“If the German government thinks that the Hong Kong judiciary is independent, they would not grant me refugee status,”
I just want to point out that refugee status is given on a case by case basis. Even with an independent judiciary, if your laws oppress some people, refugee status can be obtained. Europe has accepted refugees from USA during McCarty's era.
Accepting a refugee from another nation does have diplomatic meaning but is does not automatically mean that they will dismiss each other judgements automatically.
Someone wants to educate their children at home, in Germany that's not ok. In the US it is, so in the US they get some level of asylum.
These folks aren't some terrorists, they're not hurting anyone... seems like a situation where there are two different approaches, not some serious crime.
It also is a case by case basis so who knows if it holds up in court for long.
Edit: Looks like they lost the asylum part of their bid:
I think it depends on what you mean by "process" everyone gets some hearings and etc, that is the process.
That doesn't mean they've been accepted or IMO anything about Germany. You have to have a "process" even if the person feels that they're being persecuted because they don't like chocolate ice cream, a process doesn't mean anything about Germany.
Googling shows that a family went through the process... and lost the asylum bid.
Repatriation is irreversible in asylum cases. It makes sense to grant temporary reprieve quickly pending a more durable process. We weren't so generous the last time people fled Germany and the result was disasterous.
Because it is preposterous to consider the German "Schulpflicht" (ie, the obligation that children visit a public^W school) religious or political persecution.
You can teach your children whatever weird shit you want. What you cannot do (in Germany) is take them out of school, where they will also be taught what everyone else is taught, including sex-ed, history, comparative religion, etc.
EDIT: correction, it's not an obligation to visit a public school, it's an obligation to visit a permissible school (there are private ones, but homeschooling does not constitute a permissible school).
In America we seem to have the opposite view. The government doesn’t get to make that call.
I could see how one could reasonably view this as some sort of political or religious refugee, depending on context. They are, at the end of the day, facing punishment for a practice a typical American would find acceptable if not a little strange.
At that point you have expanded the meaning of "persecution" to nonsense.
Sure, we could accept Americans as "politically persecuted", because highways in America have speed limits. But we choose not to.
At some point you need to accept that not every difference in laws is persecution. That not every difference in law means that the other one is doing something wrong.
Alas, the US Supreme Court feels similarly when its conservative wing always dismisses all analogies and examples abroad as obviously uninteresting. I think "our SCOTUS" gets this balance right, or at least more right, when it differentiates between "would not constitutional in Germany, but is a valid viewpoint" and "would not be constitutional, and is so far beyond the pale that there cannot be an accomodation".
An extradition case starring an American from some years ago is a prime example for this differentiation, in my opinion (anyone interested in reading a summary?).
Forcibly separating children from their parents, even if only for a few hours a day, should not be taken lightly - and I say this as someone who supports mandatory public schooling, even to the exclusion of private schools.
Perhaps I wouldn't go so far as to call it preposterous, but it would seem to imply a very broad interpretation of what you can be granted asylum for.
Germany ranks highly in measures like the World Index of Moral Freedom, the Freedom in the World rankings, and the Freedom of the Press report. If Germany's citizens are entitled to asylum, is there any country whose citizens aren't?
Hard to understand why the wish to homeschool your child would fulfil any of the criteria of 'refugee', which primarily is about bring persecuted and having your life threatened. That is rather unlikely in Germany...
Taking kids out of schools for homeschooling (in a German context) is typically done for "religious" reasons, where parents claim their religion forbids specific content (sexual education, evolution etc.) so parents claim religious prosecution as reason.
Recently a Norwegian woman was granted asylum by the Polish government. She claimed Norwegian child services were going to take her child because she suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome.
In any case, there's a difference between political prosecution and some minor international differences of what's legal and what's not. If it were that easy to get asylum, people would probably prefer it to participating in the Green Card Lottery or H1B Visa process.
Freedom of speech also isn't the only category of "political" crimes. Many Germans consider the (partial) lack of speed limits as a defining characteristic of freedom, yet Americans can't get asylum at 60mph just because of it. On a more serious note, there are a great many political freedoms that some if not all European countries are better at guaranteeing than the US. Elections are administered fair and it's generally easy to vote even in poor neighbourhoods; No death penalty; Public defenders that actually have time to defend you, etc. Heck, the racial disparities in the US criminal justice system border on wilful prosecution of a minority.
At least Denmark and Austria have been planning to deport radical imams, especially when they have preached about killing Jews. Not sure about actual cases, though.
Which shows that the initial statement "all the people expelled for hate speech in EU could gain asylum in US" is false: expelling foreigners for breaking hte law is not persecution in itself, and of course pro-ISIS advocates would not be illegible for asylum in the US.
I suspect the GP had EU far right dudes in mind, but most such 'hate speech' is often basically "slander and/or harassment that happens to be also racist" and typically ends up with a fine: hardly 'persecution'. And even if we go from "all the people" to just "a handful of ideologues": why would the US say no to ISIS but yes to Nazis?
I guess you could make a case that Germany prosecutes Neo-Nazis, preventing them from forming parties that overtly follow their ideology, outlawing their symbols and restricting their freedom of speech. But that still doesn't come close to rounding them up and imprisoning them on ideology alone. They are not expelled, but they could flee from prosecution and seek asylum.
Assuming Hong Kong is indeed tightening its grip on the people and accepting more influence from Beijing, I wonder if that was a smart move. I mean, Hong Kong is a cash cow for China and an innovation driver. It foots on lots of trade and internationals coming in. Why would you fiddle with that and threaten making Hong Kong less desirable to foreigners?
I think the brain drain from HK to China is much more prevalent than people know these past five years. China have been doing various "assimilation" techniques since the Qin Dynasty. I feel like China has been pretty aggressive with their "wash generation" (direct translation). Bathe the citizens in decent wealth and comfort while increasing the immigration rate from Mainlad China. Look at the new train and bridge to Shen Zhen that's part of the new government intiative to make Shen Zhen the world SV. There's new entrepreneur/startup incubator thats less than a hour travel from HK. This incubator is expected to provide tax break, living and office space, and small stipend to live for any young entrepreneur and HK citizens are qualified to apply. For the better or the worse, it's only a matter of a couple decades where HK today will cease to exist at this rate.
> it's only a matter of a couple decades where HK today will cease to exist
Well, at most three decades, to be precise, when in 2047 it will fully revert to China under the Sino-British Joint Declaration, and lose its status as a Special Administrative Region.
My understanding is that HK future after 2047 is left unclear under the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Not that it's specified to be annexed to the mainland.
Granted, in practice it's hard to see any other outcome from today's lens. But my observation is that there tends to be a lot of this fact-mangling when it comes to territories PRC likes to claim that suspiciously seems to nearly always coincide with the PRC's interests, and I would prefer public discourse at least has the legal facts straight now and when the time comes.
China as a whole has grown massively, making Hong Kong proportionally much less important than it was 20 years ago. That allows Bejing to stop their hands-off approach and "bring them into the fold".
It's not like all decisions in the Chinese government are made by the same person. Asserting control over Hong Kong is likely to hurt business there (especially if it involves restrictions on financial transactions similar to the mainland), but the specific individuals putting themselves into positions of power have a lot to gain from abusing that for their own profit.
Hong Kong these days is nothing more than a clearing house for China A shares. Shanghai is the big hub for International-China business these days and Singapore takes the APAC business.
> Why would you fiddle with that and threaten making Hong Kong less desirable to foreigners?
Because China is not as naturally unified as it likes to make out and having an example of a previously free and democratic state that still wants to agitate for freedom within your borders is intolerable to an authoritarian regime that needs to maintain control everywhere.
Previously free? Hong Kong was a colony of britain which ruled with an iron fist and disallowed voting or democracy in Hong Kong. Hong Kong was never free nor democratic until it became part of China. Lots of brits love to pretend they brought democracy everywhere, but they didn't. Hong kong became a "democracy" and "free" after the brits got kicked out. The brits never let their colonies become democracies because britain was never really a democracy. Britain is a constitutional monarchy.
Also, the fact that china is an authoritarian communist state shows that they aren't pretending to be "naturally unified". If they were "naturally unified", they wouldn't be so authoritarian in the first place.
There were Legislative Council and District/Urban/Regional Council Elections even before the Joint Declaration was signed. In fact, in the final years of British administration both the LegCo and the Urban/Regional Councils were elected by universal suffrage.
Also,
> ... documents recently released by the National Archives in Britain suggest that beginning in the 1950s, the colonial governors who ran Hong Kong repeatedly sought to introduce popular elections but abandoned those efforts in the face of pressure by Communist Party leaders in Beijing.
Wasn't the "legislative" council filled with appointees and served as an advisory role to the british governor ruling over hong kong? Where is the democracy there. Also china played around with "local" elections, doesn't mean they were/are a democracy.
As for your last point, so what? Nobody is claiming china is a democracy. But neither was britain. And it's laughable that "chinese pressure" is why britain didn't allow democracy in hong kong. It's a convenient excuse that doesn't change the facts.
Britain never allowed democracy in hong kong. And it's simply absurd to claim hong kong was "free" when it was a conquered colony of britain. It's one of the ironies of history. Hong kong only became "free" and "democratic" under chinese rule.
And in the final years, the "LegCo and the Urban/Regional Councils" may have been elected but they were powerless advisors. The ruler of hong kong, the governor, who had actual power was not elected.
Does that guy look like an "elected" and "rightful" leader of hong kong? A guy who wasn't born in hong kong and who didn't grow up in hong kong ruled hong kong by appointment, not election. It's absurd that anyone would claim hong kong was free or democratic at any point under british rule. Britain itself wasn't a democracy and it never allowed any of it's colonies, especially the non-white colonies, to become a democracy.
The truth of the matter is hong kong was never a democracy and probably will never be one. Neither the colonizing brits or the chinese were interested in hong kong being a democracy.
Of course Hong Kong is supposed to be better under Chinese rule; it's no longer a colony!
I always find it amusing when people try to compare the PRC with the oppressive colonial empires as if they're on the same level...
As for whether LegCo was powerless, look up the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. It was a bill introduced not by the government but by an elected legislator, something that will never happen under the current system. That bill has been the bane of the government ever since, even after the handover.
Your point that Hong Kong democracy was opposed by China is a piece of history that few know. Britain wanted to introduce self-governance in the 1950s/60s but China deemed that to be a hostile act. Details: https://qz.com/279013/the-secret-history-of-hong-kongs-still...
China is always tried to tighten its grip, but in a slower pace. For the extradition law they are proposing, it is not a standard move but very controversial among Hong Kong and even internationally. The main reason for China to do that is because China don't have enough dollar reserve.
In trade war between China and US, many food production in China relied on foreign trade. Increasing tax would cause China losing their reserve in higher rate. It is not just about Huawei, but many industry losing jobs, not enough food production for the people. The same or similar may apply to US but the difference is that China is authoritarian. If an authoritarian cannot maintain its economic growth, the government would be collapsed by revolution or a coup. They could even potentially start a war for cover up their fault by blaming foreign countries. For US, it's just a matter of losing an election.
Now what is the solution? There are still many reserve in Hong Kong. Let's start a extradition law in Hong Kong to China to take back some of the dollar from "outlawed" Hong Kong merchant. For the sake of China, Hong Kong could be a pawn for sacrifice.
The extradition law is what any foreigner shall be worried about.
But if you concern about hongkinger, he is one of the start. Not just the usual as they are the new bred of young who think more about hk as home. It is sad they have to run. Sigh.
These activists are fighting against unfathomable odds. Beijing is willing to use conventional and unconventional tactics with ruthless eagerness to win. While most totalitarian state share this mentality, Beijing is an entirely different kettle of fish, They aren’t just a totalitarian state; they're a devious totalitarian state.
There is no better evidence of Beijing’s creativity than the Chinese takeover of Hong Kong. Unlike the mainland, Hong Kong is inhabited by people who are used to being free. The party’s insiders quickly realized that they couldn’t bring the Hong Kong population to heel with shock and awe. Worried about a popular uprising, they forged deals with the triads to maintain control of Hong Kong with a quid pro quo involving Shenzhen and access to the Chinese market;
> Easily, it turns out. Of all of the treacherous aspects of Hong Kong's reunification with China, the most treacherous--and the least noticed--is that it will seal what amounts to a cooperation pact between the triad societies and the Communist Party. This dreadful alliance, of the world's largest criminal underground and the world's last great totalitarian power, has received surprisingly little attention in this country, even though the U.S. Justice Department has identified triad racketeering as a significant global threat. Even more ominously, this alliance is not accidental. It was part of Deng Xiaoping's reunification plan for Hong Kong from the very beginning, and dates from the early 1980s, when China and Britain were negotiating the return of Hong Kong to the mainland in 1997.
> We know this because this past May, Wong Man-fong, the former deputy secretary-general of Xinhua, China's news agency in Hong Kong (which reputedly acts as a de facto embassy), admitted it during a forum at Hong Kong's Baptist University. Wong said that in the early 1980s, at Beijing's behest, he "befriended" Hong Kong's triad bosses and made them an offer they could not refuse: China would turn a blind eye to their illegal activities if they would promise to keep peace after the handover. "I told them that, if they did not disrupt Hong Kong's stability, we would not stop them from making money," Wong said. No one knows why Wong made this astounding disclosure about China's secret dealings with crime bosses, but there is even more to the story than he acknowledged...
The Chinese Communist Party and the triads are still in bed with one another and share the mutual passion of oppressing others;
> On Feb. 26, 2014, Kevin Lau, the former editor in chief of the Ming Pao daily and a vocal critic of Beijing, was stabbed in the back by two men who claimed they each had been paid $100,000 Hong Kong dollars to “teach Lau a lesson.”
> Later that same year, dozens of masked men physically attacked Occupy Central members and pro-democracy activists and tore down their tents. According to Hong Kong police, as many as 200 gang members from two major triad groups had “infiltrated the protest camps, possibly in order to stir up violence that would discredit demonstrators.”
> Although many suspected who was behind the repression — nobody else had the same motivation to act — the attacks were hard to directly trace back to Beijing. But the circumstantial evidence points strongly in the mainland’s direction. Though the former colony was now under Chinese control, the CCP still needed to exercise some restraint in the use of force against elements in Hong Kong it deemed undesirable. Beijing knew full well that unleashing the People’s Liberation Army or riot police would be too direct an intervention into the affairs of a region that, technically, had retained the right to run its own affairs. Direct assault by the state apparatus would have been counterproductive and likely would have alienated a larger number of Hong Kong residents. Pro-Beijing thugs were easily manipulated, had no compunction in using force, and, more importantly, offered plausible deniability.
There are rumors that a large stake in Deng's pet project, Shenzhen, was given over to the triads in exchange for their cooperation in Hong Kong. Between this, Chinese social experiments and the deep tech feel of the city, Shenzhen seems to be something straight out of a Gibson-esque cyberpunk dystopia with a healthy helping of shadowy violence on top.
The odds are against those who fight this power. They deserve and need every bit of help that they can get. Back in the 80s, after the Tiananmen Square massacre, the Hong Kong community worked with the CIA, a few smugglers and gangs and MI6 to smuggle wanted dissidents out of China to freedom. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Yellowbird Maybe we need more of the same?
I just want to point out that refugee status is given on a case by case basis. Even with an independent judiciary, if your laws oppress some people, refugee status can be obtained. Europe has accepted refugees from USA during McCarty's era.
Accepting a refugee from another nation does have diplomatic meaning but is does not automatically mean that they will dismiss each other judgements automatically.