CO129-604-6 Immigration- control over entry from China 1-1-1947 - 4-1-1950 — Page 15

15

attached at med flee

§

a/red flag t

(as defined in the British Nationality Act

1948)".

•

(b) I think that there should be inserted, as subsection

(4) of section 2, the following

"(4) This Ordinance shall have effect in relation to citizens of the Republic of Ireland who are not British subjects in like manner as it has effect in relation to British subjects".

(ii) Section 2(1) - definition of "immigrant" Section 11

At para. 3 of the Report of 1933 it is laid down as a general principle that British subjects who "belong to" a territory should not be refused admission to it; and, further, the classes of British subjects who are to be regarded as belonging to a territory are there defined.

You will find those classes set out in para. 1 of my Summary of the Report

You will see,

however, on examination of the definition of "immigrant" in section 2(1) and of section 11(1), that the combined effect of these two provisions is that any British subject who "belongs to" Hong Kong by reason of his coming within any one of the classes set out in para. 1 of the Summary, other than the class which "belongs" by reason of birth in Hong Kong, may, if he also comes within any one of the various categories specified in section 11(1), be refused admission.

(iii) section 33 (1)

This is a type of provision to which we have already taken exception: see Circular Despatch dated December 13th, 1948 (copy attached). I think we might draw attention to this.

7.

I am of course very well aware of the exceptional position of Hong Kong today and I am not suggesting that any immediate amendment of the definition of“immigration in Section 2(1) and Section 11(1) is possible now. I do think, however, that we ought to draw attention to the provisions on which I have commented and that as soon as happier times come to Hong Kong amendment of those provisions to which I have referred ought to be considered.

8.

I have seen the Bill for the Expulsion of Undesirables Ordinance, 1949; and I understand from, Mr. Radford that this Bill is probably going through its second reading today. I do not propose to attempt to comment on the Bill until we have heard from the Colony what, if any, amendments may have been made at the second reading. It is just possible that when I come to consider the Bill there may be something in it which may in some way necessitate a modification of my observations above. I think however that this is unlikely.

26 Gov.

tel.1176

J. A. Racks.

2/9/49

31-8-49