On the eve of Brexit, the United Kingdom launched a scheme for Hong Kong residents holding British National (Overseas) passports (BNOs) to migrate to Britain, taking advantage of the political chaos in Hong Kong. Brexit would cause tens of thousands of business people to leave Britain and large numbers of wealthy Hong Kong people to relocate to Britain, just to fill the gap. Imagine that a simple middle class family in Hong Kong sells a house at any given time with assets of more than 10 million yuan. A conservative belief is that an average migrant family takes 5 million yuan in assets. If 100,000 families live in the UK, this would be equivalent to 500 billion Hong Kong dollars. Moving to the UK can help the UK’s shrinking economy.
If the United Kingdom is truly philanthropic and wants to help the people of the former colonies, Sudan, an African country, is a lot more gullible than Hong Kong, and it is more deserving of help. A military coup in Sudan took place in early 2019. On June 3 of that year, the public demonstrated on the streets that the Transitional Military Commission surrendered. The military government suppressed at least 120 people. The African Union suspended Sudan’s membership. Sudan’s population so far is 43.36 million. The former British colony is more worthy of help than Hong Kong. Why Britain does not provide an immigration scheme for Sudanese? Does it support people to see each other’s skin color and wealth?
Sino-British memorandum on the nationality of Hong Kong residents.
The British BNO Immigration Plan, which deals with fishing in turbulent waters, also explicitly violated the changed diplomatic agreement with China on 19 December 1984. After the signing of the Sign-British “Joint Declaration” at the time, the two sides exchanged agreements to settle the issue of nationality remaining from Hong Kong. The British side promised that the British dependent areas that were originally in Hong Kong would no longer be dependent on 1 July 1997. Turkish citizens, but can maintain a certain status so that they can continue to use passports issued by the United Kingdom (immediately after the BNO) without the right of residence in the United Kingdom. The British side also specified that people born on or after 1 July 1997 would not be permitted to obtain the above passports.
Consent on BNO in memorandum.
According to China’s nationality law, dual nationality is not recognized in the first place. Hong Kong returns to China and Hong Kong people arrive in Chinese status. In theory, they cannot have other nationalities at the same time. You can only select one of the two. But China takes care of the special circumstances of the people of Hong Kong and adopts a policy of tolerance. At that time, the exchange agreement between the two parties made it clear that the BNO is not a nationality, which does not have only the right of residence, but only a travel document. However, the United Kingdom not only allows Hong Kong citizens with BNO to apply for immigration to the United Kingdom after 6 years of residency, but also to their children born after 1997 through the BNO program for British The form allows naturally. This is a clear violation of the 1984 Kino-British Agreement. .
If Grandpa follows the previous practice, he will only open his eyes and close his eyes, and even though he scolds a few sentences. To say it clearly, it is a “paper tiger” reaction. Just like Grandpa is different from the past today, in the past, A Policy was used to deal with the Hong Kong issue, and everything was dumb, but with no good results. If you go the other way, and adopt a “non-A” policy, you will do what everyone told him not to do before. Applied to the BNO issue, if Grandpa used to talk without practice, he would now react to it sternly. In theory, there can be three countermeasures:
1. Revoke the “right to be elected” of holders of BNO or other nationalities. Even these Chinese-borrowed foreigners can still vote, but they cannot stand in the election. This approach has a narrow scope. BNO holders still have the right to reside and vote, but their right to vote has been revoked. The advantage is that amending local laws does not require merely amending the original law. The disadvantage is that the effect is relatively small.
2. As suggested by Yeoyu Shui, a member of the Executive Council, after the due date, all Hong Kong citizens who have acquired foreign nationality will be deemed to have renounced their Chinese nationality as well as residency in Hong Kong. And renounce their right to vote. The advantage of this approach is that whether it is BNO or other nationalities, they are treated equally and equitably. But the downside is that the effect is very good, and the response to the British breach of contract has become a bit xenophobic.
There are many people who have settled in Hong Kong. They can be British, Canadian, Australian etc. Their children may have Chinese nationality and right of residence in Hong Kong, but they will have to lose their Chinese nationality due to such a similar treatment. The hit surface is relatively large.
3. Only for Hong Kong people who will obtain British nationality through the BNO immigration program in the future, revoking their Chinese nationality. In doing so, the basic law must be amended. The disadvantage is that there is no uniformity, and people with different foreign nationalities are treated differently. The advantage is that the attack is more elaborate.
I think it is more targeted to focus on the people of Hong Kong, who have acquired British nationality through the BNO program and are revoking their Chinese nationality. In the face of the Brexit crisis, the United Kingdom made it clear that it would use the BNO scheme to absorb debt. China only targeted the scheme, specifically for the breach of the 1984 agreement between the two parties by Britain. The action was more focused, the surface of the attack was relatively detailed, and the messages sent were also. This is quite clear: if foreign governments attack China through various small actions, China will surely counter it.
In general, Grandpa’s action against the British BNO immigration scheme is like an arrow on the bow, and he seems to have to make an announcement.
