The US Congress is Failing Hong Kong's Refugees
Republican senators who vocally supported Hong Kong’s protests are now rejecting the city's refugees in their time of need.
My articles on Hong Kong legal issues are freely available to all, but are supported by monthly and annual donations from readers. Will you consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work?
In September 2019, as Hong Kong’s protests were at their peak, tens of thousands of Hongkongers gathered in the city’s Central district with a particular purpose in mind: to plead with the US Government to support the struggle. Amidst a sea of US flags and banners asking for the US to “liberate Hong Kong,” there was a sense of optimism in the air. “We want to use the U.S. to push China to do what they promised over 20 years ago,” one man told the Washington Post. “The U.S. government can make China think: Do they really want to lose Hong Kong?”
I took part in the protest that day. But what struck me was the disconnect between the faith many protesters had in the US Government to do the right thing and, as an American citizen, my near-total lack of it. As much as we cherish our system and its freedoms, most Americans have experienced far too many disappointments from Congress to expect courageous moral leadership from our leaders. In the past ten years, the American public’s approval rate for Congress has typically fluctuated between 10 and 25%, and my expectations for Hong Kong reflected that.
Sadly, my pessimism has mostly panned out. Two months after the protest, Congress passed a law—the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act, or HKHRDA—that allowed for sanctions against a handful of Hong Kong officials, but did nothing to deter the government’s crackdown on Hongkongers and their rights. The most critically needed assistance—halting the flow of Western money into the city—was never even contemplated. To the contrary, the president at the time repeatedly defended China’s crackdown in Hong Kong, actively negotiated a trade deal with the Chinese Government, and privately made clear he would not intervene if China invaded Taiwan next. As for HKHRDA, in an interview where he also praised CCP Chairman Xi Jinping as “an incredible guy” and “a friend of mine,” the president suggested he might not sign the bill at all, sparking outrage and Congressional pressure that eventually led to his reluctant signature.
That president is gone, thankfully, and the new administration—while far from perfect—has since made modest gains in its dealings with China, including working to get on the same page with European allies in regard to China policy, taking a strong stance in defense of Taiwan, shepherding through the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, and strengthening the critical alliance with Japan.
But Congress and the White House continue to fail Hongkongers.
Most recently, as protesters have fled Hong Kong and sought refuge across the world, Congress has repeatedly failed to back their claimed support of the cause with action. Despite several efforts, no legislation to provide Hongkongers a pathway to residency has successfully become law. In the latest effort—a very modest bill to allow in a few thousand Hongkongers each year—a single senator blocked its passage, and now a legislative committee is close to rejecting its inclusion in a larger legislative package.
These bills have been bipartisan efforts. Hongkongers are, on average, a relatively skilled and prosperous bunch, and the US is in the midst of a labor shortage. Logic suggests Hongkongers should be welcomed with open arms by those of all political stripes. So what has prevented the US Government from doing so?
In short, a small group of radical Republican senators have worked to block Hong Kong refugees, while at the same time Democrats and moderate Republicans who do support the refugees have failed to put up a fight on their behalf. Both parties’ behavior matches their familiar patterns: Republicans stonewalling even the most basic legislation to help the needy, and Democrats lacking the backbone to do anything about it.
The global immigration landscape for Hongkongers
Since the beginning of Beijing’s post-protest crackdown in 2020, hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers—out of a population of 7 million—have sought refuge abroad. Many governments have stepped up to provide opportunities for these migrants, both on humanitarian grounds and in recognition that Hong Kong’s relatively skilled and wealthy migrants could be a boon for sputtering Western economies.
The UK has offered the most expansive pathway. Hong Kong’s former colonial overlord, seeking to right past wrongs, began offering residency and eventual British citizenship for the 2.9 million Hongkongers with a British National Overseas (or BNO) passport. This year, the country expanded the program to the children of BNO holders, irrespective of whether they were born prior to 1997.
Canada has also created a special pathway for (mostly) young Hongkongers. If a Hongkonger has graduated from a university or other post-secondary institution in the past five years, they qualify for a five year open work visa. Once they have worked in Canada for a year, they can apply for permanent residency. Similarly, Australia has created special pathways for Hong Kong students and skilled workers. After three years in the country, these Hongkongers can apply for permanent residency.
The US, in contrast to its allies, has done embarrassingly little. Faced with Congressional intransigence, President Biden used his executive authority last year to allow Hongkongers in the United States to avoid deportation for 18 months under what is called “Delayed Enforced Departure.” But this status only applies to people already on US soil, and does nothing to help at-risk Hongkongers obtain a visa to enter the US. Despite numerous proposed bills over the last several years, every effort to pass a law assisting Hong Kong refugees has thus far failed.
Senator Cruz Singlehandedly Killed the Hong Kong People’s Freedom and Choice Act
In December 2020, the Hong Kong People’s Freedom and Choice Act, a bipartisan bill sponsored by 17 Democrats and six Republicans that would provide several pathways for skilled Hongkongers to come to the US, had unanimously passed the House of Representatives and was expected to sail unanimously through the Senate on a voice vote.
So, when Republican Ted Cruz took to the Senate floor, one could be forgiven for thinking he’d come to speak in favor of the bill. After all, in recent years Cruz has repeatedly stated his support for, among others, “political dissidents and the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong,” and “all students and activists in Hong Kong fighting to preserve freedom and democracy.” Naturally, this long-time supporter would be there when Hongkongers needed a friendly country in which to take refuge, right?
Nope. Cruz instead gave a speech objecting to the bill. He claimed, without anything to back it up, that the bill—which had six Republican sponsors—was “a cynical decision” by the Democrats “to try to exploit the crisis in Hong Kong to advance their longstanding goals of changing our immigration laws.” He also claimed the bill “would be used by the Chinese Communists to send even more Chinese spies into the United States.”
Because the bill was offered at the end of the Senate’s session, there would be no later opportunity to hold a debate on it. By standing and objecting, Cruz was able to singlehandedly kill a bill supported by 534 of the 535 voting members of Congress—not exactly a shining testament to Democratic ideals.
Hong Kong Provisions in the America COMPETES Act
In January this year, most of the Freedom and Choice Act was inserted into the House of Representatives bill known as the America COMPETES Act. The bill’s main purpose is to stimulate certain industries to better compete with China, but it includes several sections on Hong Kong’s democracy movement. This bill passed the House in February and was sent to the Senate. Rather than passing a modified version of the COMPETES Act, the Senate substituted its language in its entirety with a different Senate bill, the Innovation and Competition Act. The Senate version did not have the Hong Kong provisions in it. The Senate then passed their version of the Act.
The two versions of the bill are now in a joint conference committee to iron out differences. Radical Senate Republicans are, once again, fighting against the Hong Kong provisions. While some Republicans like Senator Marco Rubio and Representative Adam Kinzinger have consistently supported a pathway to residency for Hongkongers, others, including Cruz and other Trump surrogates like Jim Risch and Marsha Blackburn, have refused to support it. Josh Hawley—well known to Hongkongers for a supportive visit to the city during the protests—has also refused to offer his support.
This insurgency among the Republican ranks is paying off. At the first meeting of the conference meeting to reconcile the two bills, the senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Chuck Grassley—typically a more conventional Republican—declared his opposition to immigration provisions in the House bill. He said that his position reflected the concerns of his “colleagues.”
Democrats, for their part, unanimously support the Hong Kong provisions but have so far failed to prioritize them. Conference committees are a messy process. There is a lot of negotiating, with give and take from both sides, to reach a final bill whose text makes no one entirely happy but gets the bill across the finish line. Democrats, facing reluctance on a relatively small portion of the full bill like the Hong Kong provisions, could negotiate for them by giving ground on some other minor aspect of the bill. So far, they have failed to do so.
Republican arguments against the bill don’t add up
The Republicans resisting the Hong Kong refugee provisions are making two main arguments: That China will exploit the law to sneak spies into the US, and that the provisions are part of a sinister Democratic plan create an “open borders” policy allowing all sorts of swarthy people into the US. Neither of these arguments makes much sense in the context of the Hong Kong provisions, and come off as downright paranoid.
Spies here, spies there, spies everywhere
It is, of course, true that China would like to place more spies in the United States, but they have far better ways to do so. To be successful, a plan for spying using new immigrants would require a broad investment into training the potential spies, getting them to the US, and waiting many years for them to try to work their way into senior positions—which would require a healthy dose of good luck. It is much easier, faster, and cheaper to use cash to tempt people already in key roles into becoming Chinese assets. We’ve seen this approach more often, such as a recent case which China appears to have turned to US citizens to spy on its behalf.
Further, the COMPETES Act provisions would allow only 5,000 skilled Hongkongers to enter each year. Compare that to the 149,000 people who immigrated to the US from Mainland China in 2019 alone. If China is using immigration to plant spies in the US, presumably they would plant them among the much larger waves of Mainlanders entering the country, not Hongkongers.
An open borders plot
Ted Cruz’s speech against the original version of the Freedom and Choice Act focused heavily on accusations against the Democrats that they would use the bill to promote open borders policies. Chuck Grassley’s comments at the opening of the conference committee also hinted at this argument in referencing the provisions as “partisan” (despite their bipartisan sponsorship). Other Republicans in private meetings with activists have reportedly raised similar concerns. But the actual content of the bill’s provisions makes this argument difficult to take seriously.
As already noted, these bills would only allow 5,000 skilled workers into the country each year, compared to more than a million total immigrants to the US annually. The other provisions, which would adjust the standard for Hongkongers to obtain asylum and provide “Temporary Protected Status” to Hongkongers in the US, apply only to Hongkongers who have already arrived in the country via other means, such as student visas. If adding 5,000 Hong Kong immigrants per year to the country’s population is the Democrats’ plan for opening the borders, then it’s not a very good plan.
A double standard
Hongkongers are an extraordinary group of people who will make a positive contribution to whatever country they end up in, as we are already seeing via the communities springing up in the UK, Canada, Australia and elsewhere. They bring skills, earning potential and energy to economies in need of fresh talent. Any country is lucky to have them as part of their society.
So what could be the real reason radical Republicans are blocking these provisions from becoming law?
Two weeks ago, a bill was put forward in the Senate to provide aid to Ukrainians, including $900 million in aid to refugees resettling in the United States. This time, Senator Cruz took to the floor in support of the bill. No talk of Russian spies, and no accusations that Democrats were using the Ukraine crisis to push a radical immigration agenda.
It seems that at least some of these Republicans are less worried about immigrants and spies when the new arrivals are white Europeans.
Excellent reporting on a shameful display by GOP senators like Ted Cruz. One wonders if those profiting from access to the massive Chinese market are more important than those suffering under a repressive and brutal regime to grandstanders like Cruz. Sam, I’d love to interview you for my Substack newsletter, The First Person, sometime soon.
I don't think it's double standard from Ted Cruz. You could be a victim of the 'narrative' as the heavily biased DNC media you've been reading sets the tone for every piece you read, telling you what to think. When you ran into apparent consistencies, the media used weasel words to sand off the critical differentiating details hoping you'd ignore the pieces of info that doesn't add up and parrot the conclusion they wanted (Like "***** is bad"). It's an old technique used by propagandists, including but not limited to the CCP.
The reason Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley opposed the DEMOCRAT-PROPOSED Hong Kong People's Freedom and Choice Act of 2020 (HKPFCA) back then was because Democrats took advantage of Hongkong to piggyback their own partisan agenda in the details (namely extending what's offered to victims of political persecution in Hongkong to everybody else without much due diligence) while the Republican proposed version already offered the same assistance to Hongkongers without making the window wider than necessary. When Macro Rubio, Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley supported Hongkong, they did it out of shared values (freedoms, rule-OF-law and liberal democracy), not looking for opportunities to sneak in their own routine partisan agenda like the democrats did (remember the dems sneaking in funding to 'Gender studies in Paksistan' in a coronavirus relief a gigantic reconciliation bill that nobody had enough time to read through?).
Macro Rubio is often the more flexible among the 3 so he smartly compromised with the democrats in exchange for boosting and expediting the assistance to Hongkongers, but it doesn't mean what democrats did was honorable. The democrat controlled mainstream media you've been quoting your sources from spun the news that de-emphasized the fact that Democrats took advantage of the situation to blackmail Republicans through bundling.
You missed the train spinning the narrative against the Ted Cruz and Hongkong people quickly figured out it was the partisan blackmailing and the fight is over whether the D's version or the R's version of the bill gets passed, so very few of the Hongkongers blamed Ted Cruz for the opposition and most of the ones who still believe in this narrative by now are heavily left-leaning expats. HKPFCA extends the very same benefit to CCP-supporting HK Residents in addition to the ones persecuted by the CCP! There were some heated debates among Hongkongers whether we should prefer a faster escape route in exchange for letting the very evil CCP supporters take advantage of it, and the consensus was that while Ted Cruz's due care was honorable, but we'll just take whatever we can get as we were not in a position to be picky! We are not going to speak ill of the people who helped us genuinely out of common value, not common interests, just because they disagree on a hair-splitting detail!
People in Hongkong have already seen the solid track record of the 3 (actually there's a lot more like John Kennedy but I can't list them all here) so we are more open to hearing their side of the story when there are accusations for them being way off basic human decency. People in Hongkong has grown exponentially wiser politically since 2019 so they are not as easily fooled by narratives that has a lot of holes in it just because that's what they wanted to hear and will dig deeper than the news/clickbait headlines!
Ted Cruz is basically supporting democrats' bill to help Ukraine because he knows we no longer have the option not to since Putin started unless we want to toss the US into the depths of hell (See Ted's explanation of his reasoning: https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1528379151236747264?s=20). I think you were unfairly bending what 'double standard' means when you said "... no accusations that Democrats were using the Ukraine crisis to push a radical immigration agenda" because the Ukraine crisis is largely used by the democrats to siphon taxpayers' money for handouts for Biden's buddies in the military industrial complex, not a tool for loose immigration practices like what the democrat's proposals of the Hong Kong related bills. Biden is benefiting from his failure in Afghanistan withdrawal, which tempted Putin to attack, and how we're stuck dumping money to drown the forest fire so his military-industrial friends can get rich. How convenient! Biden's not a hero, he's just cleaning up the messes he started, and the clean up process is exactly what he's interested in!
What's really double standards are democrats' treatment towards refugees from places like Cuba who are likely non-left-leaning so they don't bring value turning into dem's future voters. That's why we kept quiet when HKDC and the more prominent pro-dems politicians in HK tow the BLM narrative to please the dems when the majority of anti-CCP people in Hongkong know BLM is communist bullshit that replaced the farmers-vs-landlords class struggle with race struggles. HK protests did not go and rob stores in the name of social justice. Those who trashed exclusively CCP-stores or stores who defended CCP's tyranny rounded up joy-riders who attempted to loot the CCP-stores they've vandalized. BLM doesn't come even close in the moral discipline. The BLM organizers didn't even say a word when the HK police was brutalizing protesters in 2019. That's how we can tell people's moral bottom-lines. This alone was enough ground for freedom fighters in Hongkong to largely not side with BLM. Antifa tried to hijack HK protests as well, but Hongkong was a city built by refugees who were victims of communism, so their children won't easily buy into socialists' sugar-coated lies and mind tricks as there are still living victims of communism who can see the Leninist playbook a mile away. People in Hongkong would have voted for a ham sandwich in 2019 district council election as long as they are not pro-CCP, but yet Hongkongers' just couldn't hold their nose and vote for a socialist (Trotskyist, a variant of Marxist-Leninist) 'Long-hair' (Leung Kwok-Hung) so he lost despite the anti-CCP candidates won most of the seats.
Most of the Republicans are not worried about LEGAL immigrants. They are only worried about ILLEGAL immigrants. You are conflating the ideas as you might have fell for the same straw man techniques used by the CCP and the DNC-media who are largely occupied by the radical left 'journalists' who threw away their journalistic integrity for their political activism in the last 5 years. I was stuck for years at the company who sponsored my green card. Imagine how I'd feel when ECONOMIC immigrants can come ILLEGALLY and jump in line skipping years of paperwork and costs. Your stance will change if we have a 'eat your own dog food' policy that whoever that wants an open border must house at least 2 immigrants and PERSONALLY pay for all their associated costs. Uniting for Ukraine program (https://www.uscis.gov/ukraine) are more responsible to the US citizens because it really did what I've just said: those who genuinely want to help (not just virtue signaling) honestly bear the costs for sponsoring the immigrant. Kudos for the democrats who didn't take advantage of Ukraine for the open borders agenda. We are fine with refugees and asylum who have a genuine need (being persecuted and have high risks of getting imprisoned, killed, or unimaginable things done to them), not because they are poor or starving.
Most of the moderate Republicans (not the crazy ones picked on by the DNC-media) merely asked to be fair and reasonable with practicalities. "Eat your own dog food" is what we sorely need to be the ultimate rule of the land above the constitution, so the totalitarianism supporters cannot insidiously destroy the foundation of the country and be home free because they do not directly bear the costs of the laws they've proposed. This alone will exorcise all the socialists and the democrats will be sane again!
Back then when the bulk of the democrats hadn't lost all their basic moral bottomlines, they will think through whether the rule they proposed can come back and bite them when the tables are turned, just like Joe Biden spoke against packing the Supreme Court. Now they simply don't care. Power is everything: if you don't use it, you lose it. That's CCP's mentality.
I'd urge you to consider watching "China Uncensored" and "America Uncovered" on youtube as they try to be fair and mock both sides of the aisle and the did serious research that I cannot easily pick flaws on: if they have something interesting yet cannot be verified, they'd be honest about it upfront. Yes. They mock Trump, just not as frequently as the far-left mobs in the DNC media did.
By the way, I wrote emails to the democrat house representatives in NC listed on your voter registration (public record. turns out it was the first thing search engines came up with when I entered your name. didn't intentionally try to pry as I was searching for the news & case footage) and shouted out to them on Twitter multiple times and asked them to help when you were unjustly persecuted & prosecuted by the Hongkong CCP kangaroo court, and emphasized you are their voter. No response, not a single peep. :(