The fact that these bans are only becoming more frequent now with the trade war is evidence that they aren't just a neutral exercise.
The simplistic American system of citizenship is not universal. Being born in a country does not always make one automatically a citizen of that country. So too does being born in country A not negate one's automatic citizenship in country B.
From the perspective of China, that a person was born in the US is immaterial. If they are born to Chinese parents then they are Chinese, especially when now standing inside China. This is why one should always talk to a lawyer before visiting "the old country" with kids born elsewhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_nationality_law
Bigger horror story: First generation Iranian-Canadian family fly to Iran to introduce canadian-born grandchildren to Iranian-born grandparents. At airport for flight home. 19 years old? Male? born to Iranian parents? standing inside Iran? Have you done your military service?
Whether one can "disavow" a citizenship is a big question. Citizenship is not a hat. You cannot just move to Canada, marry a Canadian, and suddenly expect not to owe US taxes ... or not be drafted into a US war.
Israel GRANTS citizenship to people of Jewish ancestry. It doesn't claim ownership of them like China is doing in this scenario.
I said Isreal was "open to" certain people, which is an accurate description of the policy. Where citizenship suitability is at issue, such as an asylum claim or immigration/visa application, religious factors then come into play. I made no mention of Israel claiming control or forcing citizenship on anyone.
A civilized government will protect the rights of its citizens. An uncivilized one believes that the citizens somehow belong to it and must do its bidding and be dependent upon it.
The CCP does not have the best interests of these people in mind - it only has its own interests in mind and is using these people as pawns.
Those in glass houses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_Service_System
"All male U.S. citizens and male immigrant non-citizens, who are between the ages of 18 and 25 are required by law to have registered within 30 days of their 18th birthdays"
The draft isn't coming back and there has been no instance of it coming back in any capacity in over 50 years. So no glass houses here, thanks.
But what are these others. The article's examples are: billion+ fraud, espionage, and political corruption by family members. The last one is optically the most senselessly punitive. Clearly political retaliations which I oppose. For financial crimes, in absence of extradition treaties, China's hands are tied, we shouldn't expect them to just allow mass fraud to go unanswered. Punishing billionaires, albeit with bias, is one of the few things China does partially right. Espionage rationalizes itself.
> holding someone's adult children because their father is suspected of something is never acceptable.
From NYT: >The couple sold the Arcadia home in 2004 and bought a house in a gated community in Armonk, N.Y., an affluent town, records show. The home was transferred to Cynthia Liu’s name in 2011 and sold in 2014 for almost $900,000.
There's shenanigans suggesting the kids were used to launder assets which makes them directly culpable. There's no telling how much of this is actually a family affair. They're not kids. They're adults who have benefited from embezzled money.
>aren't just a neutral exercise.
No they're not, Chinese law was never neutral when it comes to expats, but it's hard to feel sorry when western drug dealers or spies complain losing white privilege. The point is, China-US-Canadian relationships are cooling. If you have GOOD reason to be targeted by China, then don't go there. There are hundreds of thousands of expats in China, when some of them get arrested, the question should really be, why them in particular.
Detaining the estranged daughters of a suspected fraudster is not due process. It’s the sort of shenanigans that make Chinese courts the laughingstocks they are held to be.
The US doesn’t let dual citizens just fly away when charged, why should China?
Source?
For your passport to be surrendered, you need to be charged with a crime. Being related to the accused isn’t a crime. (The black eye that is Guantanamo notwithstanding.)
More critically, many of these people have been charged with nothing. No process is pending. They are held with no next steps. There is simply no analog for this behaviour in countries with the rule of law, whether that be Taiwan or Japan or Germany or the United States.
One doesn’t. Gitmo is a black eye on our judicial system.
But there is a difference between a widely-debated exception and a generally-accepted baseline. Gitmo is abnormal in America. It is a baseline for Xi’s regime.
It is in every sense an anomaly, and is not even remotely comparable to what is discussed here.
Due process would be served if they are being charged.
TBC, it’s not like all the people in gitmo got their due process but still, either charge the kids or* let them go.
China doesn't have an in independent judiciary. This is the country that stole Micron's chip design, then found Micron guilty of infringing on its own design (manufactured by a Chinese company). China is a clearly a country capable of inventing crimes for its political opponents when it sees fit.
What happens if cooling becomes a rapid heat up in tensions?
The US is unpredictable and has always flourished when the world is in chaos. Good luck predicting when and how and who decides it is time to go over the waterfall
As a Westerner I have a lot of trouble understanding how you can consider what you just wrote as obvious. Could you describe your thinking about this more? I know you said it's obvious but I don't get why.
Do you think the Chinese are idiots? Or that we don’t do the same??
Can you tell me more of the parent poster's thinking? They implied it's really obvious, so I'd like to understand it.
I realize you think it's obvious but I don't understand it and can't imagine what you and the other poster mean. Could you put it into words?
I mean, the arc of your claim (that this is just fallout of an otherwise legitimate crime investigation and not a deliberate punishment for these kids or the US in particualr) is probably true. But still, fabricating arguments against them doesn't make it OK for them to be held against international law.
As for Chinese papers, this is speculation territory but with some personal knowledge. You can buy Chinese identities, there's a market for it. I know people who previously revoked their PRC citizenship but later acquired a dead persons identity to buy property and start business in mainland among other perks.
This is the crux of the problem. We have no idea whether they are legitimately being investigated, or if they are innocent people being held in the country to apply pressure on someone else.
A low-level employee who travels to the PRC for work might end up in the same situation if his company faces accusations, and anyone who travels to the PRC, or an HK citizen who might face extradition for trial in the near future, needs to be aware of this.
Not surprising at all if you check his comment history.
Mainlanders firmly believe in collectivism; whereas, western audiences in individuality.
Therefore, Chinese people believe it is okay to kill a person to save the group. Whereas, other countries do not.
Mainlanders think that is being selfish.
Collectivism is commonly seen as a valuable presentation in conformism-driven social environments.
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.561...
The idea of prioritizing collective good means that it's ok to sacrifice one (or more) people if even more people will benefit from that action by a certain threshold amount.
This... isn't that. Arresting this guy won't help or save a bunch of people. The government just wants revenge for his financial crimes, and they're unethically using his kids to try to get it.
2. To get leverage on the spy.
3. To send a message to other spies and spouses.
Those are three common-sense reasons I can think of. I’m sure there are a dozen others.
I mean, let’s not be daft. If Snowden hadn’t shielded his g/f as well as he did, Ms. Mills would have never been allowed to leave the US.
She either would have been charged with espionage, or for breaking one of the innumerable laws we all break in a daily basis.
You don’t have to be charged to be put on it.
Only if that person is actually charged with a crime, has due process.
This isn't about that. This is about China not charging someone with a crime, and not giving them due process.
If you want to take away someone's passport, then you should charge them with a crime first.
Years later it turned out he was one of the main scammers in Dubai https://gulfnews.com/uae/expose-trading-scam-masterminds-unm...
Their mistake was traveling to a totalitarian communist dictatorship and expecting not to be at risk of arbitrary detention.
https://www.heraldtribune.com/news/20171206/vw-executive-arr...
The answer is no. They have not been charged with any crimes.
You nailed the jackpot
/s
They seem to be taking a sensible path down the middle? Lets be realistic, the kids aren't significant co conspirators if the dollar values of the supposed identity thefts or conspiracies are really small compared to the whole (at least... as far as the authorities can publicly announce, LOL, maybe they are in deeper than they can announce), and you can't expect relatives to testify or cooperate against each other reliably anyway. On the other hand they're literally members of a "crime family" and if this happened to mafia members, people would not be overly surprised to hear semi-clean conspirators are having a rough time with the law.
Much like "anyone can sue anyone for anything at any time", arbitrary detention is hardly limited to one specific country or political system. I'm sure Assange, Snowden, and the prisoners of Guantanamo Bay would beg to differ with your opinion.
Is this not a tight rope that every single country walks? What's being described above doesn't sound very middle road to me. Though I prefer that when systems fail criminals go free vs innocent lose their freedom (Blackstone's Formulation).
I really hate this phrase. Because implicitly it is using the wrong metric. So far we've seen the democracy, free speech, and advancement actually compliment one another. But we're at a turning point. We're already redefining what advancement means. Does it mean most powerful? Being able to feed and provide basic needs to everyone? Most scientific? Richest? Most humane? Historically most of these just correlated with wealth, so that metric became the target. But we're getting to the point where you can have many of those things without wealth, simply because they are so cheap. And soon they will be trivial cheap.
So a grand experiment into what? I think we had a good metric before but it isn't so clear anymore.
What do you mean by this? Why would being too humane cause accusations of arbitrarily treating people like criminals?
This was wrong. It doesn't excuse what China is doing.
Unless, of course, you are still doing it.
Which means others can do it to.
In the West, and especially in America, we don't highly internalize "being American" (insert country). A lot of us just think of it as a circumstances. And right now there's a lot of distaste for what the government does. You'll probably find that most of the people are upset at their own country about exactly what you're upset about what America does (I know I am, and it looks like the parent does too. At least in the specific example).
We don't always condone what the government does. We don't see that as "us" but "them". You'll see many people speaking out against the government here when they do things we don't like (that's democracy in action. The belief that governments need to be put in check). So when we don't like something we try to get it changed, and this frequently works. More often than not actually, and the nots are usually that it takes longer than we want.
So an American won't see themselves as a hypocrite for calling out a country for doing something that America does if they also disagree that America does it. We just don't see our government in that way.
Edit: The parent is also making reference to a phrase that most of our mothers taught us: "just because everyone else is doing it doesn't make it right" (or some variation)
This dissociation from government is also just generally disingenuous. You reap the benefits of all these policies you are supposedly against, and get to feel good about yourself because “well, I didn’t condone it”. Is this really any different from a Chinese police officer saying “I was just following orders”?
> although [Didi drivers are] obviously careful not to go too far for their own good
I don't think any Westerner seriously feels that they could be jailed for anything short of telling some official that they're going to kill the president or some major leader. Person to person, you can say whatever. As much as I don't like the NSA's overreach I don't think they are listening or don't bother themselves with these acts (one of the two has to be true given the last decade).
So I'd say that's one big difference.
You're also talking about a time when America has record distaste and distrust for their politicians and president. It wasn't always like this and I think your argument would be fine if the majority of people supported the state, but that's just currently not the case.
> You reap the benefits of all these policies you are supposedly against
How do I not? Seriously. I didn't choose to be born in this country. I can't just not reap the benefits. There is no method for me to pick and choose my benefits based on my personal beliefs. So I'm not sure what you expect me to do. There's no country I can move to that is doing significantly better. The only action I can see is to attempt to change what is happening here. But if you see more that I can do I would appreciate the advice (I'm serious). I'm not resigning to my "fate". A defeatist attitude is a step backwards.
> Is this really any different from a Chinese police officer saying “I was just following orders”?
Yes. I'm not sure why you think the populous is the same as state actors (police). They are different entities. Also, "just following orders" isn't an excuse in the military, let alone international law. It doesn't hold up here in America. You can go to jail for committing crimes that you were ordered to commit. Doesn't matter if you're the head of the military following the president's orders (you may notice that generals do ignore presidential orders, see the Muller report) or a police officer following the chief. Authorization does not protect you in a court of law.
The difference is that in the western world, you're allowed to make as much of stink as you possibly can about the system you disagree with. Surely, you'll meet opposition, but you and your family aren't going to be whisked away to a secret prison because you disagree with a particularly powerful person or political party.
True for a subset of people but drive out to the red states and that is definitely not true.
Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders (Go ahead an try travelling as a Swiss national and then again as a Sudanese).
I think this is reprehensible and I suspect others will one day too. Right now - its not even discussed. Hence 'acceptable to the norms of the times'.
And here's the rub: not only am I considered a naive quack on this issue, but it would be quickly pointed out when a nation state with strict border visa requirements told of another state for doing the same.
You need to work through your assumptions more.
> Most folk on HN would agree that discriminating on race is a no-no. But that is exactly what our constructs called nation-states do at their borders
And? The point is that people are not their government. They disagree with what they govt is doing and speak out. What's your point exactly?
Again, your bad actions are not justified by the bad actions of others. I think you need to work through your logic, otherwise, you might end up justifying murder because.. well... people do it, right?
In the West we openly complain when our government is doing things that we don't like and doesn't align with our personal beliefs. But like all countries, China included, we do have internal propoganda that causes people to be quiet about or support things against their own interests and beliefs.
It really isn't just so simple and can't be boiled down to a "got you" phrase. But neither is China (and I'm happy to so the "got you" remark in this thread about China is also down voted).
Most readers who have the knowledge about China instantly know the author is misleading audience by put up half truth and remove important relevant context. But those readers might not dare to speak out because it would be heavily down voted because truth doesn't match the popular belief that Chinese government is an evil authoritarian regime. It's sad that quite large portion of population still can not differentiate facts and their own belief. HNer's are already much better than other online communities.
It's not a "belief", it's fact. Mao killed 45 million people.
Our founding fathers would probably be considered terrorists to the Crown.
Edit: to elaborate, if you asked them who was more evil, you'd get different answers. Trevor Noah has a great section on this in his book about an upbringing in South Africa:
> “The name Hitler does not offend a black South African because Hitler is not the worst thing a black South African can imagine. Every country thinks their history is the most important, and that’s especially true in the West. But if black South Africans could go back in time and kill one person, Cecil Rhodes would come up before Hitler. If people in the Congo could go back in time and kill one person, Belgium’s King Leopold would come way before Hitler. If Native Americans could go back in time and kill one person, it would probably be Christopher Columbus or Andrew Jackson. ”
If we are going to judge a country by its history, then no country is “good.”
So mere association is the justification for the spouse's exit ban?
In context of Victor and Cynthia Lu, the siblings father is accused of embezzling 1.4 billion. From memory, millions of assets was put under their names in form of US real estate making them legally culpable. More importantly:
>The Chinese Foreign Ministry defended the holding of the three family members, saying: “The people you mentioned all own legal and valid identity documents as Chinese citizens. Because they are suspected of economic crimes, they are restricted from exiting the country by the Chinese police in accordance with the law.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/us/politics/china-exit-ba...
China doesn't allow dual citizenship, Chinese nationals (including HKers) who naturalize abroad is suppose to renounce their Chinese citizenship. Many don't, choosing to travel on Chinese papers for expediency (no need for VISA) etc which subjects them to Chinese law. There's no extradition treaty to China which makes these dumb administration hacks backfire. The article also covered spouse of suspects arrested on suspicion of spying... which no shit justifies exit bans.
E: I think the greater story is that white expats in some countries no longer get preferential treatment due to trade war (US + Canada), and ex Chinese nationals are not safe from CPC reach just because they have a passport with no PRC extradition treaty, but especially if they're being dumb and travelling to China using Chinese papers they were suppose to renounce.