vox--2020-07-14--The Trump administration just backed down on its attempt to kick out foreign students

The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it will rescind a policy change that would have prohibited international students from remaining in the US if they are taking only online classes amid the coronavirus pandemic .
The announcement came during a hearing in Massachusetts federal court .
Harvard and MIT , backed by more than 200 other universities , had challenged the new policy , which would have forced students taking solely online classes to either return home , transfer to programs with in-person classes , or face the risk of deportation .
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced the policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Harvard unveiled its plans to hold only online classes for the coming academic year .
Ken Cuccinelli , the acting deputy secretary of homeland security , later told CNN that the policy change was meant to “ encourage schools to reopen ” — part of the Trump administration ’ s goal of forcing American life to resume even as the coronavirus continues to spread and the death toll mounts .
Universities have argued that the policy overlooked their efforts to keep students , instructors , and other members of their communities safe amid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are immunocompromised and face higher risk of complications from Covid-19 .
It ’ s one of the rare instances in which the Trump administration has retreated on a major immigration policy priority in the face of widespread public backlash .
By contrast , President Trump defended his decisions to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and impose his travel ban on several majority-Muslim countries — both intensely unpopular policies — until the Supreme Court weighed in .
“ The Trump Administration appears to have seen the harm of its July 6 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ take lawsuits and widespread outcry for them to do their job , ” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra , who had filed a separate lawsuit challenging the policy , said in a statement Tuesday .
“ In the midst of an economic and public health crisis , we don ’ t need the federal government alarming Americans or wasting everyone ’ s time and resources with dangerous policy decisions .
President Trump ’ s arbitrary actions put the health and safety of our students and communities across the country at risk.
” ICE @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for comment on the reasoning behind its decision .
The Trump administration could still pass narrower restrictions The Trump administration may still announce a narrower set of restrictions on foreign students who are newly enrolling in US universities , including college freshmen , the Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday .
That could upend the plans of thousands of students who have already committed to attend a US university just weeks before the start of the fall semester .
But the judge in Harvard and MIT ’ s case has announced that she intends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Trump administration would likely have to defend any such changes before her court .
( Harvard declined to comment on whether it would challenge such rumored restrictions in court . )
It would just be the latest way that Trump , who has criticized universities for “ taking the easy way out ” by canceling in-person classes amid the pandemic , has targeted foreign students .
In recent years , he has sought to clamp down on visa programs that allow foreign students to gain work experience post-graduation , preside over sting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and make it easier for students to fall out of legal status .
Foreign student enrollment , which totaled about 1 million students nationwide in 2014 , has been on a steady decline since his election .
That has dealt a blow to universities that rely on their talents and tuition , and to the US economy — foreign students generate an estimated $ 32 billion in revenue annually and support more than 300,000 jobs , according to the think tank New American Economy .
The policy change that ICE retracted would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , ICE had a longstanding policy of barring international students from living in the US while pursuing online-only curricula .
To maintain a valid visa , foreign students must pursue the number of credits necessary to complete whatever their school deems to be a “ full course of study.
” For students on F-1 visas , only a single online class can count towards their full course of study , and for students in technical and vocational programs on M-1 visas , none count .
ICE changed its policy as universities suspended @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop the spread of the coronavirus , temporarily waiving limits on how many online courses foreign students can take for the spring and summer semesters .
The exemption would remain “ in effect for the duration of the emergency ” related to Covid-19 , the agency said at the time .
But the national emergency is by no means over , and universities have been working for months to determine how they can safely hold classes in the fall without becoming “ superspreaders.
” ICE nevertheless announced that it was updating the policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online-only curricula would no longer be allowed to remain in the US .
It would have offered schools more flexibility than the agency ’ s pre-pandemic policy , Cuccinelli told CNN last week , adding that “ anything short of 100 percent online ” would have allowed foreign students to stay in the US .
But schools say the policy change would have hampered their careful plans to reopen and leave their students with no option but to leave the country .
ICE suggested that students could have transferred to programs that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been impossible within weeks of the start of the fall semester .
And for many students , the prospect of returning to their home countries to take classes online would have been “ impossible , impracticable , prohibitively expensive , and/or dangerous , ” according to Harvard and MIT ’ s suit .
Raúl Romero , a Kenyon College student from Venezuela , said that returning to his home country would mean going back to a socioeconomic and political crisis that has displaced thousands and led to increases in violent crime , starvation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ announcement from the Trump administration came as a relief to those students who will no longer have to imminently return to their home countries .
This isn ’ t the first time Trump has targeted students On the campaign trail in 2015 , Trump voiced support for keeping foreign students in the US .
But once he took office , he pursued a number of policies taking aim at them instead .
Trump has imposed restrictions on visa programs that provide a pathway for students to remain in the US long-term , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ workers .
It ’ s a pipeline for foreign talent , particularly in the fields of computer science , engineering , education , and medicine .
During the pandemic , Trump signed a proclamation temporarily blocking the entry of foreign workers coming to the US on H-1Bs and other visas through the end of the year .
According to a senior administration official , he ’ s also pursuing reforms to the program that would make it harder for entry-level workers just graduating from US universities to qualify .
More than 85,000 immigrants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , including thousands of workers at tech giants such as Google and Amazon .
Recipients are currently selected by lottery , but Trump is proposing to instead prioritize workers with the highest wages and raise the program ’ s minimum wage requirements .
For foreign students deciding to attend American universities , the prospect of being able to work in the US post-graduation is a major draw .
Absent that ability , they might decide against attending school in the US .
Trump has also sought to clamp down on student visa fraud @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be questionable methods .
ICE came under fire in November after announcing that it had been operating a fake university designed to lure in immigrants seeking to obtain student visas fraudulently — but the students claimed they were the ones who had been deceived .
Some 250 students at the University of Farmington in Farmington Hills , Michigan , were consequently arrested .
The University of Farmington wasn ’ t a real educational institution : Although ICE advertised the university as offering graduate STEM ( science , technology , engineering , and math @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any teachers , curriculum , classes , or other educational activities .
Its primary selling point , prosecutors said , is a ticket to an F-1 visa .
But attorneys for the students affected say these operations are entrapment , designed to trick unknowing international students into paying thousands of dollars to a university , while having no way of knowing that their actions are illegal .
The Trump administration also tried to make it easier for students to face penalties for violating the terms of their visas .
US Citizenship and Immigration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant that mistakes as minor as failing to file an address change report or having to drop a course could have prevented students from applying for a new visa or barred them from reentering the US for up to 10 years , Ron Klasko , a Philadelphia-based immigration attorney , said .
That memo , however , was blocked in federal court before it could go into effect .
Trump ’ s attempts to target foreign students have already led to a decline of almost 11 percent in enrollment since the fall of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attributed to their perception that the US is less welcoming toward foreign students .
That ’ s a loss for both universities and the businesses that rely on their talent and economic power .
Foreign students tend to pay more in tuition than Americans , and the loss of that revenue could hurt the quality of US higher education more broadly , universities have argued .
At the graduate level , many serve as research and teaching assistants , now aiding critical research on the coronavirus pandemic , and some grad programs could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ social sciences without them .
Post-graduation , many international students become entrepreneurs or pursue careers in fields requiring specialized skills , particularly in STEM fields where there are well-documented labor shortages .
Nearly a quarter of the founders of billion-dollar American startups came to the US initially as international students , according to the National Foundation for American Policy .
Absent that talent , many businesses may have to resort to candidates that are less qualified , institute training and reskilling programs for their employees , or outsource work abroad , Bhaskar Chakravorti @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University , said .
Even if international students go back to their home countries post-graduation , they still indirectly contribute to the US economy .
Many become contact points for American businesses looking to build a relationship with companies abroad or expand their business outside the US .
And US-educated graduates populating foreign governments may pursue US-friendly policy .
“ It is the American-trained , American-educated graduates that become the primary interlocutors , ” Chakravorti said .
But as Chakravorti has observed among his own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have soured many foreigners on attending university in the US or staying in the country after they graduate .
When João Cardoso , a rising senior from Portugal , was accepted to Yale , he was seriously considering finding a job in the US after graduation , but the past three years have dissuaded him .
He speaks German , so he could get a job in Germany instead as a software developer and wouldn ’ t even need to apply for a new visa since he is a European Union citizen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ isn ’ t worth the hassle or the heartache .
“ I ’ m out of here as soon as possible , ” he said .
“ I ’ m completely disappointed with this country in so many ways.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it will rescind a policy change that would have prohibited returning international students from remaining in the US if they are taking only online classes amid the coronavirus pandemic.
The announcement came during a hearing in Massachusetts federal court. Harvard and MIT, backed by more than 200 other universities, had challenged the new policy, which would have forced students taking solely online classes to return home, transfer to programs with in-person classes, or face the risk of deportation.
US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced the new restrictions on international students last week, just hours after Harvard unveiled its plans to hold only online classes for the coming academic year. Ken Cuccinelli, the acting deputy secretary of homeland security, later told CNN that the policy change was meant to “encourage schools to reopen” — part of the Trump administration’s goal of forcing American life to resume even as the coronavirus continues to spread and the death toll mounts.
Universities have argued that the policy overlooked their efforts to keep students, instructors, and other members of their communities safe amid rising cases nationwide — especially those who are immunocompromised and face higher risk of complications from Covid-19.
It’s one of the rare instances in which the Trump administration has retreated on a major immigration policy priority in the face of widespread public backlash. By contrast, President Trump defended his decisions to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and impose his travel ban on several majority-Muslim countries — both intensely unpopular policies — until the Supreme Court weighed in.
“The Trump Administration appears to have seen the harm of its July 6 directive, but it shouldn’t take lawsuits and widespread outcry for them to do their job,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who had filed a separate lawsuit challenging the policy, said in a statement Tuesday. “In the midst of an economic and public health crisis, we don’t need the federal government alarming Americans or wasting everyone’s time and resources with dangerous policy decisions. President Trump’s arbitrary actions put the health and safety of our students and communities across the country at risk.”
ICE did not respond to a request for comment on the reasoning behind its decision.
Newly enrolling international students will still face restrictions
Newly enrolling international students, including college freshmen, will not be able to take online-only courseloads while living in the US, the administration clarified Wednesday. New international enrollment is expected to dip substantially this year, but based on data from past years across undergraduate, graduate, and non-degree programs, the policy could affect well over 200,000 students who have already committed to attend a US university just weeks before the start of the fall semester.
The judge in Harvard and MIT’s case has announced that she intends to keep the case open, meaning the Trump administration will likely have to defend those restrictions on newly enrolling students before her court.
It is just the latest way that Trump, who has criticized universities for “taking the easy way out” by canceling in-person classes amid the pandemic, has targeted foreign students. In recent years, he has sought to clamp down on visa programs that allow foreign students to gain work experience post-graduation, preside over sting operations to weed out student visa fraud, and make it easier for students to fall out of legal status.
Foreign student enrollment, which totaled about 1 million students nationwide in 2014, has been on a steady decline since his election. That has dealt a blow to universities that rely on their talents and tuition, and to the US economy — foreign students generate an estimated $32 billion in revenue annually and support more than 300,000 jobs, according to the think tank New American Economy.
The policy change that ICE retracted would have forced students to self-deport
Before the pandemic, ICE had a long-standing policy of barring international students from living in the US while pursuing online-only curricula. To maintain a valid visa, foreign students must pursue the number of credits necessary to complete whatever their school deems to be a “full course of study.” For students on F-1 visas, only a single online class can count toward their full course of study, and for students in technical and vocational programs on M-1 visas, none count.
ICE changed its policy as universities suspended in-person classes starting in early March to stop the spread of the coronavirus, temporarily waiving limits on how many online courses foreign students can take for the spring and summer semesters. The exemption would remain “in effect for the duration of the emergency” related to Covid-19, the agency said at the time.
But the national emergency is by no means over, and universities have been working for months to determine how they can safely hold classes in the fall without becoming “superspreaders.” ICE nevertheless announced that it was updating the policy change last week such that students pursuing online-only curricula would no longer be allowed to remain in the US.
It would have offered schools more flexibility than the agency’s pre-pandemic policy, Cuccinelli told CNN last week, adding that “anything short of 100 percent online” would have allowed foreign students to stay in the US.
But schools say the policy change would have hampered their careful plans to reopen and leave their students with no option but to leave the country. ICE suggested that students could have transferred to programs that are not online-only, but that would have been impossible within weeks of the start of the fall semester.
And for many students, the prospect of returning to their home countries to take classes online would have been “impossible, impracticable, prohibitively expensive, and/or dangerous,” according to Harvard and MIT’s suit. Raúl Romero, a Kenyon College student from Venezuela, said that returning to his home country would mean going back to a socioeconomic and political crisis that has displaced thousands and led to increases in violent crime, starvation, and poverty.
Tuesday’s announcement from the Trump administration came as a relief to those students who will no longer have to imminently return to their home countries.
This isn’t the first time Trump has targeted students
On the campaign trail in 2015, Trump voiced support for keeping foreign students in the US. But once he took office, he pursued a number of policies taking aim at them instead.
When foreigners attend our great colleges & want to stay in the U.S., they should not be thrown out of our country. — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 18, 2015
Trump has imposed restrictions on visa programs that provide a pathway for students to remain in the US long-term, including the sought-after H-1B visa program for skilled workers. It’s a pipeline for foreign talent, particularly in the fields of computer science, engineering, education, and medicine.
During the pandemic, Trump signed a proclamation temporarily blocking the entry of foreign workers coming to the US on H-1Bs and other visas through the end of the year. According to a senior administration official, he’s also pursuing reforms to the program that would make it harder for entry-level workers just graduating from US universities to qualify.
More than 85,000 immigrants get H-1B visas for skilled workers annually, including thousands of workers at tech giants such as Google and Amazon. Recipients are currently selected by lottery, but Trump is proposing to instead prioritize workers with the highest wages and raise the program’s minimum wage requirements.
For foreign students deciding to attend American universities, the prospect of being able to work in the US post-graduation is a major draw. Absent that ability, they might decide against attending school in the US.
Trump has also sought to clamp down on student visa fraud, using what many advocates consider to be questionable methods. ICE came under fire in November after announcing that it had been operating a fake university designed to lure in immigrants seeking to obtain student visas fraudulently — but the students claimed they were the ones who had been deceived. Some 250 students at the University of Farmington in Farmington Hills, Michigan, were consequently arrested.
The University of Farmington wasn’t a real educational institution: Although ICE advertised the university as offering graduate STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) courses, it did not have any teachers, curriculum, classes, or other educational activities. Its primary selling point, prosecutors said, is a ticket to an F-1 visa.
But attorneys for the students affected say these operations are entrapment, designed to trick unknowing international students into paying thousands of dollars to a university while having no way of knowing that their actions are illegal.
The Trump administration also tried to make it easier for students to face penalties for violating the terms of their visas. US Citizenship and Immigration Services issued a memo in 2018 that meant that mistakes as minor as failing to file an address change report or having to drop a course could have prevented students from applying for a new visa or barred them from reentering the US for up to 10 years, Ron Klasko, a Philadelphia-based immigration attorney, said. That memo, however, was blocked in federal court before it could go into effect.
Universities argue Trump’s attacks on students harm American innovation
Trump’s attempts to target foreign students have already led to a decline of almost 11 percent in enrollment since the fall of 2016. That drop can largely be attributed to their perception that the US is less welcoming toward foreign students.
That’s a loss for both universities and the businesses that rely on their talent and economic power. Foreign students tend to pay more in tuition than Americans, and the loss of that revenue could hurt the quality of US higher education more broadly, universities have argued. At the graduate level, many serve as research and teaching assistants, now aiding critical research on the coronavirus pandemic, and some grad programs could not exist in the STEM fields and social sciences without them.
Post-graduation, many international students become entrepreneurs or pursue careers in fields requiring specialized skills, particularly in STEM fields where there are well-documented labor shortages. Nearly a quarter of the founders of billion-dollar American startups came to the US initially as international students, according to the National Foundation for American Policy.
Absent that talent, many businesses may have to resort to candidates that are less qualified, institute training and reskilling programs for their employees, or outsource work abroad, Bhaskar Chakravorti, dean of global business at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, said.
Even if international students go back to their home countries post-graduation, they still indirectly contribute to the US economy. Many become contact points for American businesses looking to build a relationship with companies abroad or expand their business outside the US. And US-educated graduates populating foreign governments may pursue US-friendly policy.
“It is the American-trained, American-educated graduates that become the primary interlocutors,” Chakravorti said.
But as Chakravorti has observed among his own students, Trump’s immigration policies have soured many foreigners on attending university in the US or staying in the country after they graduate.
When João Cardoso, a rising senior from Portugal, was accepted to Yale, he was seriously considering finding a job in the US after graduation, but the past three years have dissuaded him. He speaks German, so he could get a job in Germany instead as a software developer and wouldn’t even need to apply for a new visa since he is a European Union citizen. For him, staying in the US isn’t worth the hassle or the heartache.
“I’m out of here as soon as possible,” he said. “I’m completely disappointed with this country in so many ways.”


vox--2020-07-14--Hong Kong’s future under China’s new security law, explained

July 1 in Hong Kong has long been a day of protest .
It marks the anniversary of the territory ’ s handover from Britain to China in 1997 .
This year , 23 years later , Hongkongers protested again — but this time , there was far more at stake than at perhaps any other time since .
That ’ s because July 1 , 2020 , was the first full day that China ’ s new national security law , which gives Beijing broad powers to crack down on political dissent against the Chinese Communist Party , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The full details of the legislation weren ’ t known until it went into effect .
The law specifically criminalizes “ secession , subversion , organization and perpetration of terrorist activities , and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security.
” What falls under those categories is vague , according to experts .
That ’ s a recipe for broad application of the law , one that also carries steep penalties , including up to life imprisonment for the most serious of offenses .
When Britain handed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it was with the promise that Beijing would honor Hong Kong ’ s quasi-independence until at least 2047 , under the rule known as “ one country , two systems.
” The Chinese government has slowly eroded Hong Kong ’ s autonomy in the years since , while still rhetorically committing to the principle .
The imposition of the national security law rips away that facade completely , directly threatening Hong Kong ’ s civil society , independent press , and , most obviously , the territory ’ s sustained pro-democracy movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and total control of Hong Kong and total destruction of Hong Kong ’ s system , ” Victoria Tin-bor Hui , a political science professor at Notre Dame University , told me .
“ I guess we have all seen this coming , but it just feels very surreal to everyone that Hong Kong is truly under ‘ one country , one system , ’ ” Fung , a 27-year-old protester who asked to be identified by only her surname out of concern for her safety , told me .
Fung said that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , bit by bit , to the totalitarianism of the Communist Party .
Yet she held on to a little hope , a kind of dream , that the Chinese Communist Party could become more liberal , more free .
Until now .
“ Today , with this law passed , me and my friends think that we can never go back to what things were .
Now we ’ re just another city , like Guangzhou or Shanghai or Beijing , one of the cities under mainland China ’ s control , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threat of being arrested or prosecuted for speaking out didn ’ t stop Fung and thousands of others from protesting on July 1 ( nor did the city ’ s ongoing ban on public gatherings due to the coronavirus ) .
According to the Hong Kong Free Press , some protesters scattered joss papers — a custom at Chinese funerals — on the streets to represent the death of “ one country , two systems.
” “ It ’ s really the first time that I had a genuine feeling that I would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a slogan or holding a poster on the street , ” a 22-year-old protester , who asked to remain anonymous for their safety , said via WhatsApp .
But the protester said that some friends decided not to join the demonstrations , considering it much more dangerous to speak out or take to the streets now because the power of the Chinese Communist Party “ is too strong to confront or even revolt against.
” And Hong Kong ’ s authorities wasted no time with enforcement .
At least 10 people were arrested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That included a man arrested for having a Hong Kong independence flag , a woman arrested for holding a sign calling for Hong Kong ’ s independence ( which also featured British and American flags ) , and a 15-year-old girl arrested for waving a Hong Kong independence flag , according to the Hong Kong Free Press .
An additional 370 people were also detained , according to Hong Kong police , who used tear gas , rubber bullets , and water cannons to try to break up the demonstrations , relying @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hong Kong ’ s pro-democracy protesters last year .
But one 24-year-old protester , who also wished to remain anonymous , said they believe the new law gives police even more “ justification ” to carry out police brutality .
So while demonstrators have for years taken to the streets on July 1 to protest China ’ s interference , this July 1 felt like a turning point for the territory .
“ This time is different , ” Nathan Law , a pro-democracy activist , told US lawmakers during a House Foreign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So much is now lost in the city I love : the freedom to tell the truth.
” China has long dreamed of asserting more direct control over Hong Kong Last spring , Hong Kong ’ s legislature tried to pass an extradition bill that critics feared would allow the Chinese government to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers .
That ignited massive protests , leading to months of unrest that sometimes turned violent .
The bill was withdrawn in September , but the demonstrations continued as the fight transformed into a larger battle to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The coronavirus pandemic and social distancing measures put some of that public activism on hold .
But Beijing has used the pandemic to further crack down on the pro-democracy movement , including by arresting pro-democracy lawmakers in April .
Then in May , China announced its plan to impose a new national security law intended to curtail foreign interference or activities that undermine the state .
The specific details of the law weren ’ t known , but there was little doubt about its purpose .
That ’ s because such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Chinese government .
In 2003 , the Hong Kong legislature attempted to pass a national security law under Article 23 of Hong Kong ’ s Basic Law ( the closest thing Hong Kong has to a constitution ) .
This would have established rules against subverting the state and foreign interference , but the law got shelved after mass protests .
The difference then was that Hong Kong ’ s quasi-democratically elected legislature was taking up the proposed law , giving it the veneer of legitimacy .
Now China has decided to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on its own , direct from Beijing , without bothering to even pretend to involve the local institutions .
“ The way this was done — not through the local authorities , but rather from Beijing — and with China having asserted authority that it had not previously asserted in that way , suggests that it ’ s very much the mainland basically saying , ‘ We have the bottom line on things we consider national security , and that includes political security for the [ Chinese Communist Party ] and the regime @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy analyst on China at the US Institute of Peace , told me .
Even Chief Executive Carrie Lam , the nominal leader of Hong Kong whose close ties with Beijing have led critics to portray her as little more than a puppet of the Chinese government , reportedly didn ’ t know the full details of the new national security law until it was unveiled to the public this week .
And the law is extensive .
It contains 66 articles , some of which are very detailed and specific and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost certainly means they ’ ll be subject to interpretation .
What the new law says — and what it purposely doesn ’ t say The law prohibits four broad activities : secessionism , subversion , terrorism , and colluding with foreign forces .
( Read the full text of the official English translation of the law here . )
Under each of these activities are some specific offenses .
For example , damaging government buildings could qualify as “ subversion , ” a serious offense that could result in life imprisonment .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stormed and defaced the Hong Kong Legislative Council to protest the extradition bill , making this provision look very much like a response to previous protest tactics .
Another example : Under the “ colluding with foreign forces ” provision , the law says Hongkongers could be arrested and prosecuted if they lobby or work with foreign entities against the Chinese government , including “ enacting laws and policies that cause serious obstruction or serious consequences to Hong Kong or China , ” according to the Hong Kong Free Press .
This could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals who have called for sanctions or increased pressure on China to stop its intervention in Hong Kong .
The Chinese government has blamed outsiders , specifically those in the West , for fomenting opposition against its rule in Hong Kong , and this looks to be a way to silence its critics .
Of course , these expansive definitions are kind of the point .
“ If mainland practice to date is any guide — and it is — then the definitions don ’ t matter that much .
Anything can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the person being targeted , ” Donald Clarke , an expert on Chinese law and professor at the University of Washington School of Law , writes in an analysis of the legislation .
“ As the old cliché goes , 欲加之罪何患无辞.
” ( That translates roughly to , “ If you are determined to convict , you needn ’ t worry about the lack of grounds.
” ) Another remarkable feature of this law is its reach : Not only does it apply to Hongkongers , it could potentially also apply to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or oppose China ’ s interventions there , regardless of where in the world they do so , should they ever set foot in Hong Kong .
This is beyond even the laws in mainland China , and as Clarke puts it , this asserts “ extraterritorial jurisdiction over every person on the planet.
” This is basically saying that speaking out against China or supporting pro-democracy protests — maybe in a column , or a video , or a tweet — could put that individual at risk in the future , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ offense.
” Finally , the law also gives China more power to interfere directly in Hong Kong ’ s legal system , fully undermining its rule of law .
As NPR notes , “ The law empowers China to set up a ‘ National Security Committee ’ to oversee the investigation and prosecution of any violations .
This committee is subject neither to judicial review nor Hong Kong law — meaning it operates without any local checks or balances.
” The law also allows for Chinese judges in mainland China to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security cases , or an extradition bill by different means .
“ It ’ s the end ... a very formal , total end of Hong Kong ’ s system , ” Notre Dame ’ s Hui told me .
What happens to Hong Kong ’ s pro-democracy movement ?
Those massive pro-democracy marches , where millions of Hongkongers demonstrated — those may never happen again , Fung told me .
There isn ’ t much space for freedom of speech in the city anymore , and she doesn ’ t feel that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her and her fellow citizens , she said , are limited .
“ We can continue to live in the city [ and ] choose to forget about the freedom and values and demands that we believe in , ” she said .
“ Or maybe we will have to just leave the city to continue this kind of spirit somewhere else.
” That is the dilemma facing many young Hongkongers I spoke to , who see themselves as democracy ’ s last gasp in the territory .
They aren ’ t sure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for them there .
As the generation born right around the time of the territory ’ s handover from Britain to China , they ’ ve grown up enjoying Hong Kong ’ s freedoms , even as they watched them slowly begin to slip away .
This generation fueled Hong Kong ’ s resistance to the extradition bill , demanded democracy , and did it powerfully enough that Beijing fought back .
“ In the long term , I anticipate the law would turn HK [ Hong Kong ] into China — no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HK people would live under fear , ” a 24-year-old protester , who spoke on condition of anonymity , said via WhatsApp .
“ Our next generation might receive brainwashing education stating China [ is ] the best.
” Some Hongkongers are already deleting their old social media posts or changing their names online , just in case .
Betty Lau , the editor of InMedia HK , which posts pro-democracy articles , told the New York Times that writers had asked her to delete old posts .
The site has since removed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ group , Demosisto , also disbanded in the wake of the law .
One of its leaders , Joshua Wong , said on Twitter that he was leaving the group .
“ If my voice will not be heard soon , I hope that the international community will continue to speak up for Hong Kong and step up concrete efforts to defend our last bit of freedom , ” he wrote .
Soon other prominent leaders of the group , including Nathan Law ( who testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another prominent pro-democracy activist , said they were stepping down .
The group then dissolved .
Activists like Wong and Chow have been targeted before by Hong Kong authorities ; for example , they were arrested last year for allegedly participating in an “ unauthorized ” assembly during the summer protests .
Given their prominence , they are likely to be at risk under this new law .
The chilling effect is the point .
Dean Cheng , a senior research fellow on China at the Heritage Foundation , told me that China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to impose a condition of self-censorship , where you learn not what to say.
” Activists disbanding their groups or taking down their pro-democracy social media posts because they fear repercussions — with good reason — is exactly what Beijing wants .
“ The [ Chinese Communist Party ] is very , very practiced at political control .
They have very developed theories of how to do that , ” Stokes , from the US Institute of Peace , said .
“ And they believe it works in the mainland.
” The way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he added , the problem with Hong Kong is simply that the government there hasn ’ t implemented Beijing ’ s “ successful ” system .
Protesters did come out into the streets in defiance of the new law on July 1 .
But the ones I spoke to all expressed nervousness , fear , and confusion about whether they will keep doing so if it becomes dangerous .
Fung said she thinks she will continue to post online , and maybe support other protesters who do go out in the streets by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help people flee if police crack down .
But that is dangerous , too .
The pro-democracy movement goes beyond just protesters and activists , though .
The citizenry of Hong Kong has largely been divided in two factions : the “ yellow ” camp — those who sympathize with the pro-democracy movement — and the “ blue ” camp , those seen as supporting the police and the Hong Kong government .
Many in the yellow camp , though they supported the protesters ’ aims , didn ’ t participate in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ protesters may continue to take to the streets and speak out publicly despite the risks , the fear is that many others — young professionals , those with families , people who feel they have a lot to lose — may begin to rethink about whether they will continue to do so publicly .
Peter , a 28-year-old Hongkonger , never considered himself a hardcore protester .
He sympathized with the movement and attended some demonstrations , but he wouldn ’ t consider himself part of the front lines .
He and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ A lot of moderate protesters like myself are going to step back , because a lot of us still have a job here , we have families , ” he said .
“ One thing that ’ s really scary , ” he said , is that “ if you ’ re accused under this new law , they have all the authority to send you back to China.
” “ Be like water ” became a slogan and a strategy of the Hong Kong protests , a way to move fluidly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the government ’ s response .
When the Hong Kong government denied a permit for the annual vigil honoring the Tiananmen Square massacre in June , for instance , organizers instructed people to instead light a candle , wherever they were , to show their support .
Hui told me she sees the protests taking on an even more decentralized form and finding new methods for Hongkongers to signal their solidarity .
An independence flag may be banned , but officials can ’ t outlaw a candle .
Maybe people just take a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same time .
Taking even small acts of resistance , whatever they are , and making them part of daily life .
“ One country , two systems ” might be dead , but whether that means the end of Hong Kong is a different question , Hui said .
“ Hong Kong is not dead unless the people let it.
” Hongkongers are looking to the rest of the world .
But will help come ?
“ I know the whole world is watching us , ” Fung told me .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is to let the whole world see that Hong Kong people are still willing to go out and protest even under this kind of threat.
” China ’ s national security law has been broadly condemned internationally — including by the United States .
The Trump administration had already declared last month that because of the new national security law ( which was expected to pass soon ) , Hong Kong was no longer considered autonomous from China .
Shortly after , the US also announced that it would be removing Hong Kong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives it slightly different treatment from mainland China .
( Trump said at a July 14 press conference that he was issuing an executive order that would officially revoke Hong Kong ’ s special status . )
“ The United States will not stand idly by while China swallows Hong Kong into its authoritarian maw , ” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement June 30 .
The US , he said , had taken other steps to pull back Hong Kong ’ s special status , including imposing visa restrictions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ undermining Hong Kong ’ s autonomy ” and ending defense and some technology exports to the territory .
Pompeo added that “ per President Trump ’ s instruction , ” the US would be eliminating most of the “ policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment , with few exceptions.
” How much further the Trump administration will go is an open question .
Trump has taken an aggressive stance toward China on a number of issues , particularly on trade , and , more recently , for failing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic .
But when it comes to China ’ s human rights abuses , Trump has been far less critical .
The US Congress has backed Hong Kong ’ s pro-democracy movement with strong bipartisan support , though .
Last year , Trump signed into law the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Act , which , in addition to evaluating Hong Kong ’ s autonomous status , calls on the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights in Hong Kong .
That support remains strong .
On July 1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Kong Autonomy Act , which would impose mandatory sanctions on individuals or entities that violate either the Sino-British Joint Declaration , the treaty between the UK and China that allowed for the handover and laid out the “ one country , two systems ” principle until 2047 ; or Hong Kong ’ s Basic Law ( its de facto constitution ) .
The next day , so did the Senate , sending the bill to Trump ’ s desk .
On July 14 , Trump announced that he ’ s signing the legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also introduced a bill that would grant refugee status to Hong Kong residents who face persecution under the new national security law , including those who might have participated in the pro-democracy and anti-extradition bill protests .
If passed and signed into law , it would be a powerful statement on human rights and democracy from the United States .
But it would also show a disconnect in the federal government , as the Trump administration has drastically cut the number of refugees coming from just about everywhere else .
Other countries are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well .
The United Kingdom will grant additional rights to Hongkongers who are British Nationals Overseas passport holders .
Previously , they could stay in the UK for six months , but the UK government extended that to five years , after which the possibility for residency and later citizenship is available .
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said it would allow the UK to “ uphold our profound ties of history and friendship with the people of Hong Kong.
” It could apply to as many as 3 million people .
Taiwan — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to China — unveiled a new office explicitly created to help Hong Kong asylum seekers .
Offering an escape route from Hong Kong will protect many , and leaving is an option that many Hongkongers said they would consider if life in the territory becomes untenable .
At the same time , though , it is still a fraught decision .
Hong Kong is home , and leaving feels a bit like a surrender , giving up on preserving Hong Kong ’ s democracy and letting China win .
And some worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China to stop or punish it for its power grab in Hong Kong would encourage China to become even more aggressive , both in Hong Kong and elsewhere .
Or , as one protester put it : “ Today Hong Kong , tomorrow the world.
” Every day at Vox , we aim to answer your most important questions and provide you , and our audience around the world , with information that has the power to save lives .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vox ’ s work is reaching more people than ever , but our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources — particularly during a pandemic and an economic downturn .
Your financial contribution will not constitute a donation , but it will enable our staff to continue to offer free articles , videos , and podcasts at the quality and volume that this moment requires .
Please consider making a contribution to Vox today .

July 1 in Hong Kong has long been a day of protest. It marks the anniversary of the territory’s handover from Britain to China in 1997. This year, 23 years later, Hongkongers protested again — but this time, there was far more at stake than at perhaps any other time since.
That’s because July 1, 2020, was the first full day that China’s new national security law, which gives Beijing broad powers to crack down on political dissent against the Chinese Communist Party, was in full effect in Hong Kong.
The full details of the legislation weren’t known until it went into effect. The law specifically criminalizes “secession, subversion, organization and perpetration of terrorist activities, and collusion with a foreign country or with external elements to endanger national security.”
What falls under those categories is vague, according to experts. That’s a recipe for broad application of the law, one that also carries steep penalties, including up to life imprisonment for the most serious of offenses.
When Britain handed Hong Kong over to China in 1997, it was with the promise that Beijing would honor Hong Kong’s quasi-independence until at least 2047, under the rule known as “one country, two systems.” The Chinese government has slowly eroded Hong Kong’s autonomy in the years since, while still rhetorically committing to the principle.
The imposition of the national security law rips away that facade completely, directly threatening Hong Kong’s civil society, independent press, and, most obviously, the territory’s sustained pro-democracy movement.
The law means the “complete and total control of Hong Kong and total destruction of Hong Kong’s system,” Victoria Tin-bor Hui, a political science professor at Notre Dame University, told me.
Pro-democracy protesters I spoke with expressed similar sentiments.
“I guess we have all seen this coming, but it just feels very surreal to everyone that Hong Kong is truly under ‘one country, one system,’” Fung, a 27-year-old protester who asked to be identified by only her surname out of concern for her safety, told me.
Fung said that she and many of her friends awakened, bit by bit, to the totalitarianism of the Communist Party. Yet she held on to a little hope, a kind of dream, that the Chinese Communist Party could become more liberal, more free. Until now.
“Today, with this law passed, me and my friends think that we can never go back to what things were. Now we’re just another city, like Guangzhou or Shanghai or Beijing, one of the cities under mainland China’s control,” Fung said.
But the new threat of being arrested or prosecuted for speaking out didn’t stop Fung and thousands of others from protesting on July 1 (nor did the city’s ongoing ban on public gatherings due to the coronavirus). According to the Hong Kong Free Press, some protesters scattered joss papers — a custom at Chinese funerals — on the streets to represent the death of “one country, two systems.”
“It’s really the first time that I had a genuine feeling that I would be arrested just because of speaking aloud a slogan or holding a poster on the street,” a 22-year-old protester, who asked to remain anonymous for their safety, said via WhatsApp.
But the protester said that some friends decided not to join the demonstrations, considering it much more dangerous to speak out or take to the streets now because the power of the Chinese Communist Party “is too strong to confront or even revolt against.”
And Hong Kong’s authorities wasted no time with enforcement. At least 10 people were arrested July 1 under the national security legislation. That included a man arrested for having a Hong Kong independence flag, a woman arrested for holding a sign calling for Hong Kong’s independence (which also featured British and American flags), and a 15-year-old girl arrested for waving a Hong Kong independence flag, according to the Hong Kong Free Press.
#NationalSecurityLaw in effect. #HKPolice further arrested a female for showing a material with #HKIndependence slogan in #CausewayBay, Hong Kong. #HKPolice will take resolute enforcement action in accordance with #NSL. pic.twitter.com/mTmJWt8Z8m — Hong Kong Police Force (@hkpoliceforce) July 1, 2020
An additional 370 people were also detained, according to Hong Kong police, who used tear gas, rubber bullets, and water cannons to try to break up the demonstrations, relying on the same heavy-handed tactics that galvanized Hong Kong’s pro-democracy protesters last year. But one 24-year-old protester, who also wished to remain anonymous, said they believe the new law gives police even more “justification” to carry out police brutality.
So while demonstrators have for years taken to the streets on July 1 to protest China’s interference, this July 1 felt like a turning point for the territory.
“This time is different,” Nathan Law, a pro-democracy activist, told US lawmakers during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on July 1. “So much is now lost in the city I love: the freedom to tell the truth.”
China has long dreamed of asserting more direct control over Hong Kong
Last spring, Hong Kong’s legislature tried to pass an extradition bill that critics feared would allow the Chinese government to arbitrarily detain Hongkongers. That ignited massive protests, leading to months of unrest that sometimes turned violent. The bill was withdrawn in September, but the demonstrations continued as the fight transformed into a larger battle to protect Hong Kong’s democratic institutions.
The coronavirus pandemic and social distancing measures put some of that public activism on hold. But Beijing has used the pandemic to further crack down on the pro-democracy movement, including by arresting pro-democracy lawmakers in April.
Then in May, China announced its plan to impose a new national security law intended to curtail foreign interference or activities that undermine the state. The specific details of the law weren’t known, but there was little doubt about its purpose.
That’s because such a law has long been a dream of the Chinese government. In 2003, the Hong Kong legislature attempted to pass a national security law under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law (the closest thing Hong Kong has to a constitution). This would have established rules against subverting the state and foreign interference, but the law got shelved after mass protests.
The difference then was that Hong Kong’s quasi-democratically elected legislature was taking up the proposed law, giving it the veneer of legitimacy. Now China has decided to just go ahead and impose the law on its own, direct from Beijing, without bothering to even pretend to involve the local institutions.
“The way this was done — not through the local authorities, but rather from Beijing — and with China having asserted authority that it had not previously asserted in that way, suggests that it’s very much the mainland basically saying, ‘We have the bottom line on things we consider national security, and that includes political security for the [Chinese Communist Party] and the regime,” Jacob Stokes, a senior policy analyst on China at the US Institute of Peace, told me.
Even Chief Executive Carrie Lam, the nominal leader of Hong Kong whose close ties with Beijing have led critics to portray her as little more than a puppet of the Chinese government, reportedly didn’t know the full details of the new national security law until it was unveiled to the public this week.
And the law is extensive. It contains 66 articles, some of which are very detailed and specific and others that are much more vague — which almost certainly means they’ll be subject to interpretation.
What the new law says — and what it purposely doesn’t say
The law prohibits four broad activities: secessionism, subversion, terrorism, and colluding with foreign forces. (Read the full text of the official English translation of the law here.)
Under each of these activities are some specific offenses. For example, damaging government buildings could qualify as “subversion,” a serious offense that could result in life imprisonment. On July 1, 2019, Hongkongers stormed and defaced the Hong Kong Legislative Council to protest the extradition bill, making this provision look very much like a response to previous protest tactics.
Another example: Under the “colluding with foreign forces” provision, the law says Hongkongers could be arrested and prosecuted if they lobby or work with foreign entities against the Chinese government, including “enacting laws and policies that cause serious obstruction or serious consequences to Hong Kong or China,” according to the Hong Kong Free Press.
This could implicate human rights groups, or even individuals who have called for sanctions or increased pressure on China to stop its intervention in Hong Kong. The Chinese government has blamed outsiders, specifically those in the West, for fomenting opposition against its rule in Hong Kong, and this looks to be a way to silence its critics.
Of course, these expansive definitions are kind of the point.
“If mainland practice to date is any guide — and it is — then the definitions don’t matter that much. Anything can be stretched as necessary to cover something done by the person being targeted,” Donald Clarke, an expert on Chinese law and professor at the University of Washington School of Law, writes in an analysis of the legislation. “As the old cliché goes, 欲加之罪何患无辞.” (That translates roughly to, “If you are determined to convict, you needn’t worry about the lack of grounds.”)
Another remarkable feature of this law is its reach: Not only does it apply to Hongkongers, it could potentially also apply to foreigners who speak out for Hong Kong or oppose China’s interventions there, regardless of where in the world they do so, should they ever set foot in Hong Kong.
This is beyond even the laws in mainland China, and as Clarke puts it, this asserts “extraterritorial jurisdiction over every person on the planet.” This is basically saying that speaking out against China or supporting pro-democracy protests — maybe in a column, or a video, or a tweet — could put that individual at risk in the future, no matter their location at the time of the “offense.”
Finally, the law also gives China more power to interfere directly in Hong Kong’s legal system, fully undermining its rule of law. As NPR notes, “The law empowers China to set up a ‘National Security Committee’ to oversee the investigation and prosecution of any violations. This committee is subject neither to judicial review nor Hong Kong law — meaning it operates without any local checks or balances.”
The law also allows for Chinese judges in mainland China to try the most serious or complicated national security cases, or an extradition bill by different means.
“It’s the end ... a very formal, total end of Hong Kong’s system,” Notre Dame’s Hui told me.
What happens to Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement?
Those massive pro-democracy marches, where millions of Hongkongers demonstrated — those may never happen again, Fung told me. There isn’t much space for freedom of speech in the city anymore, and she doesn’t feel that will change. The options left to her and her fellow citizens, she said, are limited.
“We can continue to live in the city [and] choose to forget about the freedom and values and demands that we believe in,” she said. “Or maybe we will have to just leave the city to continue this kind of spirit somewhere else.”
That is the dilemma facing many young Hongkongers I spoke to, who see themselves as democracy’s last gasp in the territory. They aren’t sure if there’s still a place for them there.
As the generation born right around the time of the territory’s handover from Britain to China, they’ve grown up enjoying Hong Kong’s freedoms, even as they watched them slowly begin to slip away. This generation fueled Hong Kong’s resistance to the extradition bill, demanded democracy, and did it powerfully enough that Beijing fought back.
“In the long term, I anticipate the law would turn HK [Hong Kong] into China — no democracy, no freedom, and, HK people would live under fear,” a 24-year-old protester, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said via WhatsApp. “Our next generation might receive brainwashing education stating China [is] the best.”
Some Hongkongers are already deleting their old social media posts or changing their names online, just in case. Betty Lau, the editor of InMedia HK, which posts pro-democracy articles, told the New York Times that writers had asked her to delete old posts. The site has since removed more than 100.
A prominent pro-democracy group, Demosisto, also disbanded in the wake of the law. One of its leaders, Joshua Wong, said on Twitter that he was leaving the group. “If my voice will not be heard soon, I hope that the international community will continue to speak up for Hong Kong and step up concrete efforts to defend our last bit of freedom,” he wrote.
Soon other prominent leaders of the group, including Nathan Law (who testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on July 1) and Agnes Chow, another prominent pro-democracy activist, said they were stepping down. The group then dissolved. Activists like Wong and Chow have been targeted before by Hong Kong authorities; for example, they were arrested last year for allegedly participating in an “unauthorized” assembly during the summer protests. Given their prominence, they are likely to be at risk under this new law.
The chilling effect is the point.
Dean Cheng, a senior research fellow on China at the Heritage Foundation, told me that China’s most useful approach is “to impose a condition of self-censorship, where you learn not what to say.” Activists disbanding their groups or taking down their pro-democracy social media posts because they fear repercussions — with good reason — is exactly what Beijing wants.
“The [Chinese Communist Party] is very, very practiced at political control. They have very developed theories of how to do that,” Stokes, from the US Institute of Peace, said. “And they believe it works in the mainland.” The way China’s leaders see it, he added, the problem with Hong Kong is simply that the government there hasn’t implemented Beijing’s “successful” system.
Protesters did come out into the streets in defiance of the new law on July 1. But the ones I spoke to all expressed nervousness, fear, and confusion about whether they will keep doing so if it becomes dangerous. Fung said she thinks she will continue to post online, and maybe support other protesters who do go out in the streets by serving as a driver, offering to help people flee if police crack down. But that is dangerous, too.
The pro-democracy movement goes beyond just protesters and activists, though. The citizenry of Hong Kong has largely been divided in two factions: the “yellow” camp — those who sympathize with the pro-democracy movement — and the “blue” camp, those seen as supporting the police and the Hong Kong government.
Many in the yellow camp, though they supported the protesters’ aims, didn’t participate in the protests themselves. So while the hardcore protesters may continue to take to the streets and speak out publicly despite the risks, the fear is that many others — young professionals, those with families, people who feel they have a lot to lose — may begin to rethink about whether they will continue to do so publicly.
Peter, a 28-year-old Hongkonger, never considered himself a hardcore protester. He sympathized with the movement and attended some demonstrations, but he wouldn’t consider himself part of the front lines. He and others like him are at that crossroads.
“A lot of moderate protesters like myself are going to step back, because a lot of us still have a job here, we have families,” he said. “One thing that’s really scary,” he said, is that “if you’re accused under this new law, they have all the authority to send you back to China.”
“Be like water” became a slogan and a strategy of the Hong Kong protests, a way to move fluidly and adapt to police tactics and to the government’s response. When the Hong Kong government denied a permit for the annual vigil honoring the Tiananmen Square massacre in June, for instance, organizers instructed people to instead light a candle, wherever they were, to show their support.
Hui told me she sees the protests taking on an even more decentralized form and finding new methods for Hongkongers to signal their solidarity. An independence flag may be banned, but officials can’t outlaw a candle. Maybe people just take a walk — all together, at the same time. Taking even small acts of resistance, whatever they are, and making them part of daily life.
“One country, two systems” might be dead, but whether that means the end of Hong Kong is a different question, Hui said. “Hong Kong is not dead unless the people let it.”
Hongkongers are looking to the rest of the world. But will help come?
“I know the whole world is watching us,” Fung told me. “And one of the key objectives today is to let the whole world see that Hong Kong people are still willing to go out and protest even under this kind of threat.”
China’s national security law has been broadly condemned internationally — including by the United States. The Trump administration had already declared last month that because of the new national security law (which was expected to pass soon), Hong Kong was no longer considered autonomous from China. Shortly after, the US also announced that it would be removing Hong Kong’s special trade status, which gives it slightly different treatment from mainland China. (Trump said at a July 14 press conference that he was issuing an executive order that would officially revoke Hong Kong’s special status.)
“The United States will not stand idly by while China swallows Hong Kong into its authoritarian maw,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a statement June 30.
The US, he said, had taken other steps to pull back Hong Kong’s special status, including imposing visa restrictions on Chinese Communist Party officials involved in “undermining Hong Kong’s autonomy” and ending defense and some technology exports to the territory. Pompeo added that “per President Trump’s instruction,” the US would be eliminating most of the “policy exemptions that give Hong Kong different and special treatment, with few exceptions.”
How much further the Trump administration will go is an open question. Trump has taken an aggressive stance toward China on a number of issues, particularly on trade, and, more recently, for failing to stop the coronavirus from spreading into a pandemic.
But when it comes to China’s human rights abuses, Trump has been far less critical.
The US Congress has backed Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement with strong bipartisan support, though. Last year, Trump signed into law the Hong Kong Freedom and Democracy Act, which, in addition to evaluating Hong Kong’s autonomous status, calls on the president to impose sanctions on officials who violate human rights in Hong Kong.
That support remains strong. On July 1, the House unanimously passed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, which would impose mandatory sanctions on individuals or entities that violate either the Sino-British Joint Declaration, the treaty between the UK and China that allowed for the handover and laid out the “one country, two systems” principle until 2047; or Hong Kong’s Basic Law (its de facto constitution). The next day, so did the Senate, sending the bill to Trump’s desk. On July 14, Trump announced that he’s signing the legislation.
A bipartisan group of senators has also introduced a bill that would grant refugee status to Hong Kong residents who face persecution under the new national security law, including those who might have participated in the pro-democracy and anti-extradition bill protests.
If passed and signed into law, it would be a powerful statement on human rights and democracy from the United States. But it would also show a disconnect in the federal government, as the Trump administration has drastically cut the number of refugees coming from just about everywhere else.
Other countries are taking steps to help Hong Kong as well. The United Kingdom will grant additional rights to Hongkongers who are British Nationals Overseas passport holders. Previously, they could stay in the UK for six months, but the UK government extended that to five years, after which the possibility for residency and later citizenship is available.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson said it would allow the UK to “uphold our profound ties of history and friendship with the people of Hong Kong.” It could apply to as many as 3 million people.
Taiwan — which has a particular stake in standing up to China — unveiled a new office explicitly created to help Hong Kong asylum seekers.
Offering an escape route from Hong Kong will protect many, and leaving is an option that many Hongkongers said they would consider if life in the territory becomes untenable.
At the same time, though, it is still a fraught decision. Hong Kong is home, and leaving feels a bit like a surrender, giving up on preserving Hong Kong’s democracy and letting China win.
And some worry that a failure to take action against China to stop or punish it for its power grab in Hong Kong would encourage China to become even more aggressive, both in Hong Kong and elsewhere. Or, as one protester put it: “Today Hong Kong, tomorrow the world.”


vox--2020-07-14--How Cakes in Disguise Got Out of Hand

How Cakes in Disguise Got Out of Hand

Over the weekend , a fear gripped social media .
People regarded each other with suspicion , a single question nagging the backs of their minds as they engaged with anything or anyone : Is that a cake ?
Are you cake ?
Am I ?
The cause of this cakey paranoia is the proliferation of videos like the one Tasty shared on July 8 , a compilation of videos from chef Tuba Geckil , in which things that at first glance are shoes or pots or peaches are revealed — with the slice of a knife — to be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Glistening oysters and chicken breasts ( both cakes ! )
, or whole papery onions ( a cake , as well ! )
.
It ’ s horrifying enough that the fear boiled over into countless memes , the favorite coping mechanism of millennials and Gen Z , that suggest that everything in your life has the potential to be cake .
Not only can anything be cake .
Any cake can be a joke .
The widespread reaction may just be a case of pandemic brain , in which our collective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is given a clear and relatively safe outlet .
After all , this sort of realistic cake-that-looks-like-something-else work has existed for years .
Cakes made to resemble other objects , whimsically or realistically , have been popular at weddings for decades .
As Delish writes , the “ sugar art boom ” of the ‘ 90s allowed for more complicated designs that represented the personalities and interests of the married couple .
The tradition of the “ groom ’ s cake ” also spread from the American south ( you may remember the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Steel Magnolias ) as couples looked to include more opportunities to represent their personalities .
Typically , the groom ’ s cake gets to be more “ fun , ” and is shaped to resemble one of the groom ’ s hobbies .
Realistic cakes were also popularized by pastry chefs like Duff Goldman and his string of shows on Food Network , like Ace of Cakes and Cake Masters .
There , Goldman became known for creating edible art , including at one point a cake that served as a model of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only upped the stakes for what a cake could look like , but also revealed some tricks of the trade .
Basically once anyone got their hands on moldable Rice Krispies and edible spray paint , the definition of “ cake ” shifted from a baked-and-frosted confection to anything that can be covered in fondant .
In the era of Tasty videos and TikTok , it ’ s become even easier to get straight to the reveal .
Unlike on a baking show , where you watch the entire process from batter to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media offer the reverse : object to cake .
Now it is no longer a feat of craft to make a cake that looks like a roast turkey or a human hand , but a prank .
It also reveals just how ridiculous the cake-as-object trend has gotten , recalling Dr. Ian Malcolm ’ s arguments about what we could and should be doing in the face of such unprecedented confectionary technology .
Yes , you can make a cake that looks like a raw chicken breast .
Why on earth would you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that ?
?
It is a show of skill toward no actual purpose or benefit .
You might as well have made nothing .
But then again , maybe the cake jokes reveal a deeper truth .
The pandemic , economic crisis , and anti-racism uprisings have caused many to question basic assumptions about how the world works , and to imagine new and radical futures .
More than ever , we are not taking the messages we hear — about the government , the economy , about what is and isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cake meme is a perfect extension of both newfound mass suspicion and a newfound sense of possibility .
That is not a peach .
That is not a sound public health solution .
Poke at it and see what ’ s inside .

Over the weekend, a fear gripped social media. People regarded each other with suspicion, a single question nagging the backs of their minds as they engaged with anything or anyone: Is that a cake? Are you cake? Am I?
The cause of this cakey paranoia is the proliferation of videos like the one Tasty shared on July 8, a compilation of videos from chef Tuba Geckil, in which things that at first glance are shoes or pots or peaches are revealed — with the slice of a knife — to be cakes. Similar videos made the rounds: Glistening oysters and chicken breasts (both cakes!), or whole papery onions (a cake, as well!). It’s horrifying enough that the fear boiled over into countless memes, the favorite coping mechanism of millennials and Gen Z, that suggest that everything in your life has the potential to be cake.
These Are All Cakes pic.twitter.com/ejArkJHaid — Tasty (@tasty) July 8, 2020
Not only can anything be cake. Any cake can be a joke.
The year is 2030. Bakery art is so realistic, literally anything could be cake. The uncertainty has gripped the world in fear. I go to hug my wife for comfort. She is cake. — MehGyver (@TheAndrewNadeau) July 9, 2020
gender reveal where you cut into a baby and reveal that it’s a cake — Kristen Arnett (@Kristen_Arnett) July 11, 2020
Among all the cake memes, this is my favorite one pic.twitter.com/GyStshMg2w — مارااح (@omgMarah) July 12, 2020
These are all cakes pic.twitter.com/qejmfNrUe6 — Luke Healy (@LukeHealy) July 11, 2020
The widespread reaction may just be a case of pandemic brain, in which our collective paranoia about the state of the world is given a clear and relatively safe outlet. After all, this sort of realistic cake-that-looks-like-something-else work has existed for years. Cakes made to resemble other objects, whimsically or realistically, have been popular at weddings for decades. As Delish writes, the “sugar art boom” of the ‘90s allowed for more complicated designs that represented the personalities and interests of the married couple. The tradition of the “groom’s cake” also spread from the American south (you may remember the famous armadillo groom’s cake in Steel Magnolias) as couples looked to include more opportunities to represent their personalities. Typically, the groom’s cake gets to be more “fun,” and is shaped to resemble one of the groom’s hobbies.
Realistic cakes were also popularized by pastry chefs like Duff Goldman and his string of shows on Food Network, like Ace of Cakes and Cake Masters. There, Goldman became known for creating edible art, including at one point a cake that served as a model of the Hubble Space Telescope. Television not only upped the stakes for what a cake could look like, but also revealed some tricks of the trade. Basically once anyone got their hands on moldable Rice Krispies and edible spray paint, the definition of “cake” shifted from a baked-and-frosted confection to anything that can be covered in fondant.
In the era of Tasty videos and TikTok, it’s become even easier to get straight to the betrayal reveal. Unlike on a baking show, where you watch the entire process from batter to cake to object, videos on social media offer the reverse: object to cake. Now it is no longer a feat of craft to make a cake that looks like a roast turkey or a human hand, but a prank.
It also reveals just how ridiculous the cake-as-object trend has gotten, recalling Dr. Ian Malcolm’s arguments about what we could and should be doing in the face of such unprecedented confectionary technology. Yes, you can make a cake that looks like a raw chicken breast. Why on earth would you want to? Who wants to eat that?? It is a show of skill toward no actual purpose or benefit. You might as well have made nothing.
But then again, maybe the cake jokes reveal a deeper truth. The pandemic, economic crisis, and anti-racism uprisings have caused many to question basic assumptions about how the world works, and to imagine new and radical futures. More than ever, we are not taking the messages we hear — about the government, the economy, about what is and isn’t possible— at face value. The cake meme is a perfect extension of both newfound mass suspicion and a newfound sense of possibility. That is not a peach. That is not a sound public health solution. Poke at it and see what’s inside.
It's so cool how they made an instrument to check if the rich are made of cake pic.twitter.com/FIXUfsfjfW — Nikola (@niktaylorde) July 13, 2020