So, how will this actually be beneficial for them? What are the direct positive outcomes that may stem from the opportunity for new immigrants to have their own cultural practices?

So what you are trying to say is that economic benefits are derived essentially from a diverse society. How do you know? Will a diverse society impede the development or sustainability of an economy instead?

How so? This is just a sweeping statement. You should provide examples to support your claims.

So, what are you trying to argue? That there wasn't any legitimate boundaries drawn? Is that the true case?

But historically, the territory belongs to the Qing dynasty, which dates all the way back, even before the British were colonial masters of India.

China has the right of claim as Aksai Chin falls within Tibet, which is a Chinese territory.

What do you mean it was defending the sovereignty of Tibet? Tibet was never an independent territory to start with?

So, Mr Hoong, what's your point then? Please show some thinking and share with us what you think about the debate motion...

China has the right of claim as the Aksai chin area belongs to her.

Hey hello Golden Eagle, which side of the fence are you on?

No objection doesn't mean endorsement. What the Chinese leader meant was that he had no claims over India-controlled territory, but Aksai Chin wasn't even an Indian territory at the beginning! So... what are you trying to say?

What do you mean in saying that 'India had claimed Aksai Chin even before China had control of Tibet'?

The Aksai Chin area was part of Tibet's territory, isn't it?

So, what is your point? India was the victim in this case and that it was unjustly bullied by China?

It definitely has to be China as the disputed territory falls within the geographical boundaries of Tibet, which is within Chinese political jurisdiction.

So.....? Aggressive India means that it will lose it's right of claim?

Then to whom does Aksai Chin belong to? UN? No men's land?

So your point is? Over-reaction by a party does not necessarily mean that that party was right, even though it might choose to think that it was right in the issue by contesting against what it saw as injustice.

In the case of China, it makes sense for them to build the road for above-said reasons, as they need not seek any approval from any other country, since the territory of Aksai Chin belongs to them anyway.

Yeah, it was a valid historical claim by India. China should respect that.

Why the assumption that China will make good use of the land? Wouldn't India be able to do so too?

So your point is? What were you trying to prove here? That China had initiated the claim over the territory by resorting to violence, and hence legitimising its claim over the territory... as in... 'first move' principle?

Hence I believe that the Chinese has the right to claim since it was proactive in disputing what they believe is a post-World War white supremacist policy.

China has the right to claim Aksai Chin as the territory falls within the Tibetan region, which is a Chinese political territory.

What do you mean "your" petroleum? The earth belongs to us too!

Your actions are not fair to us too! You've stolen our oil... Talk about fairness!