CONFIDENTIAL
was born in Hong Kong to a parent who was a BDTC by virtue of a connection with Gibraltar. Neither of these persons is a "separate" BDTC as the route by which they obtain that status includes a reference to Hong Kong, either in the context of their parent's connection with Hong Kong, or in the context of their own birth there. The latter connection might be termed a "personal" connection.
The difference between separate and mixed BDTCs can most clearly be seen if one considers that a separate BDTC would be a BDTC even if Hong Kong had never been a Dependent Territory, whereas a mixed BDTC would not.
4.
The implication of the draft order-in-council seems to be that "separate" BDTCs shall not on 1st July 1997 cease to be BDTCS. This is because, under Article 2(i), it cannot be said that they are a BDTC "by virtue only of circumstances which give rise to the status of a Hong Kong belonger". They are also BDTCs by virtue of circumstances which do not give rise to the status of Hong Kong Belonger.
5. As regards "mixed" BTDCs, however, it seems that this is no general rule that these persons shall not lose BDTC status. For example, a person born in Gibraltar, whose father was a BDTC by birth in Hong Kong, would be a BDTC under section 15 (i)(a) of the BNA 1981; he would also be a Hong Kong Belonger under paragraph 4(a) of the First Schedule to the Immigration Ordinance of Hong Kong (part 2 of the First Schedule to the draft order-in-council). He would therefore lose his BDTC status on 1st July 1997.
6. The weakness of the draft order-in-council however is that the Immigration Ordinance of Hong Kong is not so drafted as to confer Hong Kong Belonger status in the converse case - that is, a person who will, say, be born in Hong Kong to a BDTC by birth in Gibraltar. He is not a Hong Kong Belonger under paragraph (a) of the definition in part 1 of schedule 1 to the draft order-in-council; as for part (b), referring to the First Schedule, he is not a Hong Kong Belonger under paragraph 1 (as he was born after 1 January 1983), paragraph 2 (which does not refer to section 15(1)(a)), paragraph 3 (as his parent's connection is with Gibraltar, not Hong Kong), or any of the following paragraphs. Such a person would therefore not seem to lose BDTC status on 1st July 1997.
7.
This is unsatisfactory for several reasons. First, it may be arguable that such do come within the expression, BDTC "by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong" in the memorandum. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a closer connection than that of birth. Secondly, those persons seem to have been excluded without (to my knowledge) a clear policy decision having been made to that effect. Their exclusion may there- fore be an accidental effect of the use of the Hong Kong Ordinance for this purpose. Thirdly, if a policy decision has been made about which "mixed" BDTCs should be included, there may be an argument that the provisions above should operate in quite the opposite way; that is, the BDTCs who
CONFIDENTIAL
/are
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.