Could We Absorb 3M Hongkongers?

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/hong-kong-three-million-people-could-come-to-live-in-the-uk-if-china-imposes-new-law-11999525
should we give them the right to come here?

[Old_Geezer]

Perhaps the offer could be on a first come first served agreement. If most don't want to move anyway one has upheld a moral responsibility, but if too many want to come then one can legitimately claim one has made best efforts taking on the early arrivals but have no obligation to ruin one's own nation trying to house them all. (But I hear that the EU loves to accommodate large numbers of immigrants, so if it gets too much they could move there.)

[Mozz71]

//Well done Boris, another one of your hairbrained Ideas.//

Firstly, seeing as you live in Spain or something (allegedly), I can't see as it affects you in any way, and secondly, helping our foreign friends and inviting them to come live over here with us is a very liberal, leftish thing to do. As a liberal lefty, I thought you'd be all for this. I bet you would if it was SKS who thought of it.

[emmie]

no, we can't absorb more people, and if they did it would most likely be to the capital, where we are already cheek by jowl.

[waterboatman]

We're overcrowded as it is. However, since HK was a British colony for over a hundred years it would be hypocritical to deny them.

[emmie]

this place is diverse enough as it is, to take more would be suicidal..

[DTCwordfan]

I think the number is well over-stated - the population of HK is only 7.5 mln.....there's a massive difference between eligible and uptake Currently, the 'active' BNO holders number 350000 plus there are 35k British expats who may need repatriating. My bet is that the number, if it actually transpires will be less than 250k - a lot of them would prefer Oz, NZ and Sing as well.....last time the paperwork for an application to the UK was mind-numbingly thick..almost down to 'what was the name of your grandmother's cat - and in triplicate....

[waterboatman]

I agree with that DT.

[emmie]

fine by me...

[DTCwordfan]

London probably would be the destination - but then there would be space as there's a surge of folk into property agents looking to move out of the city as they realise that working from home is more preferable - there's a 25% discount in house prices in urban areas at the moment and a premium for your des-res in the country looking up a cow's, pig's or sheep's rear-end....

[Peter Pedant]

// //Well done Boris, another one of your great Ideas.//

hardworking - law abiding, work ethic, - ugandan asians havent caused a problem have they? - or dare I say it to all you racists, the "white settlers"(*) from Rhodesia - many of whom have returned and whose cost to the Treasury of resettlement has been precisely Nil

(*) yeah they really used to refer to themselves as that

[Peter Pedant]

// looking up a cow's, pig's or sheep's rear-end....//
oh dougie you are so RUDE about princess camilla ! = ter daah
and here am I misleading a sensible and logical thread

( oh by the way the fallacy is that if you give a right to a group they all take it up the next day)

[youngmafbog]

Difficult one this.

I think we do have a moral obligation to offer it. We take in so many illegals that do nothing for the country at least the HK people are Westernized and have our way of thinking. additionally they are true refugees not just economic migrants since it is highly likely many will 'disappear' under the PRC regime.

The problem is of course we are already over populated so where would they live. I doubt it would be the full 3M but even if a small part of that it would be a problem, especially in the current economic climate.

[david small]

We have endured windrush etc, we have had Uganda’S Asian boot outs, we have had thrust upon us any number of east European migrants. We have unlimited economic migrants, refugees from practically anywhere and everywhere, we are extinguishing ourselves slowly but surely. Why not A few million Chinese. Come one, come all.

[youngmafbog]

They are not really Chinese though are they, nd that is where the problem lies. Many will be considered dissidents and subversives and we all know what the PRC does to them.

These people will be real refugees, not economic migrants. Perhaps if Patel got her act together and stopped the dinghys along with dportations for illegals we would have a bit more room.

[gulliver1]

David 09.00 If the Uganda Refugees had not been allowed in. The UK would not have Priti Sushil Patel as H/S. Good or Bad ?.

[weecalf]

always remember believe nothing till it’s denied three times in parliament .but with Boris well I don’t know . has Mr cumming said owt yet on matter .

[gulliver1]

MOZZ ,When you see Boris on Tv with the state of his hair , I understand where the saying " Hair Brained " Originated.

[naomi24]

Pity you don't understand the saying, gulliver. You'll find that's hare-brained.

[pixie374]

It's nothing to do with race or culture, just sheer numbers. So, until we can look after our own, no.

[Ellipsis]

A quick history lesson, mostly cut and paste from various sources to save time:

1842: Hong Kong Island ceded to Britain. In the Treaty of Nanking, the Qing government agreed to make Hong Kong a Crown colony, ceding it 'in perpetuity', following British victory in the First Opium War
1860: Kowloon south of Boundary Street and Stonecutters Island ceded to Britain. During the second half of the 19th century, Britain had become concerned over the security of the isolated island, Hong Kong. Consequently, in the Convention of Peking, following British victory in the Second Opium War, Britain gained a perpetual lease over the Kowloon Peninsula.
1898: Britain signs a 99-year lease on the New Territories, which are around 12 times the size of what it already had, in order to bolster defences against other European powers like France and Germany. Claude MacDonald, the British representative, picked a 99-year lease because he thought it was "as good as forever". Britain did not think it would ever have to give the territories back. The 99-year lease was a convenient agreement.

The New Territories, with a 99-year lease, were the only territories forming the Crown colony of Hong Kong, that were obliged by agreement, to be returned. However, by the time of serious negotiations for the return of the New Territories in the 1980s, it was seen as impractical to separate the ceded territories and return only the New Territories to China, due to the scarcity of resources in Hong Kong and Kowloon, and the large developments in the New Territories. In 1984, the U.K. and China signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration outlining their plan for Hong Kong. This declaration stipulated that Hong Kong would become a part of China on July 1, 1997, but that the “current social and economic systems” and “life-style” in Hong Kong would remain the same for 50 years. In this “one country, two systems” arrangement, Hong Kong would continue operating in a capitalist economy, and residents would continue to have rights to speech, press, assembly and religious belief, among others - at least until 2047.

Consequently, at midnight following the evening of 30 June 1997, the entire crown colony of Hong Kong officially reverted to Chinese sovereignty, ending 156 years of British rule.

Now, the argument is that China is reneging on the terms of the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, with still 27 years to go until 2047. And so the question is, what does Britain have to say or do about that? Those 2.5 million people in Hong Kong who do not hold a BNO passport but are eligible for one are eligible because of the history laid out above.