I'd say welcome to China, but let's be realistic. America offers plenty of opportunities to get locked up for 24 hours for breaking selectively enforced laws (protest anything lately?) and then perhaps even worse for resisting arrest.
> "He described having to watch anti-drug PowerPoint presentations and eat tasteless porridge. His employer, which runs an expat website, was told that he was detained. While it was embarrassing for him, he was not fired. Most importantly, he wasn’t deported. 'I wasn’t even fined,' he said. Since then, our normal expat lives have resumed."
We could learn something about drug-law enforcement from China.
According to the article someone mentioned below, it is true that something like this happens in one small town in Missouri. In fact it's so ridiculous that the New York Times wrote an article on it.
But it's not right to say this happens "in Missouri", that's as false as saying "In America you get fined for having mismatched blinds"
Whenever you hear something batshit insane about Missouri, it's probably safe to assume it happened in St. Louis County. Since splitting from the City in 1877, but especially since the Depression, the County has been an ongoing experiment in racism, poor governance, and predatory enforcement. There is no square meter of the County that isn't already oppressed by so many cities and villages and districts and commissions that it couldn't be split up for additional oppression. For decades, the first response to any political dispute has been to create another tiny little village or district or whatever. It's no surprise to find that one of these tin-pot dictators has been inspired to send people to jail for landscaping he doesn't like.
I'm not saying that we don't have problems in the rest of the state, but somehow we generally avoid reports like the following:
Heh, but not true, speaking as a native of the state (born, raised, and retired to it). Nor is it a widespread law, certainly such a proposal wouldn't go down well here in the SW corner of it (especially in the very SW part I'm in that's culturally Southern), nor, outside of HOA procedural/contractual insanity can I see our Missouri Plan picked higher level judges approving of it.
Usually, it's a HOA that levies the fines, and then takes the person to court for failing to pay. The court orders payment, and has jailed some for "Contempt of Court" when they fail to do so.
I hadn't heard the blinds version, but a lawn care version made its way onto a "Penn and Tellers Bullshit" episode.
Am I the only one bothered by an American writer using the term "expat" to describe himself and other foreigners in a country, when the standard term used for the counterpart people in America is "immigrant" or "migrant worker"? American dialogue has been building a language of discrimination that I find extremely insulting as a non-US national in America, which spawns the whole anti-"immigrant" sentiment dominant in America.
Expat is typically someone who is sent to work for a company's foreign offices/overseas offices and who will return to their home country after their "tour" is over. I.e. their residency depends on their company's sponsorship --the company you work for is doing all the paperwork and paying all incidental costs for you.
An immigrant is someone who moves overseas or to a foreign country on their own accord without the help of a company. You're getting visas and residency on your own.
So for example, a Kiwi working on the production lines in Toyota city is likely an immigrant. A Kiwi manager in finance in Toyoda city is likely an ex-pat. It's also likely these two don't run in the same circles.
> He spends $1,000 per worker for visas, consulate fees and transportation to North Carolina. He's required to pay for their housing, and he estimates he has spent more than $80,000 building a house on his property, plus $36,000 to buy a mobile home and $5,000 a year to rent an apartment for the 48 workers he employs during the growing season. The government makes him pay them $9.68 an hour, which is about one-third higher than the minimum wage in the state, and he spends thousands of dollars on workers' compensation insurance.
Oddly, people rarely call those Mexican's "ex-pats." The only difference from your definition is that they work outside, and not in an office, no?
If so, isn't that the sort of socioeconomic class discrimination that keerthiko pointed out?
There are definitely some social strata connotations to it. Migrant workers, who often have visas pre-arranged for them and are given housing, are typically called migrant workers because they do "rounds". Conversely the Mexican workers at the Mexican consulate would be Mexican ex-pats and so would Cemex workers sent by the company to their US offices.
As I mentioned above, ex-pats and immigrants from country A living and working in country B typically will not be found in the same social circles --be they American or British or Brazilian or Chinese.
And like keerthiko, I am disturbed by the easy acceptance of this distinction.
The example I mentioned was not a migrant worker doing "rounds". It was under an H-2A agricultural visa to work for a single company in North Carolina. Is that specific Mexican, Rodolfo Benito Coy Garcia, an ex-pat? It sounds like your answer is "no, because he isn't in the right social circles."
I say, if someone's on a 5-year rotation in London, call them a guest worker. That's what they are. Why do you think we should maintain the class distinction in calling people from the more economically advantaged social circles to be "expats", while those from others are "guest workers" or "migrant workers" or other less socially accepted terms?
I'll again point out that your definition excludes all the other people who call themselves "expats", who live more or less permanently in another country, and are self-employed or retired. But who just happen to be from a rich country, and seemingly don't want to be called an "immigrant".
People self-label all the time. Retirees are one of them. I wouldn't normally call them ex-pats, but if that's what they want to call themselves, I don't care. Same for migrant workers. They can call themselves ex-pats too, if they like. That said, poor immigrants will rarely mix with the less poor immigrants from the same country, regardless of nationality --for the most part.
To me, and not everyone has to agree, colloquially an ex-pat is someone sent to work abroad by their company where the company pays incidentals, COLA, and does the visa legwork.
Yes, This is all about self-labeling as I don't think there are any laws which cover what "ex-pat" means. At that level I'm pointing out that your definition is only a partial fit to the existing use.
The underlying question I have is, why do some people want to self-label as "ex-pat"? Why not use "guest worker" or "immigrant"?
Personally, I think the term ex-pat became in vogue post-WWI when rich Americans and (poor) artists and writers were part of the European social scene, like Gertude Stein's "Lost Generation". The modern self-employed authors and artists who live overseas still use that term.
After WWII, when US companies started to have European offices, and when it was cheaper and easier for US citizens to work overseas, they re-used the term "expat", in part for the romantic ties to the stories they read while growing up. Since business makes a lot more money than writing, that new term has come to dominate.
And these American guest workers, like British guest workers in China, India, etc., considered themselves better than other guest workers, so preferred the term "expat" over "guest worker." Then, to make it easy to tell the two apart, insist that the term "expat" is the correct one to use for office workers. And it just happens that guest workers in multinational business offices are mostly drawn from white people in rich countries.
I think US and British retirees living overseas call themselves "expats" for similar reasons; to consider themselves apart and above immigrants from poorer countries.
I believe your observations are consistent with my belief that the distinction is based on class terms. If so, by using that term don't you support classism? Of course, as the beneficiary of classism your answer might well be "yes".
I don't support classicism --and occasionally recoil from it. But I also see the same people decrying classism decry "ugly [Americans]" --which is an interesting juxta. That said, I don't feel I need to proscribe usage. People can call themselves what they like and may label as they choose. This attitude may further classism, but to me it's a better alternative than telling people who they are or should think they are.
> but if that's what they want to call themselves, I don't care.
> That said, poor immigrants will rarely mix with the less poor immigrants from the same country, regardless of nationality --for the most part.
This has nothing to do with who mixes with who. Why did you choose to call those associated with "poor" as immigrants, but feel like calling the ones who call themselves expats expats?
[I truly mean no personal attack or offense here, I'm just using your comments as a case-in-point]
Media (including articles such as OP) have always associated immigrant with people from poorer (less-white) countries, and expat with the others. This is understandable, since "expat" is what everyone prefers to call themselves with the connotations that have grown to be associated with the two terms, but the rich white strata of the world are in command of most of the media. But a kid can wish that the world recognized this and didn't try to defend it.
Let me tell you a little secret, noone wants to be called an immigrant. It's an exclusionary term meant to identify an outgroup, against whom it is ok to practice some discriminatory behavior. As a first-gen US resident brown person, people laugh if I refer to myself as an expat in context rather than an immigrant. If you're from a rich country (usually == if you're white) then you can call yourself an expat and everyone nods their heads solemnly. This is the reality.
Note that none of these people care whether either me or said white person is planning to stay in the US permanently or not, brought over by an overseas company or not.
That's an interesting use (I've had friends use it too) but not necessarily by definition.
Websters has two versions. The first has two definitions: (1)(Vb) banish; exile (2) (vb) to withdraw oneself from residence in or allegiance to one's native country.
They indicate that it can be a noun, but without further definition.
Note the implication that it's not voluntary, or at least under duress (a la Snowden), and not necessarily with the intent of returning.
Second version is an adjective, meaning "living in a foreign land."
Most of the usage of "expat" that I have seen has been as a way to differentiate between living in another country while remaining primarily a U.S. citizen (and still paying U.S. taxes, etc.) vs. renouncing your U.S. citizenship and leaving forever. The largest segment of people I see are retirees collecting U.S. social security and living abroad somewhere with nicer weather and a modest cost of living. Plenty of younger people seeking to make a living in another country as well, but again, always with a U.S. citizen mindset, not as someone assimilating into the foreign culture.
Regarding the "anti-immigrant" sentiment, this has nothing to do with things like using the term expat instead of immigrant. As much as everyone wants to demonize and vilify, it is probably best to actually understand where these feelings are coming from. It comes from the wage-lowering and job loss that is associated with immigration, and those feeling build up over time. No matter which side of the aisle you fall on, the data is clear, less immigration leads to lower unemployment and higher wages within a region, and more immigration leads to the opposite. The tradeoff is that growth is more difficult and limited with less immigration.
In theory, we try to find the right balance between growth and standard of living for the existing population. In practice, however, only the people at the top have control of the politicians, and that balance will continue to slide towards lower labor costs.
Things are so polarized in this country, and it has become standard to label anyone we disagree with as some sort of "*ist", in order to marginalize them and prevent further discussion on the topic. No matter the issue, when a group feels strongly that they are on the receiving end of unfair behavior, many times there are actual justifiable underlying issues.
You do realize that most US citizens who permanently live outside of the US do not give up their U.S. citizenship. Only a small number renunciations - a few thousand - occur each year. Renunciation has never been a part of the discussion over the classism in the term "expat".
Expats are immigrants, so if more immigration leads to higher unemployment then more expats leads to higher unemployment.
As I stated, "usage I have seen", or how I generally see it used as opposed to the dictionary definition. Either way, the point is it is not a term invented to insult immigrants into the U.S. and deify U.S. citizens living abroad in comparison.
> Expats are immigrants, so if more immigration leads to higher unemployment then more expats leads to higher unemployment.
Depends how you are using the term. In any case, a larger labor pool in the U.S. means less demand for workers (lower wages and higher unemployment). U.S. expats/emigrants working in another country would have that same effect on the host country as immigrants to the U.S., though again, a significant percentage of American expats are retirees living on social security, and I just don't think there is enough data to identify net results on either the host country or the U.S. (since healthcare costs or lack thereof would be the real differentiator there).
Where have you seen anyone use expat "as a way to differentiate between living in another country while remaining primarily a U.S. citizen (and still paying U.S. taxes, etc.) vs. renouncing your U.S. citizenship and leaving forever"?
Because as a US citizen living overseas I've paid very close attention to this topic and have never heard anyone connect the two together.
By this definition, almost every American overseas is an expat, yes? Including US military currently based overseas? If so, it's very far from any definition I'm used to. Perhaps you can point to one of your sources?
> Depends how you are using the term
No, it doesn't. What definition are you using where an expat is something other than an immigrant? Or at the very least, a temporary immigrant.
> though again, a significant percentage of American expats are retirees living on social security
Yes, those retiree expats are immigrants. What else can they be? They immigrated to another country to retire.
I think you are confusing "immigrants" with "foreign workers"?
Seems like you just want to argue, so I'm not sure anything I say matters. You continue to harp on one or two words while ignoring the main points I am making (even though I point out explicitly "these are the main points I am making").
Anyways, to address the issues you raised...
> Where have you seen anyone use expat...
I see the term almost exclusively in researching possible foreign locations to live and work remotely as a U.S. citizen. It is a fairly rare event for me to see it used elsewhere, but I rarely read about U.S. citizens employed onsite in other countries, so that is really not surprising. My concerns are generally what types of residency options are available, and what they might mean for the U.S. side of things (taxes, citizenship, etc.).
>> Depends how you are using the term
> No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does, and again I feel like you are really just trying to argue here. What I meant by "Depends" is that your post was not clear as to which parties were in which country to determine economic ramifications, so said another way "whether your statement is true depends on specifically what your statement is saying". I don't see how you could have read the sentence that followed and not have gotten that. The point is, a country receiving immigrants that increase the labor pool will thereby experience lower demand for workers.
> I think you are confusing "immigrants" with "foreign workers"?
I'm not confusing anything, and I have no issue with the definition of expatriate and immigrant meaning the same thing. I've stated some of what I've seen as an anecdote that may or may not shed some light on why some people may use the word the way they do.
It's the same in the UK. Brits living and working in Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. self-identify as expats. Tell them they're immigrants, and you'll get a violent response.
An expat remains a citizen of their origin country, or otherwise makes a temporary move. An immigrant becomes a citizen of their destination country, or otherwise makes a permanent move.
Not true. My cousins who were born in Hong Kong, are British by ancestry and Australian by citizenship, and describe themselves as expats, even though they've spent their entire lives in HK.
I don't think that's the usage here at all. The author is talking the entire time from within China and the perspective of culture within China, and refers to himself and his fellow foreigners as expats. By your description he should be using the term immigrant, since he isn't writing the article from the perspective of American/European soil.
Expatriate is a synonym for emigrant. The word expatriate emphasizes the current status living outside the native country, while the word emigrant emphasizes the traveling process.
You're immigrant to the host country and an emigrant to your country of origin. Exit/Emigrate from country A and In/Immigrate to country B.
Expat somehow has the connotation that you will return, which is the equivalent of migrant worker.
Immigrant assumes one wants to make the new host country a permanent one.
We’re speaking the English language here, and the usual context where this word comes up is conversations among English people, or Americans, or more generally English-speaking Europeans ...
England has a long colonial history, wherein they sent colonists, soldiers, merchants, engineers, diplomats, bureaucrats, etc. to far flung parts of their world, inside and outside their empire. Some of these folks moved around from country to country, or migrated seasonally back to their homeland, while a few settled down in their adopted countries.
Some of these folks are unquestionably emigrants, while others are transients, but their minority enclave communities can be easily summed up by calling them expatriates. A description like expatriate community is more informative than emigrant enclave or whatever.
The word expatriate emphasizes that these folks are (in general) not intending to assimilate, and see themselves as foreigners in the countries where they are living.
The same word could equally be applied to “non-white” migrants to “white” countries, if you wanted. I have heard such usage before, and it was not controversial or confusing in context.
But of course any words related to migration have racial/class overtones. We’re talking about humans here. Pretty much everything people do involves some amount of social posturing.
As a former expat, my understanding of the distinction is that expats realize they're temporarily in the foreign country, and are not consciously working to "go native". Immigrants believe that they've moved for good, and are more likely than not to, for example, hope that their children are a better cultural fit with the host country than the parents were.
There are many Americans and British in Sweden who have settled and married Swedish people and call themselves expats. Really seems like keerthiko has a good point about the word expat just being a fancier word for immigrant.
I am US citizen living permanently in Sweden who calls myself an immigrant.
I did so because I agree with keerthiko. I think "expat" is mostly a code phrase for "I come from a rich country" or "I come from the professional or upper class".
It isn't simply a fancier word but I think also a snobbier word. Some expats will 'react violently' if you call them an immigrant, quoting madaxe_again at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12332279 .
Interesting, I didn't know there's a negative connotation to the term. I thought generally the difference between an expat and an immigrant is that the former intends to return at some point, while the latter intends to settle permanently.
An expat could be a migrant worker, but not necessarily. For instance, one could go to a foreign country for university, and then decides to stay after graduation. He'd probably have to find a job, yes, but I wouldn't call him a migrant worker because he didn't emigrate for employment reasons.
Obviously, words are imprecise and there are overlaps, though this is the first time I've heard that expat could have a negative association.
Do you call a Mexican who comes into the US for 10 months under an agricultural work visa an expat?
If so, you are one of the very few. People don't usually talk about, say, "Mexican ex-pats in the Central Valley", even to describe those who are planning to return to their family back home, and sending money home to support that family.
for me you are an expat if you are 1-2 years in one country, and then another, and then another. You follow the business with no intention to settle in one country.
Im not sure i understand why this is a big deal. As the guy said, it was designed to send a message. As far as drugs, youd have to be insane to do drugs in china. The laws on drugs are really harsh. As for the reason, presumably the organizer hadnt paid the right bribes.
The issue is laws in China are arbitrarily enforced, making it easier to abuse power. Casual reading of this felt like the organizers were getting too successful and failed to pay the proper people. This was a message to them, not the partygoers. Next time pay us and we won't harass your guests.
The US is obviously somewhat better at non-arbitrary enforcement than China, but Three Felonies a Day ought to be mandatory reading for Americans: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/.... Virtually everyone is guilty of something if someone wants to look hard enough.
Reminds me of Berlin parties in S-bahn stations or beneath bridges, usually around Warschauer. Those cannot possibly be legal, but nobody bothers to stop them.
This sort of raves violates all sorts of environmental and health and safety codes. It only takes one fire with a couple dead to make them all go away. Look, I used to like raves when I was younger, but it's silly to claim that anybody should be allowed to organize anything anywhere without regard for the neighbors, safety of visitors or work load of emergency services.
> it's silly to claim that anybody should be allowed to organize anything anywhere without regard for the neighbors, safety of visitors or work load of emergency services.
I don't think anyone is arguing in favor of that. My experience in Berlin has been that a lot more is allowed than in other cities I've experienced, but within reasonable boundaries. And I think that's a wonderful thing. Here in Holland I feel like the state is an overprotective parent. We shouldn't obsess over safety at the expense of living.
I would not consider some action that has no victims to be a crime, but just going against the law. The law could be wrong itself.
For example, if you see a woman driving in Saudi Arabia, it goes against the law, but is not a crime.
Another example, in the US having a kid drinking wine goes against the law. As a kid in Spain and France I drunk a glass of wine in all meals, like the rest of my family and it is very healthy.
You get used to the rules in your country, but this does not mean that the laws are good. For instance a foreigner going into the US will probably consider barbaric the tradition of circumcising kids when they are born( I thought it myself), but locals rationalize and defend it(like locals in Saudi Arabia do with women driving).
A kid can drive a car but not drink a glass of wine? Utter non sense, but real.
Although it is usually wrong to argue by definition, in this case "goes against the law" means it is a crime by definition. Just because you don't like the law doesn't it make it less of a law.
I think a lot of your examples are a little bit misguided, a case of not understanding the reasoning behind laws. Sometimes, things are illegible because we lack the correct perspective, not because they're fundamentally wrong.
For example, at least in some parts of the United States (Texas is the one I'm familiar with, but others might exist), it is legal for minors to consume alcohol, even in restaurants, with parental supervision (https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/APIS_State_Profile.html?...).
The reason children can drive cars relatively young in the United States has several factors, but one of the big ones is the distance between places. I had a roommate who started driving to school when he was 14 or 15 because it was the only way for him to efficiently get to his school, which was still a 25 minute drive. There was some sort of special licensing in Iowa for children that young to drive to and from school unsupervised, because it wasn't efficient to try to bus everyone in. Now, you might still think this is a bad law, but it's not like they just made up a driving age for fun. The social, economic, and political reality of certain areas of the United States makes driving far more valuable than in many other places in the world, simply because practical transportation alternatives do not exist.
Right. Or like in France wearing a burqa will get you in trouble, or in Australia if you watch porn where the woman's vagina isn't state approved you'll get in trouble. There are all sorts of laws all over that just insane.
What is ambiguous about drugs being illegal in almost every country on the planet (with a handful of exceptions)? Just because the police doesn't catch all the murderers doesn't make murder legal. That's crazy logic.
The ambiguous part is the "X is illegal, but everyone openly does X all of the time, and the police don't seem to care... until they do" way of doing things. This applies to everything from the "unlicensed gathering" to the drug use to the (seemingly) inconsistent punishment for the drug use.
Possession of drugs is illegal in almost every country, but possessing various drug metabolites in your urine is only a crime in a few, extremist countries.
The underground party scene in China (especially in Shenzhen) is getting bigger and bigger. The party isn't over and raids like that are not something that party goers are not used to.
An expat in British English generally means a British or similar professional person who is temporarily (estar) working in a country, but expects to return home (maybe their whole working life until retirement). It implies you identify yourself with your birth country.
An immigrant is someone who has permanently (ser) moved - who now defines their identity as being from their new county.
An expat in American English can now mean someone who has moved to a country e.g. I heard a retired couple call their mostly American community "expats" in Mexico.
It definitely has overtones of a white professional job. The meaning is obviously in the process of changing, and has country specific divergences (home country, and away country).
It is a loaded term of group identity, so yes, it will exclude some people with bias.
Local police often only act on request from Beijing, in the spirit of: "we have a new national crackdown on <subject X>; go arrest some people". We have a saying here 山高皇帝远 ("the mountains are high and the emperor is far").
Why did the author assumed that the party was illegal? The fact that police raided it doesn't mean that it as illegal; it just means that police decided to treat it like illegal.
Overall, this description feels like a very gentle slap on the wrist, compared to China's reputation; they probably got such a lax treatment — even given chairs to sit — exactly because all the expats. Nobody even got beaten by the police; I feel that a Chinese-only party would be treated much rougher.
Here's how social bookmarking sites work, for those confused: people post stuff, and other people vote on them. If it gets lots of votes, it's put in the first page, and it's de facto relevant to the site member's interests...
If you just read the headline and not the article, then maybe the article is about the really bad recession that is going on in China right now (wellknown to all readers of HN). And how the expats caught there must "reflect" now that the party's over ...
Though motorbike taxis are illegal, they are ubiquitous except for temporary crackdowns. Though the raves were against the rules, they were advertised publicly for four years before any action was taken and there will be more publicly advertised raves that police ignore next year.
Electric bicycle deliveries are also illegal in many cities, but are tolerated because the new economy would completely collapse without them. Ride sharing was illegal for a long time until recently, but allowed to flourish until the laws caught up (well, beyond some selective prosecution). The sex industry is huge in China and mostly tolerated, or even partially run, by local police forces, and only disappears temporarily during central gov mandated crackdowns.
I don't really understand your point. Not every speeder in the US are caught. Would you say the police doing temporary crackdowns is not a good thing?
We should celebrate the police here for doing a good job trying to uphold law and order. Perhaps if they had more resources they could go after the other cases of lawbreaking mentioned, not as part of the main story, in the article.
The point is the inconsistent enforcement of laws. And you can be assured that if someone was wealthy enough, the laws don't apply to them. I think that's what the author was talking about when he said 25 people who had tested positive for drugs were let go and not held. They were probably connected somehow, or paid a bribe. China is an incredibly corrupt country where bribes are standard practice. (Source: Bribes the Unspoken Rule in China: http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardlevick/2015/01/21/new-dat... and Corruption Index: https://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results )
Moreover, their inconsistent enforcement of the law is why they have such a shitty environmental record/problem. China has laws on the books regarding pollution and the environment comparable to that of the U.S believe it or not. But they do not enforce any of them. They don't have the equivalent of the EPA who's sole job it is to go after offenders. Some inspector shows up wanting to see your carbon scrubbers on your exhaust towers? "Oh, I must have forgot your birthday, here's a wad of cash. See you next year." I witnessed something shockingly similar to that happen on a plant tour in 2013. I was dumbfounded and speechless. The plant manager thought it was a big joke.
I have nearly 2 dozen unique stamps in my passport over the last 15 years. China is the only stamp I will never have a duplicate of. I've been to some pretty bad areas and countries and China's wasn't "I fear for my safety bad", well, if I'm being honest it was a little, but I like that. It's exciting. No, it was "Holy crap this culture is complete backwards and toxic." People care very little about their fellow man/neighbor and I was disgusted by it. It seemed like everyone was trying to pull a scam on everyone else. I felt slimy watching it happen.
> ...25 people who had tested positive for drugs were let go and not held. They were probably connected somehow, or paid a bribe.
There are plenty of perfectly rational reasons why one might test positive for drugs but not be held.
In the US, at least, your levels must be high enough that they are unambiguous when factoring in margin of measurement error, but any amount is enough to get a warrant or have just cause to search your person/vehicle.
Alternatively, I take a prescription medication which causes me to test positive (hilariously high actually) on some drug tests. I carry my prescription and doctor's note on a prescription pad whenever I travel, and it's not that uncommon.
Jumping straight to corruption is unfairly stereotyping China, which, though it may have a problem, has many more honest cops/prosecutors than dirty ones.
> Jumping straight to corruption is unfairly stereotyping China, which, though it may have a problem, has many more honest cops/prosecutors than dirty ones.
When your country ranks 100th on the world's corruption index, it's not "unfairly stereotyping". It's a fact backed up scientific data and hard evidence. China IS corrupt. No amount of mental gymnastics is going to reason away all the hard evidence. I experienced it first hand, and I'm not some amateur traveler. Again, I've been traveling for the better part of 2 decades.
One of the first steps in correcting any problem is admitting you have one. China, Chinese nationalists and Chinese expats who jump to defend the country on internet message boards like this one and reddit have an impossibly hard time with that first step. It's going to keep China languishing in mediocrity for some time to come.
this is comparable to the police cracking down a club in the soho in ny then arresting everyone because of marijuana. not speeding tickets.
the middle class expect exemption from rules that are normally applied to poor and minorities.
see also how in the usa someone can be arrested and have money confiscated if they can't prove its origin to the officer searching the car. this is unthinkable for the middle class. but still the law.
this is the right comparison. nobody in China that has the means to participate in those parties expect to be subject to laws against it.
Good point. And the middle class damages itself with their lack of solidarity with the poor and minorities. Because the condition of the poor is the threat which keeps the middle class in line.
That's right, police doing temporary crackdowns on this scale, in this manner, and for this purpose is 100% not a good thing. This is not analogous to a speed trap or even DUI checkpoints.
Are you saying that you literally can't think of a single way in which this may have been handled better by the police? If it's not even remotely understood to be illegal by the participants, why the heck would any police force in the world treat it like a honeypot, wait for everyone to assemble (like they apparently have been doing for years), then show up in riot gear and arrest everyone? That's crazy.
By the way, it doesn't matter one bit if something analogous to this happens in the US sometimes, that doesn't make it any better. Not a bit. If this happened in the US people would be just as upset about it. I'm really confused why anyone would respond to something bad happening in China with, "but similar bad things happen in the US sometimes". That's really missing the point. That's like saying that human rights violations in the US somehow excuse human rights violations elsewhere. It's bad no matter where it happens and it doesn't do anyone any good to pretend otherwise.
But it was understood to be illegal. And what kind of an excuse is not knowing the law anyway? I don't understand all this hatred for police doing their job. Is this because of the recent shootings in the US that you respond in such an emotional way?
My analogy contains a crime, just like the real situation. Your analogy somehow tries to make the police enforcing the law in what seems a very reasonable manner correspond to a human rights violation.
There's plenty to criticise the Chinese for. Pick something better to drive your agenda.
