T HE NEW YORK TIMES INTERNATIONAL EDITION THURSDAY, AUGUST 29, 2019 | 9

HONG KONG Thirty years ago, I covered

a lot of democracy rallies. They were

held in the Soviet Union, Ukraine, Cen-

tral Europe, South Africa and the Mid-

dle East. Last week, I covered some

more, this time in Hong Kong.

In many ways the Hong Kong rallies

felt exactly like the rallies I covered as a

cub journalist. There was the same

fervent faith in democracy, the same

roiling conviction that human beings

deserve to live at their full dignity —

able to think what they want, read what

they want, govern themselves and not

simply exist half-strangled and sub-

orned.

There was the same indignant desire

not to live in a rigged economy run for

the benefit of state-favored oligarchs.

There was the same turning to America

that we see at democracy rallies every-

where, the same sense that America is a

beacon in the struggle for freedom, the

same expectation that of course Amer-

ica is going to step in and help.

There were even the same tactics.

Decades ago, the Czechs built “Lennon

Walls,” brightly covered walls where

people post slogans and encourage-

ment. Today, the Hong Kongers use

those, too.

In 1989 democracy protesters across

the Baltics formed a vast human chain

called “The Baltic Way.” On Friday

night, 135,000 Hong Kongers formed

“The Hong Kong Way,” a chain that

stretched 50 kilometers, or 31 miles,

through the city. The protesters held

hands, chanted slogans. When the lights

were red, they stretched from sidewalks

across the streets. When the lights were

green, they politely withdrew to let

traffic pass.

There was the same resolute pes-

simism that I remember from those

democracy rallies decades ago. On the

one hand these people are fervently

committed. On the other hand, they

don’t exactly see how a ragtag bunch

can beat a powerful regime that has

tanks. They don’t see the power of the

powerless, that sometimes a shift in

consciousness is stronger than military

might.

I asked several Hong Kong protesters

how they thought this thing would end

up. They were not optimistic. “We’re

seven million,” one man told me.

“They’re 1.4 billion.” And yet they were

not going to stop protesting and putting

their lives at risk.

The big difference between now and

then is technology. Today’s protests feel

like a frenetic, online media campaign.

There is a constant

flow of memes,

symbols and videos

to keep the clicks

coming: anime art,

Pepe the Frog,

bloody eye patches

that refer to a

woman who was

shot in the eye.

The protesters

sample and quote

from the great buzz of global culture,

which is of course what they are fight-

ing to stay part of. A quote from

“Hunger Games” was popular, then

some Pink Floyd lyrics. The anthem of

this uprising is “Sing Hallelujah to the

Lord,” a 1974 Christian song from Amer-

ica.

Technology allows the protesters to

suddenly appear and suddenly disap-

pear, ebb and flow — to “be water,” in

Bruce Lee’s phrase.

The protesters have online votes

about where to take their protest next.

They use AirDrop to download subver-

sive pamphlets into the phones of un-

suspecting tourists from mainland

China.

There’s an amazing diversity of strat-

egies. The accountants listen to

speeches. The Christians sing. The

radicals storm the subways.

Of course, the technology helps the

Chinese government too. Years ago, we

lived under the illusion that the nimble

and decentralized swarms of New

Power geeks would be more technolog-

ically savvy than the clunky, Old Power

hierarchies. That’s not true. China’s

Communist government seems to be

more technologically advanced than the

protesters.

There’s a sense the government has

the ability to surveil everything. Pro-

testers spend enormous energy trying

to go unseen. They don’t use their nor-

mal subway cards for fear the state will

be able to track their movements. Some

protesters have been doxxed, with their

private information and photos of their

children splashed online. There’s no

pro-democracy graffiti in Hong Kong,

no posters or T-shirts, no day-to-day

sign that anything is happening. When

they are not rallying, the protesters

evaporate because even the light poles

have eyes.

My guess is that if technology helps

the protesters become 30 percent more

effective, it helps the state become 70

percent more effective.

Many suspect that China will eventu-

ally crush these protests. They’ll round

up leaders and force businesses to fire

participants. Many suspect America

will never step in to help. The Ameri-

can right no longer believes in spread-

ing democracy to foreigners. The

American left embraces a national

narrative that emphasizes slavery and

oppression, not that America is a bea-

con or an example. Neither party any

longer sees America as a vanguard

nation whose very mission is to ad-

vance universal democracy and human

dignity.

But there’s something stubborn

about the Hong Kongers and decep-

tively powerful about their cause. Other

protesters dreamed of freedom. These

people have already lived it. It’s part of

their identity. They will prove more

ferocious in defense of liberty than the

skeptics imagine. Along the way they

might rekindle the sense of democratic

mission that used to burn so forcefully

in American hearts.

ROMAN PILIPEY/EPA, VIA SHUTTERSTOCK

Hong Kong-

ers have

already lived

freedom.

They will

prove more

ferocious in

defense of

liberty than

the skeptics

imagine.

The one united struggle for freedom

Protesters hold

hands to form a

human chain at

Tsim Sha Tsui in

Hong Kong on

Friday.

The account-

ants listen

to speeches.

The Christians

sing. The

radicals storm

the subways.

David Brooks

The Trump administration last week

announced a new regulation that

would allow the government to indefi-

nitely detain migrant families who

cross the border. If it goes into effect, it

would terminate an agreement known

as the Flores settlement that has been

in place since 1997 to ensure that chil-

dren are kept in the least restrictive

setting possible, receive certain stand-

ards of care, have access to lawyers,

and are generally released within 20

days. The effect would be to extend the

well-documented suffering of migrant

children in detention centers.

Six children have died while in Bor-

der Control custody in this fiscal year

alone. Reports have detailed inhumane

conditions in immigration detention

centers, with children sleeping on

cement floors and suffering from

hunger, inadequate health care, and a

lack of toothbrushes and soap.

While a recent appeals court ruled

that the Trump administration must

provide hygiene products at migrant

facilities, this offers little comfort.

Numerous studies have made it clear:

No detention center is healthy and safe

for children. If the new rule — which is

now the subject of a legal challenge by

a group of states and the District of

Columbia — is carried out, it will in-

crease the length of time children are

detained and magnify the harmful

effects.

Detention centers are stressful,

chaotic and unpredictable envi-

ronments, especially for children.

Developmental science tells us that

children’s developing brains and bod-

ies depend on a safe environment, rich

with language and activities, where

they can explore, move, play and

create during the day, and have calm

restorative sleep at night.

Many detention centers are not

equipped to provide these necessities.

Scientific evidence shows that the

deprived setting of a detention camp

will stunt child cognitive, social, emo-

tional and language development,

making it harder for them to learn,

follow directions, connect with peers,

and handle stress.

In addition to lacking basic necessi-

ties, children at detention centers have

reported being the victim of violence,

including sexual violence. Children

may also witness violence against

their parents while detained with their

families. These are traumatic experi-

ences, and studies show children are

more likely to have symptoms of post-

traumatic stress disorder and depres-

sion after being detained compared to

before.

Even when detention is not an im-

mediate threat to safety, and children

are placed with their families, deten-

tion centers do not provide the neces-

sary stimulation for normal develop-

ment. Simply providing food, hygiene

and a place to sleep is not sufficient.

Endangering children by placing them

in detention centers is contrary to all

available research evidence on child

welfare.

Young children are particularly

susceptible to stress and trauma, and

research shows that the longer the

duration of the exposure, the worse the

outcomes for the child.

What’s more, the administration’s

plans to remove limitations on the

length of children’s detentions will not

only prolong exposure to trauma, they

will severely limit lawyers’ ability to

expedite hearings or even raise length

of detention as a concern. Being re-

leased from detention also allows

children greater access to lawyers and

immigration legal services, which can

make an enormous difference in their

immigration proceedings. Contrary to

statements by the government, the

vast majority of people released from

detention attend their future immigra-

tion court hearings.

We don’t incarcerate children for

other civil law infractions and we

never jail American children when

their family members commit a crime.

The government should not be in the

business of harming and traumatizing

migrant children either. Instead, the

government should be working to

comply with the Flores settlement and

to design immigration policies that

keep children and families out of de-

tention, provide the right to seek asy-

lum, and create pathways to citizen-

ship.

The evidence

is clear:

No detention

center is safe

and healthy

for children.

What will indefinite detention do to migrant kids?

The dining hall at a holding center for migrant children in Carrizo Springs, Tex.

ERIC GAY/ASSOCIATED PRESS

LEAH HIBELis associate professor of

human development and family studies

at the University of California, Davis,

where CAITLIN PATLERis an assistant

professor of sociology.

Leah Hibel

Caitlin Patler

Opinion

RELEASED BY "What's News" vk.com/wsnws TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws

RELEASED

BY

conditions in immigration detention

BY

conditions in immigration detention

BY centers, with children sleeping oncenters, with children sleeping on

"What's

News"

vk.com/wsnws

der Control custody in this fiscal year

vk.com/wsnws

der Control custody in this fiscal year

alone. Reports have detailed inhumane

vk.com/wsnws

alone. Reports have detailed inhumane

conditions in immigration detention

vk.com/wsnws

conditions in immigration detention

centers, with children sleeping on

vk.com/wsnws

centers, with children sleeping on

cement floors and suffering from

vk.com/wsnws

cement floors and suffering from

hunger, inadequate health care, and a

vk.com/wsnws

hunger, inadequate health care, and a

TELEGRAM:

t.me/whatsnws

alone. Reports have detailed inhumane

t.me/whatsnws

alone. Reports have detailed inhumane

conditions in immigration detention

t.me/whatsnws

conditions in immigration detention

centers, with children sleeping on

t.me/whatsnws

centers, with children sleeping on

cement floors and suffering from

t.me/whatsnws

cement floors and suffering from

hunger, inadequate health care, and a

t.me/whatsnws

hunger, inadequate health care, and a

lack of toothbrushes and soap.

t.me/whatsnws

lack of toothbrushes and soap.