CONFIDENTIAL
35218 1
-
CLASSIFIED AS COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS AND BEING GRANTED ALL THE
RIGHTS AND DUTIES ATTACHING TO COMMONWEALTH CITIZENSHIP.
C) ADOPTION. AFTER LENGTHY DISCUSSION THE HOME OFFICE AGREED
THAT PROVISION SHOULD BE MADE FOR A DEFINITION OF THE ROUTE TO
BDTCSHIP BY ADOPTION ALONG THE LINES OF THE FORMULA SUGGESTED IN
OUR TELNO 1533 TO BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDER.
D) REGISTRATION. AFTER DISCUSSION OF THE FORMULA FOR REGISTRATION
SUGGESTED IN OUR TELNO 1413 AND OF WHETHER REGISTRATION IN
HONG KONG PROVIDES IN ITSELF A SUFFICIENT CONNECTION WITH HONG
KONG, HOME OFFICE OFFICIALS TOOK OUR POINT ABOUT THE DANGER OF
CUTTING OFF PERSONS WHO ARE BDTCS BY VIRTUE OF REGISTRATION IN
HONG KONG BUT WHO NOW HAVE NO SUBSISTING LINKS IN HONG KONG, SUCH
AS ALIEN WOMEN MARRIED TO CUKCS BY VIRTUE OF A CONNECTION WITH
ANOTHER DEPENDENT TERRITORY AND REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 6(2) OF
THE 1948 ACT. IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THAT THESE WOMEN MAY HAVE
LEFT HONG KONG TO LIVE IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY AFTER THEIR
REGISTRATION IN HONG KONG, AND THUS COULD HAVE NO WAY BACK TO
BDTCSHIP. HOME OFFICE DID NOT THINK, HOWEVER, THAT THEY COULD
PROVIDE FOR EXCEPTING FROM LOSS SUCH OR SIMILAR CASES WITHOUT
DEROGATING FROM THE GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT IT IS THE ORIGINAL
LINK WITH HONG KONG RATHER THAN THE SUBSISTING LINK THAT MATTERS.
RECOGNISING THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF CUTTING OFF SUCH CASES WOULD
NOT CAUSE ANY PRACTICAL PROBLEMS TO THE BULK OF HONG KONG BDTCS,
AND IN ORDER NOT TO DISRUPT THE PUBLICLY STATED TIMETABLE OF
ENACTING THE ORDER BY APRIL 1986 (SEE PARA 2 BELOW), WE RECOMMEND
THAT THE HOME OFFICE'S FORMULA BE ACCEPTED.
E)
ALLOWING SEPARATES TO APPLY FOR BN(0) STATUS. GIVEN THAT
SEPARATES DO NOT CEASE TO BE BDTCS ON 1 JULY 1997, HOME OFFICE
ACCEPTED OUR VIEW THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR
BN(0) STATUS. A NEW POINT EMERGED IN THE COURSE OF THE
DISCUSSION, HOWEVER, IN RELATION TO PERSONS WHO HAVE THE DUAL
STATUS OF BCS AND BDTCS (HONG KONG). THE HOME OFFICE'S VIEW WAS
THAT SUCH PERSONS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPLY FOR BN(0) STATUS AND
THAT TO MAKE NO PROVISION FOR THIS WOULD GO AGAINST THE VIRES OF
THE ACT AND WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO DEFEND IN PARLIAMENT. WE
POINTED OUT THAT IT WOULD BE MOST UNLIKELY THAT SUCH A PERSON
2
CONFIDENTIAL