By Rep. John Curtis In 1997, Hong Kong was handed off from Great Britain to China in accordance with the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, which stipulated that Hong Kong must enjoy a "high degree of autonomy" for 50 years before it is officially under China's full legal jurisdiction. In other words, China gave Hong Kong the right to an independent legislative process and its own court system and market regulations until at least 2047. This autonomy--and the U.S. recognition of that autonomy--is what has allowed Hong Kong's economy and democracy to flourish. However, Hong Kong is no longer autonomous because the Chinese Communist Party has reneged on its commitment to Great Britain and the world. On June 30, the People's Republic of China imposed its National Security Law on Hong Kong. The mandate violates the Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984, as it was implemented without the consent of the governed through Hong Kong's legislative body and imposes mainland China's judicial structure on Hong Kong. It was implemented without the text of the law being known and without announcing the punishments if violated. Unfortunately, the content of this "National Security" law confirms the fears of activists in Hong Kong and democratic societies around the world. The law criminalizes secessionism, subversion, "terrorist activities" and "collusion" with foreign forces with a definition so broad it effectively makes freedom of speech and freedom of assembly offenses with a sentence of life in prison. It sets up a "National Security Committee" in Hong Kong run by the Central People's Government with legal impunity for any acts committed while enforcing the law. As if the harm the law will cause to this generation wasn't enough, it also mandates that Hong Kong's government undertake "national security education" in schools, social organizations and media outlets. This law, in effect, makes offending the sensibilities of the Chinese Communist Party illegal. This law is not about national security, it is an attempt to kill the freedom, liberty and dignity of all who care about Hong Kong. This is confirmed by the fact that one of the first arrests under the National Security Law was a 15-year-old girl potentially facing life in prison for having a banner calling for Hong Kong's independence. No individual is safe from the oppressive law. While partisanship dominates the news cycle, support for Hong Kongers remains a deeply bipartisan issue in Congress, with multiple swift actions being undertaken. In response to the National Security Law, I, along with colleagues of both political parties and chambers of Congress, introduced the "Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act." The Hong Kong Safe Harbor Act would designate Hong Kongers as Priority 2 refugees--streamlining their refugee admission process. Hong Kongers could apply for refugee status at the U.S. Consulate in Hong Kong, a U.S. embassy in another country, or the American Institute of Taiwan. It waives all refugee caps to ensure those seeking refugee status from Hong Kong do not compete for slots with those fleeing oppressive regimes elsewhere in the world. The bill also sets up an asylum path for those in Hong Kong who are in immediate danger from the Chinese Communist Party and need to get out immediately: frontline activists, journalists harmed while covering the protests, first aid responders at the protest, those who provided legal services to those arrested for the protests, and anyone arrested during the protests since June 9, 2019--the start of the Hong Kong protests. It protects against authorities revoking the residency or citizenship of Hong Kongers in response to them applying for refugee status or asylum by ensuring that such people are eligible under the bill. Our legislation also makes it U.S. policy to work with likeminded ally countries to accept refugees from Hong Kong. Additionally, Congress recently passed the Hong Kong Autonomy Act, imposing financial sanctions on those who facilitated the takeover of Hong Kong. The administration has also proposed additional actions such as visa restrictions and export controls. However, this should only be step one of the U.S. response. The U.S. should offer a lifeboat to Hong Kongers who fear persecution. Much like Berlin during the latter half of the 20th Century, Hong Kong has been the flashpoint between freedom and tyranny. Hong Kongers have fought for the same freedoms and values we cherish in America. The right to say what you want to say, the right to convene the way you want to convene, the right to worship the way you want to worship, all of these are essential things that we in the U.S. and, those in Hong Kong, have enjoyed. These are valuable rights that sometimes we take for granted. Sometimes it takes something happening in other parts of the world--like Hong Kong--to make us appreciate these back home. The United States must show Hong Kong that we saw them, we heard them, we value them, and we offer them safe harbor in the U.S. Curtis represents Utah's 3rd District and is a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

By John Curtis and Rick B. Larsen\ Today, any conversation combining religion and politics leads to the conversational equivalent of spontaneous combustion. And yet, we cannot forget where we came from. In 1774, 19-year-old Alexander Hamilton warned that while British taxes and other oppressive practices were a threat and a burden, there was something far worse to fear. The Quebec Act -- viewed as a clear assault on faith and freedom -- caused Hamilton to warn, "Remember civil and religious liberty always go together; if the foundation of the one be sapped, the other will fall of course." (emphasis added) Most acknowledge the colonists' skeptical view of state religion. It can be less clear that our Founders' intent was not to eliminate religion from government, but to free it from government control. There is a great deal of evidence that America's Founders were influenced by Christian ideas, and there are many ways in which the Founders' views might inform contemporary controversies. Mark David Hall posits that religion influenced them in five important ways: First, religion influenced the view that humans require constraints. James Madison wrote in "The Federalist Papers" No. 51, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." Second, they firmly believed that legislation should reflect ordained moral standards. Third, religion informed the notion of liberty. According to Hall, "the Founders were far more likely to see liberty as the freedom to do what is morally correct." Fourth, we Americans enjoy a government inspired by the concept that we were created "in the imago Dei -- the image of God." This all informs the fifth of their faith-inspired predicates -- the idea that reasonable people of such divine origins can govern through "politics rather than force." Clearly, our Founders concluded that religious liberty should be prioritized and protected -- but not in a manner that guards only one specific religion. Today, consequences to religious observance are embedded within many policy considerations. And defending or regulating behaviors that are based on religious beliefs often requires persuading people for whom religious liberty isn't a top concern. After all, if we are to have the right to practice our religion, surely others have the right not to. That statement seems fair enough, except when religious liberty in practice -- whether in perception or in reality -- seems to exclude others from their basic rights. Said another way, religion can at times be -- instead of a means of inclusion in the full breadth of American civil rights -- an alienation of the very people who need to be persuaded to sustainably protect religious liberty. Religious liberty, properly understood, requires liberty for all -- including the most traditional of organized religions, as well as members of unpopular religious minorities and people who claim no religious affiliation. But to achieve such a complex détente, policy must reflect the loftiest principles of respect, inclusion, and dare we add, love. Religious liberty protects important social institutions -- including organized religion -- whose effect on people benefits the economy, communities, family relationships, public health, civil rights and the less fortunate. If any other social institution could legitimately claim the beneficial impact that organized religion has proven, we would be stumbling over ourselves to protect and encourage it with public policy. Alexis de Tocqueville recognized this when he said, "I sought for the greatness and genius of America in her commodious harbors and her ample rivers -- and it was not there ... in her fertile fields and boundless forests and it was not there ... in her rich mines and her vast world commerce -- and it was not there ... in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution -- and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great." Surely it is not beyond our abilities of reason and goodness to preserve and accommodate faith -- or the lack of it -- in the lives of all Americans. Rep. John Curtis represents Utah's 3rd Congressional District. Rick B. Larsen is president of Sutherland Institute, a conservative think tank that advocates for a free market economy, civil society and community-driven solutions.