CONFIDENTIAL
Hong Kong belongers in the talks
in the talks in August 1984. Peking agree that
this is an important factor. Our Legal Advisers also oppose it on these grounds, and have additionally pointed out that it would not
be appropriate to construe a Hong Kong ordinance in a UK statute
because, for instance, the definitions might be different. Both our
Legal Advisers and Hong Kong favour definition (c) which would be
easily comprehensible.
4. The Home Office will argue that Hong Kong will need to redraft
their Immigration Ordinance anyway to ensure that all BN (O)s will have the right of abode in Hong Kong. Hong Kong have now agreed to this (Hong Kong telno 385). We see merit in amending the ordinance
after the Order has been passed. The Order should determine the
rules on nationality. The Ordinances should then be amended to
conform to these rules and so as to ensure that all BDTCs who have That
status by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong willhave a right of
abode in Hong Kong.
(This will not preclude Hong Kong giving a
persons as well, eg stateless Indians if it
right of abode to other
choses.)
Separate/Mixed BDTCs
[References:
G
Mr Hill 1 s minute of 31 December
60H
(604)
127)J
Mr Grainger's minute of 21 January
Mr Emery's letter of 31 January
Mr Emery's letter of 4 February.]
5. A distinction has been drawn between "separate" BDTCs (those who
derive BDTC status by a route unconnected with Hong Kong) and
status partly through
"mixed" BDTCs (those who derive BDTC
connection with Hong Kong and partly through a connection with
another Dependent Territory, the
sufficient on its own). We are
"separates" should retain their
"mixeds" should lose it.
latter connection not being agreed with the Home Office that
BDTC status on 1 July 1997 and
We are having difficulty however in
coming to a coorindated position on how to put this into practice.