TNAG-2205-FCO40-3162-Immigration-policy-changes-to-rules-1990 — Page 123

A

CONFIDENTIAL

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

London SW1A 2AH

Ms Vivienne Dews

Telephone 01-

Immigration and Nationality Department

Home Office

Lunar House Croydon

HICO

со 34111

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

Your reference

02 AUG 1990

Our reference DAWAEB

Date

27 July 1990

78

Dear Vivienne,

CHANGES TO PARAGRAPH 58 OF THE IMMIGRATION RULES

1.

I hope you will forgive my writing to you on a subject of which you must have had a surfeit over the last two months or so. When the subject was discussed during the recent visit of the Governor, Mr Maude emphasised the importance of the Rule 58 continuing to operate sensibly in practice, and being seen to do so. Hong Kong telegram number 2357 which I sent to you, about the case of Au Yeung I think illustrates the continuing sensitivity of the issue in Hong Kong. The purpose of this letter is to seek your views on some rather technical objections which we have received from Hong Kong Immigration Department to our stock rationale for the change to paragraph 58 It is likely that these arguments will be circulated and will surface to create the sort of problem for us that the JCWI achieved when the changes were announced. I would be grateful for your help in devising a suitable line to rebutt these arguments before they have a chance to gain popular currency.

It is argued that, regardless of the intention behind it, the wording of Rule 58 prior to 1 May was ambiguous and could mean (I) that a passenger who satisfied the immigration officer that:-

2.

(a)

(b)

he had indefinite leave to enter or remain in the UK; and

he had not been away for longer than two years,

must be admitted for settlement.

Alternatively, (II) it could mean a passenger who satisfied the immigration officer that:-

(a) he had indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom; and

(b) he had not been away for longer than 2 years,

must be admitted for settlement,

CONFIDENTIAL