CONFIDENTIAL
050434
MDHIAN 0668
(I) FEW WOULD COME FORWARD FOR SCREENING, AND EVEN FEWER FOR REPATRIATION (VOLUNTARY OR OTHERWISE).
(II) THE LOCAL REACTION IN HONG KONG WOULD BE VERY SEVERE: AT THE
VERY LEAST WE WOULD EXPECT THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL TO REFUSE ANY FURTHER FUNDS (E.G. FOR SCREENING).
(III) THE NEW POLICY WOULD (IN THE ABSENCE OF MANDATORY REPATRIATION) AMOUNT TO DE FACTO SETTLEMENT IN HONG KONG AND ENDING IMMIGRATION CONTROLS ON PEOPLE COMING FROM VIETNAM. THIS WOULD ALARM THE PRC AND ARGUABLY BREACH THE CPA (WHICH SAYS THAT ALL NON-REFUGEES HAVE TO RETURN HOME).
(IV) THE PULL FACTOR IN TERMS OF FUTURE ARRIVALS FROM VIETNAM
WOULD BE IMMENSE.
AMENDING THE IMMIGRATION ORDINANCE TO MAKE THE CURRENT POLICY
LEGALLY WATERTIGHT IN HONG KONG
(F) AS DISCUSSED (BARRETT/LEEKS/WINGFIELD) YESTERDAY, WE BELIEVE
WE HAVE GONE AS FAR AS WE CAN ON THIS WHILE STOPPING SHORT OF MANDATORY DETENTION FOR ALL. TWO FURTHER POINTS ARE WORTH MAKING:
(I) NOTHING WE CAN ENVISAGE WILL MAKE OUR POLICY OF DETENTION ABSOLUTELY WATERTIGHT, EVEN IN LOCAL TERMS. IT WILL BE FOR LOCAL JUDGES TO DETERMINE IF DETENTION IS LAWFUL. BUT WE BELIEVE THAT THROUGH THIS BILL WE CAN ENSURE THAT IN DOING SO THEY HAVE TO HAVE REGARD TO THE REALITIES OF THE PROBLEM RATHER THAN SIMPLY
MATTERS OF LEGAL THEORY (VIDE SEARS),
(II) AT THE RISK OF REPETITION, THE LACK OF NORMAL ARRANGEMENTS TO RETURN NON-REFUGEES TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN GOES TO THE HEART OF THE PROBLEMS WE ARE NOW FACING. IN THE ABSENCE OF REPATRIATION FOR NON-REFUGEES, THERE CAN BE NO PROPER IMMIGRATION CONTROL. TO AVOID DE FACTO UNRESTRICTED LOCAL SETTLEMENT, WE ARE LEFT ONLY WITH THE POWER OF DETENTION. THE LONGER WE HAVE DETENTION WITHOUT REPATRIATION THE GREATER OUR PROBLEMS, BOTH LEGAL AND PRACTICAL, ARE LIKELY TO BECOME.
RESOURCES
6. PARA 4 OF TUR ASKS FOR DETAILS OF THE RESOURCES AND WAITING TIME NEEDED TO SCREEN EACH ARRIVAL. THIS IS TOUCHED ON ABOVE. BUT
PAGE
5
CONFIDENTIAL