GOLDENTIAL
HONG KONG PROPOSALS NOT TAKEN-UP
Hong Kong Proposals: Telno 681 of 4 April 1985
1.
Exception from loss (para 1(C))
In our view Hong Kong's proposals go too far. The Agreement provides
that BDTC may not be retained after 1997 by virtue of a connection with Hong
Kong. Both we and FCO are in agreement that, as a rule, this means that anyone
who derives his BDTC from a whole or partial connection with Hong Kong should
lose that citizenship on 1 July 1997. Generally speaking, the only people who
will not lose BDTC on that date are those who can demonstrate a "separate" link
with another Dependent Territory. In addition, we have agreed in principle to
seek to except from loss certain "hard" cases of "mixed" BDTCs, whom it can
reasonably be argued the Agreement was never intended to cover. But clearly
we shall need to keep such cases to the minimum, if we are not to risk complaints
from the Chinese that we are failing to fulfil our side of the bargain. Hong
Kong's proposals seek to except from loss anybody born in Hong Kong of a parent
or grandparent born, naturalised or registered in another Dependent Territory.
Such persons may have lived in Hong Kong for many years; they may be ethnic
Chinese; and in the case of those born before 1983, their citizenship will have
been derived solely by reason of their birth in Hong Kong. We therefore
suggest that Hong Kong's proposals should not be adopted.
2.
Adoption para 2(C)
Although adoption is qualified in the Immigration Ordinance, we take the
view that it would be preferable to regard an Adoption Order made by a Hong
Kong Court as establishing in itself a close connection with Hong Kong. It seems
to us unlikely that a court would make an Adoption Order in any case where the
parents had not got a substantial Hong Kong connection (even if only by
residence). Conversely, it seems unlikely that a court in another Dependent
Territory would make an Adoption Order in that territory based on a Hong Kong
connection unless the parents in question had by then established their own
close links with that territory (eg by permanent residence there). Perhaps
Hong Kong might consider this in their review of the Immigration Ordinance.
3.
Para 2(D)
The draft is consistent with the current Immigration Ordinance. We have
thought it better to split registration in and outside Hong Kong. It seems to
us that, whatever the circumstances, registration in Hong Kong is a sufficient
CONFIDENTIAL