Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban

harrisbricken.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 157 posts

Re: If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban

#71

Post by richbell »

woooooo wrote: post #69
richbell wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. They have no obligations to follow American foreign policy. Huawei operates outside of China, therefore it's reasonable to expect them to comply with laws and sections from other countries. At the very least, if you're going to violate US sanctions, I wouldn't live in or travel to the US or an affiliated country. > If you're saying, ultimately, "be…

We already forbid export of chips and other technology to them. I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here.

> I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here.

I'm not sure I understand your point about "moral high ground". Is the implication that US sanctions or arresting people for violating sanctions is immoral?

Re: If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban

#72

Post by winrid »

canucker2016 wrote: post #27
ecshafer wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think my freedom is at risk when I go there honestly. There are probably people in some fields or businesses that do have some risk. But I think the fears are overblown.

As long as you or any relation/acquaintance/company/nation you belong to do not offend China, you're cool. Case in point: the two Michaels from Canada detained 'suddenly' after a Huawei executive was detained in Canada in relation to a US govt case: https://globalnews.ca/news/8224094/canada-china-two-michaels... Though a third Canadian had his conviction retried to a worse sentence - death.

Did that person try to sell drugs in China? Pretty well known that's a death penalty.

Re: If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban

#73

Post by jnaina »

LeoNatan25 wrote: post #9

Don't travel to China.

Used to travel to China on business quite often, including a holiday at one of their remote resort.

The level of dislike of foreigners, especially for dark skin folks, is sadly quite rampant. For my own safety, I no longer accept business travel assignments to China, being a PoC.

Re: If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban

#74

Post by canucker2016 »

woooooo wrote: post #61
canucker2016 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you or any relation/acquaintance/company/nation you belong to do not offend China, you're cool. Case in point: the two Michaels from Canada detained 'suddenly' after a Huawei executive was detained in Canada in relation to a US govt case: https://globalnews.ca/news/8224094/canada-china-two-michaels... Though a third Canadian had his conviction retried to a worse sentence - death.

Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? I don't think taking vengeance on random civilians is justified, but it was a response to us doing the same thing to one of theirs. It's only bad when they do it?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

(I am bursting to edit my comment to make it more punny in light of the Asian connection of the comment material, but at least I am taking the high road here - but know this, I am chuckling to myself and don't play the race card, you can't trump me)

Re: If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban

#76

Post by woooooo »

richbell wrote: post #71
woooooo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already forbid export of chips and other technology to them. I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here.

> I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here. I'm not sure I understand your point about "moral high ground". Is the implication that US sanctions or arresting people for violating sanctions is immoral?

I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat.

If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated.

And, yes, arresting non-citizens for insufficient loyalty to our state is immoral unless there's a war on, in which case you can shoot them. They never pledged loyalty and are not breaking any faith.

Re: If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban

#77

Post by [deleted] »

modzu wrote: post #39
canucker2016 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as you or any relation/acquaintance/company/nation you belong to do not offend China, you're cool. Case in point: the two Michaels from Canada detained 'suddenly' after a Huawei executive was detained in Canada in relation to a US govt case: https://globalnews.ca/news/8224094/canada-china-two-michaels... Though a third Canadian had his conviction retried to a worse sentence - death.

for context, a million canadians visit china every year

[deleted]

Re: If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban

#78

Post by woooooo »

canucker2016 wrote: post #74
woooooo wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? I don't think taking vengeance on random civilians is justified, but it was a response to us doing the same thing to one of theirs. It's only bad when they do it?

Two wrongs don't make a right. (I am bursting to edit my comment to make it more punny in light of the Asian connection of the comment material, but at least I am taking the high road here - but know this, I am chuckling to myself and don't play the race card, you can't trump me)

Absolutely true but it sounds like people think there's only one wrong here.

Re: If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban

#79

Post by dkjaudyeqooe »

woooooo wrote: post #64
richbell wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? The claim behind that at least appeared to have merit, so she — ostensibly — wasn't just detained because someone didn't like her. She also enjoyed the full benefit of the western legal system and lived lavishly, meanwhile the two Michaels were basically political prisoners. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-e…

Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. They have no obligations to follow American foreign policy. If you're saying, ultimately, "because we can", then fine but that's not great moral ground.

> Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran.

She's subject to US law, and the consequences thereof.

> that's not great moral ground

It's a question of law, not morality. The rule of law is applied pretty fairly in the US and backstopped by the democratic process, whereas it's applied arbitrarily by Chinese dictatorial leadership when it suits them. That's where the moral ground lies.

What you're talking about is a false equivalence.

Re: If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban

#80

Post by richbell »

woooooo wrote: post #76
richbell wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here. I'm not sure I understand your point about "moral high ground". Is the implication that US sanctions or arresting people for violating sanctions is immoral?

I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. And, yes, arresting non-citizens for insufficient loyalty to our state is immoral unless there's a war on, in which case you can shoot them. They never pledged loyalty and are not breaking any faith.

> I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat.

This is being reductive and making a false equivalence. These scenarios are not comparable:

1. Arresting an executive of a company that intentionally evaded sanctions and provided supplies to a country that is hostile to the US.

2. Arresting two random Canadian citizens, who are of no importance, and holding them as political prisoners until another nation capitulated to your demands.

> If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated.

See above. Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a difference?

Post reply on HN