Why America Should Offer Refuge to Those Who Flee Hong Kong

It's the right thing to do, for one. But not doing so could hurt us economically.

By
31

While the coronavirus pandemic has distracted the world since February, the Chinese Communist Party has moved to consolidate its control over Hong Kong, passing sweeping “national security” laws to crack down on protests in the city and placing Hong Kong’s civil liberties—afforded under the longstanding “one country, two systems” arrangement—at risk.

The situation for the former British colony seems increasingly dire. And U.S. policymakers appear to have few options available to help shape the response. One new idea is beginning to take hold: Let Hong Kong residents move to America.

The idea of letting in refugees fleeing the CCP has become an increasingly pertinent question for U.S. policymakers in recent months, and the response has been encouragingly bipartisan.

In the past few weeks alone, two major bills aimed at the issue passed the Senate with overwhelming support in the Senate. The first bill would place sanctions on Chinese officials involved in the Hong Kong crackdown; the second aims to give refugee status to Hong Kongers at risk of persecution by the Chinese state. Both of these initiatives come on the heels of the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, an earlier round of sanctions passed by near-universal majorities in both chambers of Congress and signed into law by the president in late 2019.

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
31
By
Comments (31)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    As others mentioned, yes, this is something we Americans should do, and we *have done* except that Republicans want to undo it now that these people have established lives here. Sadly this has probably already done permanent damage to our country's reputation.

    Also, Derek Scissors. I mean, come on. He and his whole family. How can they live like that? They made a movie about his brother Ed's hands. I used to run with his other brother but people told me it was dangerous. Is he afraid of rocks? Etc.

    Collapse
  2. John Anthony

    I usually just enjoy what I read here, and if I comment, I go for the humorous side (I really wanted to ask Jonah about the mosquitos when he was touting a summer visit to Alaska, but I abstained). Now I want to respond with an issue concerning rhetoric. “[Kerkorian] has a point.” Yes, but it is only a point. To create something (again referring back to the last G-File on words vs. creation), we need a point, a line, a plane, and the concept of angles. The reason to allow Hong Kongers a path to citizenship is far more complex than Kerkorian’s simple point. Hong Kongers are educated, English speaking, entrepreneurial, versed in Western traditions, and will use all those tools to create a net benefit to our society. This isn’t point-counterpoint, this is point-three dimensional construct. Take in as many as want to come, and show the world how a pluralistic society wins.

    Collapse
  3. Alex L

    My dad was almost 14 when he fled the ruins of South Vietnam as Saigon fell and was welcomed to the US by President Ford, who spoke at Fort Chaffee when it was serving as a refugee camp. Plenty of folks welcomed the Vietnamese but plenty didn't. Some on the Left were aghast why anyone would want to run away from the paradise of collectivization and reeducation camps, while some on the Right thought the Yellow Peril should stay overseas. Lots of folks just didn't want to be reminded of the war. But many Americans stepped up to welcome their new fellow countrymen by teaching them English, sponsoring them to bring their families over, etc.

    Things are certainly different since we don't have anywhere close to a commitment or connection with the democrats of Hong Kong today (unlike the UK) as we did with South Vietnam but it'd still be the moral, honorable thing to do.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    I take issue with this statement.

    "At a time when America’s native-born citizens are more skeptical and less educated about the philosophical and political foundations of our country"

    Insulting people who may disagree with you is not a good way to pusuade people to your way of thinking.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      I think it's just a fact. Our nominally "conservative" party turned into a white nationalist populist party with absolutely no philosophical connection to our country's founding principles--and that party's voters support it's leader as much or more than any other president before him, a majority of whom say they think he is a better president than Lincoln.

      And more importantly, a large chunk of our country's *intellectual leadership* has abandoned our founding principles. These are pundits, writers, media personality and white evangelical leaders who now pledge allegiance to Trump and not our founding principles., whereas only four years ago you would see most of them defending those principles.

      I think there's still a lot of understanding of those founding principles--and politically, the Democrats are capturing this vote in this election cycle--but I think it's right to say it's as low as it's ever been.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      I didn't read it as an insult, but on the historical grounds, here you go:

      https://nypost.com/2019/02/15/americans-dont-know-much-about-nations-history-survey/

      Doesn't mean we shouldn't teach, but yes, American's are very ignorant of history and probably, more than likely, their philosophical founding. So when having conversations in real life, we should establish peoples knowledge bases instead of probably assuming they know what we are talking about.

      Like, I am not gonna run around in churches and say we must "Immanentize the eschaton". People would go..."Wut?"

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Tracie

        What?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Victor Clairmont

          What!?

          Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    rlritt

    You state that we would offer refuge to protesters, volunteer medics and local media. So basically we would clear Hong Kong of anyone opposing the Chinese regime. How does that help us and more importantly how does that hel the people remaining in Hong Kong?

    I would say absolutely not. We have 11% unemployment, which will probably increase since businesses will be closing again. Would we also be giving these people public assistance?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Sad Trombone

      Every Asian immigrant probably supports three of our more unproductive citizens.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      When I lived in the Pacific NW in the late 1990s, there were wealthy Hong Kong families building enormous homes for themselves in Vancouver, in case they had to flee. The old residents of some of the neighborhoods were annoyed at all the new "ugly" and cavernous homes, and the skyrocketing property values - but no complaints about a strain on benefits.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Ms. SSM

    This seems like an easy call and the rare thing both sides can fully support.

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Sad Trombone

    I agree with doing this in this specific case and I am usually a zealous opponent of our current open borders policies and accommodating abuse of the refugee provisions by economic migrants.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      My main concern is the time and resources required to process all the claims when there aren't clear standards on who's admissible.

      That said, if I were living in a gang-infested neighborhood in Honduras, I'd try to get myself and my family out.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Sad Trombone

        If I were in Honduras I would too, but they are not refugees in the same sense that those escaping political persecution are - they are economic migrants manipulating the refugee programs.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Tracie

          Many of them. Most of their claims are denied.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Sad Trombone

            After several years of delays and appeals and anchor babies - in short, manipulating the system.

            Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Scarlette Tarte

    Of course we should. We should STOP worrying about our "economic interests" first and foremost all the damn time. Doing the RIGHT thing would lead to more and more people supporting us economically.

    Republicans were totally wrong about "free markets make free people' and pushing that idea that "if we just open China up economically, freedom will follow". So since they were wrong, let's try the OTHER idea...sticking up for human rights. Be the America that we are in our documents.

    I totally believe that would end up helping us more financially in the long run.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Tracie

      That "sticking up for human rights" leads to only good things is a typically American sentiment. However, as Krikorian noted, there are people whose human rights are being violated all over the world. There has to be some sort of selectivity about who we let in.

      Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Paul Reichardt

    Sounds like a great idea, but then I supported more permissive asylum allotments for the caravan Guatamalans and Salvadorans (they also work extremely hard in general and are escaping far worse fates in their home countries than Hong Kongers.) Mr. Hochman proposes a strongly ideological pro-immigration position and a case needs to be made to other Americans who don’t share that ideology (i.e., that US is in an active Cold War with China, not merely in an adversarial rivalry for soft-power influence). Who would lead the charge on this? Sen. Tom Cotton? He’s not really the “bridge-builder” type.

    Frankly, I’m not sure how much popular support there is for a selectively pro-immigration program of mass scale such as this. Certainly not much among the Trump populist Right, so you’ll have to win support from the much more pro-immigrant populist left and centrists. Then you have to answer the counterpoint questions Krikorian raises: why Hong Kongers get to the front of the line? Because many speak English? Sorry, but Latin American Spanish is a de facto “official” language in the US, like it or not.
    Would supporters be willing to compromise to build support? Say, let in an equivalently large number of Latin American refugees or asylum seekers or accept DACA in full? What about working for that comprehensive immigration reform that every administration since Reagan has attempted and failed to get through Congress? Could this be one part in that sorely needed legislation?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Ms. SSM

      I’m pretty left and I’d support it with no compromise. I see no downside in increased immigration for specific countries suffering under China. Sticking it to China is reason enough to support this.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Paul Reichardt

        I'm guessing that's because you support immigration in general (as do I.) Americans on the Left tend to have a more egalitarian vision of immigration and how it fits into our national identity. But not everyone in elected office operates in good-faith or shares this view on immigration.

        One possible downside is that more Hong Kong asylum seekers or immigrants might displace potential persons from other nationalities who might otherwise have gotten in and are in more dire straits. In fact, one of the major proponents of Hong Kong asylum is Tom Cotton, who also co-authored the anti-immigration (or more fairly, very selective immigration--reducing it by up to 50%) RAISE act which was promoted by Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon so you can guess which people are most likely to be excluded.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Tracie

          "But not everyone in elected office operates in good-faith ..."

          They respond to their constituents, so what we need is public education on this issue. There's considerable anti-China sentiment on the far right. "Stick it to China" as Ms. S S M phrased it, might appeal to those folks. Own the CCP.

          Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    Great piece. Opening to Hong Kong refugees would also make clear that we don’t accept China’s violation of a major international agreement in order to enslave a free people. We can’t take in all oppressed peoples, But we can offer hope to those who had achieved freedom, only to see it snatched back by dictators. It has the added advantage of showing Beijing we are neither cowed nor helpless. Such signals will be vital in the new Cold War China has declared. Doing so in concert with the U.K., and hopefully others, as we also restrict China’s tech companies and other intelligence activities, can be powerful. With India stirring as well, US leadership can consolidate global rejection of China’s aggression.

    Collapse
Load More