<p>Does China accept immigrants?</p>
<p>[Resident</a> (D) Visa](<a href=“http://www.china-embassy.org/eng/hzqz/zgqz/t162609.htm]Resident”>中华人民共和国驻美利坚合众国大使馆)</p>
<p>How did his expression:</p>
<p>“冷静观察、稳住阵脚、沉着应付、韬光养晦、善于守拙、决不当头、有所作为” </p>
<p>get translated into “disguise its ambition and hide its claws”???</p>
<p>It doesn’t make sense!! Now I understand why we have so many hostilities.</p>
<p>^ Who said it translates that way?</p>
<p>I highly doubt it translates that way.</p>
<p>Google Translate produces this mix of good and bad translating: </p>
<p>“Cool-headed observation, hold our ground, to deal with calmly, hiding one’s capacity, Shou-Zhuo good, and never take the lead, make a difference”</p>
<p>Here are the stats for class of 2012. </p>
<p>Geographic Distribution of the Class of 2012 at Harvard, Princeton and Penn</p>
<p>State – Harvard, Princeton, Penn</p>
<p>Alabama – 5, 7, 9
Alaska – 1, 3, 3
Arizona – 16, 6, 16
Arkansas – 1, 1, 3
California – 189, 148, 219
Colorado – 8, 7, 24
Connecticut – 44, 47, 77
Delaware – 5, 4, 7
District of Columbia – 14, 7, 19
Florida – 51, 49, 81
Georgia – 25, 26, 32
Hawaii – 8, 5, 7
Idaho – 1, 0, 3
Illinois – 49, 32, 50
Indiana – 10, 4, 10
Iowa – 3, 4, 9
Kansas – 2, 4, 6
Kentucky – 7, 4, 11
Louisiana – 2, 3, 9
Maine – 9, 5, 5
Maryland – 40, 66, 114
Massachusetts – 216, 58, 82
Michigan – 20, 15, 24
Minnesota – 15, 8, 23
Mississippi – 1, 2, 1
Missouri – 12, 11, 19
Montana – 1, 0, 5
Nebraska – 2, 1, 5
Nevada – 5, 3, 3
New Hampshire – 26, 4, 6
New Jersey – 59, 168, 243
New Mexico – 11, 0, 10
New York – 193, 133, 297
North Carolina – 12, 16, 16
North Dakota – 1, 1, 3
Ohio – 30, 16, 35
Oklahoma – 6, 8, 6
Oregon – 6, 8, 21
Pennsylvania – 48, 77, 397
Rhode Island – 10, 1, 7
South Carolina – 8, 4, 6
South Dakota – 0, 1, 2
Tennessee – 14, 13, 20
Texas – 67, 37, 67
Utah – 5, 3, 7
Vermont – 5, 2, 5
Virginia – 25, 48, 50
Washington – 22, 7, 17
West Virginia – 4, 3, 3
Wisconsin – 11, 9, 12
Wyoming – 1, 0, 2</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m afraid I have to disagree: that the West operates by different standards from other countries is precisely what makes Western standards better. The United States is a nation built on immigration and serves as a beacon of freedom and hope to all people, not just to those particular people who happen to come from countries that themselves also allow free immigration. That’s why the United States is supposed to be the special beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. The United States didn’t turn away the millions of immigrants who came from the German Principalities, Russia, Sweden-Norway, the Italian states, because their source nations did not themselves provide for free immigration. </p>
<p>If the United States is simply going to follow the standards set by other countries, then that simply means that the United States can no longer claim to be a special nation.</p>
<p>“For the time being, US (and its universities’) economic desperation will maintain the Open Door Policy. In the longer term, it is very debatable whether immigration is an overall cost or benefit. Of course it is Mexican immigration that will drive the debate, but even the influx of foreign PhD students is up for reconsideration. For instance, the prospect of turning California into a Philippines might not appeal to all parties concerned.”</p>
<p>What the hell are you talking about. America has always been this way and that’s why America is the best country in the world. Everyone is an immigrant or a descendent of an immigrant except Native Americans. Again you run away from my argument that the risks of taking less Chinese students which would foreign affairs disaster to the relatively low rewards. Your almost xenophobic attitude shows us why people hate Americans around the world.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There wasn’t any argument to run away from. Just a nebulous declaration of personal opinion, that some unspecified change to the status quo would be a “can of worms” and a “foreign policy disaster”.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good one! “Almost xenophobic”: is that like almost beating one’s wife, or having nearly racist opinions?</p>
<p>““The United States is a nation built on immigration and serves as a beacon of freedom and hope to all people, not just to those particular people who happen to come from countries that themselves also allow free immigration. That’s why the United States is supposed to be the special beacon of freedom for the rest of the world. The United States didn’t turn away the millions of immigrants who came from the German Principalities, Russia, Sweden-Norway, the Italian states, because their source nations did not themselves provide for free immigration.””</p>
<p>As a result of labor competition after the California Gold Rush, the US government introduced the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, disallowing Chinese laborers from entry and denying Chinese residents from citizenship for 10 years. It was extended for another 10 years by the Geary Act in 1892 and then permanently extended in 1902, further demanding Chinese residents to carry registered permits or face deportation. Chinese residents were also prohibited from land ownership or marriage with Caucasians. Immigration of Asian Indians, East Asians, and Eastern and Southern Europeans were later restricted by the stringent immigration quotas of the Immigration Act in 1924. It was only until WW2 when China and the US became allies that the Chinese Exclusion Act was repealed by the Magnuson Act in 1943, setting the Chinese immigration quota at the level of the Immigration Act in 1924 and allowing Chinese residents naturalization. Larger-scale immigration of Chinese and other Asian and European groups awaited for the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Services Act in 1965, with immigration quotas several times higher than before. And as such, immigration to the US hasn’t been entirely “free”, particularly for Chinese.</p>
<p>"“I’m afraid I have to disagree: that the West operates by different standards from other countries is precisely what makes Western standards better… If the United States is simply going to follow the standards set by other countries, then that simply means that the United States can no longer claim to be a special nation.‘’”</p>
<p>What I have noticed are the universal principles of absolute and comparative advantage at work, while the governments and the interests groups are trying to mess around as in, relatively free exchange vs. protectionism, varying quotas and tarriffs, and asymmetric barriers… more circumstancial than inherently Eastern or Western standards.</p>
<p>“”''冷静观察、稳住阵脚、沉着应付、韬光养晦、善于守拙、决不当头、有所作为"</p>
<p>Google Translate produces this mix of good and bad translating: </p>
<p>“Cool-headed observation, hold our ground, to deal with calmly, hiding one’s capacity, Shou-Zhuo good, and never take the lead, make a difference”“”</p>
<p>“韬光养晦” is closer to “restrained and modest” than “hiding one’s capacity”.
“善于守拙” is closer to “adept at minding our own business” than “Shou-Zhuo good”.</p>
<p>The rest are fine.</p>
<p>Considering that China owns a significant portion of the US debt, perhaps we should be trying to come up with solutions to our impending economic crisis rather than arguing about Chinese students that add to our GDP, helping the US?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes of course. Nobody is denying that the US doesn’t always live up to its principles. The US was founded on the principles of freedom and equality - “…all men are created equal” - yet actively enslaved an entire race of people for nearly a century after the nation was founded, and after slavery was outlawed, continued to actively discriminate against that same race for another century afterwards. Furthermore, the US actively dispossessed and exploited the Native Americans. </p>
<p>But the point is, at least the US was built on laudatory principles, even if she doesn’t always live up to them. More importantly, just because other countries are not committed to the principles of freedom is hardly an excuse for the US to do likewise. Even if other people jump off a building doesn’t mean that you should do the same. If the US tries to commit itself to liberty, even if fitfully, and other countries don’t, then the US will be better than those other nations. Just because China doesn’t allow open immigration doesn’t mean that the US shouldn’t allow Chinese to immigrate. </p>
<p>In fact, your discussion of the various anti-Chinese immigration acts throughout history could actually be taken as rationale for more Chinese immigration now, as a way of atoning for past sins, in the same way that the election of Barack Obama could be seen as atonement for the historical mistreatment of blacks.</p>