Bottom line, way too many rich politicians in Puerto Rico benefit from the lack of taxes and oversight to allow statehood. If they want statehood they have to actually put together a delegation to handle the transition which they have NOT done yet.
- monocasa 6y ago
  > Puerto Rico can become a US State anytime it wants just by holding a referendum and getting a majority vote. What about these referendums? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Puerto_Rican_status_refer... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_referendum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Puerto_Rican_status_refer...
  - ciguy 6y ago
    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.
    - monocasa 6y ago
bArray 6y ago
> Yeah, time for that racist bullshit to end. Probably more of an economic decision than one based in racism. > You're either a full and free citizen of the empire or not The British empire was disbanded, so there's nobody really to take your quarrel up with. > special classes of citizenship based on race and geography > are an abomination to all lovers of freedom and justice. Again, you're assuming it's based in race and geography. It seems more like the motivation was based in economics.
- hyko 6y ago
  It’s not technically disbanded yet :) https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/ https://what-if.xkcd.com/48/ 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.
  - bArray 6y ago
    > 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.
  - rayiner 6y ago
    > The comment really applies to the US empire 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).
- guerrilla 6y ago
  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.
irrational 6y ago
Isn't this how empires always have been run? In the Roman Empire the percentage of population that were citizens ranged from 1% to 55% depending on the province. The rest were non-citizens and slaves.
- zzedd 6y ago
  see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutio_Antoniniana
barking 6y ago
There's lots of countries you maybe should vent your anger on before Britain, one of the most multicultural countries in the world. Maybe India with its racist caste system. Maybe any number of countries in Asia or Africa which have modern day slavery and racist policies.
- lern_too_spel 6y ago
  Unlike BN(O)/BOC, India's caste system isn't supported by law.
  - chii 6y ago
    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.
    - lern_too_spel 6y ago
      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.
      - PakG1 6y ago
        It's better, but problems obviously still exist.
        lern_too_spel 6y ago
        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.
    - techie128 6y ago
      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).
all100 6y ago
It's very easy to hold this opinion, since you are on the "good" side by default. Fact is however, Britain is small and cannot possibly let in an enormous number of people. How many are we talking about? Germany let in over a million in 2015 and the effects on rents are already devastating. How would you like if we force a small African country to potentially let in every European citizen on moral grounds?
- yc-kraln 6y ago
  This is a hot take which is in line with some of the extreme right-wing positions in Germany. For a more balanced view of the impact of the immigration to Germany, see https://www.aicgs.org/publication/burden-or-blessing-the-impact-of-refugees-on-germanys-labor-market/ https://www.aicgs.org/publication/burden-or-blessing-the-imp... 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.
  - anskl 6y ago
    Why don't you report the poster to the Verfassungs"schutz" if that is an extreme right wing position. I hear that left-wing reporting to authorities has a good tradition in Germany.
- hyko 6y ago
  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.
s_dev 6y ago
American Samoa is the US equivalent of HK. Can hold US Passports but not entitled to live on the mainland.
- griffinkelly 6y ago
  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.
- Timpy 6y ago
  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?
  - ericmay 6y ago
    Are they able to declare independence or vote for supporting statehood?
rayiner 6y ago
It’s not the “same stunt” in the US. Residents of all the incorporated territories, and all the unincorporated territories but Guam, are US citizens. The residents of Guam are US nationals that can apply for citizenship. Unlike subjects of the former British empire, all have a right to reside anywhere in the US. The US system does not raise the same concerns about racism. There are different political subdivisions in the US with different relationships with the federal union. For example, those in Puerto Rico don’t pay federal taxes. Washington DC has no independent sovereignty, unlike the states, etc. But those distinctions aren’t based on race or nationality (everyone is a US national). And in many respects they are mutual decisions. Puerto Rico has repeatedly rejected ballot measures to become a state. If a Puerto Rican person wants to vote in US elections, they can just move to any other political subdivision of the US that is a full state.
- akavi 6y ago
  > The residents of Guam are US nationals that can apply for citizenship. Per wikipedia's interpretation of The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Guamanians are US citizens at birth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Guam#U.S._citizenship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_Guam#U.S._citizenshi...
  - rayiner 6y ago
    Sorry, I meant American Samoa. (Although, a court recently struck down the distinction as unconstitutional, and the case is currently on appeal.)
- hyko 6y ago
  “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 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.
mobilefriendly 6y ago
All citizens of the territories and Puerto Rico have full US citizenship and vote in Presidential elections. Those citizens are free to move to the US mainland at anytime. In fact, living in US territories provides special tax advantages that are not available to US citizens in the mainland. There are historical and other reasons the territories aren't states -- Puerto Rico voters in particular have't supported statehood, and the other territories are very small and remote.

krona 6y ago

The Hong Kong government didn't want their citizens to leave Hong Kong, or at least wanted to disincentive them in the 90's due to a significant exodus of white collar workers. That's one of the reasons the immigration rules were changed. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=103048&ctNode=2198&mp=9 https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwan...

gandalfian 6y ago

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

pjc50 6y ago
Well you could look at it like that but it would be .. wrong? It was always more paternal than fraternal, quite a lot of the freedom was won with violence (e.g. Kenya), if it were equal there would be no talk of "carry the idea alone", the UK did not join the EU in 1973 it joined the EEC (EU free movement only appeared in 1992), and the British public made it clear that they were only OK with free movement so long as the number of nonwhite people in the UK remained small. 1971 and the Kenyan Asians was the trigger for the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_1971 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!)
- gandalfian 6y ago
  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.
  - pjc50 6y ago
    "Imposing free movement"? Gave what a go? 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.
    - gandalfian 6y ago

im3w1l 6y ago

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