until July 1997, and were only deprived of their power
to transmit their status because of Chinese objections. He did not consider that this proposal would be incon-
sistent with the Chinese view of nationality since he
argued that the Chinese were unlikely to object to
children of BN (0)s born after 1997 acquiring, for example,
US citizenship by birth in the USA.
?
20.
Ministers may consider that this proposal should
be strongly resisted, for several reasons:
The
a)
first, it would be contrary to the
spirit and intention of the Agreement.
Government has accepted the Chinese view
that British nationality should not be
acquired after 1997 by a connection with
Hong Kong. What Sir S Y Chung is propos-
ing is in effect a loophole through which Hong Kong BDTCs could protect their children born after 1997 from the consequences of the
Agreement. Although it has not been tested,
it is the FCO view that the Chinese would be
likely to raise objections to such a loophole being deliberately created.
b)
Second, it would mean a fundamental
change to the way in which citizenship is
acquired under the BNA 1981. Birth alone in
the UK or a Dependent Territory is not now
sufficient to confer British citizenship or
BDTC. It is necessary for at least one parent
to be a BC or BDTC, or to be settled in the UK
or a Dependent Territory, as the case may be.
The proposed amendment would amount to a
reversion to the principle of its Solis from
which the 1981 Act deliberately departed.
c)
Third, and connected with (b), although
it is proposed to confine the amendment to the
children of BN(0)s, it is difficult to see what
-