B.
(d)
it would indicate to the Chinese authorities
how seriously we regard this matter and lend new strength
and encouragement to their own attempts
to halt the illegal traffic
-
provided our measures
did not get the reputation in China of being ineffective; and
it would reduce the numbers settling in Hong Kong.
Against: (a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
evaders and overstayers would strive not only to escape detection by the Police but also to avoid any contact with officialdom. This would lead them to an existence on the fringe of normal life, outside the law and providing opportunity for blackmail, corruption and exploitation;
it would, on occasion, be necessary to arrest immigrants in their family home which could be
a difficult, and might possibly become a distasteful, operation. It could result in allegations of inhumane treatment from the media and in the British Parliament and also attract criticism internationally. It might impair relations between the public and the Police. the people of Hong Kong (many of whom are former immigrants themselves) might also be critical of such operations (even though many would regard it as a necessary evil). The friends and relatives of those being removed would certainly resent the action.
measures to enforce denial of employment would tend to force evaders out of more productive work (eg. (construction) and into minor service and squatter industries which would be difficult to police.
E
25
These latter arguments are cogent and their effects difficult to forecast. Furthermore they might be aggravated by unexpected problems in implementation. An assessment of the consequences of returning evaders has been made in Annex E but its validity can by no means be guaranteed.