13 ms·

It's interesting to see how proactive a lot of developed countries are being with getting ready to welcome refugees from Hong Kong, especially compared to the S

by sct202 6y ago

It's interesting to see how proactive a lot of developed countries are being with getting ready to welcome refugees from Hong Kong, especially compared to the Syrian crisis a few years ago.

Veen 6y ago
The UK in particular has a long historical relationship with Hong Kong. Plus, China is in clear breach of bilateral agreements with Britain.
- derision 6y ago
  Not surprisingly, China has clearly breached almost any agreement they've made with the rest of the developed world since they've starting making agreements
eggsnbacon1 6y ago
Hong Kong was a British colony for generations and is still strongly influenced by western culture. Probably why China has such an obsession with crushing it. Adopting HK citizens is a far easier sell than Syrians. They already speak English, are highly educated, wealthy, westernized, and have special status in UK law. Letting a ton of refugees in is a large burden on the host country. They don't share British culture and values, tend to have no education or marketable skills, are in poor health, don't speak the language, need a lot of government support, and depress wages for already poor citizens of the host country. It should still be done for humanitarian reasons but there's a lot of pushback from citizens for reasonable concerns.
- crobertsbmw 6y ago
  After reading Open Borders by Bryan Cahlan, I’m convinced that if there is a burden on the host country it’s temporary. Long term, I think the host country has much more to gain than to lose.
  - eggsnbacon1 6y ago
    This has and will be debated forever. Given the choice though, I think its much clearer that letting in wealthy educated people is a net benefit.
    - pm90 6y ago
      Your belief does not make it a reality. Studies have shown that all kinds of immigration greatly benefits host countries, and especially aging Western ones with declining populations.
      - iguy 6y ago
        This really isn't a one-dimensional question with an easy "studies have shown" answer. For a start, it would require a definition for what "benefits host countries" means -- benefits tax receipts? Proportion willing to volunteer for the army? Benefits eployers of low/high-wage labor? Number of companies founded? Strength of the literary tradition? That said, the most obvious parallel here is the indians expelled from Uganda [1], who were essentially the merchant class of that country. And I believe have done very well in England. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand
      - kyboren 6y ago
        I don't think that's exactly what eggsnbacon1 was saying. It may be true that all kinds of immigration greatly benefit host countries in the long term, but this is more debatable than that allowing wealthy, liberal, educated immigrants is a net benefit to host countries. We can argue about the long-term benefits of open borders. I don't believe eggsnbacon1 was stating a position there--more like pointing out that there are some short-term costs that generate popular pushback. But ushering in the cream of the crop is obviously beneficial; it's a no-brainer.
      - poutrathor 6y ago
        It's country dependant (and study dependant) : https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2020/01/23/un-rapport-parlementaire-souligne-l-effet-neutre-de-l-immigration-sur-l-economie_6026976_3224.html https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2020/01/23/un-rapport... Most studies does not account for what people dislike in immigration : fracturing social contract and communities shattering. Frictions in the salad bowl are poorly translated to economic figures but folks live it everyday. So look carefully at what each study says and its perimeter. One should curb down its sureness of that matter.
- freddie_mercury 6y ago
  > Adopting HK citizens is a far easier sell than Syrians. They already speak English No they don't. According to the Hong Kong government's 2011 census only 41% of residents spoke English moderately well (not even fluently, just moderately well). 20% reported not being able to speak any English whatsoever; not even a few sentences. Only 57% of residents of Hong Kong considered themselves "bilingual". Only 30% of students attended an EMI school (English as a Medium of Instruction). And I doubt the numbers have become more favorable to English in the decade since that census.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    > No they don't. According to the Hong Kong government's 2011 census only 41% of residents spoke English moderately well (not even fluently, just moderately well). 20% reported not being able to speak any English whatsoever; not even a few sentences. You have to consider which ones are being adopted. It is overwhelmingly the educated and wealthy ones who will go, and a far higher percentage of them speak English.
  - take_a_breath 6y ago
    This is irrelevant because the offer is only for the 3 million people eligible. That group includes: ==About 350,000 UK passport holders, and 2.6 million others eligible, will be able to come to the UK for five years.== ==Under the government's plans, all British Overseas Nationals and their dependants will be given right to remain in the UK, including the right to work and study, for five years. At this point, they will be able to apply for settled status, and after a further year, seek citizenship.==
  - akamaka 6y ago
    41% is a lot! For comparison, only 34% of foreign-born Hispanics in the US speak English proficiently.
  - iguy 6y ago
    > 41% of residents spoke English moderately well Do you know (or care to speculate) on how those eligible for this offer would compare to residents captured by the census? e.g. Did lots of people arrive from the mainland post-97, who might drive down the average? Or perhaps those with overseas-british papers are older, and the younger generation speaks much more English? I don't know enough to guess.
thewindow 6y ago
One important reason is money. These people are going to be relatively well off or rich.
- swarnie_ 6y ago
  Pretty much this. In an economic migrate face-off between HK and sub-Saharan Africans we only get one winner.
enaaem 6y ago
Generally speaking, more people = more power. But you need people who integrate well and won’t cause trouble, and will be net contributors to the welfare system. Hong Kong people are likely a very safe bet.
entropea 6y ago
I bet we'll see nearly no refugees from Hong Kong when data starts appearing in a few years.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  Refugee is an official term with an official meaning. Anyone coming from Hong Kong doesn't fit that.
  - brabel 6y ago
    Of course they do: if they claim China is threatening them with prison for political reasons, they absolutely can claim asylum based on political persecution.
  - computerfriend 6y ago
    This is false. Simon Cheng was granted asylum today, for instance. https://twitter.com/SimonCh15198572/status/1278336060406337536 https://twitter.com/SimonCh15198572/status/12783360604063375...
woodpanel 6y ago
compared to the Syrian crisis a few years ago Please enlighten me. As a German, I have yet to see even a statement of any German politician to do as the Brits do. Is there any non-english speaking country being "proactive"?
- sct202 6y ago
  Japan and Taiwan are seemingly being open to immigration and open to poaching skilled immigrants specifically. Both Taiwan and Japan are typically fairly difficult to immigrate to in general unless it's for temp guest workers.
- computerfriend 6y ago
  Taiwan has a dedicated office for processing Hong Kong refugees. They speak Mandarin there. https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1535138-20200701.htm https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1535138-20200701.h...
numpad0 6y ago
UK offer is a 5-year timed right to stay, not even permanent residence.
- nly 6y ago
  5 years continuous residence is typically the requirement to apply for permanent residence and ultimately citizenship.
- nbevans 6y ago
  It's more typically known as the "5-year route" and it means that after 5-years of living/working/residing in the UK they become eligible for permanent residence (which is known as "indefinite leave to remain"). So yes - it is a genuine and good offer. There will be catches though - the visa's will likely cost a fair bit of money (for example a UK spouse visa costs over £1000, and must be renewed when it is 2.5 years old) - I would imagine the BNO HK visa will be similar in cost. Similarly, the ILR (permanent residence) visa's cost around £2500. It is also possible that the BNO HK visa may have criteria on it such as a requirement to prove your current salary or available savings/funds are above a certain amount.
- M2Ys4U 6y ago
  5 year Leave to Remain, after 2 years LTR they can apply for settled status and after one year of SS they can apply for citizenship. That's not nothing.
yadco 6y ago
When was the last time someone from Hong Kong commited a terrorist attack.
mjw1007 6y ago
Many of the richer English-speaking Hong Kong residents send their children to school in England (or at any rate did thirty years ago). And the schools they were sent to are largely the same as the schools that the people who run the UK went to (at least when there's a Conservative government). So when the cabinet visualise "someone from Hong Kong", they think "one of us".

by sct202 6y ago

It's interesting to see how proactive a lot of developed countries are being with getting ready to welcome refugees from Hong Kong, especially compared to the Syrian crisis a few years ago.

Veen 6y ago

The UK in particular has a long historical relationship with Hong Kong. Plus, China is in clear breach of bilateral agreements with Britain.

derision 6y ago
Not surprisingly, China has clearly breached almost any agreement they've made with the rest of the developed world since they've starting making agreements

eggsnbacon1 6y ago

Hong Kong was a British colony for generations and is still strongly influenced by western culture. Probably why China has such an obsession with crushing it. Adopting HK citizens is a far easier sell than Syrians. They already speak English, are highly educated, wealthy, westernized, and have special status in UK law. Letting a ton of refugees in is a large burden on the host country. They don't share British culture and values, tend to have no education or marketable skills, are in poor health, don't speak the language, need a lot of government support, and depress wages for already poor citizens of the host country. It should still be done for humanitarian reasons but there's a lot of pushback from citizens for reasonable concerns.

crobertsbmw 6y ago
After reading Open Borders by Bryan Cahlan, I’m convinced that if there is a burden on the host country it’s temporary. Long term, I think the host country has much more to gain than to lose.
- eggsnbacon1 6y ago
  This has and will be debated forever. Given the choice though, I think its much clearer that letting in wealthy educated people is a net benefit.
  - pm90 6y ago
    Your belief does not make it a reality. Studies have shown that all kinds of immigration greatly benefits host countries, and especially aging Western ones with declining populations.
    - iguy 6y ago
      This really isn't a one-dimensional question with an easy "studies have shown" answer. For a start, it would require a definition for what "benefits host countries" means -- benefits tax receipts? Proportion willing to volunteer for the army? Benefits eployers of low/high-wage labor? Number of companies founded? Strength of the literary tradition? That said, the most obvious parallel here is the indians expelled from Uganda [1], who were essentially the merchant class of that country. And I believe have done very well in England. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Asians_from_Ugand
    - kyboren 6y ago
      I don't think that's exactly what eggsnbacon1 was saying. It may be true that all kinds of immigration greatly benefit host countries in the long term, but this is more debatable than that allowing wealthy, liberal, educated immigrants is a net benefit to host countries. We can argue about the long-term benefits of open borders. I don't believe eggsnbacon1 was stating a position there--more like pointing out that there are some short-term costs that generate popular pushback. But ushering in the cream of the crop is obviously beneficial; it's a no-brainer.
    - poutrathor 6y ago
      It's country dependant (and study dependant) : https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2020/01/23/un-rapport-parlementaire-souligne-l-effet-neutre-de-l-immigration-sur-l-economie_6026976_3224.html https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2020/01/23/un-rapport... Most studies does not account for what people dislike in immigration : fracturing social contract and communities shattering. Frictions in the salad bowl are poorly translated to economic figures but folks live it everyday. So look carefully at what each study says and its perimeter. One should curb down its sureness of that matter.
freddie_mercury 6y ago
> Adopting HK citizens is a far easier sell than Syrians. They already speak English No they don't. According to the Hong Kong government's 2011 census only 41% of residents spoke English moderately well (not even fluently, just moderately well). 20% reported not being able to speak any English whatsoever; not even a few sentences. Only 57% of residents of Hong Kong considered themselves "bilingual". Only 30% of students attended an EMI school (English as a Medium of Instruction). And I doubt the numbers have become more favorable to English in the decade since that census.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  > No they don't. According to the Hong Kong government's 2011 census only 41% of residents spoke English moderately well (not even fluently, just moderately well). 20% reported not being able to speak any English whatsoever; not even a few sentences. You have to consider which ones are being adopted. It is overwhelmingly the educated and wealthy ones who will go, and a far higher percentage of them speak English.
- take_a_breath 6y ago
  This is irrelevant because the offer is only for the 3 million people eligible. That group includes: ==About 350,000 UK passport holders, and 2.6 million others eligible, will be able to come to the UK for five years.== ==Under the government's plans, all British Overseas Nationals and their dependants will be given right to remain in the UK, including the right to work and study, for five years. At this point, they will be able to apply for settled status, and after a further year, seek citizenship.==
- akamaka 6y ago
  41% is a lot! For comparison, only 34% of foreign-born Hispanics in the US speak English proficiently.
- iguy 6y ago
  > 41% of residents spoke English moderately well Do you know (or care to speculate) on how those eligible for this offer would compare to residents captured by the census? e.g. Did lots of people arrive from the mainland post-97, who might drive down the average? Or perhaps those with overseas-british papers are older, and the younger generation speaks much more English? I don't know enough to guess.

thewindow 6y ago

One important reason is money. These people are going to be relatively well off or rich.

swarnie_ 6y ago
Pretty much this. In an economic migrate face-off between HK and sub-Saharan Africans we only get one winner.

enaaem 6y ago

Generally speaking, more people = more power. But you need people who integrate well and won’t cause trouble, and will be net contributors to the welfare system. Hong Kong people are likely a very safe bet.

entropea 6y ago

I bet we'll see nearly no refugees from Hong Kong when data starts appearing in a few years.

MattGaiser 6y ago
Refugee is an official term with an official meaning. Anyone coming from Hong Kong doesn't fit that.
- brabel 6y ago
  Of course they do: if they claim China is threatening them with prison for political reasons, they absolutely can claim asylum based on political persecution.
- computerfriend 6y ago
  This is false. Simon Cheng was granted asylum today, for instance. https://twitter.com/SimonCh15198572/status/1278336060406337536 https://twitter.com/SimonCh15198572/status/12783360604063375...

woodpanel 6y ago

compared to the Syrian crisis a few years ago Please enlighten me. As a German, I have yet to see even a statement of any German politician to do as the Brits do. Is there any non-english speaking country being "proactive"?

sct202 6y ago
Japan and Taiwan are seemingly being open to immigration and open to poaching skilled immigrants specifically. Both Taiwan and Japan are typically fairly difficult to immigrate to in general unless it's for temp guest workers.
computerfriend 6y ago
Taiwan has a dedicated office for processing Hong Kong refugees. They speak Mandarin there. https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1535138-20200701.htm https://news.rthk.hk/rthk/en/component/k2/1535138-20200701.h...

numpad0 6y ago

UK offer is a 5-year timed right to stay, not even permanent residence.

nly 6y ago
5 years continuous residence is typically the requirement to apply for permanent residence and ultimately citizenship.
nbevans 6y ago
It's more typically known as the "5-year route" and it means that after 5-years of living/working/residing in the UK they become eligible for permanent residence (which is known as "indefinite leave to remain"). So yes - it is a genuine and good offer. There will be catches though - the visa's will likely cost a fair bit of money (for example a UK spouse visa costs over £1000, and must be renewed when it is 2.5 years old) - I would imagine the BNO HK visa will be similar in cost. Similarly, the ILR (permanent residence) visa's cost around £2500. It is also possible that the BNO HK visa may have criteria on it such as a requirement to prove your current salary or available savings/funds are above a certain amount.
M2Ys4U 6y ago
5 year Leave to Remain, after 2 years LTR they can apply for settled status and after one year of SS they can apply for citizenship. That's not nothing.

yadco 6y ago

When was the last time someone from Hong Kong commited a terrorist attack.

mjw1007 6y ago

Many of the richer English-speaking Hong Kong residents send their children to school in England (or at any rate did thirty years ago). And the schools they were sent to are largely the same as the schools that the people who run the UK went to (at least when there's a Conservative government). So when the cabinet visualise "someone from Hong Kong", they think "one of us".