British Prime Minister Boris Johnson led his country out of the European Union on grounds of uncontrolled mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East, yet he is offering visas to hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong residents.
It is unclear how many eligible residents of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will take advantage of Johnson's offer. The propaganda media spread a number: 300,000 applications by the end of January. It is also unclear whether Johnson has ascertained whether the British people support Hong Kong residents' mass migration to their country.
Britain's calculations seem to have an economic undertone, as it expects Hong Kong residents to "bring in between￡2.4 billion ($3.27 billion) and ￡2.9 billion by 2025". Why did the United Kingdom, when it was still a European Union member state, refuse entry to thousands of Syrian refugees? Is it because they would probably take out between￡2.4 billion and ￡2.9 billion from the welfare system?
Are people from the Middle East less valuable than Hong Kong residents? That would of course contradict European values, which Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament from 2012 to 2017, reiterated saying: "What the migrants bring to us is more valuable than gold."
And where will the hypothetical Hong Kong refugees live in the UK? London? Isn't its population density already very high compared with other European capitals, except Paris?
Although the West is thriving because of its diversity, inclusiveness and equality master plan, many experts say mass migration in today's age can lead to disaster.
Doesn't that make Johnson's immigration policy suspect?
Apart from a trade and financial center, Hong Kong also served the British as an Asian hub for money laundering. Is Johnson ruing that loss?
Hong Kong returned to China in 1997. But before the handover, Britain made sure it continued to hold sway in finance, education, politics, the courts and the media. So while Beijing informed the Chinese people that Hong Kong had reunited with the motherland, many Western politicians indicated that Hong Kong was "independent".
Naturally, Western media reports portray as human rights violations the Hong Kong government's efforts to restore social order after almost one year of violent protests and riots by separatist forces. The Western media even concocted a biblical Exodus narrative of Hong Kong residents fleeing from the "repressive regime" into the "holy land" of Britain.
Other European countries are not happy. For example, French President Emmanuel Macron, a former Rothschild banker, has warned the Johnson administration. In an interview with The Guardian, he said: "Half-pregnant is not a concept. What politics does Great Britain wish to choose? It cannot be the best ally of the US, the best ally of the EU and the new Singapore... It has to choose a model." A typical case of French double entendre.
British politics looks a bit like self-sabotage. It wants to be tolerant, as multiculturalism demands that Western governments diversify their population portfolio. But there are already healthy numbers of minority members in academics, science and technology, banking and finance, and, music and literature.
Besides, multiculturalism may be a praiseworthy principle. But is the UK trying to allure Hong Kong residents to Britain with false promises to adhere to that principle?
And why would residents of Hong Kong, whose per capita GDP (purchasing power parity) is about $65,000, migrate to an economy whose per capita GDP (PPP) is $47,000. Is Johnson trying to woo Hong Kong residents to the UK to offset the loss the country suffered (and will suffer) because of Brexit?
Let us hope Johnson's divisive population gamble misfires. There is no reason why British citizens should allow someone to turn their homeland into a bigger mess.