Trump's Hong Kong Executive Order

I couldn’t find any posts relating to this, forgive me if I missed it.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/presidents-executive-order-hong-kong-normalization/

The parts that stuck out to me in particular… Emphasis is mine

Sec. 4. All property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of any United States person, of the following persons are blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in:
.
(a) Any foreign person determined by the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State:
.
(i) to be or have been involved, directly or indirectly, in the coercing, arresting, detaining, or imprisoning of individuals under the authority of, or to be or have been responsible for or involved in developing, adopting, or implementing, the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Administrative Region;
.
(ii) to be responsible for or complicit in, or to have engaged in, directly or indirectly, any of the following:
.
(A) actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in Hong Kong;
.
(B) actions or policies that threaten the peace, security, stability, or autonomy of Hong Kong;
.
© censorship or other activities with respect to Hong Kong that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of Hong Kong, or that limit access to free and independent print, online or broadcast media; or
.
(iii) to be or have been a leader or official of:
.
(A) an entity, including any government entity, that has engaged in, or whose members have engaged in, any of the activities described in subsections (a)
(i), (a)(ii)(A), (a)(ii)
(B), or (a)(ii)© of this section; or
.
(B) an entity whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.
.
(iv) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, or technological support for, or goods or services to or in support of, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section;
.
(v) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section; or
.
(vi) to be a member of the board of directors or a senior executive officer of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this section.
.
(b) The prohibitions in subsection (a) of this section apply except to the extent provided by statutes, or in regulations, orders, directives, or licenses that may be issued pursuant to this order, and notwithstanding any contract entered into or any license or permit granted before the date of this order.

Sec. 6. The prohibitions in section 4(a) of this order include:
.
(a) the making of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services by, to, or for the benefit of any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to section 4(a) of this order; and
.
(b) the receipt of any contribution or provision of funds, goods, or services from any such person.

Do you consider this a massive government overreach or do you believe that it’s necessary in the face of the Chinese threat on the sovereignty of Hong Kong?

The question I have is, what government is overreaching? The agreement is until 2047.

In the Hall of the People in Beijing, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang sign an agreement committing Britain to return Hong Kong to China in 1997 in return for terms guaranteeing a 50-year extension of its capitalist system. Hong Kong–a small peninsula and group of islands jutting out from China’s Kwangtung province–was leased by China to Great Britain in 1898 for 99 years.

China has broken it’s contract with the UK and Hong Kong. Their signatures and promises and assurances to anyone anywhere cannot and should not be trusted until they at least return to the state of affairs agreed to in 1997. No commitments The CCP has or will make can be trusted until this is redressed.

I get that, but read the text of the executive order. It could be that I’m being Libertarian Big Government Alarmist ® but still…

The President now has not only the power to seize all assets owned by the Chinese government and officials but also to seize all assets of American citizens who are deemed to have been complicit “directly or indirectly” (Sec.4 (ii)) in aiding the Chinese government’s actions in Hong Kong. This could be 2nd and 3rd hand actors losing it all because a portion of a business contract they have is with

Reading this executive order in concert with the law that was passed laying the groundwork, there’s no concrete definition of what is considered aiding the breaking of the pacts between the US, Britain and China relating to Hong Kong.

One could easily argue that doing any business with the Chinese government or doing any business with businesses that are in any way supported by or supportive of the Chinese government as actions aiding the breaking of those pacts.

If the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of State determine that you are in violation all of your assets in the US are gone with the stroke of a pen.

Look at Sec.4 © “censorship or other activities with respect to Hong Kong that prohibit, limit, or penalize the exercise of freedom of expression or assembly by citizens of Hong Kong, or that limit access to free and independent print, online or broadcast media;” and look at the controversy relating to the NBA censoring “Free Hong Kong” on custom jerseys. In two weeks of that still stands the President has the power to bring new meaning to the term National Basketball Association. Sends a chill down my spine.

These are very broad powers that the President was given UNANIMOUSLY by the House and Senate.

If you read the snore fest that is the bill the Secretaries of the Treasury and State can bring reports before the congressional committees with the names redacted for various incredibly vague reasons including “to cause substantial harm to physical property.” (Sec.5 ( C)) There is no bar set on what is considered substantial harm, just the word substantial.

Look at how many US companies do business with or are outright owned by Chinese government officials. In two weeks all of their assets are subject to being frozen by the US government for acts committed either directly or indirectly.

I’m just saying… There’s more that I believe could happen because of this but I gotta go to work.