justification there could then be for
not extending it to other BDTCs and also
to British Overseas citizens, thus further
undermining the principles of the BNA 1981.
d)
fourth, although the Chinese have
indeed said that they have no objection to
former Hong Kong BDTCS or their children
being full nationals of another country
(including being British citizens) it is a
very different matter deliberately to change
UK nationality law so as to allow the children
of BN (0)s to become such citizens (or BDTCs)
especially if that differs from the way in
the law is applied to others.
which
e)
the BNA 1981.
Fifth, the facility which Sir S Y Chung
wants already exists to the extent that BN (0)s
could
the existing requirements of
If a BN (0) leaves Hong Kong
after 1997 and settles either in the UK or in
a Dependent Territory, then any children he or
she may have will automatically be a BC or a
BDTC at birth as the case
may be.
f)
Sixth, only those wealthy enough to be
able to arrange for their children to be born
outside Hong Kong could benefit from such an
amendment. It seems invidious to create a
loophole which would undoubtedly be seen as
devised solely for the rich.
21.
For these reasons we recommend that Sir S Y Chung'
proposal should be rejected, and that Hong Kong should
be so informed. We do not in any case envisage much
support for the proposal in Parliament.
- 9.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.