TNAG-1383-FCO40-1831-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-citizenship-1985 — Page 190

GOLDENTIAL

HONG KONG PROPOSALS NOT TAKEN-UP

Hong Kong Proposals: Telno 681 of 4 April 1985

1.

Exception from loss (para 1(C))

In our view Hong Kong's proposals go too far. The Agreement provides

that BDTC may not be retained after 1997 by virtue of a connection with Hong

Kong. Both we and FCO are in agreement that, as a rule, this means that anyone

who derives his BDTC from a whole or partial connection with Hong Kong should

lose that citizenship on 1 July 1997. Generally speaking, the only people who

will not lose BDTC on that date are those who can demonstrate a "separate" link

with another Dependent Territory. In addition, we have agreed in principle to

seek to except from loss certain "hard" cases of "mixed" BDTCs, whom it can

reasonably be argued the Agreement was never intended to cover. But clearly

we shall need to keep such cases to the minimum, if we are not to risk complaints

from the Chinese that we are failing to fulfil our side of the bargain. Hong

Kong's proposals seek to except from loss anybody born in Hong Kong of a parent

or grandparent born, naturalised or registered in another Dependent Territory.

Such persons may have lived in Hong Kong for many years; they may be ethnic

Chinese; and in the case of those born before 1983, their citizenship will have

been derived solely by reason of their birth in Hong Kong. We therefore

suggest that Hong Kong's proposals should not be adopted.

2.

Adoption para 2(C)

Although adoption is qualified in the Immigration Ordinance, we take the

view that it would be preferable to regard an Adoption Order made by a Hong

Kong Court as establishing in itself a close connection with Hong Kong. It seems

to us unlikely that a court would make an Adoption Order in any case where the

parents had not got a substantial Hong Kong connection (even if only by

residence). Conversely, it seems unlikely that a court in another Dependent

Territory would make an Adoption Order in that territory based on a Hong Kong

connection unless the parents in question had by then established their own

close links with that territory (eg by permanent residence there). Perhaps

Hong Kong might consider this in their review of the Immigration Ordinance.

3.

Para 2(D)

The draft is consistent with the current Immigration Ordinance. We have

thought it better to split registration in and outside Hong Kong. It seems to

us that, whatever the circumstances, registration in Hong Kong is a sufficient

CONFIDENTIAL