TNAG-1406-FCO40-1881-Future-of-Hong-Kong-passports-and-visas-1985 — Page 9

CONFIDENTIAL

British Embassy

-}

Rio Lerma 71 Mexico 5 DF PO Box 96 Bis

Telex 017 71185 (a/b UKEMMX) Telephone 511-48-80

RAR

х

30

RJ Miller Esq

MVD

FCO

Dear Mr Muller,

Go HK | 341/1

REC..P

IND

-9 OCT1985

STRY

JK.

Your reference

Our reference

Date

29 September 1985

25

was

99

VISA REQUIREMENTS ON BRITISH DEPENDENT TERRITORIES CITIZENS (BDTC)

$130.

1. Thank you for your letter of 20 August to which I am replying in Allan Ramsay's absence on mid tour leave. We note that Telno Visa 019 instructed us to suspend action on your letter and that Telno Visa 020 asked for a sitrep; we would also like to make a few comments on the position of the Mexican government.

2. As you acknowledge, the Mexican authorities have been aware since 1959 that the bilateral Visa Abolition Agreement (VAA) specifically excluded Dependent Territories. They did not however start to enforce a visa requirement for Hong Kong BDTCS until early 1984, after becoming aware of the fact that BDTCs were subject to UK immigration control (to which their attention was drawn by the explanations of the new definitions of national status detailed in the British Nationality Act of 1981). Their concern was that the largest volume of BDTCs subject to UK immigration control seeking to enter Mexico were from Hong Kong, and that Mexico already had a significant Chinese population many of whom have family ties with Hong Kong. concern increased in the light of negotiations on Hong Kong's future.

Regardless of any assurances we might feel able to offer to the contrary, they are likely to continue to believe that there may be a significant influx of HK citizens into Mexico in the run-up to 1997.

Rather

This

3. Given this situation we consider that any attempt to obtain, visa free entry into Mexico for BDTCs (your para. 4) would be met with the counter argument of UK immigration requirements. than trying to persuade the Mexican authorities to extend the bilateral VAA to include all BDTCs (an attempt which we think would not be productive), we would recommend instead trying to persuade the Mexicans to agree to issue "visit" visas for up to 30 days to

This should all BDTCS without prior reference to Mexico City. reduce the problems encountered by Hong Kong BDTCS, such as detailed in Mrs Dee's letter of 28 May, and would be considered more favourably by the Mexican authorities than an extension to the VAA. In making such an approach we could use the arguments and background given in your letter and in FCO Telno 1031 of 21 August. We think that this more low-key approach ought to be more effectivel

1.

/4.

731

V.