A Hong Kong enclave in Ireland?

Six locations in Ireland were discussed by government officials as possible sites for a new autonomous city named Nextpolis proposed by a wealthy Hong Kong businessman, The Times can reveal.

The Department of Foreign Affairs has been in contact with the Victoria Harbour Group (VHG), an international charter city investment company, since December about a plan to create a city from scratch that would be home to tens of thousands of Hong Kong residents…

The proposed city was referred to as Sim City in its early stages, after the computer game in which players create their own city. Over time its name changed to Nextpolis.

Here is the full story (Times of London, gated).  This article (same source) suggests the Irish citizenry is unlikely to favor the plan.

Comments

"Nextopolis". Really?

Why? Because "Gotham City" was already taken?

Agreed. Mixing words of Germanic and Greek origin is tacky. Better stick with all Greek, the ancient Greek word for next or anew with "opilis".

Several decades ago some starry-eyed researchers proposed creating an underwater city where people would not only carry out oceanographic research and industry, but actually live. They proposed calling it "Aquapolis".

Critics derided it not just for its impracticality, and not just for mixing Latin and Greek words into a neologism, but because it sounded like something that Elmer Fudd would say.

The starry-eyed researchers were comedy writers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fV0z34BYNyA

Follow the money! Some politicians and business people in GB will make millions but the people of Ireland will suffer from this for decades.

We Irish are accustomed to suffering.

We thrive on it.

Unlike certain crybabies wailing about systemic ...

You're not Irish. You're an American. You know nothing about Ireland. Don't pretend to be Irish.

Oh yeah?

Say that to my face!

Someone hold my beer ...

If your beer is green, then you lost before you even started..........

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Neapolis? That's taken too (it's the Greek and Latin name of Naples), although there is no rule saying two cities can't have the same name. There's more than one Washington, Springfield, etc.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

George Stephanopolis?

Then there's the hospital named Staphanopolis ...

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Let's plant one of these in the middle of America. We haven't had a major new city in a while and the younger generations could experience firsthand the gold rush like previous generations of Americans before. Instead of doomscrolling, they could be making good use of that youthful optimism and energy when the frontier looks wide open.

They would be better off in Cuba, it's future looks more capitalist than the US under Biden.

Or sell them Puerto Rico if they will take it.

“Biden’s” proposals Do seem dreadful.

I still have hope that there is a silent majority.

Respond

Add Comment

Don't get your dauber down.
After Biden and BLM crash the economy and the nation, we can rebuild from scratch.

Maybe China will lend us money for a piece of the action.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

It's a special but not unprecedented type of settlement. When a mass of people flees oppression, they might create a colony such as Plymouth or the Massachusetts Bay colony. But here we're talking about immigrants/refugees moving to an established nation and creating a settlement, a sort of inholding.

Catherine the Great invited Germans to move to Russia and create farm communities; later regimes reneged on their promises to the Germans (in particular exemption from military conscription) so they fled to the US and became known as Russian-Germans. They've been pretty much assimilated in the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Germans_in_North_America

The Confederados are diehards who fled to Brazil after the Civil War and created settlements that celebrate Dixie to this day, although with some growing controversy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/brazil-confederate-flag-civil-war-americana-santa-barbara/2020/07/11/1e8a7c84-bec4-11ea-b4f6-cb39cd8940fb_story.html

Brazil also has settlements of Japanese immigrants, who've been gradually assimilating. Brazil has more people of Japanese ancestry than any other country (excluding of course Japan).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Brazilians

French-Canadians fled (or were forcibly removed from) Acadia and moved to Louisiana and became the Cajuns. That's not quite the same because Louisiana was still a French colony at the time rather than a part of the US.

And much of south Florida is populated by Cubans who fled Castro's regime. They didn't form inholdings per se but one could argue that all of Miami is one.

As for Hong Kong refugees or immigrants? Bring 'em in, I say. Industrious liberty-seekers from a literate highly-developed city-state: we could use more of them.

However if we tried to create a settlement for them in the middle of the country, they would, like a lot of people from the middle of the country, promptly move either to the urban areas such as Chicago or Kansas City, or even more likely to Queens NY or the San Gabriel Valley outside of LA. Those have IIRC the largest Chinatowns or Chinese immigrant communities in the US.

Hong Kongers would be a steal for the US.

However, I don't think they need an enclave. Let's give them freedom. Let's give them all instant citizenship upon arrival and let them go wherever they want and vote in our elections. What an improvement for the US!

At the other extreme, let's give all the SJWs a free one way ticket to anywhere and a hefty lump sum payment in return for their passport and citizenship.

The progeny of the Enlightenment is at stake.

The first half of your comment is is great. The second half is the ever softer yelping of an old and hateful, but thankfully dying, minority in this country. Good luck in November.

The irony here is that the modern progressives are more hateful than even the Democratic party, rife as it is (and was) with Klansmen, anti-semitism and plain old racism.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Closer to the post, the Scots-Irish were Scots and northern English moved to Northern Ireland by the English and then moved to America.

Don't you ever wonder why the public sees the nation's Chinatowns as a tourist attractions and Black inner cities as shooting galleries?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Looks too much like Necropolis.

Respond

Add Comment

Rich guys can have dreams, but I'd expect diaspora to be a better solution. There are lots of places where immigrant Chinese live. Hong Kongers can vote with their feet, and find a p!ace they fit in .. be that Perth or San Gabriel.

(The word 'visa' does not appear on this page. We're nuts if we don't create a visa program.)

San Gabriel Valley has not hit critical mass. The night market was never year-round (before COVID).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/626_Night_Market

Sad.

IOW, I'm a YIMBY.

I love the night market idea.

I think we should aggressively pursue every last one of the Hong Kongers. It would be a cultural and entrepreneurial booster shot for the US.

I have a very pessimistic outlook for the US. A post modernist virus has infected the minds of many, maybe even most of the US population.

I think we are going to see a Maoist-like cultural revolution with our own version of the Red Guards cleansing the population. Take the knee or get your brains scrambled with combination lock in a sock.

It could get ugly, real ugly, real quick-like.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Yes give them all green cards.

Although you’re not a YIMBY if you invite millions and demand zoning laws that make it impossible to densify.

+1

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Here is the full story (Times of London, gated). This article (same source) suggests the Irish citizenry is unlikely to favor the plan.

Put in some brothels, abortion clinics, and porno shops and the land of Slane Girl will take to the idea.

https://www.google.com/search?q=slane+girl&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=ALeKk01ggrMGKve8eNF1YlSUiYD2jmb6sg:1595685799553&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=E1P34AyEXuq33M%252CHWFarOAW6cVPHM%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kR9_6iAguaqgyA7piAoT1GtO6Rrqg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGooXqyOjqAhU6gnIEHXIjAMYQ9QEwAHoECAoQFw&biw=1185&bih=647#imgrc=E1P34AyEXuq33M

You cannot offend the Irish, they have already offended themselves.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Europeans are losing their continent, and not getting any money for it. Ireland for Hong Kong, Germany for syrians, etc..

A true homeland isn't for sale.

Yes. As Lenin put it, the capitalist will sell you the rope you use to hang them with. This is simply an extension of the Belt and Road.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

What could possibly go wrong?

Will Nextopolis have an extradition treaty with anyone?

I've observed that some folks have a difficult time understanding the concept of externalities. They look only at positive externalities, not negative ones. That's someone else's problem, right? If your neighbor is a sovereign state, you have no voice in what they do, and they have the ability to arbitrage the differences in laws to their advantage, not yours.

If the sovereign state of Nextopolis were attacked by a foreign power, seeking to establish a foothold in Europe, would Ireland and Nato defend it? Of course. But, no one would attack it, because that would be assumed.

Free rider.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Put it in England—it’s only fair since they conquered Hong Kong to begin with.

Also, when are we getting charter cities for people from Macau or Mainland China (including but not limited to Uighurs and Tibetans)? They are subject to similar or even more oppressive laws from the Chinese government than the people in Hong Kong. Not to mention all the groups around the world that are even more oppressed than anyone in China (North Koreans, Eritreans, Rohingya, Iranians, Syrians, Palestinians, etc.)? I guess if you’re going to be politically oppressed, it’s better to also be uber-rich businessmen who can buy charter cities in other countries.

As for the people of Macau, Portugal apparently offered almost all of them full citizenship when it was handed over. Anyone who wanted to leave probably did so years ago.

The British were less generous to HKers and created a new, second-rate type of nationality called British National (Overseas) that entitles one to a passport issued by the U.K. government but without any right of abode in the U.K.

Respond

Add Comment

The Brits built Hong Kong into what it is, good and bad. Without them, the place would be a sleepy fishing village no one has ever heard of. Or an empty spot on the ground.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Little Saint James , VI

Respond

Add Comment

Dim sum and Guinness. Bangers and boba. This looks promising.

satire or culty cult
the democrats are demanding that federal workers be forced to retreat into federal buildings while leftists are actually wreckoning/arsonizing federal buildings
This is a trained marxist trick/ scam

It's convenient to give Marxist free rent in your head because they don't believe in paying it.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Ireland and Apple. Ireland and Hong Kong.

Respond

Add Comment

Whence they all immediately move to Dublin, Amsterdam, and Frankfurk.

Respond

Add Comment

A much better location for this colony—er, enclave—would be Africa.

If it is to be as beneficial to the host as advertised, then it would obviously find the most utility there. Plus, it puts a thumb in the eye of the mainlanders, who have been colonizing—er, investing in—African countries for some time now. Who knows, we may even see our century's scramble—to help Africans, of course, none of that evil exploitative stuff the White man pulled off.

If nothing else they could always try Palestine, it worked the first time.

Why punish the Hong Kongers with banishment to Africa? It's a sh*thole continent.

Let's grab 'em while we can - citizenship upon landfall.

If they want an "autonomous city", they can build it in a place that doesn't already have autonomy.

The West already has too many immigrants and too many insurrectionists seeking to steal Western soil for their own enclaves; we certainly don't need people who check both boxes.

This is not to mention the fact that people who flee their homelands to live in established, wealthy societies don't make good citizens. We don't need more people who are only here to enjoy the fruits of others' hard work, only to leave when the going gets tough, we have too much of that as it is.

The Kongers would make sophisticated citizens don't you think?

That is not a third world nation.

The sole differentiator between Hong Kong and the rest of China is a period of British rule. That doesn't bode well for HKers being self-starting libertarians.

Here's a simple test for determining whether potential immigrants would make a good addition to the United States. How free is the society they come from? How much does their native society value liberty? Did it arise organically or was it put in place by outsiders? How willing are they to fight to maintain that society (i.e., "refugees" not welcome), especially if it is not organic? If they claim they are being oppressed, why are they coming to the US or other highly developed countries over a neighboring country closer to their culture?

Most importantly, if they didn't value these things in their own society, why do we think they will value them in our society?

What you are seeing in Hong Kong, protests over their unique brand of "democracy", is a lingering effect of British rule. A rule, I might add, that is demonized by leftists as oppressive and exploitative colonization. It's a little ironic that we're told that it's wrong to create Hong Kongs, Singapores, Macaus, etc. yet it's perfectly OK to import their residents en masse. Perhaps not, however, given the left's need for docile pets to rule over.

"Here's a simple test for determining whether potential immigrants would make a good addition to the United States. How free is the society they come from? ... "

This is completely backwards, and inconsistent with our history. The earliest European settlers of the American colonies were fleeing religious persecution. Several *centuries* of European immigration to America essentially consisted of economic refugees seeking opportunity for themselves and their families.

It's shockingly reductionist to assume that someone born into an unfree society, through no fault or volition of their own, is *fundamentlaly* different from Westerners (e.g. *incompatible* with democracy, unable to be "self-starting libertarians"). It's just not true. My parents immigrated here as penniless students from China, and my family has done very well for itself- my parents work in pharma, I work in finance, and my siblings work in tech and own a small business. And yes, I'm very proud that we're contributing to the industries that make America the economic titan it is today.

I don't want our great country overrun by lawless, violent, low IQ thugs any more than you do. I want to bring in the "good" immigrants and exclude the "bad" ones too. But those fault lines don't run along race. There are plenty of white people who are as far from "self-starting libertarians" as you can get, and plenty of black, brown, yellow people who can contribute mightily to this country. (A country which, I might add, differs from Europe in that, far from being an ancestral homeland of white people, was stolen from Native Americans and therefore has no moral claim whatsoever to white nationalism.)

Whatever moral claim the American people have to determining who is and is not to live among them, the moral claim of a second-generation immigrant is even less. I would not presume to move to a foreign country and have myself, or my children, tell the people who have lived there for hundreds of years and whose ancestors built their society from scratch how they are to run their nation, much less couch it in leftist tropes such as white nationalism and stolen land. We expect the same courtesy from you.

And it was built from scratch. My ancestors, among others from England and other Western European nations, didn't arrive to a highly-developed and wealthy society, as your parents did. They arrived, with a one-way ticket, to a wilderness and a hostile population, and carved out a civilization from it. When they decided that their cousins back home were unduly restricting their freedom, they fought for their independence. Then they took that and built a superpower. My ancestors spilled blood, sweat, and tears to create a society of which I enjoy the benefits, and I respect and honor their sacrifice by doing everything I can to leave it a better place for my posterity.

I'm sure your parents are nice people, but they left their home to come to a society that created more accessible opportunities for material wealth. The question, again, is: don't they want those opportunities in their own homeland? If so, why don't they fight for it? The most charitable thing I can say about their decision, or others in their position, is that they are willing to pack up and leave for greener pastures if things are tough at home. (Less charitable interpretation: they're, at best, ambivalent to communism.) Why would I want people in my country who, again at best, are only willing to stick around as long as it's smooth sailing? Particularly when their children deign to tell me what's best for my country.

To the extent America allows immigrants, it will be immigrants who are willing to lay down their lives for American values. That's what we're going to need in the next couple of decades. Not people who just want to be here while the gettin's good. Judging by the level of worldwide apathy, that is a very small fraction of people.

If you think that's racist, I don't care what you think, and neither does the rest of the American nation. It's not our job to please you.

Your argument is that immigrants are those who only stick around for the good times, and this somehow a moral failing. So is it cowardly to flee from famine (as the Irish did)? Persecution (as the Eastern European Jews did)? Simple poverty (as the Scandinavians did)? Sure, America wasn't nearly as advanced as today, but certainly better than the homelands these Europeans were fleeing. By your logic, we should ask them why they didn't stay behind and fight the good fight, as it were. At what point is it morally permissible to escape hardships one neither asked for nor is capable of stopping? And is there nothing laudable about having the wherewithal to leave everything behind and start a new life from scratch, i.e. doing the best to play the shitty hand one is dealt? Isn't that kind of drive, perseverance, and get-it-done attitude exactly what we need more of in this country?

I think the kind of patriotic love and duty you speak of is admirable, especially if you truly (I mean truly, gun to your head) would lay down your life for this country without a second thought. The problem is, it's an ideal the majority of Americans don't live up to. (Sadly, it's the poor and exploitable who actually join the military and fight our wars nowadays. What percent of all white Americans do you think would be willing to go to Afghanistan?) That's just human nature. Thought experiment for you: suppose America were to suddenly become as war-torn, poverty-stricken, disease-ridden, etc. as say, Syria, and countries like Australia and the UK started accepting lots of American refugees. How many Americans do you think would willingly stay behind if they had the chance to escape to a first world country? How many would sooner die than emigrate? Could you blame anyone for leaving- is that cowardice and weakness in your eyes? Would you stay behind and possibly die even when there's literally nothing you personally could do to change the situation? Do you think Donald Trump and his family would?

It's nice to have ideals, but not so nice when we use them to paint the ingroup as saints and cast the outgroup as unworthy savages. I wonder, when you describe "your ancestors" building everything from scratch, do you literally mean that your family was in this country since the 1700s? If so, good for them. They and other European immigrants who came here before the early 1800s are the only ones who actually satisfy your heroic description of building things from scratch. (Though are the descendants of the Mayflower the only *true, deserving* Americans?) The vast majority of immigrants, white or otherwise, came to this country after that early nation-building period. They came to a democratic, industrialized country with benign institutions and virtually endless good land for the taking. Was the land west of the Mississippi still wilderness and a hostile native population? Sure, but there were guns and technology to rapidly conquer both the land and the Indians. I'll repeat from my previous comment: Several *centuries* of European immigration to America essentially consisted of economic refugees seeking opportunity for themselves and their families. To the extent that they contributed to this country and built it up, so do immigrants like my parents, and their descendants like me. You are trying to draw this fundamental distinction between immigration before and after, say, 1950. But it doesn't exist. In both cases, we have people bravely leaving everything behind to join the great American enterprise, and seek greener pastures. Your ancestors probably did just that. As far as I can tell, the only real difference between earlier and recent immigration is skin color, unless we go all the way back to the early 1800s. Most Americans today don't descend from folks who were in this country that early on. Does that make them un-American?

"If you think that's racist, I don't care what you think, and neither does the rest of the American nation. It's not our job to please you." I was perhaps unjustified in calling you a racist. But where you're completely wrong, is that racism, in its many forms, matters quite a lot to the national conversation. A majority of the American nation seems to hold views rather different from yours, and if you say they're not real Americans they may well say the same of you. (And there appear to more of them, unfortunately.) So let me take this opportunity to further *deign* to remind you of a few things. I have no idea who *you* are, but I assume you're neither a lawmaker nor a judge, which means *you* don't decide a whit about our country's immigration policy. If the powers that be decided decades ago that highly skilled, high IQ people like my parents are the kind of immigrants we need to help build our 21st century economy (in an analogous way that earlier immigrants built our 19th and 20th century economies), that's a decision that frankly was above your (and my) pay grade. It has nothing to do with you. You were never in the room, and frankly no one is asking your opinion about whether these immigrants are *real* Americans. As a second-generation immigrant, I am every bit as American as you, and that is an irrevocable fact. I was born and raised here, this is the only country I have ever known, and I love it freely without the obligation to prove it to anybody. Again, you may disagree, but to no avail. This country is every bit mine as it is yours. Everything I write is in good faith because I am concerned that certain ideas (like, yes, white nationalism) are dangerous and detrimental to our country. I am willing to trust that, rather than being a racist troll, you also are genuinely concerned for America and write with good intentions, in good faith. We are two Americans having a heated discussion and we can agree to disagree. But the minute you go ad hominem on me and start questioning my right to have the opinions I do and even to be in America, you're simply wrong and it's a non-starter, no basis from which to discuss anything further. You're wrong because I live free and unencumbered in this country, enjoy a very high standard of living (for which I am continually grateful), have all the rights and protections you do, and I'm not going anywhere. There are 18 million Asian Americans, most of whom are first or second generation. If you won't be satisfied until we're all deported or some such nonsense, all I can say is keep eating your heart out.

Your analogy of America-as-Syria is perfect and one I often use to demonstrate why we will be evicting leftists (who, as r-strategists, are most likely to emigrate in any period of difficulty) from the nation post haste. You may think I am picking on immigrants, but they are simply the ones who have already demonstrated their willingness to abandon their homeland when it needs them the most. There's no doubt we have many here today of unknown lineage who would do the same to the US.

As I've noted several times, there is a distinction to be drawn between those who arrived in America when it was a wilderness and those who arrived to a developed welfare state. It shows in their behavior as well: the earliest generations assimilated, the latest ones advocate for the destruction of America. It ought to be patently obvious to someone of your intelligence that people whose families invested in building the nation though hundreds of years and several generations would be more invested in the institution than people whose families just arrived, relatively speaking.

The fact of the matter is that each successive generation of immigrants who have arrived to the US since its founding have arrived to a more sophisticated civilization than the last. What is concerning is that later generations, again with less investment in the American institution, have been less discerning about further immigration. Ted Kennedy, whose bill allowed your parents to immigrate, was himself a third-generation immigrant. We have a sizeable contingent today who advocates for effective open borders, many of whom are either illegal immigrants themselves or the children of illegal immigrants.

But you're aware of this, hence the veiled language about my kind being a shrinking minority.

I think we actually agree on more than I expected. Citizenship should be more than just a piece of paper- it should mean something to belong to a country. The steady decline of civic duty / investment you describe is a huge problem. I think America is exceptional with exceptional institutions that need protecting, and I find it hard to believe that anyone who has seriously thought about it would advocate for open borders. The whole "we're going to replace you old white men" thing is lazy, offensive thinking that doesn't win any arguments and serves no one. If I was alluding to any kind of shrinking minority, it's those who, if they had their way, would massively purge this country until it looked much more racially homogeneous (even if race wasn't their intended focus).

So we agree there's a problem of a dangerous lack of duty / investment in America, and we agree it's a big problem that can lead to poor outcomes for our country. The way I see it, there are basically two options: 1) get rid of everyone who isn't invested enough, 2) make everyone more invested somehow. I can understand the intuitive appeal of option 1, the hearkening back to simpler days when no one bowled alone, people trusted each other, etc. But that's all I can say for option 1. First of all, it's simply not going to happen unless there's some kind of a cataclysmic shift. You'll have a hard enough time expelling even the more recent arrivals like me, given our numbers and what the Constitution says. But that wouldn't even do the trick it seems- a lot of folks of Southern and Eastern European descent are apt to almost as uninvested as the average Mexican or Asian immigrant (I don't disagree with you that in general, recent immigrants who live in enclaves are less engaged with the broader country). And I haven't even mentioned the blacks and Native Americans, which is a can of worms I won't open. Supposing you actually managed to implement option 1, even in the best case scenario this would be like the biggest forced migration the world has ever seen. I don't need to state the unimaginable violence and bloodshed that any number of worst case scenarios would involve. How could the ends, however benignly intended, ever justify such means? And what kind of a republic would even remain in the wake of such a Holocaust? (I don't use the word Neo-Nazi lightly, but it legitimately seems to apply here, if you take some of your ideas to their logical conclusions.) Besides the moral considerations, this Neo-Nazi plan, if successful, would depopulate (because we won't go quietly, and surely there will be some kind of civil war) and devastate the country and its economy beyond anything I've yet to see leftists cook up. So there's that.

You can see why to my mind, only option 2 is viable. Of course this isn't my field, and I know when I'm out of my depth. How to increase civic engagement and investment? How to make recent immigrants *more American* and more committed to the cause? I don't have any suggestions worth a damn, but I have to believe it's possible for the Americans who are already here to keep carrying the torch of the Founding Fathers. What comes to mind is that Switzerland and Singapore have compulsory military service, which probably amounts to lots of community service in peacetime. I don't know about the compulsory part, but I am totally onboard with more civics education, more community projects, etc. You get my drift. People who actually know this stuff should be working on solutions.

There's also option 3) do nothing. This is the default and I agree with you that it's (very) concerning. But where we disagree is I only see option 2, whereas you seem to only see option 1. For me, option 1 is completely impractical, and counterproductive in that it would utterly cripple America. Not to mention pure evil (I don't throw terms like this around lightly either, but seriously, if this isn't evil I don't know what is).

Anyway, that's my two cents.

The problem is that while you think #1 might be difficult, #2 is impossible. A few hours of community service does not a citizen make. The fact that it's temporary and compulsory in the first place undermines its purpose. We aren't looking for people to be forced to put in their time; we need people who are looking to serve their nation, of their own volition, and to make it a lifetime priority rather than a means to an end. God, family, country, if you want to get cheesy with it.

The obvious issues with this already appear in our armed forces, where many of those who the front-line troops might call the REMFs are more concerned with the benefits of service than the mission. It's all voluntary, but that doesn't mean everyone is volunteering for the same reasons, in other words. And when you extend it to people otherwise unwilling you increase the stakes from disinterest or incompetence to sabotage. No thank you.

But it's moot, because #1 is not nearly as hard as you make it out to be. First of all, the people we'll evict aren't going to fight it. Indeed, precisely the reason they're being evicted is because they aren't willing to fight to defend their society and their way of life. But you also underestimate the number of people who are malleable sheep. We have plenty of leftists, including many in this comment section, who act the way they do simply because we allow them; in other words, they invert their in-group and out-group because they know that they won't face any repercussions from their real in-group. When we simply make it clear this behavior will no longer be tolerated, they'll stop. You also underestimate the number of people who will leave on their own once they see that the metaphorical gravy train is coming to a stop. Again, these are precisely the behaviors we are targeting in the first place.

Now, I'm sure we will have to make an example of a few stubborn people to make the message clear, not to mention that openly traitorous and seditious behavior—such as, for example, inciting, funding, and/or participating in anarchist riots—ought to be punished regardless. Yet it is completely unnecessary to reach the levels of the Holocaust, as you claim.

And while this plan is not racial in nature, as made obvious by the fact that you continue to be the only person to bring up race, that's not to say that exceptions can't be made. African-Americans, in keeping with the true spirit of reparations (as opposed to the extortionate nature of ad hoc payment with no defined waiver of claim), will be offered handsome sums to permanently relocate (return, if you prefer) to Africa, a solution that both follows the motif of semi-voluntary leftist eviction while providing those whose ancestors were wronged with the means for a most comfortable and racism-free life in their ancestral homelands. Similarly, indigenous Americans will be offered virtually unlimited tracts of land (of which the United States has no short supply) to hold in perpetuity, on the simple condition that they renounce the material and technological gains of the conquerors' society and live autonomously as their pre-Columbian ancestors did on land returned to its natural state. (The entrepreneur in me would suggest that they could make a neat profit by charging a small fee for its non-destructive use, as the National Park Service does for some of its properties.) It wouldn't surprise me if a few Americans rediscovered their indigenous lineage, in the vein of Elizabeth Warren, to accept this offer themselves. Others more qualified, perhaps, might give up the fight over stolen land.

Any reasonable person ought to see that your objections to this inevitability are nothing more than hyperbole. As to whether it's fascism, again, I and others don't care what you think. We tried you-be-you, low-maintenance civic nationalism, and because of that weakness we're currently crossing the event horizon of a failed state, wherein normal Americans are beset on both sides by an exploitative overlord class and their degenerate, seditious pets. It doesn't work. As to whether the inevitability is evil, again noting your propensity for hyperbole, that's all relative to your moral worldview. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that not-so-naively carrying water for those who wish to destroy a country and its people who graciously allowed your parents in is evil, but it's kind of a dick move.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Essentially every piece of land in the world was stolen from somebody. Modern Europeans, except possibly the Basques, are not the descendants of the ancient Europeans who drew the cave paintings. The Celts came in from Anatolia and other people came in from some other place. If you want to argue that the United States is not legitimate because the land used to belong to a different group of people, we have an awful lot of migrating to do, back to East Africa because we are all East Africans if you go back far enough. And it will get kind of crowded over there.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Creating a New Hong Kong in the West would be a fantastic idea. However, what made Hong Kong an Asian financial/economic center? Geographic vicinity seems less important nowadays. One can recreate the liberalized environment of the original Hong Kong, and one could probably recreate whatever regulatory arrangements were relevant with all or most Asian countries ex-China given the international community's increasing appetite to check China. So, a New Hong Kong could probably provide access to Asia ex-China. How important, though, was access to mainland China to Hong Kong's prominence? It couldn't have been that important pre-1990s as mainland China wasn't that significant economically back then. Nowadays?

Regarding Irish/nationalist skepticism towards a New Hong Kong (Nextpolis), ironic that the UK of all places would be skeptical about creating an ethnic Asian charter city with UK laws/customs. How about if Nextpolis only receives a 99-year lease, after which it would revert back to Ireland?

Guess which outside investor capitalized China's factories during the 80s? Hong Kong, by far. They were there when China began its march growing 6-7% per year for decades.

"By 1986 China had over 6,200 foreign-funded businesses, including 2,741 joint ventures, 3,381 cooperatively managed businesses, and 151 enterprises with sole foreign investment. Of the joint ventures, 70 percent were in production enterprises (manufacturing or processing) and 30 percent were service industries (primarily hotels or tourism). Hong Kong provided 80 percent of the joint venture partners, the United States 7 percent, and Japan 6 percent."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_trade_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Trade_policy_in_the_1980s

Respond

Add Comment

"How about if Nextpolis only receives a 99-year lease, after which it would revert back to Ireland?"

It could be called Hibernia Kong .

I like the idea of the 99-yar lease although nationalistic or xenophobic Irish would probably feel even more colonized.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I'm American and I personally want the Hong Kong protesters in my city so badly. However, I think it's less awkward for the UK to justify providing visas, considering their history with Hong Kong.

In respect of Britain, yes, virtually all the points stand in favour of it - a well educated, succesful group, to whom the UK has a duty and responsibility. None of the usual points stand against it - this is not a group who will migrate over, inevitably underperform, and then have their kids being incited by the complexities of colonial history to go mad about these socially destructive post-colonial enthusiasms that offer over-ready excuses for failure. If anything they will overperform. If there was ever a reason to breach conventions around humanitarian migration - "Must be in first safe country, and risks of serious immediate harm *only*" - HK would be it.

The point that stands against it, and which really is a big point, is really that however many HKers wish to migrate (and it may be a lot, or it may be a few) are going to add to the infrastructure pressure of London, which is frankly where they would all wish to live within the UK. This should mean that the UK should take the lead in negotiating for some spread with allies in the British commonwealth, and more broadly (US, Europe), to mitigate that sort of pressure. It's easier to manage subsets of a HK diaspora in Toronto, Dublin, New York, Sydney, Auckland and London, than all in London.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

When William conquered England in 1066, a whole group of disgruntled knights set of for Crimea where they worked in the Varingian Guard for Byzantium.

Respond

Add Comment

HK enclave? Dream on. The Hong Kong miracle was created
in different circumstances and the timing was perfect.
Then China was poor. Wages were low and it was an export
oriented economy.
Try to do that in 2020s

Respond

Add Comment

On a more serious note, I know many people from Hong Kong who have settled quite nicely in Vancouver. They were unable to gain entry to the United States but were allowed to settle in Vancouver over the last 20 years. Vancouver is on the Pacific Rim and would be a better option, I think, than Ireland. Though the Irish tax system is better with access to the EU.

Respond

Add Comment

If you are in favor of immigration and think your homeland is just a labor market in an administrative unit, then getting the Hong Kongers is the deal of a lifetime in immigration. First world populations don't migrate en masse in this day and age. The Afrikaners are the only other group I can think of.

But, if you believe in having a homeland, then maybe you should not have any immigration, although maybe you could make an exception for such a population, provided half of Guangzhou don't chain-migrate after them.

The article says the Irish might be against it, but whoever asked them? Did the Irish approve of having more and more Africans, to the extent that there are already racially based gangs?

Speaking as a person from the country - the UK - that has far most opened its gates to these people, I'm fully sympathetic to the "preserving your homeland" argument. Everyone should have a homeland and a plan to maintain it, and it should be uncontraversial that they should do so, in an ideal world.

But, if it's a given that in a nation a minority of the overall population believes this argument, most of them old, effectively none of the politicians who are ever likely to hold power back it, and further that a large minority of the population are so unceasing hostile to even the suggestion that the country be regarded as anyone's homeland, to the extent they'd probably burn down the entire country and all its institutions rather than see it happen... Well, "Public choice theory", as is the term de rigueur, constrains your options.

So, in those circumstances, if the country's not going to be allowed to be a homeland, if that's an absolute non-starter, then how do you proceed? I'd say, may at least may as well get migrants who are not going to regard and treat the people of the country as some combination of A) useless hicks and white trash (if doing heavily selected migrants who all migrate to the urban centres), B) a market dominant minority to be crushed for communist redistribution to take place (if doing unselected migration from across the world), C) evil colonialists, and finally, D) atheists to be subordinated in society to the 'true faith' (if doing heavy migration from the Muslim world).

Some group of people who are at least somewhat skilled, secular and who will presumably be appreciative of the offer and regard themselves as in debt to British society and with democracy as point of identity... seems the least worst course, if the British are not to have a homeland, and global migration is going to be the order of the day.

I'm not sure how much different it is in Ireland, to be honest. Frankly it looks like a country founded in a nationalist movement about a century ago doesn't seem particularly enthusiastic about maintaining itself as a homeland.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment. In many ways, I agree with you.

I disagree that it is a limited constituency that is immigration restrictionist. Polls have shown that Americans, for instance, consistently support lower immigration levels, especially when put forward on issues such as labor market impact. It is the paradox of Trump that the man's policies are more popular than he is. Rather, whatever mix of conspiracy and calculation results in current policy on immigration is also composed of the messaging towards the population - that we have always been an immigrant society (said now about Britain), that there are no natives (said now about France), that the locals do not want to work or are old, stale pale etc. So, my position is that there has never been an actual honest to God representation of country preference in migration. Otherwise, the taps would have been closed long ago or never opened in the first place.

But, if you are not in a position to decide to not take in any immigrants, how likely is it that you are in a position to dictate what kinds of immigrants to take? Even the point based immigration system are being gamed through family chain-migration.

Either Timur Kuran's preference aggregation is working or it is not. Sure, society itself may be divided on the issue so I, as an individual, might not get the policy I prefer, but I do not recognize in today's policies an actual legitimate representation of any Western country's preference. And I do think that even minority concerns in preventing large scale, radical change such as demographic ones should win out even over majority desire.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I'm an Irish Citizen and I've been following these developments closely. Of all the countries in the world, I think Ireland could be uniquely positioned to make this project happen. We're progressive, common law tradition, kind and generous people, there are so many positive spillovers from such a project too.

I don't think the political problems are insurmountable either - Ko does not want sovereignty and the Irish electorate has a good intuition for the importance of economic growth.

Respond

Add Comment

Im not sure how serious the Taiwanese are about maintaining independence, and I dont know how many people would really leave Hong Kong. But it seems that Taiwan makes sense for Hong Kong Refugees. They potentially share some important motivations.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment