A Lao Wai wants a Zhongguo Greencard

[ThatDamnGood]

Hai, yi jing ne me duo ren le...

Please China, Let the Foreigners Stay - Oliver Pearce - ???? - ?? - ?????

Please China, Let the Foreigners Stay
2010年11月08日 17:47:06
分类：未分类

　　A few weeks ago I made my first trip to the main immigration office in Shanghai’s Pudong New Area to extend my stay in China. There I saw the usual assortment of foreigners: businesspeople with China operations; people coming on work-related trips; students; entrepreneurs; and people who are married to or about to marry Chinese partners. After years of exporting labour China is now becoming a popular immigration destination.

　　For most non-Chinese, staying in China for a prolonged period of time, and having the right to settle down, own property and work/start a business, is an arduous task. There is a raft of paperwork that needs to be filled, and the duration periods are very short – in most cases no more than a year. Even those who can get a five-year work permit are generally required to renew their visas every year.

　　However, our plight may be soon eased following the announcement by the central government earlier this year that it is studying for the introduction of China’s first ever comprehensive immigration law to better manage the increasing number of immigrants. The only legal guidelines on immigrants to date are to be found in exit and entry policies, and China has never before limited immigration, other than for health reasons, including a ban that was recently lifted on HIV positive immigrants.

　　The government has been forced into action by the growing number of foreigners coming to China – according to official data, about 2.85 million or more than 10 percent of the 26.11 million foreigners who entered China in 2007 came for employment. All the statistics point to a trend of more foreigners staying in China for longer periods.

　　Western experiences will be studied when drafting the law, which will likely include a skills-based immigration policy - selecting applicants with the educational levels or specialised skills seen as economically beneficial to the host country. The government will also include foreigners in November’s national census (全国人口普&#26597 for the first time ever, to understand China’s foreign communities better.

　　Immigration to China is surging due to its economic development and growing role on the global stage. As a result, gone are the days when only senior business people, diplomats and ardent Sinophiles came to China. Foreigners are coming of their own free will, usually without a Chinese partner, to work and live, often for many, many years. More and more are learning the language and local customs. Some even want to become Chinese citizens and stay here for good.

　　The majority of immigrants are increasingly less likely to be lured by high salaries (the days of the grossly overpaid, under-skilled expat are slowly coming to an end). Instead they are lured by the culture, the vibrant society and the opportunity of setting up a business. Despite their frustration at the lack of long-term security about staying in China, more and more people are coming to stay. And this should make China proud: inbound immigration flows often reveal the appeal of a nation.

　　But it seems that the government has been wrong-footed by the speed with which China has become such a popular immigration destination.

　　Even though my wife is Chinese, I have very few rights here. Those without Chinese spouses face an even tougher time. The much feted Green Card that China introduced in 2005, which offers the right to work and stay for longer periods, is widely derided by the foreign community in China. Not only are very few given out, but the word in the expat community is that you have to attract substantial financial investment to China to get one. Either that or gain recognition from the government that you are a person of high-value (eg, you fit into some grand economic plans in vogue at a certain point in time).

　　How can a person’s value to a nation be based on purely on a financial figure (eg, the amount of cash they generate as opposed to the ideas they bring)? Why is it that only people with good guanxi (关&#31995 or who are deemed important to the government – not necessarily the country itself – can get a Green Card? Of course, other nations consider the economic benefits of immigrants – but very few of them require you to build a factory before you can apply to stay for a longer period of time. kua zhang ba?

　　The benefits of immigration are so numerous that it would be impossible to list them all here, but for the sake of this argument, please consider the cultural, social and management/business know-how that foreigners bring. Immigrants made the United States the nation that it is today, and are sustaining Europe’s position as an economic and cultural powerhouse. As I’ve mentioned in other posts, we are living in the information age, and having access to new ideas and cultures is an integral part of China’s future economic and social development.

　　Speaking from my personal experiences in Shanghai, China is a dynamic society that offers a great many opportunities that can’t be found elsewhere. True, red tape and judicious officials make life hard for some, and there has been a recent rise in complaints by a growing number of Western companies about the unlevel playing field in the country. But I meet a great many young foreigners who are doing business here, especially in tech, consulting and trading.

　　They employ or work with local Chinese, exchange ideas, and slowly push forward China’s knowledge integration with the global community. Most of my classmates at Shanghai Normal University last semester expressed their desire to stay in China or return upon graduation in their home countries.

　　This level of enthusiasm is rarely found in South Korea, Japan or the Dubai. Very few of my friends who lived in these regions expressed any desire to stay there, to open businesses, or to even learn the language. They just went for a job, enjoyed the lifestyle, and then moved on after a while. This is overwhelmingly not the case with my Shanghai expat friends. That’s not to say that foreigners do not open businesses in those countries – they do; just not on any scale comparable to China. And that’s not just due to the size of China, but because, beyond the government level, there is genuine demand for and acceptance of foreign ideas and concepts.

　　It cannot be ignored that we live in an increasingly globalized world, and China, like the US and UK, needs to get more involved, not shy away. It’s not a question of the West having better ideas (business, political, social, etc.) than China, but about allowing the unfettered mingling of ideas. The more foreigners that come to China and truly have the chance to experience many of the great things this country has to offer without being overly restricted, the more Chinese ideas can flow to other parts of the world.
　　The government is concerned about promoting its soft power, through English and foreign language news stations, the “going-out” strategy of its cultural industries, Confucius Institutes and celebrity-packed TV ads, but this programme will have little chance of success if people feel that the are having it forced down their throats (the same applies to Western culture and beliefs spreading to other parts of the world).

　　Immigration is not just a Chinese issue. Japan, South Korea, the Gulf states, to name a few, impose just as strict - or even stricter - regulations on foreigners. And the United States and European Union, despite their status as major immigration destinations, also have very tough rules - the recent Arizona immigration bill is a case in point.

　　This wouldn’t be a balanced debate if the concerns of Chinese – and indeed most national groups the world over - about immigration are not addressed. So please allow me to briefly touch upon some common topics.

　　“Stealing” Chinese women
　　
　　The belief that foreigners exploit/steal local women is the most ridiculous, yet commonly cited gripe. First of all, it supports the absurd notion that women are slaves of the nation; that their primary function is to produce the next generation of pure-blood Chinese citizens. This denies women their fundamental right to marry, date or play with whomever they like. The belief that women can only marry their own kind belongs in the history books.
　　They take our jobs!
　　
　　Immigration is a very sensitive topic the world over, especially during times of economic crisis, where concerns over losing domestic jobs to “foreigners” give politicians nightmares (as well as high-powered political ammunition when facing re-election).

　　In recent years, thousands of low-skilled migrants from Vietnam, Myanmar, and reportedly Africa, have been pouring into Guangxi and Guangdong to fill low-paid positions, as Chinese labour costs rise. This could prove to be a major problem seeing as there are still many Chinese workers who could fill those positions (China’s labour force hasn’t quite peaked yet).

　　But the long-term considerations are there. For anybody who doubts the effects of denying entry to immigrants, please look to Japan. A rapidly ageing population and low birth-rate are creating a population time bomb. Japan’s steadfast refusal to allow immigrants in to undertake low skilled jobs or to work in healthcare/elderly care is a huge cause for concern.
　　For white-collar positions, the “take our jobs” position holds even less water. Localisation is now the big trend for multinationals, and programmes to promote Chinese staff – when they are capable of taking on senior/technical positions – are underway at most foreign companies.

　　I’m not calling on China to throw open its doors to anybody: Uncontrolled immigration is a problem in any society. But I strongly believe that a well-considered, skills-based immigration law would be of huge benefit to China. It would allow a greater exchange of ideas, create new industries and jobs, and position China as a responsible, respected member of the global community. It would also allow the government to better understand immigration, to give it the means by which to properly address social concerns without making, rash, populist and heavy-handed decisions that it could come to regret further down the line.

　　But the government should be careful to not just cherry pick areas that need foreign expertise, fill its quota, and lock the doors again. This is not conducive to long-term development and alignment with the “global community”.

　　We are all creatures of our environment and instinctively fear the unknown. Therefore foreign and local communities must actively engage with each other to overcome these prejudices and to create a basis for understanding. Governments can help here by introducing clear legislation that regulates immigration and reassures local communities that they are not being overrun by laowai (老&#22806. Where governments deliberately indulge in ambiguity, the problems are magnified.

　　For waiguoren (外国&#20154, there is nothing more annoying than being told “you’re a foreigner, you don’t understand China, and you never will”. This is patently untrue. There are countless examples of foreigners being able to integrate, study and explain China to others (Peter Hessler is a notable example). And how on earth are we “foreigners” ever supposed to be able to “understand” China if we’re not allowed to come here, settle down and go about our daily business – which is both legal and benefits society – without the fear of not knowing if our visas are going to be extended?

　　China’s treatment of foreigners living in the country is also touted abroad by those minority groups who wish to tarnish China’s international reputation – why would the government want to add fuel to that fire?

　　If you look at the problems concerning immigrants in Western nations, much of the animosity and mistrust comes from the fact that those minority groups feel alienated by local society. They therefore feel less inclined to integrate. The Chinese government cites tough immigration rules facing Chinese going abroad as its reason for imposing tough rules on foreigners in China, and it is entitled to feel that way. But just think about the huge boost that China would receive if it were to step-away from the child-like tit-for-tat mindset that spoils international relations and says “hey, we’re going to do things differently.” (I hasten to add that I also call upon the governments of the West to do the same.)

　　My wife and my mother both moved to the UK at around the age of 23 (one in the 1970s, the other in the 2000s) from Communist countries. Both found jobs, paid taxes, didn’t engage in any illegal activity, acquired excellent English skills and learned to love and enjoy British culture. They also helped their British friends and relatives to overcome any lingering concerns about “immigrants”. As a result I have and always will view immigration in a positive light, and as more foreigners move East, I hope more Chinese – especially government officials - will one day share my views.
　　So China, please won’t you let the foreigners stay?

 

[below_freezing]

If a foreigner wants a green card and live here seriously, then let them. What I find funny is how he lists 2 problems that Chinese people have with this policy, and doesn't even refute them or explain why we should accept the foreigners. Nonetheless, if a foreign scientist, engineer or businessman wants to become a Chinese citizen, let them, what we need to keep out are the low IQ fat english teachers. I think a necessary part of getting a Chinese green card should be passing a high school level physics test. If you don't know F=ma, you probably don't belong here.

But he is right. Tough immigration policies in the West are a major problem. Why should we budge first? We're big bad commies. The enlightened west should unrestrict its doors, then we'll talk about letting low IQs in.

 

[Speeder 2]

China should only ease immigration, now or in the future, to a very limited amount of Germanic Europeans & Americans, alongwith, of course, some people (particularly females)of East Asian origin (e.g. Japan, Korea, Vietnam), AND and above all overseas ethnic Chinese(!) - such as myself

Mass immigration from different races of everywhere without HIGH BAR started from 2 dacades ago and ongoing has largely contributed to today's collapse of the West . It was also a key reason why ancient civilisations like Rome and Greece fell in the past.

 

[below_freezing]

China should only ease immigration, now or in the future, to a very limited amount of Germanic Europeans & Americans, alongwith, of course, some people (particularly females)of East Asian origin (e.g. Japan, Korea, Vietnam), AND and above all overseas ethnic Chinese(!) - such as myself

Mass immigration from different races of everywhere without HIGH BAR started from 2 dacades ago and ongoing has largely contributed to today's collapse of the West . It was also a key reason why ancient civilisations like Rome and Greece fell in the past.

the Americans are the dumb english teachers i was talking about.

its not about race. its about accomplishments and the ability to contribute. i'd take a black engineer over a washed up white guy that can only teach english any day every day. that's why i recommended a physics test instead of an IQ test.

 

[CardSharp]

the Americans are the dumb english teachers i was talking about.

its not about race. its about accomplishments and the ability to contribute. i'd take a black engineer over a washed up white guy that can only teach english any day every day. that's why i recommended a physics test instead of an IQ test.

Well it's all a matter of applying the right selection pressures. The folks who go to China to teach English have two assets, the ability to speak English without an accent (not really an achievement considering) and their whiteness, which Chinese parents see as a sign that they speak "authentic english"

Race based selection is rather stupid, the "Germanic" academic/intelligence bell curve is still 50% scrubs. Why not allow in professional based on their educational pedigree (a fair enough and easily managed criterion)

 

[CardSharp]

Gawd I just read this part.

　　For waiguoren (外国&#20154, there is nothing more annoying than being told “you’re a foreigner, you don’t understand China, and you never will”. This is patently untrue. There are countless examples of foreigners being able to integrate, study and explain China to others (Peter Hessler is a notable example). And how on earth are we “foreigners” ever supposed to be able to “understand” China if we’re not allowed to come here, settle down and go about our daily business – which is both legal and benefits society – without the fear of not knowing if our visas are going to be extended?

if he lists Peter Hessler as a notable example of a foreigner who understands China, he can gtfo.

I tried to read one of Peter Hessler's books but stopped mid way because it was full of the same old finger wagging about how the Chinese are backwards because they don't do things like "we" do (and he started as another low rent English teacher with the difference being he went to China slightly before everyone else did and wrote a book)

 

[gpit]

I think China must reform its immigration laws. Otherwise, in addition to lose many other advantages, China only sees smart people moving out to serve other countries, not outside talents moving in to serve China.

I guess US has a pretty good immigration laws for China to study. Canadian system can also be referenced.

First, China must classify petitioners into different priority levels (or give scores). People fall into the highest priority can have immediate permission.

Second, the classification must have certain criteria such as ethnic background, education level, and professional experience, etc. Those who are identified to be anti-China clowns, high-school drop-outs, or lazy-bones, etc. must be filtered off, but must grant them with the right to appeal with fees to proof that they are not clowns, drop-outs or lazy-bones. After that those with Chinese ethnic background or with family relation in China should help clime in the priority. This is not racism. This is taken into consideration that Chinese are family oriented as tradition and culture. A Lao Wai, if married to a Chinese, he/she can also join the wagon.

Third, if those permitted into China are found in violation of laws, they must be deported but must grant them with the right to appeal with fees.

I believe this can not only help China to advance itself, to promote Chinese culture/influence, but also create lot domestic employment positions with billions in revenue.

 

[Speeder 2]

the Americans are the dumb english teachers i was talking about.

its not about race. its about accomplishments and the ability to contribute. i'd take a black engineer over a washed up white guy that can only teach english any day every day. that's why i recommended a physics test instead of an IQ test.

You have overlooked my friend, I am afraid, a very important factor called "Reversal to Mean" in HBD world, and in fact in all known physical world:

A person's IQ, behaving exactly the same as a person's height, weight, eye colours and other personal physical traits ( and physical behaviours in nature at large), follows a physical rule called "Reversal to Mean" in which the IQ of the offsprings of a person tends to head towards the mean average of his/her racial group in the long run.

For example: the sons or grandsons or great gransons of a super high guy tend to head lower towards the racial average.

So Yao Ming's descedents most likely will have an average height much shorter than he - towards Chinese national average height; and vice versus in which descedents of a very low Chinese also tend to have higher heights - towards the Chinese national average.

In IQ, the descendents of both proven lower and higher than average IQers tend to have higher and lower IQs, correspondingly, - both trend towards their corresponding racial population mean.

Hence a dumb (e.g. with 85 IQ, 15 points lower than European average IQ) Euroepan's descendents tend to have IQ of 100 - the European average; while a super smart black guy with IQ of 140 --3 to 4 standard deviations well above Black average IQ -- tends to have offsprings with much lower IQ, heading towards 75 or so - the Black population average.

Though there are individual cases of exceptions from time to time, in general the rule of "Reversal to Mean" holds true like a clock!

Hence form gene pool point of view in the long run, if I must choose between a dumb white and a smart black for immigration, I know without hesitation whom to select.

 

[CardSharp]

You have overlooked my friend, I am afraid, a very important factor called "Reversal to Mean" in HBD world, and in fact in all known physical world:

A person's IQ, behaving exactly the same as a person's height, weight, eye colours and other personal physical traits ( and physical behaviours in nature at large), follows a physical rule called "Reversal to Mean" in which the IQ of the offsprings of a person tends to heading towards the mean average of his/her racial group in the long run.

For example: the sons or grandsons or great gransons of a super high guy tend to head lower towards the racial average.

So Yao Ming's descedents most likely will have a height much shorter than he - towards Chinese national average height; and vice versus in which descedents of a very low Chinese also tend to have higher heights - towards the Chinese national average.

In IQ, the descendents of both proven lower and higher than average IQers tend to have higher and lower IQs, correspondingly, - both trend towards their corresponding racial population mean.

Hence a dumb (e.g. with 85 IQ, 15 points lower than European average IQ) Euroepan's descendents tend to have IQ of 100 - the European average; while a super smart black guy with IQ of 140 --3 standard deviations well above Black average IQ -- tends to have offsprings with much lower IQ, heading towards 75 or so - the Black population average.

Though there are individual cases of exceptions from time to time, in general the rule of "Reversal to Mean" holds true like a clock!

Hence form gene pool point of view in the long run, if I must choose between a dumb white and a smart black for immigration, I know without hesitation whom to select.

Quote me the studies showing momentum in changes in intelligence.

 

[Speeder 2]

Quote me the studies showing momentum in changes in intelligence.

google the keywords, you'll find 1000s. it's almost as common and generally accepted as gravity theory. do you really need me to do it for you?

 

[CardSharp]

google the keywords, you'll find 1000s. it's almost as common and generally accepted as gravity theory. do you really need me to do it for you?

Actually I do and let's have a peer reviewed paper if possible.

 

[Speeder 2]

Actually I do and let's have a peer reviewed paper if possible.

C'mon, man...it belongs to statistics basics. if you insist, look here for a start: Regression toward the mean - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritability_of_IQ

in footnotes you'll find many peer-reviewed studies.

Just google them for more.

 

[below_freezing]

You have overlooked my friend, I am afraid, a very important factor called "Reversal to Mean" in HBD world, and in fact in all known physical world:

A person's IQ, behaving exactly the same as a person's height, weight, eye colours and other personal physical traits ( and physical behaviours in nature at large), follows a physical rule called "Reversal to Mean" in which the IQ of the offsprings of a person tends to head towards the mean average of his/her racial group in the long run.

For example: the sons or grandsons or great gransons of a super high guy tend to head lower towards the racial average.

So Yao Ming's descedents most likely will have an average height much shorter than he - towards Chinese national average height; and vice versus in which descedents of a very low Chinese also tend to have higher heights - towards the Chinese national average.

In IQ, the descendents of both proven lower and higher than average IQers tend to have higher and lower IQs, correspondingly, - both trend towards their corresponding racial population mean.

Hence a dumb (e.g. with 85 IQ, 15 points lower than European average IQ) Euroepan's descendents tend to have IQ of 100 - the European average; while a super smart black guy with IQ of 140 --3 to 4 standard deviations well above Black average IQ -- tends to have offsprings with much lower IQ, heading towards 75 or so - the Black population average.

Though there are individual cases of exceptions from time to time, in general the rule of "Reversal to Mean" holds true like a clock!

Hence form gene pool point of view in the long run, if I must choose between a dumb white and a smart black for immigration, I know without hesitation whom to select.

if that is true, why do israelis and irish have IQs significantly below the mean for europeans despite their obviously european ancestries?

sigh. this is why i don't do statistics. so easy to abuse. chemistry is alot better. there's only right and wrong answers.

for an example of why this sort of statistics seems bullshit:

Raw scores on IQ tests have been rising steadily throughout the industrialized world since the end of the Second World War. This score increase is known as the "Flynn effect," named for James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications. The increase has been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For example, in the United States the average scores of blacks on some IQ tests in 1995 were the same as the scores of whites in 1945.[73] Some argue that if there is an unknown factor that is responsible for the Flynn effect, then some equally powerful unknown environmental factor could be responsible for the contemporary differences between groups.[73] Others argue against expecting the Flynn Effect to narrow the US black-white IQ gap since they see that gap as mostly genetic in origin.[74]

---

also, a better study will be ownership of a car/car price, vs. IQ. i can almost guarantee that there will be a higher correlation between car ownership/car price and IQ, than race and IQ. does that mean that buying a BMW will significantly increase my IQ?

 

[Speeder 2]

I'll only answer this post of yours witha quickie, as I don't want to be off topic here.

if that is true, why do israelis and irish have IQs significantly below the mean for europeans despite their obviously european ancestries?

Not true.

The Irish have been proven having almost identical IQ as the Brits -the same race - not surprise here really.

Israelis, or more strictly speaking Jews, are not of European ancestry, but Semite, even though a considerable amount of Ashkenazi Jews living in Europe have European mixed blood along the line.

sigh. this is why i don't do statistics. so easy to abuse. chemistry is alot better. there's only right and wrong answers.

for an example of why this sort of statistics seems bullshit:

Raw scores on IQ tests have been rising steadily throughout the industrialized world since the end of the Second World War. This score increase is known as the "Flynn effect," named for James R. Flynn, who did much to document it and promote awareness of its implications. The increase has been continuous and approximately linear from the earliest years of testing to the present. For example, in the United States the average scores of blacks on some IQ tests in 1995 were the same as the scores of whites in 1945.[73] Some argue that if there is an unknown factor that is responsible for the Flynn effect, then some equally powerful unknown environmental factor could be responsible for the contemporary differences between groups.[73] Others argue against expecting the Flynn Effect to narrow the US black-white IQ gap since they see that gap as mostly genetic in origin.[74]

I can´t see your point here. I find those quotes perfectly legitimate. Flynn is quite reputed. But note that there is also "Reverse Flynn Effect`.

also, a better study will be ownership of a car/car price, vs. IQ. i can almost guarantee that there will be a higher correlation between car ownership/car price and IQ, than race and IQ. does that mean that buying a BMW will significantly increase my IQ?

Disagree.

Correlation is not neccesarily equivalent to causation, as race vs IQ is proven correlation because of causation, while Car ownership and car price not in an analogy that `I see the sun everyday -almost perfect correlation, but I am not the causation of the sun, I would love to be though `.

Furthermore, race is genetically heritable while car price-ownership are not genetically heritable .

This shall be my last response on this IQ topic in this thread.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

China should only ease immigration, now or in the future, to a very limited amount of Germanic Europeans & Americans, alongwith, of course, some people (particularly females)of East Asian origin (e.g. Japan, Korea, Vietnam), AND and above all overseas ethnic Chinese(!) - such as myself

If you are a hai wai hua ren, then you can easily apply for a restoration of Chinese citizenship. As far as I have read, Chinese nationality law operates on "Jus sanguinis" (right of blood).

Luckily for me, the PRC considers Hong Kong to ALWAYS have been a part of China (I agree with that), so any ethnic Chinese born in Hong Kong (even before the handover) is automatically considered a Chinese citizen.