香港需要捍衛本土

我諗香港右翼呢啲咁政治不正確嘅嘢,小弟係少數公然講唔怕被人鬧,因為小弟一向都係台灣政治光譜嚟講屬於深綠果批。小弟嘅政治立場,一向都同以往香港大多數人唔同。

對於好多民族主義分子嚟講,中國要我地幫,所以幾唔合理幫佢地嘅措施,例如單程證由中國審批,以至四川地震捐款等都要支持。

但小弟唔係民族主義分子,中國亦唔當香港人係自己,只當係殖民,而幫中國都應該顧慮香港大多數人感受,所謂香港優先。而唔係無限量無道理嘅餵飽中國,同埋唔知自力更生為何物嘅人就算。而香港嘅生存唔應該依賴中國,亦要為自已尋找生存空間。

所以對好多泛民,或建制派都唔敢支持嘅本土力量,小弟認為,就是要提倡愛香港。

廣告

53 則迴響

Filed under 香港政治

53 responses to “香港需要捍衛本土

  1. alvin

    揸單程證落香港嗰啲大陸人﹐其實係移民﹑抑或係殖民? 香港有權審批邊個可以攞單程證﹑邊個唔可以嗎?

  2. 凌天羽

    facebook group “新移民冇得拎六千蚊,這是永久居民獨有的福利,要有十萬個like俾班新移民睇"
    https://www.facebook.com/hkresident
    一日內己經有29614 人了.

    其實個問題, 用一個化學既講法, 就係有呢種本土思想既 “concentration " 響香港己經係非常之高, 甚至去到一個 saturated 既地步, 只不過係一直無一個政黨真係做得出, 無一個seed 去比佢"結晶"

    其實今日無人會為意呢一單野, 就算係佢地都唸唔到會上晒電視做晒訪問, 但而家一有第一班人出現之後, 呢一種思想就好似水晶咁crystallize, 大量產生為一種實質力量,

    今日見到, facebook 己經有幾個類似既好幾個group 了……

  3. nightingalelin

    講得好。
    大陸新移民,有錢有樓,態度囂張,都唔係最緊要。最緊要係佢地係無意識同我地一齊生活,我地同佢地少了一份共鳴。雖然交稅交夠七年或者更長時間,就當佢地係自己人,有投票權或者福利等等,只可以當係底線,如果佢地支持獨裁,阻礙香港民主化,專門同本土文化作對,如:唔俾人講母語,或者用普通話教授中文課,都應該當佢係入侵者處理。
    舉例來說,法國人唔當講外文係自己人,都有其道理。雖然係有點過火。例如香港人學法文,由於受到母語教育的不良影響,欠缺國際視野,又有偽道德東縛,引致發唔到部分輔音,法國人無真係反對過這類型野蠻政府,支援能力低下的異見人仕。

  4. 我只想知道,如果劉皇發出頭話「果六千蚊只應該畀原居民,因為你地班友、或者你地d祖先,絕大部分都係1949年後先落黎香港」,你又會點諗。

    我唔係話一定要畀佢地,因為「筆錢淨係派畀永久居民,因為你唔係所以冇得拎」已經係最合理既理由。線總要劃一條的,如果有些新移民生活真的貧困需要幫助的話,可以再搵其他方法。

    但就算真係畀左佢地,又真係好大筆錢咩﹖值得為左咁樣,去支持某d人講咁多形同極右翼式的排外語言﹖班新移民真係個個都係中共派落黎既有錢富二代﹖果d香港人自己上去娶、幫香港人生仔既又點計﹖如果新移民真係個個咁有錢,使鬼走出黎示威要果六千蚊﹖

  5. sammike

    去探討法律上既定義,香港永久性居民都唔算係國籍,咁如果佢係印巴籍、有非中國國籍既永久性居民又算唔算係香港人?係依D奇怪既法律之下,根本就CONCLUDE唔到香港人出黎。依樓主所相信既台灣本土派思想黎解釋,真正既香港人唔係以佢幾時黎為準,遲來既人只要認同香港、視香港為家、有「香港優先」、融入香港主流社會,咁就係一個真正既香港人。
    RE: 方潤,應為1898後來既人。而且原居民只不過係「新界既」原居民,個時省港澳地區既人流動好高,都周圍跑。

  6. Bankers' Arms

    面對中共及大陸人即將以規劃方式掠奪本港資源, 香港一定要成立一個保守黨予以還擊

    這個保守黨足以取代大部份民主派, 民主黨公民黨呢D過氣政黨係時候完成歷史使命

  7. sammike: 我呢句係將兩樣野擺埋一句講。原居民固然係1898或以前在新界定居的人,但另一方面,其餘非原居民的大部分,是1949後才來港。

    在1898-1949這段時間,如你所言大部分都是流動人口。

  8. 香港賓拉登

    在昨天的政總,有人發表香港獨立的演講,

    而好多時學運的人仍想不到這樣的重點,一直只係講彼此都係基層的老調,

    同埋,個頁已經有四萬五千人加入了

  9. 依馬打

    方潤:關鍵問題係今次政府派六千蚊算唔算 “社會福利" ?

    “香港居民" 於基本法第二十四條已有定義,包括永久性居民和非永久性居民。

    “第三十六條
    香港居民有依法享受社會福利的權利。勞工的福利待遇和退休保障受法律保護。 “

  10. one

    其實睇吓英國工黨十幾年黎一面不斷引入劣質蝗蟲式中東移民,一面指摘其反對者為種族主義者嘅賣國行為,就知香港人再唔正視港府任由中央大量引入大陸新移民踐踏本土文化嘅後果會係點。當到時民怨沸騰,部份自稱代表港人利益嘅政黨先後知後覺知道要正視蝗蟲問題,已經為時已晚,大量蝗蟲已經成為永久居民,有埋投票權你就攆都攆佢唔走 !

  11. Same duty same rights, if not, it is discrimination, simple as that.

    If new immigrants cannot enjoy social welfare, then can they have same level of free education, health care, which they also paid for with their tax money?

    To deny their social welfare would be like denying US legal immigrants their social benefits. It is interesting to see HK has so many clueless rednecks.

    Oh, this bring us to another issue: the EU doesn’t want to let Kongers to be residents (EU residents are entitled to the receive social welfare system in their residing countries, provided that they contribute to it) because they don’t want Kongers to take their social benefits. And they have all the right reasons, as Kongers haven’t been paying any tax to them.

    So take that, HK rednecks.

  12. 凌天羽

    新移民冇得拎六千蚊,這是永久居民獨有的福利,要有十萬個like俾班新移民睇 facebook group 己經有五萬五千人了…

    當大家看到這段教學, 攞香港福利叻過會計師, 又有什麼感想?
    http://www.tianya.cn/publicforum/content/no06/1/164588.shtml

    見到呢段先最火:

    咱们有句老话,不吃白不吃。向特区政府这笔万多亿资金打主意的单位,多如天上牛毛,可能有一天,特区政府,受不住所谓压力团体的播弄,政策来个急转弯,将广大同胞拒诸门外,或者修订一些条例,限制国内同胞得到的福利。到时,同胞们的生育权,子女教育权,居住权,伤残津贴,医疗津贴等等,都可望而不可即。
      所以,尽早以合法途径到香港特区,挣取各种福利,依据本书的指示,包保可以医食无忧,老有所养,壮有所居,幼有所长。

    香港, 是需要一個民進黨….

  13. 凌天羽

    方潤 :
    派錢唔恐佈的…
    無七年限制呢樣野既話,一次性比六千唔係最恐怖
    真正恐怖會係吸引億億萬萬既大陸人,以為香港有金執
    拿拿聲黎至係最得人驚..

    雖然理性上知道他們也是"鄉講人",
    不過他們連鄉音也未脫, 以為香港走的是中國的大鑊飯, 人民公社福利,
    毫不明白香港其實是一個自力更生的社會, 就喊著要公平的話, 會令香港人很難接受

    若果公平的話, 不是爭取派錢, 而是爭取投票權, 這是最能代表公民義務及權利.

  14. 依馬打﹕我同意你問的問題,因為我也有這樣想。
    如果當成新加坡式「紅利分享」,那麼自然可以指定只給公民和永久居民。等於我親戚有錢,分身家也不關我事。
    但如果當成「紓解民困」(很多人這樣說),那麼新移民如果是認可的香港居民,講「民困」他們也有份的。如果說有些新移民很有錢不需要六千蚊,那麼永久居民也是一樣,那麼派錢應該改為只派給中產和低收入人士。

    凌天羽﹕香港入境是有管制的,而且就算派給新移民,也只包括合法移民而不包括非法移民。移民的數目一向有限制,根本不足懼。
    如果像世澤那種,反對中國操縱單程證發放的說法,我當然不會反對,中共搞殖民的問題是明顯的。我已說明,我討厭的是某些歧視新移民的排外言語。如果要講移民,香港就算連原居民,祖先都是移民來的。

  15. 凌天羽

    移民的數目一向有限制,根本不足懼。
    現時每日150 個, 一年五萬人. 這只是表面數字, 但加上內地婦人在港產子, 每年四萬至五萬多個, 其實新移民每年係以10 萬人增加的. 他們基本上是內地父母, 教育的是內地思維. 你又怎攪他們?
    還未計算內地婦在港產子的數萬人, 因為夫是香港人所以己經算作香港永久居民.
    至於香港就算連原居民,祖先都是移民來的… 那我問你, 回歸前的香港是走共產主義的嗎? 為什麼當年過來的可以自力更新, 但現今的新移民卻把香港政府當作人民公社, 共香港人的產!

  16. one

    “如果要講移民,香港就算連原居民,祖先都是移民來的"
    第一,當年祖先有冇落到黎即刻諗住攞福利?
    第二,當年祖先落黎嗰時香港有冇而家獨特嘅本土文化?又有冇人與本地主流價值觀大相逕庭卻又拒絕融入?

  17. one

    大部分港人並不排外,只係反對劣質移民湧入侵吞有限社會資源。

  18. 凌天羽

    仲有, 好似引用劉皇發, 咁我可以講, 香港人都知道原居民丁屋政策, 但你有無見香港人都話要爭原居民福利?

    上一代走難來香港的, 地都好清楚莊閒, 但而家係班新移民唔知乜叫莊閒. 鵲巢鳩佔!

  19. v

    香港自新石器時代就有人住.

  20. @凌天羽’s comments

    wow, ignorance and redneckness at a new level. By you arguement, literally ever immigrant in every country is simply gaming the system, even the Indian cab driver busting his ass to support his family in New York is doing this, because his kids are going to public schools. By the same arguement, even HK immigrants in the US, UK, Canada etc, should not be able to have the same level of free education and medicare. By the way, I know many HK immigrants do game the system in Western countries, and by your arguement, Kongers are as good as the mainlanders, and today you have proven that to me, first hand, with yourself as evidence.

    Even full US citizens don’t have the same rights and benefits as the aboriginals, because the beneftis are suppose to be freaking compensations! Likewise are the benefits for Hong Kong natives, get your history right.

    I simply admire the inanity of Kongers’ mentality.

  21. Dbdb

    點解未成為永久居民的人不抗議無投票權呢,無投票權是否代表被歧視?投票權貴定六千元貴?

  22. @ Dbdb

    Because same duty same rights. Same economic duties same economic rights, same political duties same political rights. Every country requires landed residents to undergo a process make them share the same values and understand the history before making them full citizens. It is called the neutrualization process.

    Still what is there to brag about? Many natural born citizens don’t participate in public discourse, and many are hopelessly ill-informed, like many commentators here.

  23. Think about it. That $6000 come from tax payers’ money, from ALL tax payers. If I pay tax but don’t get the same amount of return as you do, I am in effect subsidising you.

    Since when HK believes one group of peope should subsidise another?

    Oh right, the government. So, are you guys having the same mentality as the HK government now?

  24. v

    “neutrualization " ??? 乜我地講緊CHEM呀?

  25. citizenship by neutralization: http://www.immigrationfreefaq.com/immigration/5253-3.html

    funny how English works, ain’t it?

  26. TC

    我認同Martin想法,唔派6000俾新移民係合理。

    香港政府能夠俾人人6000蚊,當然係由税收加賣地等收入得番黍。

    賣地賣到咁好價錢,香港係一個國際級地市有關。至於呢個國際級城市係點建立出黍?當然係60-80’s香港人辛勞工作,工作認真再加當時港英政策配合。
    如果香港係49年,中共軍接收埋香港,我想問香港仲有無可能發展成今日香港,賣地賣到咁多錢?
    至於income tax,一個香港中產(e.g. 醫生,老師)要交ge income tax同一個大陸樟木頭 ge 中產相差有幾遠?雖然一個香港Physics 老師同一個樟木頭老師都係教差唔多ge野,但係人工就唔同。因為香港係一個由60-80’s香港人建立ge國際級城市。
    至於係唔係新界班圍頭,牛屎老先叫香港人,至有6000蚊?以個當年新界咁少人,香港仲可唔可發展成今日ge香港。香港無英國人同60-80’s香港人工作一樣可以單靠新界人去發展,但係發展成就就真係大家心中有數。而且發展可以有好同壞,大家望下大陸係49-76年發展乜野出黍?

  27. TC:
    By your logic, doesn’t it mean that only those who worked between 60s-80s should get that $6000? Because you seem to say the new immigrants have nothing to do with it and those who worked outside of that 20 years window have nothing to do with it, so if you are consistent, they should not get $6000 too. You just excluded many many people, just so you know.

    And what’s that steaming pile of comparison between a HK teacher’s and a Chinese teacher’s income tax payment? A Chinese teacher pays Chinese income tax, he/she is irrelevant to this conversation

  28. one

    “Think about it. That $6000 come from tax payers’ money, from ALL tax payers. If I pay tax but don’t get the same amount of return as you do, I am in effect subsidising you."

    The $6000 handout is only viable because we have this huge cash reserve at the moment, the result of the government collecting too much and spending too little over the years. It’s only fair that people want to see their tax money being spent on citizens who have long term interests in HK AND have contributed enough to the society, which is why permanent resident status is only given to anyone who’s been here for 7 years.

    ‘New immigrants’ i.e. non-permanent residents should never be qualified for social housing or benefit payments. If they think they’ve paid taxes but are getting nothing in return then tough shit, they haven’t paid long enough and HK doesn’t owe them a living.

    The line has to be drawn somewhere if we want proper control on public finance. Trying to pretend new immigrants should ‘deserve’ as much as everyone else is just pure left-wing idiocy.

  29. @ one:
    “The $6000 handout is only viable because we have this huge cash reserve at the moment, the result of the government collecting too much and spending too little over the years. It’s only fair that people want to see their tax money being spent on citizens who have long term interests"

    1. New immigrants don’t pay tax? They are not guest workers.
    2. government collecting too much from whom?
    3. New immigrants are going to be full citizens in 7 years time, some less, they have no long term interests?

    I ask again: There are HK immigrants in Western countries. By you logic, you think that these immigrants, provided they pay tax and contributions, should enjoy the same level of social benefits, education, medicare as other citizens?

    “If they think they’ve paid taxes but are getting nothing in return then tough shit, they haven’t paid long enough and HK doesn’t owe them a living."

    How about HK students who are not workin and have not paid any tax as of this moment? They deserve it? Shouldn’t you said tough shit to those students and jump up and down protesting them receiving the handout?

    The “line" to be drawn is that the $6000 hand-out does not make any damn sense. It is inherently unfair and lure out the crazies from HK rednecks. That is the position. That is why responsible countries almost never handout cash; they have tax returns for those who really contribute and invest the extra in social policies.

    Try to think consistently, would you?

  30. Before I forget:
    And what about those who only began to work this year? They deserve the $6000 more than a new immigrant who has been working for 3 year?

  31. echykr

    山中, I think that article may have misspelled the term. AFAIK, it’s always been “naturalization" not “neutralization". 🙂

    As a Malaysian Chinese who have to constantly put up with constant abuse from the racist and ungrateful Malay politicians against Chinese who have contributed to Malaysia’s economy, I find some of the generalization of everything non-HK by some of you guys here disturbing.

    Some seem to make the logical fallacy that just because “All Locusts = Mainlanders, therefore All Mainlanders = Locusts". That’s like saying “All Germans = Nazis". I especially resent the usual redneck branding of all Muslims as terrorists when some of my closest friends are very easy-going Malay Muslims. Go watch more Al-Jazeera and open your eyes. (And FYI, Al-Jazeera is NOT a terrorist network)

    Maybe this is Beijing’s scheme all along, $6000 just to divide those who have been born and bred here, and those genuine immigrants who truly contributed and made an effort to integrate into HK society. While those noveau rich bastards get away without paying a single penny in taxes.

  32. echykr

    thx. I admit my mistake. Somehow that’s how I remember the term. That’s what happens when I don’t read careful enough.

    Back to the point, it does not matter if it is a Beijing scheme, it shows that Kongers do not know what the hell rule of law is, and that they don’t care much about consistency.

  33. sammike

    Re: 山中
    I think echykr’s idea of Bejing conspiracy stands but of coz that may be out of your topic. But the act of distrbuting money to all HKPID holders have to be approved by the CCP because the action has violated the logic of the SAR gov. In the past, the gov just counted for enough vote in the Legco and ignored everything. We all know that those members of DAB and so on, would vote for whatever the gov suggested with very little room to bargain.
    And for"it shows that Kongers do not know what the hell rule of law is",
    it is apparently we don’t know what the hell rule of law is, because the interpatation of law is on the hand of the CCP. Hong Konger can never be a rival to CCP since CCP is so good at playing tricks on words and law is formed by words.

  34. Dbdb

    好憎林公公那種詭辯,正一教懷細佬。
    要對他說what fucking do you want?
    葉國謙最喜歡時不時講恐伯甚麼甚麽會違返人大常委的決定,這個決定勁抽過聖經。
    見到立法會民主黨詞窮,幾位不停想當年,何俊仁怨對譚師奶,眞是O曬咀。

  35. Sammike:

    When I said it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t mean it is not important. Rather, it means that after this display it does not matter anymore, because HK people are supposed to know better, we are suppposed to be above inane prejudice and superiority, and we are supposed to be demanding justice, fairness and equal rights. This display shows that the Kongers’ fight is superficial that there is no cause at all and deep down Kongers are a discriminating bunch.

    This time, HK people just hand it over to CCP by saying “hey, you are right, we are a bunch of yokels who cannot have democracy because we don’t demand and don’t understand equal rights at all". Admit it, we just lost the moral high ground by showing we are yokels, and this times, CCP does not come out to say or interpret anything about the $6000. So don’t blame CCP but ourselves.

    If we can remain consistent, we are sure we are just and fair and we make a stand about the $6000 by saying “rights to all or none at all" then if it was indeed a CCP trick, it won’t hurt us; it would only gives us ammunition by showing solidarity. But no, we have to show our true color.

    I sincerely wish that this isn’t somekind of trick, ’cause if it was, we just lost fucking big time.

  36. Bankers' Arms

    We want a Honkies Party!

  37. Bankers' Arms

    Honkies Job for Honkies People

  38. one

    “I ask again: There are HK immigrants in Western countries. By you logic, you think that these immigrants, provided they pay tax and contributions, should enjoy the same level of social benefits, education, medicare as other citizens?"

    I never said new immigrants in any country should be entitled to the same welfare as citizens/permanent residents do. What does the fact that some hongkongers are gaming welfare systems in western countries have to do with HK government’s policymaking anyway?

    Whether you like it or not in most countries paying 2 years’ taxes is not going to give you full access to benefit payments. Only socialists living in lala-land with their magic money tree would ignore the implication on public finance and give full access to benefit payments to non-permanent residents.

    Unfortunately immigrants would only be classified as permanent residents once they have been in tHK for 7 years, are you proposing to change this as well? As I said the widely accepted criteria are:

    1. Long term commitment AND
    2. Having contributed enough.

    In HK’s case regarding point 2, is having resided here for 7 consecutive years. The lack of economic support from the government during the 7 year period enforces net contribution from the immigrant.

    Benefits and welfare are only available to citizens and permanent residents regardless of their tax status in most countries, what are you going to do about it?

    Benefit payments are NOT human rights.

  39. Bankers' Arms

    Benefit payments are NOT human rights.

    Yes! Most Honkies would agree on this. If those immigrants aren’t happy with this, they can vote by returning to their ‘properous’ country!

  40. @one:
    Benefit payments are NOT human rights, but they are ECONOMIC rights, esp. when there is duty involved, otherwise it will not be just.

    If one of your criteria is contribution, namely in tax money, then the students should not get $6000. You need to have a logical consistent position. Whether you are a permanent resident of HK or a legal immigrant does not matter, because if it is the sole factor it would violate duties and rights principle. You can argue everyone has $6000, no one has $6000, but not some one who does not pay tax has $6000, while some one who pay tax has no $6000.

    As I mentioned, no country handout cash in this manner. If a country finds that it has more than it needs for a given period of time, it will do tax return. If you want to talk about payment as employment insurance, medicare, pension, then as a landed immigrant you may not be entitled to them but if you are not entitled to them you don’t have to contribute to them either because a large chunk of these programmes are funded by payroll tax and contributions. You oridinary tax money goes with oridinary public goods.

    However, you do understand that a legal immigrant is a pending citizen he is basically a citizen without full political rights, right (ok, I’m guessing you don’t)? That’s why immigrants’ children can go to school for free, that why immigrants are allowed to contribute to medicare: http://referpages.com/wp/2007/12/canimmig-ii/

    Furthermore, don’t get mixed up with the terms. The two comparable statuses are legal immigrant(permanent resident) and citizenship for the purpose of this discussion, and for all intend and purpose a legal immigrant is a pending citizen, it’s not like they are guest workers or tourists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_resident_%28Canada%29

    For HK the equovalents are non-permanent (legal immigrant) and permanent (citizen) because HK is not a nationality.

    Now, are HK new immigrants a pending citizen? If not, then new immigrant is a misnomer and we need not to consider that. Now are their children already using HK’s public services, like schools and hospital in a citizenry manner? Or a better question, should they?

    To recap, a legal immigrant has pernament resident status in say Canada, this is/should be equal to non-permanent resident in HK; citizenship in Canada is in HK pernament resident. Non-permanent residents in Canada are people with visa, student permits, temp work permit, tourists. For that matter, even full Canadian citizen can apply for non-residency for tax reason, but you get no social benefits for doing that. The moral: even a full citizen’s economic rights is tied to the contribution he pays.

  41. alvin

    山中 – “To deny their social welfare would be like denying US legal immigrants their social benefits."

    It’s always nice the cherry pick partial facts to fit your arguments, but I wonder how much do you know about US immigration.

    There are essentially 2 types of immigration in the US, those via employment, and those via family reunification. Since we’re talking about social benefits, immigration via employment is not really applicable, as employers need to prove the applicants’ skills are in shortage in the US, so the chance of these types of immigrants needing financial assistance from the government in the short term is minimal. For family reunification, the sponsoring members, whether they are spouses, parents, children, or siblings of the applicants, are legally responsible to financially support the applicants, must show financial means to do so, and must sign sworn affidavits to state such.

    Contrary to what you’ve stated, most federal entitlement programs are not available to newly landed immigrants. To qualify for social security, you need to work and pay social security tax for 10 years (40 quarters, if you want to be precise). To qualify for Medicare, you need to be citizens, or be a permanent resident for at least 5 years. Most other benefits programs are administered by the state governments.

    Since immigration is a federal statute, enforcement is at the federal level, not at the state level. Some states (and localities), particularly those with long-time Democratic leadership, are particularly lenient to immigrants, legal or otherwise. Check out the term “sanctuary city”. They would hand out social benefits (like unemployment and Medicaid, the state level medical coverage assistance program) to both legal as well as illegal immigrants to buy future votes, hoping that an amnesty is somewhere out in the horizon.

    So, while you can say that newly landed immigrants are able to receive social benefits in popular immigrant states like California and New York, the federal statutes that control immigration and social benefits clearly have different ideas, and they receive benefits only because states act in defiance / contrary to the federal statutes. It certainly doesn’t help when the current White House semi-openly asked federal immigration officials NOT to enforce immigration laws inside the borders.

  42. TC

    山中,

    我想解釋多一次,今次香港政府可以派$6000,係同香港依家今日經濟成就成正比。如果香港無60-80’s香港人工作同港英政策又或者香港係49年由中共统治,依家香港一個老師同大陸教師一樣咁少人工,人工少薪俸税自然少,何來庫房水浸。如果香港經濟發展同49後大陸一樣,香港係80’s後點樣以大陸人工水平去撐樓市?如果香港今日發展程度同大陸一個普通城市一樣,政府仲可以以賣地賣到庫房水浸?

    至於新移民,benefit當然比所謂永久居民少。以英國為例,你一日無ILR,一日都唔係permanent resident,好多好多benefits都無你份(仲會係簽證上面寫明)。如果你係work permit holder,一但俾人炒左,”就算你同其他英國公民一樣文咁多稅同NI”,你一樣無”jet so”,隨時仲要係28日內離開英國,邊有可以同其英國人一樣叫政府幫係交三個月租。而英國公民申請spouse去英國,如果個英國公民人工太少,內政部都可以唔批申請。一句講晒,係英國ge移民係有好多福利都無分,不過交ge稅同一個英國公民一樣多,但係我好少聽人講係唔公平。要記一樣野,移民係自己去英國,英國無人叫你自己離開自己國家!

  43. alvin

    From the US State Department website concerning Affidavit of Support Forms (I-864 series forms) –

    Means Tested Public Benefits
    Federal means tested public benefits are the following:

    * Food stamps
    * Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
    * Medicaid
    * Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
    * State Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

    Can the applicant use government assistance or public benefits?

    If the sponsored immigrant uses federal means tested public benefits, the sponsor must repay the cost of the benefits.

    What assistance programs are not considered means tested public benefit programs?

    The following types of assistance are not considered means tested public benefits and do not have to be repaid.

    * Emergency Medicaid
    * School lunches
    * Immunizations and treatment for communicable diseases
    * Student assistance to attend colleges and institutions of higher learning
    * Some kinds of foster care or adoption assistance
    * Job training programs
    * Head start
    * Short-term, non-cash emergency relief

    Like I said earlier, it is always nice the cherry pick partial facts to fit one’s arguments.

  44. alvin:

    I will admit i’m not sure about US immigration law, and applied it wrongly since I had a Canadian model in mind, but:

    when you pay for social security that means you are already entitled to contribute to that program, but when can you take it out is another question. And basically all these type of contributions based programs have take-out limitations. And I wasn’t saying you are entitled to EI payment once you landed. The theme is still rights are tied to contributions.

    Medicare is a big issue because before Obama care (after not sure), it was a state responsibility and not a good one. So like you said it depends on jurisdiction.

    Nonetheless, i was thinking more or less on food stamp kind of true hand-out benefits: so legal immigrants can be entitled to it: http://www.infoline.org/InformationLibrary/Documents/Food%20Stamps%20cw.asp

    By the way, since literally all western programs have critria that one needs to fulfill, how justifiable is a handout with no requirement (aside status) for some but not for all? how justifiable is a handout that doesn’t have a targeted impact in the first place? Issue with the HK govt handout out payment is that it is not a program, it has no prior legal requirement, nobody knows how much one is entitled to and who is eligible. Whereas western programs have know variables and requirement

  45. one

    “If one of your criteria is contribution, namely in tax money, then the students should not get $6000. You need to have a logical consistent position. Whether you are a permanent resident of HK or a legal immigrant does not matter, because if it is the sole factor it would violate duties and rights principle. You can argue everyone has $6000, no one has $6000, but not some one who does not pay tax has $6000, while some one who pay tax has no $6000."

    I’ve always said only Permanent Residents should get benefit payments, and one of the criteria for qualifying for the Permanent Resident status in Hong Kong happen to be having resided in Hong Kong for not less than 7 years:

    http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/topical_3_4.htm

    In this case, the Hong Kong government has decided to hand out a cash benefit payment of $6000 to all its ‘citizens’ (permanent residents) – nothing to do with tax status. Since ‘new immigrants’ are not Permanent Residents by definition, they should not be given $6000.

    What these ‘new immigrants’ might be qualified for if they happen to have paid income taxes is the 75% tax rebate that the government proposed to give to income tax payers.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-02/hong-kong-to-give-residents-cash-tax-rebates-after-backlash-over-budget.html

    How wise this $6000 handout is as a benefit payment is up for debate but welfare payments in Hong Kong have always been available only to residents of at least 7 years:
    http://www.swd.gov.hk/en/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_comprehens/

  46. alvin

    山中 –

    when you pay for social security that means you are already entitled to contribute to that program, but when can you take it out is another question. And basically all these type of contributions based programs have take-out limitations. And I wasn’t saying you are entitled to EI payment once you landed. The theme is still rights are tied to contributions.

    Entitle to contribute? I think you’re spinning the concept of rights and entitlements way too far. Contribution is a duty, not a right. Besides, you’re wrong that the “right" to contribute means the right to take out. Social security tax is a payroll tax so everyone who is working in the US needs to pay, even if you are working in the US on a non-immigrant working visa w/ no intention to immigrate to the US.

    Medicare is a big issue because before Obama care (after not sure), it was a state responsibility and not a good one. So like you said it depends on jurisdiction.

    Wrong again. Medicare is a federal program, not a state program. It is for senior citizens 65 or above. Newly landed immigrants are not eligible for Medicare. Medicaid are mainly state programs and they are need based. And obviously you don’t know diddly squat about ObamaCare, which at this point does not provide free healthcare to everyone, but instead requires everyone to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.

    Nonetheless, i was thinking more or less on food stamp kind of true hand-out benefits.

    Can you even read what I posted above? Food stamps are not supposed to be available to newly landed immigrants. If the sponsored immigrant uses federal means tested public benefits (including food stamps), the sponsor must repay the cost of the benefits. The lack of efficient law enforcements, and the unwillingness of other federal agencies to enforce such statutes ( particularly by the laughing-stock of this hopey-changey administration), may give you the false impressions that newly landed immigrants are eligible for food stamps and other Federal means tested public benefits, but they are not. Again see above.

    “Issue with the HK govt handout out payment is that it is not a program, it has no prior legal requirement, nobody knows how much one is entitled to and who is eligible."

    Bottom line is, you do not like the $6000 handout. Fine. In a democratic society, they are always people who do not like certain policies. It’s all bullshit that every policy must get a consensus; by definition, in a democratic society you do not have consensus and the majority rules. That’s why you have legislatures to vote on laws (to establish legal requirements) and have courts to ensure such legislation do not infringe upon rights on people. You may not like the democratic composition of Legco, but it is still a legally established legislature in the territory. And mind you, in this case, no rights have been “violated". To me, it is not up to the court to decide if a policy is fair or not (though a judicial activist may disagree).

    I myself am not entitled to the last US federal tax rebate because according to the Obama administration, I make too much (and I do not). Is that fair?

    Is a progressive tax system fair or not? Tax brackets are defined arbitrarily. Is that fair?

    Many welfare benefits are handed out based on income and asset level. Where should such lines be drawn to be “fair"?

    “Fairness" is a political ideology. I believe in equal opportunities; you and your friends on the left believe in equal outcome. Let’s agree to disagree and call it a day. There’s no point arguing ideology.

  47. TC,

    “work permit holder" is not immigrant. you haven’t explained why students should get the free handout. why people below 18 should not get the money?

    alvin,

    I’ll admit I got US law wrong, but immigrants can still get some benefits like education related programs, it doesn’t mean they are completely not entitled to benefits, thus there are reasons to providing benefits to immigrants.

    it really comes down to what the programs entail. If the position had been that the tax money should create programs that aid families and people in needs, then there would be no fuzz at all, and if immigration policy already stated how much financial assets is required for legal immigration.

    The peculiarity with HK handout is that it is not a program, it is a sudden handout without prior consultation with all tax payers. Since this is a new issue taken out from tax payers’ money, immigrants are entitled to at least consultations and how their tax money are used.

    My position has been if the handout is consistent, then people who has not worked should not get it. Then the only other requirement would be whether the perosn is a HK permanent resident. On the other hand, the immigrant did not know there would be $6000 handout in the first place, thus he cannot be accused of gaming the system. It is not like he knows what he is getting into. And there is a big difference, for if he knows beforehand, the whole agreeing to the package argument would apply.

    Thus, the current situation is immigrants subsidising permanent residents, some of whom have not yet started working. That is not even social welfare/benefit, that’s plain subsidy. And if permanent residency is the only requirement, why only for those who are above 18? There is no justifiable reason for this kind of distribution. Like I mentioned before, if this is a tax rebate for tax payers, then it would not a problem at all, because eligibility is well defined. you can maintain fairness and justice principle with that.

    problem is, with all due consider, do we have better distribution method of the tax money without getting into the pitfall?

  48. alvin

    山中 –

    “I’ll admit I got US law wrong, but immigrants can still get some benefits like education related programs, it doesn’t mean they are completely not entitled to benefits, thus there are reasons to providing benefits to immigrants."

    Are new immigrants NOT entitled to government subsidized education in Hong Kong? Or healthcare? That’s news to me.

    I think one thing we do agree… that there should be some form of social safety nets for the unfortunate, and that should cover newly landed immigrants as well. Where we differ philosophically is where to draw the line. While you think simply because they are entitled to some social safety nets mean they should be entitleled more, I believe the opposite. I believe new immigrants should have to establish the means to support themselves (or via their sponsors) before coming to Hong Kong because it helps them integrate to the new society. Immigrants (whether in Hong Kong or in the US) should be there to help the society, not be a burden.

    The root cause of the problem, as Martin has pointed out in a recent post (and as I have commented in the first response of this post), is that Hong Kong does not currently control who those immigrants are. It is perhaps this lack of control that causes people to have a growing negative sentiment towards new immigrants, that they are essentially implants, not immigrants.

  49. TC

    山中,

    In the UK, work permit holders are considered as immigrants and they can apply for ILR (i.e. permanent resident) after residing 5 yrs in the UK and then for British citizenship.

    Although PRs under 18 yrs ago may not have paid any tax before, their parents did make contribution to the development of HK. According to ur logic, any babies born overseas to HK PR parents shouldn’t be allowed to get free education on returning to HK!

    Immigrants can enrol their children for primary/elementary secondary school/education for a low fee, it is because that receiving proper education is a basic right for a child. However, it doen’t imply immigrants’ children can enjoy territory education at a low fee. If you got your British citizenship through 居英權 and haven’t been in the UK as an ordinary resident for 3 yrs, you need to pay international student fee (not home student fee!!). Do you think it is free?

  50. alvin,

    1. contribution. ok. you’re right, partly. some countries like Germany allows a refund: http://www.social-security.de/refunds.htm

    2. i was using Canadian medicare concept there, for some reason, most likely brain fart, and i do not know enough about US Medicare and Medicaid, because i’m too used to single payer. i didn’t say obamacare would provide free care, i said i didn’t know what would happen with it. i know enough that it isn’t a govt payer system.

    3. I said food stamp “can" be with certian criteria.

    4. when you say you income was too high for tax rebate, that’s consideration, because they are now measuring the effectness and impact of the policy. My whole issue with the handout was the lack of consideration with the impact

    5.wasn’t intend to say fairness is necessary, but are there better ways to handle it?

    6. I don’t disagree with agreeing to disagree.

  51. 山中 –

    1. I’ve been talking only about US. How does it matter what happened in Germany?

    2. You said Medicare was a state responsibility before ObamaCare and it was not a good one. Well, wrong, wrong, and right.

    3. Who would use government not enforcing a law as a “certain criteria"? Your example was plain wrong. Admit it. Besides, you quoted the word “can", as if it is a magic bullet. Your argument is as weak as stating you “can" kill someone.

    4/5. I do agree that the whole handout lacks consideration. But is that what you have been arguing all along? I don’t think so. You’re flip-flopping your entire argument between whether the handout is fair, and why new immigrants should be entitled to it. And now you’re arguing the fact that the policy lacks consideration? The first 2 are ideological while the latter is purely procedural. I get that you don’t like the policy, but it is pretty much a foregone conclusion that most policies from HK Gov’t in recent years lack consideration, so arguing this is a waste of time.

  52. 凌天羽 ﹕其他不講了,你問原居民有沒有一來就拿福利……佢地一黎就霸左成個山頭啦。

    我講左,只係反對某些侮辱所有新移民的說法,你們認為非永久居民無法派錢這一點,我不反對,雖然我亦不覺得必要。

  53. Dick Ma

    有冇人肯做中譯英翻譯再放回youtube,我負責放字幕上去(義務性質)

發表迴響

在下方填入你的資料或按右方圖示以社群網站登入:

WordPress.com Logo

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Facebook照片

您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

Google+ photo

您的留言將使用 Google+ 帳號。 登出 / 變更 )

連結到 %s