TNAG-1385-FCO40-1833-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-citizenship-1985 — Page 257

until July 1997, and were only deprived of their power

to transmit their status because of Chinese objections. He did not consider that this proposal would be incon-

sistent with the Chinese view of nationality since he

argued that the Chinese were unlikely to object to

children of BN (0)s born after 1997 acquiring, for example,

US citizenship by birth in the USA.

?

20.

Ministers may consider that this proposal should

be strongly resisted, for several reasons:

The

a)

first, it would be contrary to the

spirit and intention of the Agreement.

Government has accepted the Chinese view

that British nationality should not be

acquired after 1997 by a connection with

Hong Kong. What Sir S Y Chung is propos-

ing is in effect a loophole through which Hong Kong BDTCs could protect their children born after 1997 from the consequences of the

Agreement. Although it has not been tested,

it is the FCO view that the Chinese would be

likely to raise objections to such a loophole being deliberately created.

b)

Second, it would mean a fundamental

change to the way in which citizenship is

acquired under the BNA 1981. Birth alone in

the UK or a Dependent Territory is not now

sufficient to confer British citizenship or

BDTC. It is necessary for at least one parent

to be a BC or BDTC, or to be settled in the UK

or a Dependent Territory, as the case may be.

The proposed amendment would amount to a

reversion to the principle of its Solis from

which the 1981 Act deliberately departed.

c)

Third, and connected with (b), although

it is proposed to confine the amendment to the

children of BN(0)s, it is difficult to see what

-