CONFIDENTIAL
2
She did not, of course have a visa for Hong Kong. Her story was that she had been born in China and had lived all her life in Canton. Her mother was Chinese but her father Vietnamese. She wished to join a sister in Hong Kong and had discovered that it would be easier to obtain a Vietnamese passport (because of her father's nationality) than a Chinese travel document.
4.
We decided that we should ask the Chinese to take her back simply on the grounds that anyone travelling on a Vietnamese passport requires a visa for Hong Kong. We hoped the Chinese would recognise their own interest in our maintaining strict controls on Vietnamese (whatever their point of entry) and that this would therefore be a good case for exercising our right not to accept those without the right documents. The first attempt to return her failed. She was accepted back but was then sent back again on the grounds that all her Chinese residence and ration papers had been cancelled. We then explained the problem to the NCNA who undertook to inform Canton. After a rather nervous wait over the weekend, the reply came on 3 July that she would be accepted back. TAN Kan of the NCNA passed on the news with the (face-saving) explanation that, when she had first been returned, officials at Shum Chun had tried to persuade her to stay but they could do nothing since she had refused, saying that she had relatives in Hong Kong.
5.
As far as we can tell this is the first time since 1967 that we have succeeded in returning anyone at Lowu once they have left China. The value of this precedent is, of course, limited to those travelling on non-Chinese documents. However, it is encouraging to have confirmation that, in this area at least, the Chinese are willing to give weight to our own immigration requirements.
Ta
exe
CC
(D C Wilson)
R C Samuel Esq (FED FCO) A M Simons Esq (SEAD FCO)
Research Dept, Far Eastern Section
K Sullivan Esq (PEKING)
HE Mr J W D Marget son (HANOI)
CONFIDENTIAL
لم
2
L