[Levitz]

>I doubt many of the researchers migrating even want Chinese citizenship and the chains that come along with it, so why do most people (presumably Americans) keep harping on and on about it?

Because it's an important matter regarding immigration. If you want to live in a country, you might want to actually be a citizen of that country. Does that need explaining?

>Once you're invited by the CCP for your exceptional research background, you're literally given an open chequebook for both your personal compensation and your future research endeavors.

None of which is related to immigration.

>You're allowed to take your family along with you too, and the language barrier doesn't translate in the professional setting. >Racism is a non-issue since I doubt these researchers will even be interacting with elements of that segment of Chinese Han society, unless they choose to.

Are you seriously suggesting that people can literally just not engage at all with the society they live in?

This just reads like deeply, deeply delusional reasoning attempting to paint China as a good alternative.

[somenameforme]

Citizenship is quite politicized in the US, but in Asia (and probably most of the world) most immigrants will never obtain citizenship. There are many reasons for this I can get into if you want, but it's a tangent. All this generally entails, as opposed to permanent residency, is that your children won't be citizens by default, you can't vote, and that you need to occasionally notify immigration of where you live. On the other issue - yeah you can 100% not interact with locals if you choose.

Any position that's hiring foreigners is going to have multiple foreigners. And it creates a scenario where, by default, foreigners will hang out with foreigners and locals will hang out with locals. The same is true outside of work as there tend to be large expat communities everywhere and even schools/communities almost entirely for expats.

Immigrants (especially in Asia) are never going to blend in with the local population naturally. The cultures are so far removed that you'll never 'fit in.' That doesn't mean you can't make local friends and acquaintances, but that you can choose not to. And yeah I'd highly recommend almost anywhere in Asia to people, including China. It's an amazing place to raise children - ironic given Asia's at the forefront of the global fertility crisis.

It's nothing what like you probably imagine if you've never been. You can find about a zillion videos of people vlogging about their life in Asia. Here [1] is some random video from an American in China. Granted, he speaks crazy good Chinese so it's a different perspective than the one I'm talking about, but he can hit on more issues re:China. I've visited China, but never lived there. He's been there 16 years.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqVlKItJYnk

[handle584]

> paint China as a good alternative.

I don't think OP is doing this, just stating the obvious. The invitation implies $$$ but not naturalization.

> If you want to live in a country, you might want to actually be a citizen of that country. Does that need explaining?

Yeah might, so it is big question depending on the situation, and even bigger once you got more passports or permanent residence. For example people intentionally avoid US permanent residence or citizenship for global taxation.

> Are you seriously suggesting that people can literally just not engage at all with the society they live in?

All the time, especially the US expats in China. They tend to live in nice communities for foreigners in a few tier-1 cities, they go to western style international hospitals and their kids goes to fancy international schools. Basically employers have everything prepared nicely for them, hence the contrast of China between foreigners and citizens.

In terms of racism in China or east Asia as a whole, there is practically no problem for white ppl, small problem for indians, big problem for blacks.

In the reverse direction in the US there are Chinese/Latino spending their lives in their own ethnic community without speaking English at all, it is not that uncommon, just invisible.

[fakedang]

Replies like these reek of Western exceptionalism or the misfortune of not having travelled much.

Yes, there are certain countries where one can pretty much work in without the need to obtain citizenship. I wouldn't want to be a citizen of Qatar/the UAE (world's most powerful passports) or a citizen of China, simply because obtaining them subjects you to a whole can of worms of absolutist laws.

And yes, people can easily live in a country without interacting with the locals at all. Just ask the Americans and Europeans in the Gulf or Singapore, who barely interact with any locals outside of their workplace. Or ask expats in India and Indonesia who barely interact with locals except in the context of some menial chores.

Clearly you haven't lived or worked in Asia.

[godwinson__4-8]

Have you ever lived overseas? Honestly you sound delusional. Do you think the USA makes it easy to become a citizen? Short of that, there is a wide spectrum on how countries treats immigrants. This is the most important factor for people actually living in a place. Acting like the bar for living somewhere is citizenship is nuts.

> Are you seriously suggesting that people can literally just not engage at all with the society they live in?

This pretty much confirms you have never lived overseas lol. Anyone who has will have met many people that achieve this. Like living anywhere immersing yourself in your surroundings (w/e that means to you) takes extra effort. Most people go overseas to work. It's not playtime. With that comes a built in community.

> None of which is related to immigration

How is getting money and support to live in a place not related to immigration?

Why are you so reactive about something you clearly know nothing about? Because China bad?

[Levitz]

I have lived abroad, yes. Does the USA make it easy to become a citizen? If the comparison is China, yes, a thousand times yes. Does language and society matter a truckload? Absolutely.

>Short of that, there is a wide spectrum on how countries treats immigrants. This is the most important factor for people actually living in a place.

Yes. Does China treat immigrants better than the US? As I explained, no. There is no contest. The comparison borders on the absurd. The US is a remarkably flawed country in many aspects, but the vast majority of the stigma around its immigration comes from the fact that it's a matter that the US takes very, very seriously. The bar for living somewhere is not necessarily citizenship but it absolutely is a factor if someone is seriously planning to immigrate somewhere.

For an incredibly evident and very current example, the 14th amendment was very recently reaffirmed, with a whole lot of people being horrified it was even thrown into question at all.

>How is getting money and support to live in a place not related to immigration?

Because any quantity of money beyond a livable wage has barely any relation to integrating people into a culture. A model of immigration based on money is not immigration at all, that's just hiring foreign workers.

[fakedang]

> Does China treat immigrants better than the US?

Yes, if they're well educated enough. Which is the kind of immigration the article deals with in the first place. China doesn't want "doctors and engineers" from Africa and the Middle East. It wants engineering and scientific talent, and it brutally competes with the rest of the world with some of the highest pay packages. Pay for these folks is often higher than for even the best Chinese talent.

Compare that to the current US. ICE roaming the streets that my PhD and HSW MBA holding friends have to carry their passports even when going grocery shopping or out on dates. An administration that is hellbent on kicking them out and cutting their grant funding. One side of the house hellbent on discussing immigration and silly debates on Shariah law when it barely affects the country anyhow, while branding all foreign immigration as evil. You must be delusional if you think otherwise.

> . A model of immigration based on money is not immigration at all, that's just hiring foreign workers

That is precisely China's model. China wants technical mercenaries, not people who want to build roots. Work hard for a decade or two, then enjoy your newfound earnings.

[godwinson__4-8]

You clearly have a certain cultural fixation with immigration that frankly is pretty narrow and seems of a particular American variety.

How is the condition of foreign workers not a question of immigration? What distinction are you making? Is your logic the United States treats immigrants well because any foreign national treated under a subpar regime you get to reclassify as a "foreign worker"?

You know not all "foreign workers" are treated the same right? This applies to almost all countries. Plenty of people are happy to go to a place and work. Not everyone who goes to a place wants to or plans to become part of that culture. Or would expect to fully integrate. It is a balance. The reaffirmation of the 14th amendment is not exactly impressive. Quite a low bar you've reached for there.

Where did you live overseas? For how long? Did you consider it "immigration"? What were the terms of your status re work? Did you become a citizen?

I just don't really buy it. For someone who lived overseas the narrowness of your perspective is rather alarming.

[BeetleB]

Not the person you're responding to, but I've spent almost 2 decades outside the US.

Sorry, his perspective matches my experience much more than yours.

[godwinson__4-8]

Why would you apologize for that? Name one claim I've made that is impeached by your "experience"?

Doubtless many others have shared your experiences. Good for you. It's not really the point. My questions as to the OP I was responding to of a personal nature were quite obviously rhetorical. The point was to perhaps suggest some introspection. Not everyone's experiences are the same.

The more substantive questions have still not been answered. Oh well, I'm not owed anything.

But the fact you doubled down with a "me too" shows you also missed the point. I can supply you with people who have the opposite experience. Will you suddenly have a different view?

How have you spent two decades out of the US and found yourself so self assured? In your two decades did you not come across thousands with different experiences than you? Why would this give you such a high opinion of your own?

[BeetleB]

> Doubtless many others have shared your experiences. Good for you. It's not really the point.

You have made multiple statements questioning his reality:

> I just don't really buy it. For someone who lived overseas the narrowness of your perspective is rather alarming.

> Have you ever lived overseas? Honestly you sound delusional.

> This pretty much confirms you have never lived overseas lol.

I'm pointing out that his reality matches my reality living overseas.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>The reaffirmation of the 14th amendment is not exactly impressive. Quite a low bar you've reached for there.

Can you name a single country in the EU which offers birthright citizenship? Any country in Asia?

[godwinson__4-8]

Sort of a silly question. Can you name a single country like the US? Have you read your own history?

I said the reaffirmation was not impressive, not the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself. The fact it had to be reaffirmed is not impressive. The OP I replied to already acknowledged this. Please read more carefully next time. Or if you think the reaffirmation was itself impressive, please just say so.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

>Sort of a silly question. Can you name a single country like the US? Have you read your own history?

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here, exactly. The US is not the only country which offers birthright citizenship. But I don't believe there are any other countries like this in Europe or Asia.

>I said the reaffirmation was not impressive, not the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself. The fact it had to be reaffirmed is not impressive. The OP I replied to already acknowledged this. Learn to read.

The OP brought up the 14th in the context of the country's stance towards immigrants. From this POV, I don't see why you would give undue weight to the reaffirmation compared with the "the amendment or the nature of said citizenship itself".

You can have the last word in this thread. Your incivility to clarity ratio is way too high for me to wish to continue further with you.

[BeetleB]

> Do you think the USA makes it easy to become a citizen?

Just because there are plenty of countries that make it easier to become a citizen doesn't mean there aren't plenty of countries that make it worse.

People going the H-1/O-1 route in a STEM field with an MS degree don't have a hard time becoming a citizen, unless they're Indian (and a little bit if Chinese). Literally everyone I know from my university and work days who went that route got it. A few got audited along the way, which added 1-2 years to the process, but they all still got it.

Now compare that with many friends of mine who left the US for ideological reasons and moved to countries where ... they have no hope for permanent residency, let alone citizenship. I just recently visited one of them - he has been in that country for 18 years, and is about to be kicked out because the economy is poor and they likely won't renew his residency status. For all those years, he never had a path to permanent residency (without paying a huge amount of money).

Another is a faculty member at a good university in the country he's in. He's surrounded by people who've spent their whole careers at that university and are now wondering where they'll move to post-retirement.

Yet another has spent almost two decades in a third country. He likes it, but admits the pressure to never lose a job and always find a stable one so he doesn't get kicked out does get to him sometimes.