this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
1 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

1388 readers
2 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Shaggy0291@lemmygrad.ml
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml
QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
yogthos@lemmygrad.ml
1
Why do you think it is that China remains so restrictive with immigration? (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) by FreedomBurgerInt@lemmygrad.ml to c/asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Even after the recent Hukou reforms, permanent residency for immigrants is nonexistant (less than 20k in the past 2 decades). It feels like such a huge own-goal in the current historical moment to miss out on attracting migrants, especially the now unemployed technical experts and scientists in deindustrializing nations. Have they perhaps been infuenced by the current wave of fascist hysteria in the G7? (By which I mean: the CPC proactively stopping such a movement from forming in China?) Are they high on their own supply about being a "civilizational state"? Are they scared? Are they CHUDS?

Edit: It genuinely doesn't make economic sense at this point. For example, West Europe would honestly be a sterile crater at this point without immigrants from the past 20 years due to population decline.

The best reason I could come up with is that they fear backlash from the precariously employed youths and xenophobic elders.

Edit: Historical inertia is probably a large factor here. It would be somewhat strange to switch from population control to population bolstering policies in under 2 decades.

Edit 2: Vietnam is somewhat similar to China in governance, but is more leinient with immigration than even Europe.

top 39 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MelianPretext@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There were proposals for permanent residency reform back in 2020 that were shelved due to online backlash. One could say that the K-Visa program which was launched last year is a pared down version and even this got a fair amount of backlash, though this time, the proposal was carried through nonetheless.

There's an article covering the responses to the 2020 proposal which lays out the discourse and rhetoric of those who oppose these sort of reforms. Bear in mind the author uses orientalizing "they have nationalists, we have patriots" language.

They also frame it as part of China's "non-democratic immigration policymaking" which somehow conceded to the popular demands of the online backlash as opposed to the "democratic" American immigration policymaking which never concedes to the popular demands of the online backlash with regards to ICE and the concentration camps. That aside, it does give an overview of what you may be looking for:

Excerpt:

The draft regulations to many seemed to fit in a tradition of the state privileging foreign nationals, at a time when domestic employment and residential conditions for many Chinese citizens are considered far from adequate. Attracting larger numbers of immigrants to aid China’s development, also sounds inappropriate to some, given China’s recent history of government-enforced family planning. Some suggest revising the regulations to eliminate any loopholes for so-called ‘low-quality’ migrants and to include guarantees that P.R. holders would not be privileged over local Chinese.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10670564.2022.2148458

[–] FreedomBurgerInt@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

Really great insight. China does pay very close attention to public opinion.

Do you think this is somewhat similar to the gay marriage question? Where I assume they're just waiting for potential opposition to die down?

[–] Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

China doesn't have the same economic pressures as western Europe, so doesn't need immigrant labour in the same way, and has more to gain from temporary residents returning home with a positive impression of china/socialism than it does attracting talent with permanent residency it can just grow at home. It's less a question of why they don't and more why they would.

[–] userse31@hexbear.net 0 points 2 weeks ago

They already have loads of "brains" at home, they don't need to attract more.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

maybe it is because they have 1.4 billion people? why would they need immigration lol

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The purpose of immigration is to bring the cost of wages down for employers. Immigration is an assault on the working class at home and against the development of the nations where people emigrate from. It is a form of wealth transfer from the global south.

Why would China do that?

[–] ZetkinsBrother@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't think this is always true. Or, maybe you phrased it weird.

German immigration of cheap labour for farming only works because they would earn even less in their countries, i.e. their wages still go up. Yes, it keeps the wages inside Germany lower, but this profits Germans and the German state.

Then there is also immigration as in Australia "qualifications" based, where the immigrants earn vastly more than the locals. Do you mean this?

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If germany didn't import workers the farm wages would have to be high enough for germans to do farm labor. Importing workers doesn't help Germans it entrenches the class divide that says laborers even skilled german laborers are not worth of the same pay as white collar workers. The immigrants lowering wage growth directly threatens the living standards of the working class and causes destabilization of society leading to unrest. That is why the AfD is surging in the polls. It is not good for the state in the long term. The only people who profit are the business owners.

Skilled migration has the same effects only the unrest in the working class is more acute because they see the immigrants having better quality of living due to their qualificatons. But the effects to the nations the migrants come from is even more pronounced because a 3rd world nation has spent the resources raising a generation of workers only for the most expensive workers to produce (doctors, nurses, and engineers) to suddenly disappear. So those nations now have to deal with those shortages in highly trained workers as well as try to make more in the next generation because they know many of them are going to evaporate.

[–] ZetkinsBrother@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I agree that inporting labor doesn't help the Germans. But it helps Germany. For me the state and it's people are not the same.

Now since this is a post about china. Obviously the Chinese state isn't doing everything in their power to make lives of everyone better. Then they wouldn't have a rich elite, a weak currency and 996 working conditions.

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

The German state is a tool for bourgeois to enact their will. It is not an entity of its own. No state is. China most certainly does do everything to better the lives of all the people. China's state is a puppet of the vanguard party of the proletariat. That is why the 996 work schedule has been made illegal. They do let some people get rich first but those people are not "elites" because they are not permitted to use their wealth to influence the government. Their weak currency is a choice made to benefit their international trade which again, exists to make the lives of everyone better.

[–] ZetkinsBrother@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How is this illegality enforced? Last I heard 996 was still required.

How does a weak currency make the lives better? Are you arguing in the long run? If so, how long? At the moment the weak currency makes exports into other countries cheaper for them, but imports into china more expensive. Or, phrased differently, Chinese workers work partly for the rest of the world.

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

How are labor laws enforced in other countries? Its probably the same in China, informants, inspections and investigations. 996 is illegal according to the supreme court as of 2021. so "last you heard" was a long time ago.

How does a strong currency make American's lives better? It doesn't. In usa food prices are rising quickly and only 33% of 30 year olds own a home and 60% of all homes have a mortgage. Food prices are falling in China. 78% of Chinese people own their own home by 30 and only 20% of homes have a mortgage. In China the government makes sure the necessities like food, housing, clothes, healthcare and education are available and affordable for everyone. In america they make necessities expensive while luxuries are comparatively cheaper.

The strength of a currency is irrelevant to the well being of people. What difference does it make if your bill says 1 or 100 on it? In every country some things are cheaper and others are more expensive. China almost exclusively imports raw materials and components and exports finished goods so people are not effected by high import costs only businesses are.

Chinese workers aren't “working for the rest of the world.” Historically they have been exploited by imperialist powers forcing unequal exchange just like every other global south nation but that is changing, which is why the anti-China rhetoric has been ramping up for the last 2 decades.

[–] ZetkinsBrother@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The last I heard is from my girlfriend who worked like that last year. So no. It's still there.

In your second paragraph you mix up stuff. There is a relation between inflation and the strength of the currency, of course. But that food prices in the us grow by 33% (jsut taking your numbers) is not because of currency exchanges. Don't look at some small figures.

Maybe look at something like that: if a country exports 10% of GDP and imports 10% of GDP, then a currency change by 1%, which does not influence the trade too much changes the good available by roughly one percent. How this is distributed depends on the policies of the countries of course

In Germany the relatively weak currency due to the euro zone created one of the biggest exports markets ever, however the profits didn't go to the workers but to the factory owners. What happens in china?

China has a trade surplus of 5,5% of GDP. What does this mean? Of 100 goods that are produced in china only 94,5 remain there. Or in other words the Chinese people give net 5,5% of their working power to the rest of the world. So yes, they are currently being exploited. So why does the government do that? Of course with the added foreign currency reserve they can in the future turn it around and equalize, but currently they are holding back the consumption possibilities of the Chinese people.

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 day ago

sorry but "My girlfriend" said isn't a legal ruling. Maybe some people still work 6 12 hour shifts a week but it is illegal to demand it of workers.

I'm not mixing stuff up you are. I said 33% of americans own a home by 30. I didn't give percentages on food inflation because rising food costs are infinitely worse than falling food costs.

China has a trade surplus of 5,5% of GDP. What does this mean? Of 100 goods that are produced in china only 94,5 remain there.

That is not what Trade Surplus is. Trade surplus is how much more money a country makes from exports than it buys in imports. It has nothing to do with how much is produced it has to do with how much money changed hands. Trade Surplus just a nation's "profits." Like how a factory spends less on its feed stock and wages than it makes after selling its finished product. They don't just give the extra stuff away. They get Foreign Exchange for it and they can save for a rainy day, Invest overseas, (aka the belt and road initiative) or buy gold. (Which China has been doing hard for the last few years)

Chinese people give net 5,5% of their working power to the rest of the world.

No. Chinese workers are working as hard as the do for a home and food and other parts of living life. They get what they work for. Chinese exporters exporters are making more money selling stuff outside the country than they spend outside the country. they too are getting paid. Measuring it as a percentage of GDP makes no sense. The difference between how China measures GDP and how usa measure it make it useless number. GDP is a meaningless term. (The usa makes up fake transactions an the counts them as GDP, like a family who owns a house is counted as paying themselves rent for the house and that is added to the GDP, every single house. and there are a million other tricks like that. China doesn't do that shit and if they counted their GDP the way usa does it would be like 3x as much)

So yes, they are currently being exploited.

No. you can't determine whether the workers of a nation are exploited or not based off the Trade surpluys to gdp ratio. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of both those metrics.

So why does the government do that? Of course with the added foreign currency reserve they can in the future turn it around and equalize, but currently they are holding back the consumption possibilities of the Chinese people.

In China the workers are getting less exploited over time and their living conditions are getting better and this isn't just "on average" it is everyone. Everyone other than extreme cases can get an education, buy a house everyone, afford food and the few who can't do those things get the assistance they need.

That is why the capitalists want to destroy China. If workers in the capitalist nations realize that there is another way, where everybody's life is getting better instead of getting worse they will demand that and they will take it from the capitalists by force.

And that is why China needs to save up a store of wealth, because the capitalists are getting scared and they need to destroy China before the workers kill the capitalists.

China has a plan and the top priority of the plan is to not get destroyed by imperialism. Second priority is raising the living standards of people because their example is what will destroy imperialism from the inside. Once imperialism has been destroyed and China is not under threat, things will be different.

tldr. No. You need to read way more about economics or forget everything you think you know about economics.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Obviously the decisions that Chinese state made have greatly benefited the vast majority of people in China and have drastically improved the standard of living. In fact, there is simply no historical precedent for the rate of poverty alleviation seen in China. And the numbers speak for themselves.

90% of families in the country own their home giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans. https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadeshepard/2016/03/30/how-people-in-china-afford-their-outrageously-expensive-homes

Chinese household savings hit another record high in 2024 https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-bank-earnings-01-12-2024/card/chinese-household-savings-hit-another-record-high-xqyky00IsIe357rtJb4j

Social mobility in China being far better than in the US https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/world/asia/china-social-mobility.html

The typical Chinese adult is now richer than the typical European adult https://www.businessinsider.com/typical-chinese-adult-now-richer-than-europeans-wealth-report-finds-2022-9

The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf

From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/China%E2%80%99s-Economic-Growth-and-Poverty-Reduction-Angang-Linlin/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b880f54b9c77a4

From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&amp%3Blocations=CN&amp%3Bstart=2008

The whole argument that China has billionaires is addressed here https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/

[–] ZetkinsBrother@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Oh yes. Very big improvemts I agree. Germany also had a big rise in living standards from the 50s to the 80s.

However that doesn't tell you whether the is the main goal of the country.

And since I see developments against the 996 work culture I don't see that the well being of the people of the number 1 goal.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe spend a bit time to educate yourself instead of regurgitating drivel on here like a lib. First of all the whole 996 is not really a thing anymore and it was only prevalent in tech sector in the first place.

In fact, I would suggest that claiming China is not socialist is a chauvinistic perspective. What you seem to be suggesting is that you have some privileged insight that's not available to 1.4 billion people actually living in China in regards to what their political system is. China is a state governed by the Communist party where Marxism-Leninism is the official state ideology. 87.6% of young Chinese identify with Marxism, and the party has 95 million members. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that these people do in fact understand what socialism is a bit better than you.

The state is also firmly in control of the commanding heights of the economy. The government has recently passed massive regulation on big business and released a a five-year blueprint calling for greater regulation of vast parts of the economy. And it has been openly stated that the era of capital expansion is over and the interests of the majority outweigh the interests of shareholders.

One simple test to consider is that China doesn't suffer from regular crashes seen under capitalism. An inherent contradiction within capitalism is that the capitalists always want to cut pay for their employees to minimize the costs, while they also require consumers with enough spending power to consume the commodities they produce. This is why capitalism results in regular economic crashes when wages fall below the point where consumption can keep up with the rate of commodity production. At that point you end up with overproduction and a crash. If China was capitalist then it should be experiencing these kinds of crashes regularly just like actual capitalist nations are in the Western world.

And of course, we can directly compare how China and India developed. Both started roughly in the same place in the 50s, and the difference today couldn't be more stark.

[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

and the party has 95 million members.

It's been over 100million since 2024 iirc.

[–] yogthos@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 days ago

Ah my bad, didn't check the latest. Good to see the party is growing.

[–] demeritum@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I mean immigration means letting people in who are brainwormed by capitalism and need socialist education and have “no stake” in the great construction of communism OR worse they are active saboteurs.

Large scale immigration unrelated to Natural Desasters or government policies is a symptom of capitalism and imperialism.

[–] ZetkinsBrother@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

Why would people brainwashed by capitalism move to china?

And large scale is always relative. The post speaks about 20k residents. Even 20 million would be negligible in china.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

China has never been an immigration country and this has nothing to do with western anti-immigration attitudes, and trying to apply that western political framework to China is a fundamental category error.

[–] FreedomBurgerInt@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

That's a great point.

[–] rentasintorn@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

They don't want to see a player shine

[–] opiumfree@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

lets say you have 12 kids. can you also take these 2? since you made the comparison with vietnam (that recently went through a genocide by the way) lets imagine 10 of your 12 kids die. will these 2 kids bother you now

[–] Orcinus@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

People on Rednote say that China is still developing. If it gets to a point where the fruits of one's labor vastly exceed what's required to take care of them, then we might begin seeing immigration. Only when such immigration doesn't strain the system. You may be waiting awhile, but communism necessitates post-scarcity so it will get there.

[–] pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

Immigration isn't a stable economic policy. Yes, when some countries like the USA get big, they start suffering from labor shortages which they offset with immigration. But what about when the countries that the immigrates come from get big? Who is going to immigrate to their country? It's fundamentally an unsustainable policy, and the US and EU sustains it by keeping those countries poor, by constantly attacking them, toppling their governments, bombing them, etc, so people will flee those countries into the US and EU.

China doesn't do that, it invests heavily into trying to keep its neighbors stable, so it needs a more sustainable policy for long-term development rather than a quick and unsustainable band-aid fix. It is not "progressive" to bomb a country then take in their refugees. It is progressive to invest in the country to give the people there a reason to stay, i.e. like the Belt & Road Initiative.

[–] Sour_Kabos@reddthat.com 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

They don't want the world to witness their misdeeds.

[–] gualudengren@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

Literally tens of millions of tourists every year. You might benefit from leaving your bubble.

[–] Saymaz@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

China never had to rely on imported labor that much.

[–] TabularTuxedo@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

There's probably a lot of cultural inertia with regards to food as well. Not very long ago, China was the "poor man of Asia" with a very large food-insecure population. I don't know how much culture affects policy-making, but if it does I imagine that the CPC could be wary of straining the system by adding even more people to China's already large population.

[–] FreedomBurgerInt@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

China's immigration policy absolutely made sense during the one-child policy era, but their population has begun declining recently.

[–] lil_tank@hexbear.net 0 points 2 weeks ago

I think you're making an error by projecting the imperialist's economic and political paradigm on a country that functions very differently

China actually welcomes foreign scientists, but workers laid off by the tech industry aren't scientists, they're engineers. Engineers may be high demand but they're also high supply in China so no need to import them

Secondly, China doesn't have a problem finding people to do difficult service, agriculture and industrial jobs because they never demonized those jobs like the west does and never promised their population that they deserve a cushy job just for being white (han in their case)

Finally China doesn't have systemic racial supremacy because they don't have colonies, they don't hate foreigners because of a need for capital to justify the shit it does. Every nation-state controls its borders, only colonialists made sneaky exceptions at some point to import labour from colonies and mistreat them at will

[–] SocialistVibes01@lemmy.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

I wouldn't want dumb Americans and evil Zionists in my country either.

[–] FreedomBurgerInt@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

bruh at least 95% of immigrants would be from Asia or Africa.

[–] sodium_nitride@hexbear.net 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What would really be the point of increasing the import of foreign labour into the country? Like what's the sctual economic rationale?

Mass importing educated third world labor creates brain drain in the 3rd world countries, and if you're importing uneducated labor, they're going to be exploited by the private sector while being displaced by rapid automation.

As for importing labour from first world countries, first world wages are generally still quite high compared to the rest of the world so there won't be too many first world foreigners willing to emigrate to China.

That's not to mention the language barrier.

[–] stink@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

first world wages are generally still quite high compared to the rest of the world so there won't be too many first world foreigners willing to emigrate to China.

I was looking into teaching there for a long time, and now I'm pretty lost since teaching jobs have no path to permanent residency, and that kind of benefit is locked behind managerial positions in STEM mainly :(

[–] sodium_nitride@hexbear.net 0 points 2 weeks ago

Oof. Well that kinda sucks. I don't know that much about the policy and can only comment on the general need for labor

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, if you do want to live and work in China that is absolutely possible, and increasing numbers of people are doing it, especially since the salaries are also getting higher and the standard of living is very good, but you should always be aware that for 99.99% of people it will always be on a temporary basis.