Look up Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley's speeches on HK...LOLWhat really exposes the West's hypocrisy is their deafening silence on Israel's annexation of parts of Palestine, a foreign land, today, on July 1. They make nary a beep about Israel, yet they have the audacity to make constant and loud noises about Hong Kong, an unalienable, integral part of China.
In today's riot, a young man stabbed a police on the shoulder. If this happened in the U.S., he would be shot dead on the spot.
After viewing above imagine, anyone surprised that, first Taiwan, now the U.S. is unwilling to accept violent rioters?
Finally, even if you are a little racist with a British passport, such as the one with a twitter name of Snufkin, you are not guaranteed to be able to enter UK_O
Hong-Kong Protests
- Thread starter Pika
- Start date
AssassinsMace
Lieutenant General
It's funny how other countries "allowing" political refugees into their countries are relying on Hong Kong authorities to determine who's violent for them to bar from entering their countries. Well they do want to keep the violent ones in Hong Kong to do their bidding.
Wow, well if that is the way that the west like to do things in manner, then should the riots in the west (US for example) gets completely out of hand since it is happening everywhere there, then I guess they should be shown the same courtesy there only that the one in the US is going get exponentially worse with over 50 million unemployed and a large number of these people have guns
Very interesting to see if there is any meaningful immigration, especially for those BNO holders.
This is especially true for those actually convicted of crimes. I don’t know a single country that doesn’t have immigration rules blocking people with criminal records.
Only way for these people to get into places would be to claim refugee status. I am not a lawyer, but I would find this route akin to swimming upstream.
1. Being convicted prior to the enactment of the National security law means that you had committed criminal act while courts were independent of mainland interference. The records are a matter of public record and the transparency would work against the claimants.
2. Looking at the US example, they have been deporting victims of gang violence and domestic abuse back to Latin American countries because they don’t consider that persecution. I don’t think they will be too interested in taking on more undereducated people of colour.
In a separate tack, this law is more harsh than I had anticipated. It is a little disappointing. That being said, the rioters got what they deserve. By destroying stores that don’t agree with your political views is the textbook definition of terrorism. Terrorism usually begets a strong response from authorities even from democratic countries. Look at the broad range of powers that were granted with the Patriot Act and also what happens to Palestinians after each rocket attack.
This is especially true for those actually convicted of crimes. I don’t know a single country that doesn’t have immigration rules blocking people with criminal records.
Only way for these people to get into places would be to claim refugee status. I am not a lawyer, but I would find this route akin to swimming upstream.
1. Being convicted prior to the enactment of the National security law means that you had committed criminal act while courts were independent of mainland interference. The records are a matter of public record and the transparency would work against the claimants.
2. Looking at the US example, they have been deporting victims of gang violence and domestic abuse back to Latin American countries because they don’t consider that persecution. I don’t think they will be too interested in taking on more undereducated people of colour.
In a separate tack, this law is more harsh than I had anticipated. It is a little disappointing. That being said, the rioters got what they deserve. By destroying stores that don’t agree with your political views is the textbook definition of terrorism. Terrorism usually begets a strong response from authorities even from democratic countries. Look at the broad range of powers that were granted with the Patriot Act and also what happens to Palestinians after each rocket attack.
Both mainland China national security law and Macao national security law is less harsh than the HK one. The central government has no choice in this matter as it couldn't allow any loophole to be explored and there are no reliable judicial system to enforce the law. If the law has any vague terms, many judges would interpret them in a way that made the law irrelevant. It is ironic that a toothless extradition law would end up being the reason the powerful national security law got enacted.
Introspect, I just still can't wrap my head around why. It is most ridiculous and senseless revolution with no purpose. The extradition law was already rescinded and they already won. The oppositions know the next elections are secured as resentment of the HK government is at its highest level. Of course, sometime you can unleash something but can't control them afterward. In addition, it is a color revolution so foreign entities might want to chew more out of this color revolution.
A whole generation of youngsters have been lost for what. They still dreamed and hoped for intervention and the collapse of China. It is mind-blowing that reality has not sunk in for them yet.
Introspect, I just still can't wrap my head around why. It is most ridiculous and senseless revolution with no purpose. The extradition law was already rescinded and they already won. The oppositions know the next elections are secured as resentment of the HK government is at its highest level. Of course, sometime you can unleash something but can't control them afterward. In addition, it is a color revolution so foreign entities might want to chew more out of this color revolution.
A whole generation of youngsters have been lost for what. They still dreamed and hoped for intervention and the collapse of China. It is mind-blowing that reality has not sunk in for them yet.
Hi KYli,
Is this the first defeat for COLOR REVOLUTION of SOROS and the neo liberal internationalist? The international media is not that effective as they was a year ago, the narrative is being deconstructed and is plain to see the hypocrisy.
Not really, a few years ago the US ambassador has actively involved in a supposed color revolution in Beijing. When he arrived at the scene, the groups that received resources from the US to protest and ignite a color revolution in China never showed up. It is quite an embarrassment for the US.
However, I would think this is a big loss for the US and many western countries. HK is not only very important for many international companies. HK also served as the most vital intelligent gathering place for many countries. US and many countries have invested tremendous amount of resources in HK for being a place to infiltrate China and its elites. You can sense how angry many countries are and their disproportional responses.
Hi KYli
How about their investment? Did it affect them? Im confuse why the international business community remain silent during the mass protest .
And kashmir, the Indians did multiple atrocities there yet west mostly silent in comparison to hk which is nothing in comparisonWhat really exposes the West's hypocrisy is their deafening silence on Israel's annexation of parts of Palestine, a foreign land, today, on July 1. They make nary a beep about Israel, yet they have the audacity to make constant and loud noises about Hong Kong, an unalienable, integral part of China.
In today's riot, a young man stabbed a police on the shoulder. If this happened in the U.S., he would be shot dead on the spot.
After viewing above imagine, anyone surprised that, first Taiwan, now the U.S. is unwilling to accept violent rioters?
Finally, even if you are a little racist with a British passport, such as the one with a twitter name of Snufkin, you are not guaranteed to be able to enter UK
Mr T
Senior Member
The most serious crimes under the new legislation would get life imprisonment, so those people wouldn't be going anywhere.
Minor convictions won't invalidate the passports. Also, even if a person with a moderate prison sentence was refused entry on arrival, they could still claim asylum, in which case the exact nature of the conviction would be carefully examined. For example, if the guy who was arrested yesterday for waving the HK independence banner gets jail time, that "crime" would be discounted on the basis it was a politically-motivated charge.
As noted above, the issue wouldn't be the prison sentence but the activities that led to them. To be refused asylum on the basis of criminal activity your conduct has to be very severe - e.g. crimes against humanity. "Unlawful assembly" will be ignored, and I expect "rioting" would be as well.
The US isn't really relevant because Trump has implimented a very harsh asylum policy. The UK approach is much more balanced.
Also, to be fair, domestic abuse has nothing to do with asylum unless your partner is a member of the government and there's no rule of law in your home country. Similarly, gang violence would only be an issue if you lived in a tiny state where you can't move to a different location. Ironically, someone who lived in Hong Kong and had fled the Triads might conceivably get asylum.
Except that the law applies to absolutely everyone, including those that have protested peacefully.