The place to ask China-related questions!
Beijing Shanghai Guangzhou Shenzhen Chengdu Xi'an Hangzhou Qingdao Dalian Suzhou Nanjing More Cities>>

Categories

Close
Welcome to eChinacities Answers! Please or register if you wish to join conversations or ask questions relating to life in China. For help, click here.

By continuing you agree to eChinacities's Privacy Policy .

Sign up with Google Sign up with Facebook
Sign up with Email Already have an account? .
Posts: 1103

Governor

0
1
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
1

Q: What would China do in the face of so much terror?

Another day, another attack. Luckily this time the idiot terrorist in Paris only had a hammer. Just imagine if China faced the kind of terror currently being unleashed on Western Europe. What would be done? Well let's look at Xinjiang, travel restrictions, huge military presence. In the west we repeat feel good slogans like "this cowardly attack will not tear us apart", we hold candlelight vigils and we light up some skyscrapers for a day or two to "show solidarity." Believe me, if Paris or London style attacks were going down regularly in Beijing you'd see a massive military presence in the streets. Scores of innocents would be caught up in the crackdown. The attacks would likely stop or at least the government would make sure some don't get reported in order to save face. Donald Trump is trying to play tough guy in the US but hasn't done much other than his half baked horribly executed unconstitutional travel ban.

 

Can we learn something from a more hard line approach? I was in the Boston airport the other day and saw no military or police presence at all. One of my ex coworkers in Boston just got shipped off to Africa for national guard peacekeeping. Now if the war is being brought to our doorstep why not have the national guard deployed right here at home? You know, to keep we the people safe.... I'd like to see western governments step up and start doing something when most of these terrorists were already known to be radical jihadis by the intelligence services. I'm gonna snap next time I hear someone was flying an ISIS flag and expressing support for Abu Bakr al Bagdadi with no consequences until they start slaughtering our people in our streets. Civil liberties have limits. Could you imagine China letting a terrorist propagandist like that live openly in society? The rat would be squashed with or without due process.

3 years 9 weeks ago in  Health & Safety - Wuxi

 
Highest Voted
Posts: 4398

Emperor

1
1
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
0

Unconstitutional for the Chief Executive to control immigration?  How do you get that idea?

 

http://cis.org/plenarypower

 

Everything I read says it is an authority of the Executive Branch.

 

{ In the decades after the ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court took a leading role in determining how the immigration power would be allocated between the three branches of Government. In the end, the Court gave “plenary power”—absolute power—over immigration to Congress and the Executive, in a judicially-created doctrine known as the “plenary power” doctrine. Although this concept is found nowhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court said Congress had the power to make immigration laws that were discriminatory and otherwise unfair.

In later years, the Court has also allowed Congress to delegate its immigration authority to the Executive Branch. Congress has now given away much of its plenary power over immigration to the Executive in sweeping grants of power—more sweeping grants than in any other area of the law. For example, Congress has delegated the power to the Executive Branch to determine whether the United States is at war such that military members can be naturalized; to determine whether foreigners should be granted temporary protected status; to determine whether a person is allowed to work in the United States; to grant a person permission to be in the U.S. when the person does not qualify for a visa; and to decide whether a person’s deportation should be deferred. 

As a result of two judicially-created developments—the plenary power doctrine, and the doctrine that Congress may delegate its power to the President—the Executive Branch today enjoys expansive power over immigration. Many people recently became upset when the Executive Branch exercised these powers delegated to it by Congress—but until Congress amends or repeals these broad grants of authority to the Executive, the President is on firm legal ground. }

Report Abuse
3 years 9 weeks ago
 
Answers (5)
Comments (7)
Posts: 4398

Emperor

1
1
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
0

Unconstitutional for the Chief Executive to control immigration?  How do you get that idea?

 

http://cis.org/plenarypower

 

Everything I read says it is an authority of the Executive Branch.

 

{ In the decades after the ratification of the Constitution, the Supreme Court took a leading role in determining how the immigration power would be allocated between the three branches of Government. In the end, the Court gave “plenary power”—absolute power—over immigration to Congress and the Executive, in a judicially-created doctrine known as the “plenary power” doctrine. Although this concept is found nowhere in the Constitution, the Supreme Court said Congress had the power to make immigration laws that were discriminatory and otherwise unfair.

In later years, the Court has also allowed Congress to delegate its immigration authority to the Executive Branch. Congress has now given away much of its plenary power over immigration to the Executive in sweeping grants of power—more sweeping grants than in any other area of the law. For example, Congress has delegated the power to the Executive Branch to determine whether the United States is at war such that military members can be naturalized; to determine whether foreigners should be granted temporary protected status; to determine whether a person is allowed to work in the United States; to grant a person permission to be in the U.S. when the person does not qualify for a visa; and to decide whether a person’s deportation should be deferred. 

As a result of two judicially-created developments—the plenary power doctrine, and the doctrine that Congress may delegate its power to the President—the Executive Branch today enjoys expansive power over immigration. Many people recently became upset when the Executive Branch exercised these powers delegated to it by Congress—but until Congress amends or repeals these broad grants of authority to the Executive, the President is on firm legal ground. }

Report Abuse
3 years 9 weeks ago
 
0
0
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
0
Report Abuse
3 years 9 weeks ago
 
1
1
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
2

Your question is actually quite valid, regardless of Icnif's comments.

 

As to the answer - it's because we in countries that are not totalitarian or authoritarian (at least in theory) like our freedoms. (obviously, I'm no longer including the USA in that category, after what's happened to their CBP, amongst other things).

 

"Those who sacrifice priacy (or freedom) for security deserve neither". And I'd say that's the attitude that many have.

 

Sure, an increased presence will be tolerated... but to the extent that your suggesting (Xinjiang) would never be accepted! (have you been up that way recently? I haven't, but I know someone who has - and it really is not nice!!!))

 

That's especially true because of the percentages of radicalised Jihadis (and other terrorists) is a fraction of a percentage of the population. And, even a tiny fraction of the Muslim population in the various countries involved.

 

Frankly, if what you're suggesting was put into place, you'd find a number of citizens not formerly caring really starting to give a shit, and start to push back against the government. In the US, that would probably mean the gun-nuts would start a civil war..

 

Comparing what you're suggesting... in China, the XJ issue is only partly around religion - it's more about suppression of a race (Uighers) and the policy of bringing in Han Chinese to 'breed out' the locals. In the 'west', it's about a religion. Xinjiang ren are relatively obvious (cos, youi know, it's an ethnicity/race). In the UK, US, Australia, Paris, etc, it's a religion - and religion doesn't automatically equate to ethnicity or race!

 

But, yes, I do agree with your comment on tracking.... too many times have these areeholes been 'watched' and yet able to do their evil. I read that the Manchester terrorists had been reported to police by the local Muslim community a number of times!!!

Report Abuse
3 years 9 weeks ago
 
Posts: 4430

Emperor

1
0
You must be a registered user to vote!
You must be a registered user to vote!
1

If I see the assh*le, and I can get one got shot, ill5go after the sicko !

Report Abuse
3 years 9 weeks ago
 
Know the answer ?
Please or register to post answer.

Report Abuse

Security Code: * Enter the text diplayed in the box below
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <u>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Textual smileys will be replaced with graphical ones.

More information about formatting options

Forward Question

Answer of the DayMORE >>
A: Going to HK would be the best bet I reckon, especially if you were loo
A:Going to HK would be the best bet I reckon, especially if you were looking for a church wedding. Chinese weddings are pretty grim IMO - you go to a barren govt dept with souless officials and navigate red tape so some guy can give you a red stamp and a marriage book. You get expensive pictures taken of you both posing in places you'd never go to in everyday life that is somehow supposed to represent your wedding, then a while later it's off to a restaurant where a game show host kind of guy makes sure it's as tacky as possible while the guests eat as fast as they can so they can leave as soon as they finish eating and gave you money. Hell, I'd go to Thailand or the Philippines and get married in Paradise.   -- Stiggs