a) Chinese nationals;
b) HK nationals;
c) foreign nationals.
He advised it would apply to all three.
Edit: he also said it's not impossible the bill will be withdrawn.
Moreover, the issue is not only about politics, but also economic. The most concern is about how China could use this to threaten any person including foreign nationals in Hong Kong. Have a business disputed with some Chinese business while in Hong Kong? Then, you could be extradited to China any time soon. It is not safe to do business in Hong Kong anymore. If this bill is passed, then it is expected Hong Kong would be completely replaced by Singapore within some time of period for foreign companies in Hong Kong to leave.
The idea that rights and liberties are absolutely essential is a nice bedtime story we can tell ourselves, but if there weren't multiple paths towards economic development, then China would never have risen to the current level. Even in the West we probably only got those rights because it made economic sense to have them with the way we developed over time.
That is because of China's growth, not Hong Kong's loss. China was just way way behind in 1993.
> The idea that rights and liberties are absolutely essential is a nice bedtime story we can tell ourselves, but if there weren't multiple paths towards economic development, then China would never have risen to the current level.
Frankly, just being able to access gmail without using a flaky VPN is a huge boon to many when doing international business.
> The idea that rights and liberties are absolutely essential
First, they are absolutely essential for higher quality of life. You cannot measure it with just GDP per capita or income per capita. For example, Middle Asian oil-selling countries might have high income, but life is not very pleasant there, especially if you are a woman, a gay, a journalist or part of any other minority.
Also, it is more difficult to make business in authoritarian countries because of excess control over any activities which creates opportunities for corruption. For example, in China to release a mere smartphone game, the developer first has to approve the scenario and characters in the government (yes, they really have such requirements). Of course, officials have no motivation to hurry because it is you who is losing profits, not them. And you have to repeat the procedure when releasing an update.
Also, in authoritarian countries the government typically tries to gain control over any large enterprise, and after that the profits are going to nobody knows where (but the friends and relatives of officials supervising the enterpsie suddenly become successful eneterpreneurs) and the losses are compensated from the budget.
All of these points are great, but HK became wealthy as an intermediary between Asia and the West. Now it is losing what remains of that role. They will lose their high salaries not primarily because of the mainland's interference (although I'm sure it'll be huge factor) but for the same reason that wages are stagnating or dropping in the West. As time goes by there are fewer and fewer clear reasons why the average HKer will be worth a higher salary than so many other nations.
If there is tyranny, it's just that it always comes down to power in the end. Freedom and the rule of law work well because they have made it easier for a society to flourish over the long term, but if conditions change so can their effectiveness. I wouldn't be surprised if human rights disappear like a puff of smoke if the 99% lose their bargaining power because of automation.
Firstly, More free speech sometimes means more fake news. Creating and spreading false or biased news are so easy, as the society goes, the problem we deal become more and more complicate, if we cannot get the right info and we do not possess the right mind how come expect us to make a ration decision, we all know what happened to Galileo, can anyone say
what they did to Galileo is undemocratic.
Secondly, the common crowd are not that care about the truth, i discussed with a few people lives in HK through the internet, they actually do not know anything about the extradition law, and they still went to the protest. This is why I do not believe in any form of direct democracy.
"Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data."
One reason could be president Xi just can't back off because Xi is like Kim Jong-un in China. Xi has killed some of his political enemies and throw many of them to jail. If Xi shows any weakness to his internal enemies, he could not live long because he is playing too tough. It's like how a mafia boss works.
Another reason is taking back some US dollar from HK reserve. China is facing insufficient foreign currency for importing goods for production, or even food in trade war with US. One example is pork production, which China has large export in the world, but it relied on corn imported from US, so facing increased tax harm pork production in China a lot, and added up with African swine fever, the situation is even worse.
So, how would extradition law help? Basically there are some list of merchant in the hand of China who leaves China due to business disputed, bankrupt or any economic related prosecution. In China, they could start the court even with the absence of suspect. So, the court could proceed anytime and enforce any punishment without a lawyer to protect the suspect right. Without extradition law, it doesn't matter if the suspect left China. After the extradition law is passed, China would extradite those wanted list. And those wanted list could pay back some foreign currency in exchange.
Though, it is really just sacrificing long term advantage for short term benefit. Both reasons are really dumb but they can't stop. Chinese using nationalism to justify the party existence, since the party make China a strong country. But if it is not, then the party would start falling apart.
With so much news around this bill, surely they would have fled before this bill was passed?
Is it though?
I had high hopes for China's future back when I lived there but that is no longer the case with the current government.
To expand, Xi is a leader for life . China is best modelled as a large, wealthy dictatorship which will act to keep its narrow leadership in power. This is very different from the long-term planning which characterised its growth when it was capable of peaceful transitions of power.
Pushing this legislation (or kidnapping bookstore owners publicising corruption amongst Beijing’s elite ), for China, is stupid. It stokes a vocal, organised opposition to Beijing. It also makes clean integration in ‘47 less likely. (The fraction of Hong Kong residents identifying as Chinese versus Hong Kongese has plummeted in the last few years .) From the perspective or keeping Xi in power, however, the ham-fistedness makes sense.
Also Hong Kong's status might just be a constant question that if Hong Kong is part of China but has some local autonomy....why can't other parts of China? Especially if there was an economic crisis and Hong Kong faired better...
Easing them in might be secondary to domestic concerns.
Maybe this analogy is a bit of a stretch, but imagine the pan-Blue as ethnic Cubans in Florida, who despite feeling more Cuban than "Floridian" would never peacefully agree to Miami being reunited with Cuba under Castro regime rule.
The only way China and Taiwan could be reunited peacefully is if the CCP falls, the mainland becomes a capitalist liberal democracy acceptable, the pan-Blue coalition somehow becomes politically dominant in Taiwan despite being in opposition now, and they negotiate an agreement with the new Chinese regime. This is maybe not totally impossible, but still far-fetched.
I expect the CCP understands all of this. Since peaceful reunification with Taiwan is already impossible without the CCP going under anyway, it's not a good reason not to interfere with Hong Kong.
Indeed, it seems quite extraordinary that someone could not be sent from one territory of the PRC to another one to face trial.
Beijing just unilaterally broke the Hong Kong handover agreement. In that agreement, China explicitly agreed that there would be two systems within PRC territory . There is no way to sue the CPC in a Chinese court to enforce Hong Kong’s rights under the treaty.
In Hong Kong (as in Taiwan, Japan, Britain and the U.S.) the government is answerable to the law. In China, it is not. That is the crux of the issue. The way Beijing is cramming down this legislation is, funnily enough, the argument against it.
Someone has the great insight to foresee what could happen 30 years ago.
So, yes, someone probably foresaw this issue and didn't want Hong Kong to become a puppet of China used as a giant fly swatter after re-unification.
You're probably being down voted due to the utter lack of history and context (ie: lack of basic research) you're showing which generally makes intelligent discussions pointless.
edit: A example of similar systems in the west are native reservations which enjoy varying levels of autonomy despite being part of the country they're located in.
2. The situation is not loophole left by the British. But it was specifically left in place so the one country two system would work for the next ( then ) 50 years. To guarantee the certain freedom of the Hong Kong people which was clearly listed out in the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
3. It is not a Riot. ( I am sorry but that has to be one of the most insulting thing ever said ) No one started a Riot, What was once, one of the most peaceful protest. by 1M people, was fired with Rubber Bullet and Later Metal Bullet to eyes and head shot ( Both in ER ), Along with Tear Gas with NO Prior warning, Against a group of people with bare hands and no weapon.
He made a statement, about not being able to put trial in the same country, I also made a statement about it is a future not a bug.
And the reply I got was discussion were not mature.
Had the first sentence been a question as to why, you cant have the trial inside the own country, I would have replied about one country two system. But since he made a statement, I presume he does understand the topic on a certain level. May be that was my wrong assumption.
( Not to mention the article linked explains the fear of doing so )
I believe, and his further comments strengthen my belief, that this wasn't aimed at your comment, but at the fact that he got mass downvoted. That has since changed considerably, as it tends to do when it's highlighted. The counts are not public, but at the time I wrote my comment, his was practically background-colored.
If that bothers you, then HN is not the site for you. Downvotes for disagreeing has received the thumb of approval from PG. Upvotes are for agree and downvotes are for disagree. On reddit people like to pretend otherwise (even though it's true in practice there as well), but here on HN there are no bones about it.
 one example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=658683
I try not to let myself be bothered by hyper-tribalism too much, but it does put the good parts in perspective for me.
It's hypocrisy when mods say otherwise.
It also make no sense for Hong Kong to have its own currency, HKD, pegged to USD. Along with its own laws and system. Even driving is on the "wrong" side of the road as one might say. And it is everything about the One Country Two System which is promised and now trying to be broken.
You might have a point if this was happening in 2046.
>The insults and the fact that people now track my comments history to downvote all of them on random topics prove my preceding point about "red guards"... Disgraceful tactics.
HN can downvote comment that is well pass a few hours. You can only upvote pass comments. And since most of your recent comment are about the same topic, may be they just happen to disagree with you.
The _system_ in Hong Kong is very different.
It isn't uncommon to have such internal differences. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is likewise a single sovereign entity, often abbreviated as just "the UK" but for example abortion is _a crime_ in Northern Ireland, whereas it's offered as a normal part of the NHS on the mainland. Likewise Scotland has separate laws even though there's no discernible border, no more than a small street sign saying "You are now entering Scotland".
I know it's popular to be critical of America, and it's good to shine light on the darkest parts of America, but there is no comparison between it and what goes on in other parts of the world.
The only rule in CPC China is whatever the CPC says is the rule, at the time they say it. The consider human rights to be dangerous to the CPC. The fundamental opposition to human rights is spelled out in "Communiqué on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere" in 2013.
the PRC doesn't seem to have such 'cumbersome' restrictions.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. You might also find these links helpful for getting the intended idea:
You probably won't find a large audience here that defends gitmo though (probably). I expect most of us would agree about this.
But let's focus on the lack of process in taking them captive instead of just killing then.
Terrorists and other non-sanctioned armed forces are not protected by treaties between states because they are not fighting on behalf of a state. This is a recognized and intended exception to the rules governing POWs.
Perhaps you should be protesting the detainment of suspected criminals in Gitmo, then, instead of commenting here.
Engaging in whataboutism just encourages the bad behavior you're highlighting here. It's a logical fallacy that leads to learned helplessness and a nihilistic worldview that actually ends up perpetuating the same vicious cycle I assume you wish to prevent.
Protests with street violence are making nice picture for Western media but will only bring trouble for individual local protesters. Criminal convictions, lost jobs, ruined careers.
This benefits only external actors that coordinate unrest and trying to get leverage on CCP in foreign affairs.
edit: to clarify my clumsy statement a bit, I am not saying that criticism of America specifically is relevant here, or that America is just as bad (I agree that this is a ridiculous notion) but that the competing narratives and the past have direct consequences on politics. You can certainly see that on the discussions on climate change.
Here we have situation similar to US extraditing criminals from Puerto Rico. Why this suddenly become an issue?
If anything, I'd say it is a wonder that China has not started taking US Americans and Canadians hostage for the crime of being US American and/or Canadian.
Nations tolerate this stuff and are well aware of who is who, it's how it is. Kicking out a known operative means another unknown will replace them. Better the enemy you know and such.
There's a recent video from the CIA on the lengths they go to disguise embassy-tasked folk and how they get them out into the _world_.
Executing them is technically legally perscribed but simply not done in practice - instead being kept for prisoner exchanges.
Their networks of local contacts who do the actual work may not even get the benefit of a third world kangaroo court trial.
Countries (especially superpowers) have been known to remove any semblance of due process, freedom, and security in the name of... freedom and security. 
P.S. I expect downvotes for my comment. I don't expect any will be accompanied by any attempts at a counter-argument. And my comment is not about whatabboutism, just that you can't single out someone unless they are actually singular in their actions.
Also the "Cuban Five", who either served a prison sentence or were exchanged. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Five
You may be surprised to hear it, but the FBI (who runs internal counterespionage in the US) operates rather differently from China. I suppose the FBI could be organizing hits on American citizens suspected of spying for China, but on the whole it seems like one of the least likely abuses. The CIA gets up to all sorts of things abroad, but running a kidnap/murder program inside the country is not particularly the FBI's style.
"Combatants" (in quotes because the meaning tended to change over time) that take no issues with killing (collateral victims included), torturing, holding people for decades with no due process, or even something as plain and legal as the death penalty for crimes committed by their own citizens, etc. will draw the line at executing a foreign spy that ostensibly deserves it according to most countries' laws and rules of engagement? Why would spies be treated any better than any enemy or even the citizens?
There's no point in singling out one country for something like this unless you're specifically looking to deceive yourself straight up the moral high ground. In this "business" expect things that are lowest of the low on any moral scale. From all sides.
I could see Hoover's FBI doing something like this, but it would probably have come out by now if they had.
Killing your own citizens who spy for foreign countries to send a message doesn't work that well unless you're willing to let it get out that you did it. If nobody knows, then it's not a disincentive! And your adversaries will just recruit more- after all, they're not the ones running the risk, it's your citizens, who don't even know about your new targeted murder program. Quietly disposing of the Rosenbergs instead of putting them on trial might have been easier, but unlike in authoritarian regimes the US wouldn't be able to do anything but keep it a deep dark secret, and the propaganda value and deterrent effect would be wasted.
Killing an entire ring of foreign spies who could be swapped is also stupid, since it means your spies won't be held and maybe swapped, they'll be killed.
Have foreign spies ended up dead on American soil due to US government action, sure maybe, but the FBI or whoever deciding to round up and shoot everyone in a spy ring, nah.
That's the whole "game", isn't it? Police catching criminals or soldiers killing soldiers, you can't say "why bother, there will just be more". And they don't have to be "your own citizens", plenty of Chinese nationals (or naturalized) were caught spying in the US. Why do you think sending embassy staff home would ever be considered retaliation? They are the real control center for intelligence efforts and if you can disrupt such a network even temporarily it's a net win.
> The US doesn't have the infrastructure
Not sure if you're being serious about this. A country that manages to maintain a global military presence including permanent bases, anti-missile shields, ability to execute drone strikes, and ability to kidnap suspects  and detain them at black sites  spread all over the world doesn't have the infrastructure to what? Identify a spy in their own backyard and "eliminate" them?
> the FBI or whoever deciding to round up and shoot everyone in a spy ring, nah.
Of course, compromising a whole network involves some massive failures so it might be a once in a generation thing. So I'm guessing they just have to deal with spies one by one, as they're caught and according to the needs, instead of "rounding up and shooting everyone". And in the case of the spy ring compromised in China you'll notice that all sources mention it as "18-20 killed or imprisoned". Pretty sure we will never find out how many of each. Quite possibly the ones that were not executed will be traded.
I'm sorry to say it but all this sounds willfully ignorant. You don't become and remain a superpower by playing fair and being soft, it can be expected that all of them fight fire with a bigger fire. The bottom line is that singling out China as the only ones with blood on their hands is terribly idealistic. And unrealistic.
In a court of law, where she will have the chance to plead her case in public. If she is extradited, she will have that chance again in America. The government, in summary, will have to prove its case.
Such a system, the rule of law, doesn’t exist in China. (It does in Hong Kong.) That is why reasonable people are angry about this legislation.
Real the statement by American congress majority leader about the case.