
U.K. Plans Citizenship for Hong Kong Residents in Row with China - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-28/u-k-plans-citizenship-for-hong-kong-residents-in-row-with-china
======
eigenvector
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
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_o...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unincorporated_territories_of_the_United_States)

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?

~~~
barking
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.

~~~
neilsense
You seem to have a vendetta against India so we'll set that aside for a
second, sounds like you had a bad experience at some point with an Indian or
their family.

You are talking about the same Britain that voted in favour of Brexit because
they got tired of looking at Eastern Europeans? The same that allowed Tommy
Robinson to rise to fame through even the main media channels? The same one
that you can be called a 'paki' in while just walking down the street with
your family in 2020? The same one that still has glass ceilings in finance and
industry if you're not white?

Britain is a utopia compared to many countries, but don't get carried away.
Also, don't half-understand things about other nations and then try and sell
them over her as fact. You are out of your depth.

~~~
barking
I don't have a vendetta against India, that's way OTT sensitivity on your
part. And if you're going to accuse me of having a simplistic view of India
then I'll respond to you by saying your comments on Britain are risible. Tommy
Robinson's rise to fame is somehow to be taken as a criticism of Britain. The
man's notorious, and has served prison time for it. Does it reflect badly on a
country that such a man exists? The rest of your criticisms are similarly
simplistic.

------
rswail
The UK should have offered citizenship to residents of Hong Kong prior to
1997. It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does
now.

Offering them citizenship will allow residents a way of moving to the UK, but
it does not guarantee them consular rights in Hong Kong. China already takes
the view that a HK Chinese resident is a citizen of China, subject to its laws
irrespective of other citizenships and will not allow consular assistance.

As for Taiwan, Nixon and other swapped "allegiance" from the ROC to PRC in
1972. Most nations do not havce diplomatic relations with the ROC because if
they do, then PRC withdraws diplomatic recognition and negotiation with them.

Note that Taiwan's government does not want "independence". They still claim
to be the legitimate government of the whole of China, even though that status
was lost in the UN in 1971. Both the ROC and PRC claim that Taiwan is part of
China, but differ (obviously) as to which government is "legitimate".

~~~
barry-cotter
> It exploited the colony and local residents of HK as much as China does now.

I’m not aware of the UK kidnapping anyone to stand trial in a foreign
jurisdiction. On exploitation, in 1945 Hong Kong was bombed out rubble and in
1997 it was a first world city that had a higher GDP per capita than the
United Kingdom. Some exploitation.

~~~
terenceng2010
Maybe the exploit is about:

The nationality of HongKonger was the same as other UK citizen at the time
called CUKC. For other UK ex-colony, they usually had a independent election
to be an independent country or so, and these countries do not have the UK
nationality anymore. But HKers never had such election taken place.

~~~
barry-cotter
They were going to make it a democracy in the 60s until China said they’d
invade if they did.

> China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong
> Kong".[21] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong
> affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action
> to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status
> quo (i.e. colonial administration) be changed. The warning killed any
> democratic development for the next three decades.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Ho...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_development_in_Hong_Kong)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-
pus...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/28/world/asia/china-began-push-against-
hong-kong-elections-in-50s.amp.html)

------
bArray
As somebody from the UK I have been watching the situation in Hong Kong with
great sadness. China have clearly broken the contract by which Hong Kong was
given back and I would support my government if they decided to take action in
order to protect the freedoms of Hong Kong citizens.

That said, I don't believe the solution here is to move every Hong Kong
citizen en mass to the UK. Regardless, there would be many trapped there under
the Chinese regime.

~~~
blackrock
Why do people of the U.K. continue to think that their opinion matters
anymore, in regards to Hong Kong?

All British government administration of Hong Kong, terminated at the moment
of the handover in 1997.

The Chinese honorably held up their end of the agreement, of their lease of
Hong Kong to the British. They could have invaded at any time, but they
didn’t. And the agreement was actually made by the Qing Dynasty, so the new
China government at the time, could have rendered that agreement, null and
void. But they didn’t.

And let’s be honest here, when the British signed the 99-year lease, they
never really expected to leave Hong Kong. They were just toying with the
Chinese, by signing the lease with the Qing government. Little did they know
at the time, that their exploitative empire would crumble in less than 50
years.

If the people of the U.K. truly do support the people of Hong Kong, like you
say, then they should take another referendum vote, on whether they want the
Hong Kong people to move to Britain, and become British citizens. This is how
you can support them.

~~~
hnarn
> Why do people of the U.K. continue to think that their opinion matters
> anymore, in regards to Hong Kong?

> All British government administration of Hong Kong, terminated at the moment
> of the handover in 1997.

You answer your own question. The handover wasn't, but _is_ a legally binding
agreement with the United Kingdom, where among other things the "One country,
two systems" principle was agreed to be in effect until 2047.

> And let’s be honest here, when the British signed the 99-year lease, they
> never really expected to leave Hong Kong.

The 99-year lease was only in regards to the New Territories. The Treaty of
Nanking stipulates that HK Island was ceded "in perpetuity" to the UK. There's
also the 1860 Convention of Peking. The PRC did not "recognize" this during
negotiations, but as we can all see it seems par for the course for the PRC to
simply "recognize" whatever parts they agree with at the time.

If one is to draw the purely legal argument here, at least be consistent.

~~~
billfruit
I think New Territories is the lions share of the geographical area of modern
HK. If UK had not transferred the other smaller areas in 1997, it would be the
UK that would be in trouble, holding on to a small untenable piece of
territory (Since the territories not under the 99 year lease are dependent
upon the New Territories for many essential matters.)

~~~
hnarn
Being the lions’ share geographically means nothing out of context. HK Island
is the urban and financial center of Hong Kong, so saying that it would never
have survived with NT ceded to the PRC is like saying Manhattan and Brooklyn
would never have survived being ceded to the UK because they didn’t hold New
Jersey. Sure, it’s impractical to have a hostile mainland neighbor but if the
place you’re occupying is one of the worlds largest harbors with all that
entails, and you have the military capacity and will to defend it, it’s far
from “untenable”. The main reason HK was ceded at all was because of the total
decline of the British Empire, it’s not much more complicated than that.

~~~
billfruit
I think there was logistical issues with power plants and water treatment, and
such vital infrastructure being largely in the New Territories, is what I
remember.

And if PRC had simply taken the NT at end of lease, and not reached an
agreement on the other areas, what would UK have done?

~~~
hnarn
Power plants and water treatment coming from the PRC is a result of history,
so one cannot just look at the current state of affairs and conclude that no
other outcomes were possible. As with anywhere in the world, the water and
electricity comes from where it comes because it's the most economical
solution, not because it's the only solution.

I'm just trying to make the point that had an empire still been in control of
HK, things would have looked very different, but that's not the case so they
don't. There's nothing inherently with HK's connection to mainland that makes
it impossible for it to be self-sustaining, but there was never a point, or an
economical or political will to do so.

The most obvious comparison to HK is Singapore, which is now a free state and
has its own military, together with being one of the top financial spots in
Asia. Yet the history is not that different from Hong Kong.

The different outcomes are not down to the simple fact that HK Island is a
barren rock that would be technically impossible to sustain independently, but
a complex result of geopolitics which today makes it impossible to release
from the grasp of China.

------
krona
Hong Kong people once had full British nationality, including a British
passport with the right of abode in Britain. But that right of abode was
removed in 1962. [0]

The history is more complicated than most people think. As a child (early
90's) I had two friends from Hong Kong after a wave of immigration that
started after Tiananmen.

[0]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwan...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160424062259/http://www.taiwantoday.tw/ct.asp?xItem=103048&ctNode=2198&mp=9)

------
LatteLazy
Personally, I think it's well past time that China was forced to reconsider
it's policies on HK. And also on:

* Food Hygiene and pandemics

* Rounding up minorities and religious groups

* Democracy

* Tibet and Taiwan

* Clashes with India

* Support for North Korea

The idea that 7m people should move out of Hong Kong because their requests
for basic human rights is inconvenient to the CCP is frankly insane.

~~~
pjc50
Forced how, exactly?

~~~
jacobush
I hope it's not a defeatist question? Certainly things could be done.

------
ardy42
OP:

> U.K. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab warned the government will open a path
> to citizenship for 300,000 Hong Kong residents unless China backs down on
> its planned security laws....A key question for the U.K. is how to help the
> 300,000 people in Hong Kong who have British National (Overseas) passports.
> The foreign secretary said the U.K. will offer them a haven if Beijing does
> not back down.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_(Overseas)_pa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_National_\(Overseas\)_passport):

> Holders of BN(O) passports are permanent residents of Hong Kong who were
> British Dependent Territories citizens until 30 June 1997 and had registered
> as BN(O)s....As British National (Overseas) cannot be passed through jus
> sanguinis to children of current BN(O)s, any children born on or after 1
> July 1997 to parents with British National (Overseas) status only acquired
> either Chinese nationality or British Overseas Citizen status on birth
> (although it is possible for a BOC with no other nationalities to be
> registered as a British Citizen). Any British Dependent Territory Citizens
> with connections to Hong Kong who had failed to register themselves as
> British Nationals (Overseas) by the end of 30 June 1997 would also be
> ineligible to make further claims for BN(O) from 1 July 1997, and those
> people would either become Chinese nationals or British Overseas Citizens.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_citizen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_citizen):

> Naturalisation as a British Overseas citizen is not possible. It is expected
> that BOCs will obtain citizenship in the country they reside in and that the
> number of active status holders will eventually dwindle until there are
> none.[15] Currently, it is only possible to transfer BOC status by descent
> if an individual born to a BOC parent would otherwise be stateless.

So this doesn't affect anyone under the age of 23?

~~~
mjburgess
I think it's even more limited than that. I think you had to have BNO status
in 1997 -- ie., even if you're 50 now, if you didnt apply, you can't get it.

Quite easy for the british gov. to change the law on that though.

------
ehnto
Is a max expatriation not going to be of benefit to China in their move to
culturally control HK? Part of me understands the need for a lifeline to those
who want out, but part of me also wonders if the UK isn't more than happy to
do this for China, who would probably love to have deported them anyway.

Similar to how the US no longer recognising HK as autonomous was framed as a
pro HK gesture, but surely that's exactly what China wants. For people to
recognize it's control over HK legitimises that control.

~~~
ericmay
I think the idea is that, it's already happened or that it's inevitable, so
why not try and cause as much pain for the Chinese as possible.

------
627467
I read "we may increase the current 6 months limit for a BNO holder to 12
months possibly opening a path to citizenship [for those who fullfil all
requirements to apply for citizenship]"

The title and Minister's position is very PR'ish and it sounds like a very
tepid reaction.

Only 300.000 (of about 7.5million ) hk residents hold a BNO... What about
everybody else? And how come those (few) BNO have been treated as less than
British since 1997?

Next door Macau had given Portuguese nationality to virtually all it's
population even ahead of handover. Argually, Macau population at the time
represented only 5% of Portugal's population, compared to about 10% that hk
population represents compared to UK's. But those BNO holders are much less
than 5% of it's population...

------
robocat
How about countries provide citizenship for refugee status if someone is being
politically targeted?

If not done officially, but everyone knows that by being a political activist
you can get foreign citizenship, you have just motivated people to fight!

Edit: dual-citizenship for an activist puts a China into a catch-22. China
can’t complain if the optics are that the activist is just a normal person
asserting their rights. If China does attack the activist, then the other
country can rightfully argue that the activist is a political refugee, and as
a citizen of their country they can defend them properly.

~~~
ardy42
> If not done officially, but everyone knows that by being a political
> activist you can get foreign citizenship, you have just motivated people to
> fight!

No, I think you'd end up motivating more to flee: a lot of people won't fight
unless their backs' are against the wall.

You'd also probably end up stabilizing a bunch of nasty regimes by giving them
someplace to dump their dissidents without inviting much backlash.

~~~
toxik
Political asylum is a very common cause for immigration though, so isn’t this
already the case?

~~~
kelnos
I think people view political asylum as a last resort, though, and it's
generally not all that easy to get, at least in the "more desirable"
countries.

~~~
luckylion
It's certainly not trivially easy, but it's also not _that_ hard, and even if
you get denied, you will generally be allowed to stay unless you're from a
small set of countries. Deportation is rare in Europe.

------
Simulacra
How about recognizing Taiwan?

~~~
Svip
The tragedy of democracies is that it does not really encourage democracies
elsewhere. As leaders of a democracy strive for high living standards within
their own borders, wages and thus the cost of living goes up. But participants
in a democracy (i.e. the voters) still wish to encourage their leaders for
cheaper products. Be it bananas or electronics.

In an isolated system, the consequence of such advances in social structures
should be that the newer higher cost of living is the price one pays for a
higher standard of living. But countries aren't isolated, and thus democratic
leaders try to exploit less democratic countries for their own benefits, be it
via covert action, foreign aid or other forms of diplomatic pressure.

China, on the other hand, is one of the few (former, I should say) developing
nations that have fought back, once they gained enough political power
internationally. The Western world have become heavily reliant on China and
its cheap production engine (to put it very simply), and China can thus force
the same Western democracies to side with them on diplomatic issues closer to
their home.

Ask an American or a Frenchman how important to their livelihood Hong Kong's
freedom or Taiwan's independence is, and they would probably rate it low among
their list of priorities. Their cheap electronics come first. Does it matter
to a Canadian shopkeeper whether Muslim minorities in China are treated
humanely? Probably not as much as access to Chinese manufactured equipment.

You may be quick to think our leaders are corrupted by the Chinese regime, but
in reality, they are merely doing what their voters want them to do. Voters
tend to be rather narrowly focused on what is in front of them, rather than
wanting their government spent money and resources on someone else's freedom.
Particularly if those regimes avoid directly attacking those democracies (see
Pearl Harbor for an example of this mistake).

~~~
jsnider3
> The tragedy of democracies is that it does not really encourage democracies
> elsewhere.

This is actually false. The reason Russia and China care so much about Ukraine
and Taiwan, is because they worry having a functional democracy next door may
destabilize their own regimes.

~~~
distances
Russia has no shortage of top-notch democracies next door.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _Russia has no shortage of top-notch democracies next door_

Correct, but none with a Slavic majority. Similar with China. Lots of
democracies. None with mostly Han Chinese.

The threat to both comes from the disabling of their argument that democracy
doesn’t work for “their” people. It’s difficult for Russia to define a set of
people that encompasses its population but excludes Ukrainians. Same for
Beijing with respect to Hong Kong and Taiwan.

------
thinkingemote
Let's put aside talks of colonialism and how bad China is for a little bit and
look with a wider or long term lense.

HK is a world banking and financial services hub in competition with the UK in
many ways. Is this move a way for the UK to move these businesses who might
feel unease where they are to the UK

What else might happen in the long term? What's between the lines?

------
throw55435
> Britain repeatedly put pressure on Portugal not to grant nationality to its
> colonial residents in Macau to prevent Hongkongers asking for the same
> treatment ahead of the two cities’ return to Chinese rule, recently
> declassified documents have revealed.

[https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-
kong/politics/article/2156385...](https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-
kong/politics/article/2156385/britains-disgraceful-pre-handover-efforts-deny-
nationality)

------
aksss
If the U.K. or EU do not take this opportunity to assert themselves physically
here (the Joint Declaration is their baby, after all) they should at least
offer refuge to HK natively-born and break HK as a financial center via
policy. They could achieve the refuge offer with placement by lottery to U.K.
or EU member countries. Even the US can throw in with this.

Thus far, the statements by both entities that they condemn China’s behavior
and will monitor the situation carefully are hollow. These entities must
realize that their known lack of will to assert themselves physically very
nearly nullifies their opinion. Their suspect ability to even assert
themselves with sanctions and embargoes with respect to China completely
nullifies their words.

China, on the other hand, showed their hand years ago with regard to the Joint
Declaration, and I have to think some segment of the U.K. government apparatus
had been expecting this inflection point to come.

~~~
freeflight
> If the U.K. or EU do not take this opportunity to assert themselves
> physically here (the Joint Declaration is their baby, after all)

The EU did not have anything to do with the Sino- _British_ Joint Declaration.

Particularly not now after the UK decided to leave the EU.

~~~
aksss
The agreement was signed in 1984/5, when the U.K. was a member of the EU, and
did so with the EU’s blessing and backing. The agreement was also registered
at the U.N. in ‘85, in which the EU member nations hold membership, some with
permanent veto power. It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because
their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not
have anything to do with it.

The EU continues to have vast regional interests in HK/China and surrounding
territory, despite the U.K.’s secession. I’m not sure how that development
changes things. Literally I’m not sure. Time will tell. But the EU probably
shouldn’t look at this as a strictly “British” problem.

~~~
La1n
>It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in
the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do
with it.

It's overly simplistic to consider them part of the agreement because they did
not veto it. The EU in 1985 is not even comparable to what it is now, this was
before the Treaty of Maastricht, and well before the Treaty of Lisbon.

edit: This was literally years before the "Common Foreign and Security Policy"

~~~
aksss
Right, the EU has only gotten more powerful since ‘85 and consolidated more
power across the continent. On that we agree. I’m not sure how that dynamic
reduces their interest in the failure of the JD, if that’s the argument you’re
trying to advance. Even they would (at least officially) seem to disagree
given their statements of late.

To wit, they were in bed with the JD from the start, and have continued to
voice opinion on the matter ever since, even after the U.K. seceded. Their
regional interests have only increased.

The point is that this matters not if they have no follow through. Aside from
some recent adventurism in “easy” Africa, as a body and a populace they show
no inclination for giving the world reason to respect their dyspeptic
opinions. If they can’t look after Crimea - literally their backyard, it tells
China exactly how much runway they’ll give in HK.

------
chvid
At the same time the US may revoke HK's special status removing Hong Kongers
access to visa free travel in the US.

~~~
Emendo
That would be hard as both the HKSAR passport and the BN(O) passport do not
have visa-free travels to the US.

------
supernova87a
What's the appeal of moving to a country with worse problems than the one
you're in?

~~~
goblin89
Not HK-born, but if I were: Would I move for miserable weather and a chance to
get mugged? Not really. However, throw in a near-100% probability of becoming
a citizen of a vicious totalitarian regime within my lifetime, and you’ve got
me thinking…

~~~
callamdelaney
Thanks to global warming the miserable weather is becoming less of an issue,
right guys? Also the mugging isn't really a problem outside of London bubble;
which is where most UK HN'ers are posting from.

~~~
supernova87a
On the "only London" point, really? I lived in the UK for several years and I
was constantly reading news about city centre louts across the country
stealing people's phones, harassing people, making life unpleasant and the
police not being able to do anything about it.

That, and the cost of living in the UK so high, for such modest/low quality of
life. Don't get me started on hot/cold separate water faucets.

You can tell I didn't exactly enjoy my time there.

------
huffmsa
Never should have given up the island in the first place.

The shitshow divestment of the Empire is the reason for many of the
ethnographic and political conflicts the world currently faces.

~~~
La1n
>Never should have given up the island in the first place.

They should never have colonized it in the first place.

~~~
tasubotadas
Why? HKers are better off now because of that and probably the UK is now
better off as well.

~~~
La1n
Maybe there are better off now, but for a long time people lived under
segregation and were discriminated against, the majority population had no say
in any of the politics for a long time. Erasure of culture and language of the
natives. Import of opium, an addictive drug, with war being fought over being
able to keep selling it. Colonialism has a giant impact on a people.

[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2348771](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2348771)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wretched_of_the_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wretched_of_the_Earth)

------
egao1980
So now Russia can give away citizenship to Russian non-citizens in Baltic
states? Or in Ukraine?

~~~
cygx
If it wants to, sure. In fact, that already happened last year, cf
[https://www.dw.com/en/russia-starts-giving-passports-to-
ukra...](https://www.dw.com/en/russia-starts-giving-passports-to-ukrainians-
from-donetsk-luhansk/a-49207353)

------
rayiner
The anglosphere countries should offer citizenship to any Hong Kong citizen
that wants it.

------
KaoruAoiShiho
Win-win for everybody. This should've happened a long time ago.

------
neximo64
This was also done in the 1970s with Uganda.

------
TechBro8615
No paywall
[https://beta.trimread.com/articles/18676](https://beta.trimread.com/articles/18676)

------
blackrock
From what I recall, Hong Kong was a dump, before China economically opened up.
They were famous for the Kowloon Walled City. Gangs and thugs were rampant.
Drugs, prostitution, everything goes. Honestly, it was a sh*thole.

These young protestors there today, seem to have a brainwashed and rose-
colored-glasses view of their historical past. They think that their parent’s
lives were better while still under the rule of the British, but I don’t think
so.

If anything, the British created a very exploitative situation in Hong Kong.
It was raw and predatory capitalism, and the rich exploited the poor. And who
were the richest there? The white British man himself.

They were so damn rich from their opium exploits, that for the peasant Hong
Konger, it was like basking in the presence of a god. That’s how despicable
the situation was. And the British thoroughly enforced a racist and racial
stratification there.

The British tends to take credit to the success of Hong Kong, but really, it
was all about exploitation. They made Trillions of dollars in profit from Hong
Kong, for over 100 years, by funneling opium to China, and drugging the people
of China. Imagine America’s recent opioid epidemic, but 1000 times worse, and
you might get an idea of the severity of the situation.

Then all the other rich businessmen in Hong Kong, they got rich by exploiting
the situation for themselves, and their ability to trade with China.

But in reality, Hong Kong became successful because its residents are
ethnically Chinese. It’s because of the hard work ethic, and Confucian
culture, that drives them to succeed.

Otherwise, you only need to look at other British colonies, like South Africa,
and see how much of a failure they are. The exploitation didn’t work so well
in South Africa, when the natives hate you for your racism, and are willing to
get violent for it.

Sadly, because of their misguided views, these protesters are about to turn
Hong Kong into another South Africa. They just destroyed all the tourism and
good will that the city had.

Anyways, the U.K. should do this. It was long in coming. They set a poison
pill for Hong Kong, when they left. And now, it has finally exploded. They
need to fix what they did wrong, and make amends to their historical failings
of the past.

The U.K. should let the Hong Kong residents leave, and move to Britain, or
other nations in their commonwealth. Or even to America, since Hong Kong gets
so much support from the American politicians. It is finally, the right thing
to do.

~~~
oblio
Hong Kong's GDP per capital was about 500 USD. China's was around 90 USD.

Also, the richest man there has been for quite a while (80s):
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ka-
shing](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Ka-shing)

If you want to rewrite history, get your facts straight :-)

~~~
blackrock
I accounted for him, with the part about “other rich businessmen in Hong
Kong.”

But, even his wealth, pales in comparison to what the British and Americans
made from Hong Kong and China, in their illegal and immoral opium trade.

Realize that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the American president, who never held
a job in his entire life, and became the president, was the offspring of
wealthy opium smugglers.

Harvard and Yale, built their endowment money from the opium trade.

Forbes, and all the other big American businessmen, yup, all drug money from
opium.

An uncomfortable fact, is that a lot of American riches, are built on the
blood of a lot of dead Chinese drug addicts. Unsurprisingly, this fact is
never discussed in American history textbooks. It is far easier to just brush
this under the rug, and ignore it, and let history forget about it.

------
nujabe
This is ridiculous. What next, residents of Crimea be offered citizenship?
Tibet?

If I were a UK citizen I'd be extremely upset that my country's leaders are
offering foreigners citizenship en mass with such careless expedition.

~~~
loktarogar
Crimea wasn't a British colony.

~~~
nujabe
So I guess that makes residents of Kashmir eligible?

~~~
selimthegrim
Kashmir was a princely state, not part of the Raj, even though India ran the
post and telegraph and collected octroi at the borders. That being said, when
Mangla dam was built a lot of Mirpuris migrated to Britain with work permits

~~~
oblio
Collecting taxes is generally considered a sign of sovereignty.

~~~
selimthegrim
Octroi is a tax collected when crossing a border between jurisdictions, in
this case when entering J & K and leaving British India. In this case India
allowed octroi to be levied (my mistake above) by J & K on departing goods.

