Because it does not matter to anybody. Saddam didn't have the WMDs, the evidence was manufactured. Did that fundamentally change anything with regards to the trustworthiness of US government & media when they claim some middle eastern country is developing/using WMDs?
On the international level, power matters. Political power, military power, economic power, not your reputation.
> politics or diplomacy based primarily on considerations of given circumstances and factors, rather than explicit ideological notions or moral and ethical premises
When was the last time that US used the WMDs excuse to drag allies into war?
Very few people in international circles, especially those familiar with the Middle East believed it, which, unlike the 1st Gulf War, saw almost no support from our traditional allies.
The US media did a poor job of questioning the evidence. Late Night comedy probably did a better job - especially, questioning why so few allies were coming along for the ride.
For many people, it was around this time when they started trusting The Daily Show on Comedy Central more than they trusted Fox or CNN for their daily news.
It's always funny when we ignore the mass murderer in the room and instead focus on China's quite measured response to crime.
Hence you find so many people in China vying for government jobs because if you climb high enough, the law is below you. That is very dangerous because the only accountability is the person on top.
That seemed like a very politically motivated arrest (she is still awaiting extradition): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meng_Wanzhou
I'm not familiar with the court system in Canada, but criminal cases in the US take a long time. AFAIK Meng Wanzhou's delay is not unusual.
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.”
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.
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.
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:
"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.
>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?
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.
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.
The answer is no. They have not been charged with any crimes.
You nailed the jackpot
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?
With the unipolar world of the last thirty years coming to a messy end, that's a lesson we're going to have internalize again. Be humble, be careful with the risks you take abroad, and steer clear of overtly dangerous places.
I remember seeing hotel staff act in an overtly and disgustingly racist way in Cape Town, South Africa. As a tourist, hotel guest, American, and white person, I knew that I had all of the systemic privilege on my side. So I had no problem assisting the underprivileged people in that situation.
Now, with a powerful totalitarian system like China, it might be a different calculation.
Also, it is not too hard to imagine a foreigner's "disruptive behavior" backfiring in terms of the impact on the locals' attitude towards the policy in question. Knowing whether or not your disruptive behavior will be a useful prod to change, or provoke a backlash against foreign meddling that actually reinforces the system in question, takes a lot of nuanced knowledge of the local society, which a foreigner will usually not have.
That advice wouldn't have helped the americans in the article.
But most Americans don't fuck with DPRK even if for some reason they decide to travel there. The core of the problem is they underestimate how "totalitarian" China is.
China is known to arrest people and/or grant extreme sentences in retaliation for things going on in world politics.
Recently China has been executing Canadians in retaliation for an arrest of a Chinese citizen at the request of the United States.
Many people view these arrests at retaliation.
Do you think that he's innocent? If not, then I don't see what this has to do with my post.
Going further, you're implying that China is giving excessive punishments to foreigners due to geopolitical relations.
You are omitting that China isn't treating this specific example more harshly than they would treat a Chinese citizen (who can't buy their way out with money and/or influence). They are being given equal treatment.
The article even says that foreigners are typically treated favorably compared to locals. I do agree that the relaxation of this favorable treatment is related to world politics, but the way your post is framed is disingenuous.
I don't think my original post needs an explicit explanation that a random foreigner being ok in China assumes that you don't commit an obvious crime that would result in, at the very least, prison time or deportation in nearly any other country that won't let you bribe your way out.
If you don't have local family connections advocating for you, as a foriegner you will end up with worse outcomes when interacting with the police or passport system (they've done a few videos on their run-ins with the Chinese legal system).
“If you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
Chinese nationalism has been promoted much more by the CCP over he last 2 years and has turned public sentiment against foriegners pretty severely.
Here, they decided to enforce the law fully. You can argue it's unfair because the attitude of the state has changed and likely because of geopolitics. But from my point of view, the death penalty for drug offences was always a risk, so you're on your own if you decide to do stuff like that anyway.
So the tl;dr is, white westerners no longer get a free pass in foreign country.
The original oppressive law is ignored, because "it's usually not enforced/used."
And then whether it is used for oppression just comes down to whether the powers that be decide you need oppressing.
Indeed, it's one of the criticisms of the war on drugs: that enforcement was tilted towards people that law enforcement, for one reason or another, didn't like (e.g. skin color).
I don't think there was anything in my post that could indicate that...
I personally wouldn't have the death penalty for drug offences. But there are many countries that do, and if that's the law, then you must follow it. Even more so if you are a guest of that country and not a citizen.
On the other hand, drug trafficking is punishable by death in China. If anything China has tended to be more lenient to Westerners convicted of drug trafficking compared to its own citizens.
They are welcoming but they expect respect and no involvement in politics.
I think a lot of people would be uncomfortable with that idea. Which is fine as long as they don’t step into China.
However, as China grows stronger everyday, they are starting to expect other countries to toe the line as well. That's the problem I have.
What's the excuse for harvesting organs for political prisoners? Were they "asking for it"? A country that is run by people like this is not safe to visit.
I fully agree: China is not a democratic country, and there is no independent judiciary, and crossing the wrong people while there is a bad idea (is there a country where it's a good idea, though?)
But let's not claim that it is dangerous to visit or even to move to for work. It is very safe.
You're a visitor in a foreign country. Whatever your opinions are I think it is not too difficult to refrain from being involved in politics or sensitive issues.
It's common sense of travelling to a foreign land, really.
Foreigners in China who end up in trouble are those who show up with a large Tibetan flag in public, not those who say that they disagree with the Chinese government (though it helps to be polite and respectful when saying it, which is, again, common sense).
> It's not unusual to talk politics or disagree, and at worst you should end up leaving a bad impression on someone
Which is what would happen in China. You wouldn't end up in prison...
Nobody gets punished for participating in local demonstrations in Europe.
I could absolutely go to the UK and bring a pro brexit, or anti brexit flag, and be totally fine.
The point is that as a Western visitor to China you would only risk being "punished" by doing explicit things that foreign visitors to any country usually don't do.
There is no practical point in discussing what you could or couldn't do if you never did it and never thought of doing it anyway.
So, yes, in Europe you could freely join a demonstration while in China it would not be a good idea. Does it make any practical difference to you as a foreign visitor? No, because that's not something you would do anyway, and if you did, well, you would probably knew the risks.
I also visited France some couple months ago, and in Paris I had no qualms about seeing what was going on with some of the protests there.
This stuff is perfectly OK and normal. There is nothing wrong with that.
> if you never did it and never thought of doing it anyway.
But I did do it.... It was fun to check out what some of the protesters were doing. Why is it so weird and surprising for someone to check out a brexit rally? Lol. I'd imagine that many tourists did that.
> Does it make any practical difference to you as a foreign visitor?
Yes it does! Do you honestly believe that tourists in the UK aren't going around making brexit jokes all the time, and maybe even seeing what some of the protesters are doing? Of course they are doing this. It is a cool touristy thing to do to check out current events, related to local politics!
Try using this justification against something with which you agree. You should immediately realize that just because X is not too difficult to do, does not necessarily justify the consequences of doing X. An example: it is not too difficult to not voice our concerns regarding brutality, does not mean we should keep quiet about it.
The assumption here that foreign visitors in China feel an urge to become political activists as soon as they disembark their plane or that the political situation in China makes any difference to Western visitors is disingenuous.
I am not trying to justify Chinese policies. I am just saying that claiming that China is a risky place to visit for a Westerner is FUD and does not depict the reality.
I'd absolutely would feel perfectly fine doing this myself, or seeing other foreigners do this.
Good for them, if people want to go to Paris and participate in the yellow vest protests.
I guess for most foreigners, it would be very difficult from refraining to visit those sites
They could care less if a foreigner comes here for a few months and then leaves. It won't affect them.
Saying "it's China, it's a different culture" doesn't make oppression better.
"Come on, people smoke weed all the time... saying it's Arkansas doesn't make the oppression better"
"Come on, people walk around naked on beaches all the time... saying it's Saudi Arabia doesn't make the oppression better"
Different places, different cultures, different rules. On the plus side, there's no place like home, wherever that is.
"Initially, Schellenberg was seemingly the recipient of such leniency. On November 20, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison for being an accessory to drug smuggling. But he appealed his conviction and at his retrial this week -- more than a month after top Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou was arrested in Vancouver, accused by the United States of helping cover up violations of sanctions on Iran -- he was convicted of a primary role in the smuggling and was sentenced to death."
This can be hard to avoid. For example, let’s say you get caught in a “tea room” scam. That’s where you meet a couple of attractive locals who invite you to a tea room, only when the bill comes it’s astronomically higher than you expected. Your new “friends” and the owners of the establishment are in cahoots. What do you do? If you say you won’t pay and the owners make a scene, it’s entirely possible that a crowd forms, someone shouts “That foreigner said Chinese people are trash!”, and now you’re sitting in a Chinese jail with lumps on your head and criminal charges.
Or maybe a drunk harasses you, and the same thing happens. Or you get into a fender bender with some friend of a Party member. And so on.
If you are a foreigner in China and get involved in a legal dispute, it will probably not go well for you. There is no independent judiciary. Your freedom would be subject to the Party’s political needs.
Some firsthand accounts (ignore the clickbait titles/thumbnails, they’re just playing the YouTube algorithm game):
If you visit china and you're someone they may not like or have a reason to be targeted(even for monetary gain) use extreme caution. People should be aware of this.
For example this guy cannot find otel because he has Turkish citizenship. https://youtu.be/2SvHsU7jwwk also he is being questioned every time when he is being noticed by police.
I have a beard, and pro-HK and pro-Tibetan opinions. I've visited various places in China several times - never had any issues. The customs/immigration officials are friendly, just the same as they are everywhere (except the US!). The few interactions I've had with the police were also friendly, just the same as I'd expect everywhere (except the US!).
I tend to do this regularly, so that was the other reason ;-)
- Americans bad
- Chinese Culture good
- Everybody else lying.
I'm sure this comment could help with a bad social credit.
I'm astonished how many people need to paint the world black and white in order to function. Chinese people have to be all evil and bad so I can feel better about my home country.
And nobody said that all Chinese people have to be evil...I haven't seen anybody here making this statement. Why do you feel you have to set up this straw man?
A good question here would be if the "foreigners" as defined are, for example, Asian-Australians or Asian-Americans who are not Chinese passport holders but were raised by Chinese parents.
I imagine that anyone can be accused of spying, but so far it seems it is mostly happening along racial lines.
The reason I am asking is because my girlfriend is an H1B Chinese citizen and she is required to return to China next year to renew some paperwork. I want to come with her to visit the country and I'm curious what the (small) odds are that we would have a problem.
Out of the many millions of people who visit China every year, it seems like you roughly run a 0.01% chance of having a problem, which is non-zero but also not terrible. Theoretically you have to piss off some authorities at a high level to warrant de facto house arrest.
What interests me is the fact that, as pretty much an American, I just don't understand Chinese culture. The TFA doesn't discuss Chinese public opinion about these cases. But in analogy to the Hong Kong situation, I suspect that the public isn't sympathetic.
Of course, from an American perspective, social control and propaganda obviously account for that. But what if those weren't the main factors?
Is it really true that individuals don't matter so much in Chinese culture? Except mainly how they affect society, that is.
But maybe that's far too simplistic.
And of course, I have similar questions about what American culture is really about. Or even if there is such a thing.
"Exit bans" are unfortunate, but certainly no surprise to those who still remember to use the prefix.
Nonetheless, it's pretty well accepted that China is more capitalist today than ever, that's not really controversial.
Then there is the likelihood of colonization or invasion in general and the ability of ideas to spread. Competition between governments is more intense.
It may be Europe got its technological advantage and property rights evolved more quickly there because of more competition between countries. But in the center of a large continent, change is slower.
Staying clear of the boundaries of one's bubble make it easy, too.
Only difference was China was a lot poorer so people shit on it all the time and find them less relatable and respectable. And also it isn’t under the US’s thumb.
That's correct - Article 27,4 of the "Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations":
The packages constituting the diplomatic bag must bear visible external marks of their character and may contain only diplomatic documents or articles intended for official use.
> Dual nationals owe allegiance to both the United States and the foreign country. They are required to obey the laws of both countries, and either country has the right to enforce its laws. It is important to note the problems attendant to dual nationality. Claims of other countries upon U.S. dual-nationals often place them in situations where their obligations to one country are in conflict with the laws of the other. In addition, their dual nationality may hamper efforts of the U.S. Government to provide consular protection to them when they are abroad, especially when they are in the country of their second nationality.
They aren't going to invade another country to recover you, or do much of anything else. Even if you are American.
Keep this in mind before you travel.
Read travel advisories, they are not overblown, or alarmist, they are important sources of information to fully understand before you travel.
With the rapid growth of global tourism, there are a lot more citizens visiting different countries. I wonder if the state dept (or equivalent in other govts) are getting stretched.
The article makes it clear that China is making up criminal cases to justify exit bans, as well.
What also works is making the most of these cases in PR sense. To show people that travel to China is risky. Must be a good way of impeding their economic growth and world influence, who wants to deal in a country like that.
I have a feeling that they're probably being monitored, so that probably won't go very well.
Sounds like you're volunteering for that job.
Who is downvoting this? Explain yourselves.
- The number of people who fall under the ban exceeds 135 million
- The majority are in the five Muslim-majority nations, led by Iran, with a population of more than 80 million
"Dr. Suha Abushamma, 26, is an internal medicine resident at the Cleveland Clinic. Although she had an H-1B visa for workers in “specialty occupations,” which should allow her to enter, live, and work in the United States, Abushamma was not permitted to enter the country. Abushamma holds a passport from Sudan, which is one of the banned nations."
"Sahar Algonaimi, 60, was detained for five hours at Chicago O’Hare International Airport following the issuance of the executive order. Algonaimi, a Syrian national, had traveled to the United States from Saudi Arabia to visit her 76-year-old mother who is recovering from surgery for breast cancer. Although she held a U.S. visa and had planned to stay in the country for a week, she was she was forced to board a flight to the United Arab Emirates instead of being allowed to clear customs."
"“I needed someone to be with me here,” Ulayyet said through tears at the hospital. “How am I going to teach my kids and tell them that this is a free country? How can we tell my kids that we have to take care of each other?”"
You don't think these sound similar to the OP?
In one of them you are literally a prisoner. In the other you still have options.
More like: "I would like to see my mother again, but she is not allowed in the country. Therefore, I will go to her instead, or we will meet in Canada or some other country we are both allowed in. That is quite inconvenient."
So it's just an exceptionally big prison, but it's still a prison. And once you run out of money, what are you supposed to do? Beg on the streets?