Besides China, which are the major Asian developed countries?
Hong-Kong Protests
- Thread starter Pika
- Start date
Besides China, which are the major Asian developed countries?
- New British survey shows few find suitable work. No income or low earnings will diminish their chances of success at securing permanent residency in a country increasingly hostile to immigration
BN(O) immigrants from Hong Kong are not doing well in Britain. That’s according to a new joint survey by British Future, a think tank, and the Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers.
Since the scheme was introduced in 2021, ostensibly to provide an exit route from “totalitarian” Hong Kong, between 123,000 and 160,000 have moved to the United Kingdom.
What the new study shows is that as an immigrant group, they are highly unemployed and underemployed. While six in 10 hold an undergraduate and/or postgraduate degree, only half are working, and usually in low-skilled jobs. Of those working, almost one in two said their job didn’t match their skills and experience (27 per cent) or only slightly related (20 per cent).
Language barriers and experience are cited as the biggest impediments to finding work. However, two-thirds rate their spoken and written English as good or very good. That may be explained by what psychologists call the Dunning-Kruger Effect: people tend to assume they are more competent or capable than they really are.
The BN(O) scheme is really less generous and could be a trap for many from Hong Kong, unlike the more standard immigration routes offered by Australia, Canada and the United States; and these are, of course, also more stringent on first admissions.
These other systems mean once you are allowed in, you are already a landed or permanent resident. Not so with the BN(O) scheme. Under its so-called 5+1 route, you need to live in the UK for five years before you can apply for permanent residence – officially called indefinite leave to remain (ILR) or settlement – and one more year thereafter for citizenship. The delayed ILR step was obviously deliberate – to allow the UK government to reject those it may decide later on it doesn’t want after all.
As former prime minister Gordon Brown wrote in the Guardian last week: “One million children are considered destitute, lacking access to food, shelter, heating or toiletries, and every night 1.1 million boys and girls sleep on the floor or share a bed. More than 2 million households live without at least one essential household appliance, such as a fridge, cooker or washing machine. Four out of five families on Universal Credit [social welfare] report going without food, turning off the heating and not replacing worn-out clothing. And nearly 3 million UK low-income households have run up debt to pay for food, a crisis recognised by King Charles with his food initiative this week.”
I personally knew quite a few Hong Kong parents who thought British schools were like Harrow and Eton, with well-dressed, well-mannered and well-spoken pupils. Perhaps they and their children watched too many Harry Potter films.
The question is how committed to the "cause" are they?
For now they are still committed ideologues, you could say extremists
The same survey had 99% not planning to return to HK
There are some other questions left unanswered
1. How many have already gone back? If this number is significant, than it would explain the 99% number.
2. Are any realistic assumptions made? If you saw any of the initial parliamentary reports, they basically assumed they would be getting a whole bunch of doctors, nurses, engineers ("highly educated and high quality individuals") and they would immediately be contributing into these fields and not be packing biscuits at a factory. Of course that was never realistic, does the group behind the survey harbour equally unrealistic expectations?
3. Not a question that can be answered in this survey, but a something to consider. How much bitterness can the BNO's eat? If they moved as a family, can both parents sustain this kind of lifestyle impairment? Or will the unhappiness cascade into a divorce? Are the kids happy? If not, are you willing to sacrifice your kids' happiness for your political statement? (going to be very unhappy golden years if that's the case)
Maybe this is deliberate? Like forcing her to sign a few propaganda documents to humiliate her and her colleague (as a demonstration of power, forcing they recognize that they can’t win the fight), and then let her go. I sense there is deliberate policy to banish those rioters, so new immigrants from the Mainland could replace those who do see themselves as Chinese. The question now is whether the HK government is willing to ban those who escaped from coming back.
Hard to say. Seeing tactics doing the riots were frustrating and seeing how they let nathan law and ted hui run as well.... 150k BNO took off and thousands are still leaving annually... Trading a big former leader for another mainlander is a bad trade.
Agnes Chow had the biggest (real) social media following of the lot. She could either try to live a mostly peaceful life in Canada with occasional sh* postings or she could still resurrect. IMO, i would of waited a couple more years when other life priorities like marriage and motherhood becomes more important to ensure the former with greater probability. I guess being in Canada is better than being in the US where she would be used as a PAID feedback stooge to work with us congresional members in the Anti-China campaign.
I think HK will have to argue using BNO to leave somehow invalidates your citizenship. No one is suppose to be nationless under international law.
The idea that any of the leadership should have been allowed to leave is insanity. Even the idea that they could walk around in Hong Kong is insanity. All the head cockroaches should have been digging irrigation trenches in Gansu for the next 25 years. Known and active collaboration for hostile foreign governments and they just let them leave. This is just complete incompetence by national security.
It's absolute deliberate.
Exile has been a commonly used tactic to remove threats to stability since the Qin dynasty. It gets rid of the problem permanently with few aftereffects (whereas continued imprisonment would let the wound fester and be a constant source of baggage for the government). Unlike India, China is confident enough that Five Eyes-backed dissents won't be able to cause issues in China once the dissents are physically out of China, so exile is a good solution.
Besides, although exile isn't really a "takes away your freedom" type of punishment the way prison is, "never being able to go home" is still a significant deterrence to others.
It was a deliberate choice by the HKSAR government (probably under the direction of the central government) to give the leaders an opportunity to leave. The effective date of the NSL was announced well in advance and the airport was wide open.
Once the leaders ran away to the US/UK, the movement totally collapsed, as intended. It also exposed the yellow shirts for what they are -- western backed traitors.