TNAG-1086-FCO40-1336-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1981 — Page 178

NOTES FOR SUPPLEMENTARIES (cont.)

Ꭰ Can we not avoid immigration dangers by excluding the people concerned from the right of abode in the UK

in our immigration laws?

what

seek to do, That is situation in our present immigration laws and they

Land have lead to great confusion, uncertainty, resentment and even legal arguments that contrary to certain international conventions (eg the European Convention of Human Rights) and perhaps contrary to customary international law. We are determined that our new nationality law should not continue these problems.

if

·

1

E Does not this show lack of adequate consultation with the dependencies?

No. There has been most detailed consultation with the

dependencies of all aspects of the Nationality Bill from the time of the previous Government's Green Paper in 1977. The very existence of the composite citizenship of the dependent territories resulted from their objections to the proposals in that Green Paper to include them in a single category with British Overseas Citizens; and this

change was greatly welcomed by them.

F If the dependencies would be happy with the proposals why should HMG object?

I mean no disrespect to the dependencies when I say that it is not they who would face the problems arising from the proposal. For this reason they would probably have

preferred to retain the present title of CUKC, with or

·

without the right of abode in the UK, or to have

shared the same new nationality description as people of the UK, again with or without the right of abode. The difficulty is that it the UK that has to bear the consequences, criticism and challenge over the immigration

/consequences