Ex-CCP Officer Said Charlie Kirk ‘Deserved to Die’—Now His Dissident’s Asylum Is CRUMBLING

Recently, a post on social media platform X by Deng Haiyan, a former Chinese Communist Party member and ex-criminal police officer, online alias Erdaderdaya, sparked a storm of controversy. The post expressed glee over the assassination attempt on American right-wing commentator Charlie Kirk, a reaction that not only outraged U.S. political commentators, but also placed Deng Haiyan's bid for political asylum under heated scrutiny. In the post, Deng Haiyan adopted a sarcastic tone, implying that Kirk's death would have been well-deserved. Such extreme remarks immediately provoked strong backlash from many American commentators. Among them, Gordon G. Chang and several other influential voices shared and denounced the statement, calling for an investigation, prosecution, and the revocation of Deng Haiyan's asylum status. Some even demanded deportation, arguing that the Chinese government is using mouthpieces like him to undermine America's political stability. So what lies at the root of this controversy? Let's find out. Who is Deng Haiyan? On his X profile, Deng Haiyan introduces himself as a former criminal police officer who later became a dissident. He claims to have been invited for tea 10 times and had his home searched twice. He goes by the nickname The Wild Grand Historian, describing himself as a stubborn intellectual with a love for reading. He is also the author of the essay series Er Day. Now living in the United States under political asylum, Deng Haiyan runs a YouTube channel called Er Day's Stories, which has nearly 1 million subscribers and very high view counts. Within the overseas Chinese community, he is considered an influential figure. However, following the assassination of Charlie Kirk, Deng Haiyan shocked many by making inflammatory remarks. He posted openly on X in support of and celebrating the attack. A guy whose every statement proved he was a Nazi scumbag got shot, killed in the very way he had always been glorifying. I don't even want to offer the slightest bit of fake sympathy. This statement was later exposed on X by a user named Sydney Daddy. The controversy deepened when Deng Haiyan retaliated fiercely, accusing the whistleblower of reporting him to US authorities. He further alleged that Sydney Daddy, an emigrant to Australia, had previously held a role in China's Belt and Road Initiative, insinuating ties to the CCP. Deng even went so far as to tag the Australian Security Intelligence Organization, SIO, and the Australian Department of Home Affairs directly with this information. As the scandal unfolded, questions began to surface over the legitimacy of Deng Haiyan's asylum status. Independent investigative journalist Zhao Lanjin pointed out that Deng may have fabricated details or falsified his personal story to obtain asylum. Zhao emphasized that in the US immigration system, lying is a crime. If Deng did in fact concoct his narrative, it would not only raise personal legal liability but also implicate certain organizations and individuals such as Wang Jian, Voice of America, and Radio Free Asia as potentially complicit. This controversy has since broadened into a wider public debate about the asylum status of Chinese dissidents in America. Currently, with public outrage mounting, Deng Haiyan has come under the scrutiny of the FBI, the Department of Justice, and US immigration authorities. If the US government moves to revoke his asylum and deport him, many predict he may seek refuge in Japan, similar to the path once taken by Wang Jian. Does deporting Deng Haiyan violate free speech? After the Charlie Kirk assassination, hundreds of people in the US were reported for openly celebrating or supporting the attack. Many faced job loss or other consequences, among them some of Chinese descent. These individuals expressed delight online, posting things like, finally he lost because he could no longer debate. One user on X, nicknamed BlackRedGuard, wrote, at last he lost. So far, even some left-leaning organizations and companies that promote DEI, diversity, equity, inclusion, policies, have begun firing employees who reveled in the assassination. For example, a doctor in New Jersey lost his job after saying, Kirk deserved to die. MSNBC commentator Matthew Dodd was also fired for making inappropriate remarks. Senator Rubio has stated that investigations are underway to revoke visas, especially for foreign nationals. This has sparked debate. On X, some asked, you say Charlie Kirk fought for free speech, so why are those who disagree with him punished and sanctioned? Isn't this a double standard? In reality, this isn't about double standards. Reporting and calling for the deportation of Deng Haiyan and others like him is not just a right, it is legitimate. Many argue, isn't this cancel culture? Aren't you stifling free speech? Not so. Cancel culture means silencing someone simply because their opinion doesn't align with yours, pressuring, firing, or deplatforming them so they cannot speak at all. In that model, you are only allowed to voice views that others approve of, while your own dissenting opinion is suppressed. But in this case, whether it's those who lost jobs or Deng Haiyan being reported and targeted for deportation, the core issue is different. He posted on X, openly celebrating the assassination and essentially saying, good job people like him should have been killed long ago. He even called Charlie Kirk scum. This is fundamentally different. Why? Because Charlie Kirk was killed precisely for exercising his free speech. His killer sought to silence him permanently, to stop debate once and for all by destroying him physically. Therefore, anyone who supports killing others to silence differing views is in fact endorsing the suppression of free speech. Reporting people like Deng Haiyan, those who celebrate assassinations, is not curbing freedom of expression, but rather protecting it. As commentators Tanjing Yuan and Fang Wei explain, if Deng Haiyan or others had merely said, I don't agree with Charlie Kirk, I think he's wrong, and here's why, there would be no issue. Plenty of people on the left and far left already do that. But if someone says, yes, people like Charlie Kirk deserve to be killed, and killing just one isn't enough, they all should be killed, that crosses a moral boundary and even borders on illegality. Under the U.S. Patriot Act 2001, any non-citizen individual or organization that supports or incites terrorist activity can be deported. Deng Haiyan, as a non-citizen, effectively endorsed terrorism by saying, people like that deserve to be killed. Second, under Section 249 of the U.S. Criminal Code, Hate Crimes Prevention Act 2009, inciting or justifying violence based on identity or belief can be treated as part of a hate crime. Third, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, individuals who incite or support violent terrorist acts may be denied entry or deported. These laws, especially the first and third, specifically target foreign nationals who are not U.S. citizens. If violated, deportation is fully lawful. Thus, extreme acts of publicly endorsing violence go far beyond disagreement. You have the right to express your views, but saying this person deserves to be killed is entirely different. Reporting such individuals is not restricting free speech, it is defending it. What do you think about this perspective? Share your thoughts in the comments below. Was the assassination of Charlie Kirk planned long in advance? The assassination of Charlie Kirk has triggered shockwaves across the globe. In London alone, thousands of miles away, reports claim as many as 3 million people took to the streets in protest. They carried two things, portraits of Charlie Kirk and the British national flag. This shows that the event has transcended national boundaries and become an international incident. But why did it erupt with such force in the UK? The answer goes back to May, when Charlie Kirk visited Britain and gave speeches at Oxford and Cambridge. Though academic in nature, his lectures touched on two core themes. First, the historic glory of Britain and how America itself was born from Britain. Second, the decline of Britain today. His remarks were both shocking and inspiring to those present. Now, even in China, where many had never heard of Charlie Kirk, people began searching for him after hearing about the incident from relatives in America. Around the world, people are asking, what did Charlie Kirk say? His words resonated deeply, leaving audiences demanding, where's part two? Where's part three? This raises the pressing question, who orchestrated his elimination? Did the assassin act alone or were there accomplices? The FBI has broadened its investigation, focusing on certain organizations tied to the transgender community and online forums. Why? Because evidence has surfaced, some already leaked. As early as August 6th, posts appeared in transgender forums saying, September 10th will be very interesting. Stay tuned. Then, on September 9th, the day before the attack, members of the same groups posted, tomorrow will be a big day. Something huge is coming. These messages suggest that the assassination of Charlie Kirk may have been planned in advance within small groups, particularly among transgender circles. While prior knowledge does not necessarily mean direct involvement, the possibility of wider connections cannot be dismissed. The shooter, Robinson, was meticulous. His execution was precise, a single fatal shot, and he even managed to escape the police perimeter. Had it not been for a family member's tip-off, would authorities have caught him at all? That remains a major question. But could he really have done everything alone? After the attack, Robinson chatted with his roommate on Discord. The roommate recalled that the rifle had been wrapped in a cloth and hidden in the woods. Yet surveillance footage shows that when Robinson left the scene, jumping from a rooftop, passing through residential areas, and heading to a parking lot, he was not carrying a rifle. At most, he had a bundle. Unless the weapon could be disassembled or folded, how could he conceal it? According to the New York Post, the firearm was an old bolt-action rifle, similar to those used in World War II. Long and not collapsible. So where did the rifle come from? How was it hidden? Many details remain murky. Some speculate the gun wasn't his at all, that Robinson may have been a stand-in. But so far, nothing can be confirmed or ruled out. For now, we can only keep watching closely, especially the possibility of accomplices. What do you think? Did the shooter act alone, or was there a wider conspiracy? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. The death of Charlie Kirk is not merely the passing of a conservative figure. Many commentators believe this event will mark a historic turning point. The bullet that struck Kirk has been compared to the shot heard around the world of America's 19th century independence revolution, igniting a conservative flame across the globe. Since the 1950s, communists have waged what has been called a long march through the institutions, infiltrating universities and the media, in an effort to erode America's traditional values. Their ultimate goal, critics argue, is the destruction of family, church, and nation. Kirk's movement was a counter-offensive against this infiltration. If a man who opposed communism and spoke out for freedom is assassinated, then can someone like Deng Haiyan, who mocks this hero, truly be considered anti-communist? That is a question for each of you to ponder. As his wife said, Charlie's voice will never disappear. His courage and his conviction will continue to inspire all who long for truth and freedom. Thanks for watching and see you next time.