Development of Immigration Law and Policy: The Hong Kong Experience, The

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

Volume 33

Montral

1988

No 4

The Development of Immigration Law and Policy:

The Hong Kong Experience

Albert H.Y. Chen*

Hong Kong is a modem financial and in-
dustrial centre, enjoying a standard of living
significantly higher than that of its neigh-
bours. It is also, however, one of the most
densely populated territories in the world.
The natural desire of residents of neighbour-
ing countries to relocate to Hong Kong, either
as refugees fleeing persecution, or as eco-
nomic migrants seeking a better life, is there-
fore in sharp conflict with the equally firm
policy of the Hong Kong authorities of pro-
tecting its economic achievements by limit-
ing population growth. The task of the
immigration authorities is complicated by
the fact that Hong Kong is regarded by the
British government as a colony of the United
Kingdom, and by the Chinese government as
an integral part of the People’s Republic of
China. In this article the author traces the
development of immigration law in Hong
Kong. He begins by presenting an overview
of the history of immigration law from 1842
to 1980. He then proceeds to discuss devel-
opments in immigration law in the 1980s.
Two themes emerge: first, the impact of the
political relations between the United King-
dom and the P.R.C. on the capacity of Hong
Kong to control immigration from Guang-
dong province; and second, the efforts of the
authorities to reconcile the necessity of firm
deterrence with the popular demand for hu-
manitarian treatment of refugees from Viet-
nam and immigrants from China.

Hong Kong est un centre financier et indus-
triel modeme qui jouit d’un niveau de vie
nettement sup6rieur A celui de ses voisins.
Mais il s’agit aussi de l’un des territoires les
plus dens6ment peupl6s au monde. Le sou-
hait naturel des r6sidents des pays avoisi-
nants de s’6tablir A Hong Kong, que ce soit
A titre de r~fugi~s politiques fuyant la per-
s~cution ou en tant que r~fugi~s 6conomiques
A la recherche d’une vie meilleure, va donc
nettement A rencontre de la politique tr~s
ferme des autorit~s de Hong Kong de pro-
tger ses ralisations 6cononiques en limi-
tant la croissance de la population. La tiche
des autorit~s de l’immigration est compli-
qu~e par le fait que Hong Kong est consid&r&
par le gouvemement britannique comme une
colonie du Royaume-Uni, et par le gouver-
nement chinois comme une partie int6grante
de la R~publique populaire de Chine. Dans
cet article, rauteur d~crit le d~veloppement
du droit de l’immigration i Hong Kong. I1
d~bute par un survol du droit de limmigra-
tion de 1842 A 1980. II poursuit avec une
discussion des d6veloppements observes au
cours des ann~es 1980. Deux themes ressor-
tent de cette 6tude: d’abord, l’impact des re-
lations politiques entre le Royaume-Uni et la
R~publique populaire de Chine sur la capa-
cit6 de Hong Kong de contrfler l’immigra-
tion A partir de la province de Guangdong;
puis, les efforts des autorit6s de concilier la
n~cessit6 de dissuader les immigrants poten-
tiels avec les revendications populaires pour
un traitement humanitaire des r~fugifs du
Vietnam et des immigrants de Chine.

*Of the Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong.

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

Synopsis

I.

II.

Introduction

1842-1945

III. 1945-1970

IV. 1971-1980

A. The Immigration Ordinance 1971
B. The Policy Towards Illegal Immigrants
C. The Arrival of Vietnamese Refugees

V. The 1980s

A. The Abolition of the “Reached Base” Policy
B. Illegal Immigrant Children, Wives and Mothers
C. The Immigration Tribunal and the Courts
D. Further Controls for Vietnamese Refugees

VI. The Future

I.

Introduction

Immigration control is an important governmental function in most
nations of the contemporary world. A historical study of a territory’s im-
migration law and policy can reveal much about the development of its
social, political, economic and cultural conditions.’ This is probably par-
ticularly true in the case of Hong Kong, about sixty per cent of whose people
are immigrants from mainland China,2 and whose population has gone up
from 500,000 to 5,500,000 over the past forty years as a result of immigra-

‘See, e.g., J.M. Evans, Immigration Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1983) at 1-2.
2According to the 1981 census, only 57.2 per cent of the population was born in Hong Kong.
See Hong Kong Government Information Service, Hong Kong 1984 (Hong Kong: Government
Printer, 1984) at 236.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

tion.3 These people live in a territory of only 1070 square kilometres, 4 much
of which is in fact unproductive hillsides or barren islets. Yet as an industrial,
commercial and financial centre and a modernized city, enjoying a standard
of living higher than that of neighbouring regions, Hong Kong continues to
attract immigrants from mainland China and refugees from Vietnam.

This article seeks to describe and explain the historical development
of immigration law and policy in Hong Kong since the British colony was
founded near the middle of the nineteenth century. It is hoped that the study
will facilitate a better understanding of some of the issues, as well as dilem-
mas, of the growth of Hong Kong as a society, and to contribute, if possible,
to comparative research on systems of immigration control in various parts
of the world. On a more philosophical or theoretical plane, it is also hoped
that this exercise might illustrate some of the fundamental problems of law
and policy, of rule and discretion, and of utilitarian and humanitarian con-
siderations, which are inherent in any system of legal regulation over human
beings.

This essay is divided into five parts, corresponding to the different
periods into which the history of Hong Kong immigration law may be
divided. The final part, however, deals with the future rather than the past,
and presents relevant issues arising from the rendition of Hong Kong to
the People’s Republic of China.

II. 1842-1945

The British colony of Hong Kong is situated on the southern coast of
China, occupying, as mentioned above, a total land area of 1070 square
kilometres. Geographically, the territory consists of three parts – Hong
Kong Island, which was ceded to Great Britain by China under the Treaty
of Nanking 1842; Kowloon Peninsula, which was ceded under the Conven-
tion of Peking 1860; and the New Territories, comprising 92 per cent of the
total land area of the present territory of Hong Kong, which was leased to
Britain in 1898 for a period of 99 years commencing in July 1898. 5 Although

(Hong Kong: Government Printer, June 1987) (two-page fact sheet).

3Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 675 (7 January 1987; Secretary for Security).
4Hong Kong Government Information Service, Hong Kong: The Facts –
Immigration,
5For the constitutional history of Hong Kong, see generally Hong Kong Government Infor-
mation Service, Hong Kong 1986 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1986) c. 22; P. Wesley-
Smith, “Hong Kong” in A.P. Blaustein & E.B. Blaustein, eds, Constitutions of Dependencies
and Special Sovereignties (Dobbs Ferry, New York. Oceana Publications, 1985); P. Wesley-
Smith, Unequal Treaty 1898-1997(Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1980). On the different
views held by the Chinese and British governments on the legal status of Hong Kong, see A.
Dicks, “Treaty, Grant, Usage or Sufferance? Some Legal Aspects of the Status of Hong Kong”
(1983) 95 China Q. 427; R. Mushkat, “The Transition from British to Chinese Rule in Hong
Kong: A Discussion of Salient International Legal Issues” (1986) 14 Denver J. of Int’l L. and
Pol’y 171.

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

the People’s Republic of China (“P.R.C.”), which was established in 1949,
regarded the treaties of cession and lease as “unequal treaties” and not
binding, 6 and has insisted that sovereignty in the whole of the territory of
Hong Kong has always belonged to China and has never been effectively
transferred to Britain, the treaties did, at least from the British point of
view, form the legal foundation for British administration of Hong Kong
until the signature of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the Question of
Hong Kong.7 This agreement, entered into by the two governments in De-
cember 1984, provides for the termination of British rule on 30 June 1997,
not only in respect of the New Territories, but in respect of the whole of
the present British dependent territory of Hong Kong, and the establishment
immediately after that date of the “Hong Kong Special Administrative Re-
gion” of the PR.C.8

When the British first acquired Hong Kong Island in 1842, it was, in
the words of Lord Palmerston, British Foreign Secretary, “a barren island
with hardly a house upon it.”9 In 1845, the population was estimated at
23,817, which included 595 Europeans.10 If the areas of Kowloon and the
New Territories, which were subsequently incorporated into the colony of
Hong Kong, were also taken into account, the total population as of 1845
was probably in the region of 100,000.11 This contrasts dramatically with
the present population figure of 5.5 million. Such population growth has
largely been the result of influx of migrants from mainland China.

For a long time since the colony was founded, people were allowed
complete freedom of movement in both directions across the border between
the colony and mainland China.’ 2 As a leading historian on Hong Kong
wrote, “incessant coming and going was a feature of the island’s life from
the start.”‘ 3 The colonial government seemed to have accepted the view of
the Chinese government that the creation of the colony did not take away

6See the last two works cited supra, note 5.
7A Draft Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
the Government of the People’s Republic of China on the Future of Hong Kong, 26 September
1984, 23 I.L.M. 1366. The text of the Joint Declaration may also be found in Wesley-Smith,
Unequal Treaties 1898-1997, supra, note 5, or Hong Kong Government Information Service,
Hong Kong 1985 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1985) c. 1.

8See below, Part V.
9Hong Kong 1984, supra, note 2.
10G.B. Endacott, A History ofHong Kong, 2d ed. (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press,

1973) at 65.

“ID. Podmore, “The Population of Hong Kong” in K. Hopkins, ed., Hong Kong: The In-

dustrial Colony (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1971) 21 at 23.

12As pointed out in T. Lui, “Undocumented Migration in Hong Kong”, paper presented at
the 6th Seminar on Adaption and Integration of Immigrants, organised by the International
Committee for Migration (Geneva, 11-15 April 1983).

“3Endacott, supra, note 10 at 65.

19881

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

the right of Chinese to enter the territory as they wished.’ 4 Indeed, no
attempt was made to restrict immigration from mainland China until the
middle of the twentieth century.15

The flow of migrant population from mainland China into Hong Kong
was not a smooth or steady process;’ 6 it was instead characterized by various
“waves” of migration reflecting the political and economic conditions in
mainland China. Whenever the mainland experienced political struggles,
economic crisis, social unrest, civil war or foreign invasion, many Chinese
from the mainland, particularly from the nearby Guangdong region, fled to
Hong Kong for shelter. Unfortunately, modem Chinese history was full of
such incidents, and the story of immigration into Hong Kong is also the
story of disturbances and difficulties in nineteenth and twentieth century
China.

The first great wave of refugees from mainland China was brought about
by the chaos and disturbances of the Taiping Rebellion in 1850-64.17 Hong
Kong experienced a rapid population increase in the 1850s, and in 1861,
the total population of the area which now forms the colony of Hong Kong
had risen to an estimated 165,000.18 The 1911 Revolution, which brought
about the downfall of the Qing dynasty, marked the beginning of another
period of unrest in China. Between 1901 and 1921, the population of Hong
Kong doubled from 300,000 to 625,000 as a result of migration from the
mainland. 19

The enactment by the colonial legislature of the Passports Ordinance2 o
in 1923 was the starting point of the history of immigration, or at least
travel, control in Hong Kong. This ordinance “to regulate the admission of
persons into the Colony of Hong Kong’ 2′ empowered the Governor in
Council to make regulations to prohibit persons of any specified class from
entering the colony without a passport or some other approved document.22
Regulations made under the ordinance 23 required all persons entering Hong
Kong, except persons of Chinese race, children aged under fifteen, and per-

14p. Geddes, In the Mouth of the Dragon (London: Century Publishing Co., 1982) at 81.
15See the discussion below, Part III, on developments in 1940 and 1949.
6As pointed out in S.K. Lau, Society and Politics in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Chinese
1

University Press, 1984) at 3.

170n the rebellion, see I.C.Y. Hsu, The Rise of Modern China, 2d ed. (Hong Kong: Oxford
University Press, 1975) c. 10; Endacott, supra, note 10 at 85, 116; R Harris, Public Adminis-
tration and Public Affairs in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Heinemann Asia, 1983) at 81.

‘sPodmore, supra, note 11 at 23.
91bid. at 23-24; Hong Kong 1984, supra, note 2 at 247.
20Ordinance No. 35 of 1923.
2lQuotation from the long title of the ordinance.
2-Passports Ordinance, supra, note 20, s. 2(1)(a).
23They were set out in the schedule to the Passports Ordinance, ibid.

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

sons in transit, to possess travel documents, and, in the case of non-British
subjects, also visas. Thus free entry of Chinese people from the mainland
into Hong Kong continued to be permitted.

In the decade preceding 1923, the colony had already begun to legislate
on immigration related matters by introducing the Travellers Restrictions
Ordinance 1915,24 the Registration of Persons Ordinance 1916,25 and the
Deportation Ordinance 1917.26 The 1915 ordinance provided for the ex-
amination of ships arriving in the colony;27 “persons of non-Asiatic race or
nationality and all Indians” who arrived in the colony without being ex-
amined upon arrival were required to report themselves at a police station
within twelve hours of their arrival.28 The 1916 ordinance required persons
in the colony to furnish certain particulars for registration with the police.29
It is noteworthy, however, that “persons of Chinese race” were among the
groups exempted from the ordinance20 The Deportation Ordinance 1917,
consolidating and amending the law relating to deportation as contained in
the Deportation Ordinances of 1912-15,31 conferred upon the Governor in
Council wide powers to deport persons, particularly non-British subjects.32
British subjects, however, could only be deported under more limited
circumstances. 33

The systems of immigration control and registration of persons were
further developed in 1934 by the Immigration and Passports Ordinance34
and the Registration of Persons Ordinance35 of that year. The former ex-
tended the 1923 system by setting out nine categories of “undesirable
immigrants” 36 who might be refused permission to land upon arrival by
ship.37 In requiring persons entering the colony to possess travel documents
and (in the case of non-British subjects) visas, 38 the ordinance followed the

24Ordinance No. 19 of 1915.
2-Ordinance No. 6 of 1916.
26Ordinance No. 25 of 1917.
27Travellers Restrictions Ordinance 1915, supra, note 24, s. 3.
28Ibid., ss 4, 10, and the Schedule.
29Registration of Persons Ordinance 1916, supra, note 25, s. 2.
3OSee the first schedule to the Ordinance, ibid.
31Deportation Ordinance 1917, supra, note 26, s. 15.
32Ibid., ss 3(1), 3(2), 4.
331bid., s. 4(14).
34Ordinance No. 8 of 1934.
35Ordinance No. 3 of 1934.
36This is a term used in the long title of the Immigration and Passports Ordinance 1934,

supra, note 34.

38lbid., ss 8, 9.

37Ibid., ss 4(1), 2(4). It may be noted that most Chinese immigrants from the mainland
arrived by land by crossing the northern frontier of the New Territories. They would not
therefore be subject to this system of control on persons arriving by sea.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

1923 ordinance in exempting persons of Chinese race from the require-
ment.39 The Registration of Persons Ordinance 1934 repealed the Travellers
Restrictions Ordinance 1915 and the Registration of Persons Ordinance
1916,40 and required every alien (non-British subjects) in the colony, “other
than an alien of Chinese race”, to register with the police.4 1

In 1931 the population of Hong Kong was estimated to be 850,000,42
but this figure was to be doubled in the next decade. Japanese invasion of
China began in 1931 with the military occupation of Manchuria. Further
attempts to control northern China led to open war between the two nations
in 1937. In 1938, the fall of Guangzhou (Canton), situated ninety miles
north of Hong Kong, led to a mass flight of refugees to Hong Kong. About
100,000 refugees entered the colony in 1937, 500,000 in 1938 and 150,000
in 1939, bringing the population to an estimated 1,639,000 in 1941. 43

It was said that at the height of the refugee influx, about half a million
people were sleeping in the streets of Hong Kong.44 It was clear that the
colony’s resources could no longer cope with the situation. Thus in 1940,
the Hong Kong government attempted –
for the first time in the history
of the colony –
to control immigration of Chinese from mainland China,
by introducing the Immigration Control Ordinance 1940,45 which repealed
and replaced the Immigration and Passports Ordinance 1934.46 The 1940
ordinance empowered 47 the colony’s immigration officers to refuse permis-
sion to land or enter (or to remain after landing in or entering) the colony
in relation to any person not in possession of relevant travel documents,
visas (in cases of non-British subjects), or entry permits, frontier passes or
certificates of residence issued under the ordinance. 48 Unlike its predecessor,
no exemption was made in respect of persons of Chinese race. The ordinance
thus abolished, at least in legal theory, the traditional freedom of persons
of Chinese race to enter and stay in the colony without restrictions.

However, the law in the books was not to be the law in action. The
new system of immigration control was not effectively enforced, and during

39Ibid., s. 7.
40Travellers Restrictions Ordinance 1915, supra, note 24; Registration of Persons Ordinance

1916, supra, note 25.

41Registration of Persons Ordinance 1934, supra, note 35, ss 8, 2. This basic principle was
not changed when the Registration of Persons Ordinance 1934 was repealed and replaced by
the Registration of Persons Ordinance 1939, Ordinance No. 12 of 1939.

42Podmore, supra, note 11 at 24; Endacott, supra, note 10 at 289.
43Hong Kong 1984, supra, note 2 at 247; Endacott, supra, note 10 at 289.
44Hong Kong 1984, supra, note 2 at 247; Podmore, supra, note 11 at 24.
45Ordinance No. 32 of 1940.
46Ibid., s. 23 repealed the Immigration and Passports Ordinance 1934, supra, note 34.
47Supra, note 45, s. 9.
48Ibid., s. 12.

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

1941 large numbers of migrants continued to come to Hong Kong.49 A new
immigration department of the government was in fact formed in 1940 to
take over the former functions of the police in this domain, but it did not
survive the Pacific War 50 during which Hong Kong itself was taken over
by Japanese forces. This took place in December 1941, and Hong Kong was
occupied by the Japanese until August 1945. Poor economic conditions in
Hong Kong during the occupation forced large numbers of people to leave
the territory for other parts of mainland China. By August 1945, the pop-
ulation had been reduced to 600,000.51

III. 1945-1970

After the Japanese surrender, many former Hong Kong residents who
had moved into China during the war returned, at the rate of almost 100,000
a month. 52 Another new and huge influx of immigrants, unparalleled in
Hong Kong’s previous history, developed in the late 1940s, when civil war
broke out in China between the Kuomintang (Nationalist Party) and the
Communists. A United Nations report estimated that 1,285,000 people ar-
rived in the colony between September 1945 and December 1949.53 Another
source reported that from the beginning of 1949 to the spring of 1950, which
was the period of the defeat of the Kuomintang forces on the mainland and
the establishment of the P.R.C., 776,000 refugees crowded into the colony,
so that by 1950 the population had risen to 2,360,000. 54

The severe strain on the colony’s financial and social resources caused
by the unprecedented migration wave made the Hong Kong government
realize that the century-old policy of open frontier with mainland China
could no longer be maintained.55 A new system of immigration control was
therefore introduced in 1949 with the enactment of the Immigrants Control
Ordinance 1949.56 It was provided that no person may enter the colony
save under and in accordance with a permit of the Immigration Officer.57
Furthermore, no person may enter the colony without either a travel doc-

Immigration, supra, note 4.

Kong 1841-1962 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1964) at 197.

49Podmore, supra, note 11 at 24.
50Hong Kong: The Facts –
51Hong Kong 1984, supra, note 2 at 247; Harris, supra, note 17 at 82.
52Hong Kong 1984, supra, note 2 at 247; G.B. Endacott, Government and People in Hong
53E. Hambro, The Problem of Chinese Refugees in Hong Kong (Leyden, 1955) 148, cited in
54Endacott, supra, note 52 at 197; Hong Kong Government Information Service, Hong Kong
Annual Report 1951 (Hong Kong: Government Press, 1952) at 23; Endacott, supra, note 10 at
310.

Podmore, supra, note I I at 25.

55Endacott, supra, note 52 at 5.
56 Ordinance No. 4 of 1949.
571bid., s. 4.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

ument or an entry permit, certificate of residence or frontier pass issued
under the ordinance. 58 No exception applied to persons of Chinese race.
Like the Immigrants Control Ordinance 1940, the 1949 ordinance provided
for a number of categories of undesirable immigrants (an immigrant being
defined as a person other than one born in the colony and in possession of
documentary proof of such birth)59 whom the Immigration Officer may
prohibit from landing in the colony.60 However, the 1949 law departed from
the previous approach to registration of persons by requiring all aliens (i.e.
non-British subjects) to register with the Registrar of Aliens and not pro-
viding any exception in respect of persons of Chinese race.6 1 The new law
also provided stricter treatment of illegal immigrants, that is to say, im-
migrants who entered the colony in breach of the requirements of the or-
dinance, by making it a criminal offence to contravene or to fail to comply
with any provision of the ordinance. 62 Hence a person who entered the
colony without a permit from the Immigration Officer thereby committed
an offence under the ordinance and would “upon conviction be liable in
addition to expulsion from the Colony by order of the convicting
magistrate. ’63

A legislative measure related to the Immigrants Control Ordinance 1949
was the Registration of Persons Ordinance 1949.64 The ordinance intro-
duced, for the first time in the history of the colony, a comprehensive system
of compulsory registration 65 extending to all persons in the colony,66 in-
cluding persons of Chinese race who had previously been exempted from
the registration requirement under the Registration of Persons Ordinance
1934. Also for the first time in Hong Kong’s history, a system for the issue
of identity cards to all registered persons was introduced. 67 Applicants for
registration had to submit to the recording of fingerprints and the taking of
photographs by the authorities. 68 Failure to apply to be registered under the
ordinance was made a criminal offence punishable by a fine not exceeding
$2,000 and imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.69

SSIbid., s. 18.
59Ibid., s. 2(d).
6OIbid., s. 11.
611bid., s. 24.
62Ibid., s. 33(1), (2).
63Ibid., s. 33(3); see also s. 11(5) regarding arrest and return of illegal immigrants.
6Ordinance No. 37 of 1949.
6Slbid., s. 4(1).
66Some limited exceptions were provided in s. 15, ibid. These included, for example, travellers

in transit through the colony and children under the age of 12 years.

67Ibid., s. 10.
6S1bid., s. 7, and regulations 11, 12 of the Registration of Persons Rules 1949 made under

the ordinance.
69Ibid., s. 12.

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

In May 1950 the Hong Kong government first used its powers under
the Immigrants Control Ordinance 1949 to restrict entry of immigrants at
the Hong Kong-P.R.C. border by a daily quota system. 70 Only those to whom
the Hong Kong immigration authorities granted permits to enter were al-
lowed to enter. However, the policy exempted natives of Guangdong pro-
vince from the requirement of entry permits, so that such persons were still
permitted to come to Hong Kong relatively freely.71 It is interesting to note
that the introduction of immigration control in 1950 prompted a formal
protest on 8 May 1950 by the Foreign Ministry of the P.R.C. to the U.K.
government, asserting that the measure was “an unreasonable and un-
friendly act towards the P.R.C. and its people.”’72 This probably reflected
the P.R.C. view that Hong Kong was Chinese territory and that therefore
the right of Chinese to enter Hong Kong should not be excluded or limited.73

In the 1950s and 1960s – with the exception of the year 1962 –

immigration from mainland China ceased to be the main factor in Hong
Kong’s population growth, because China imposed stringent exit controls
on Chinese citizens and the Hong Kong-P.R.C. border was closely watched
on both sides. 74 The exception year of 1962, a time of agricultural and
economic difficulties on the mainland, saw a sudden relaxation on exit
control on the part of the Chinese authorities. A “great exodus” ‘ 75 of migrants
into Hong Kong took place. It was estimated that the influx of the year
added 200,000 people to Hong Kong’s population, pushing the figure up to
3.5 million in 1962, even though many illegal immigrants arrested in the
border area were returned to the mainland.76

Although the problem of illegal immigration was not considered to be
serious in other years of the 1950s and 1960s, relatively small numbers of

70Endacott, supra, note 10 at 310; Hong Kong Government Information Service, Hong Kong

1987 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1987) at 222.

71Hong Kong: The Facts –

Immigration, supra, note 4; Hong Kong 1987, supra, note 70 at

222.

72Hong Kong’s Future Research Society, Hong Kong’s Future (Hong Kong: Hong Kong’s
Future Research Society, 1982) at 31 (in Chinese); Wide Angle Press, eds, Hong Kong and
China (Hong Kong: Wide Angle Press, 1981) at 9 (in Chinese).

73Lui, supra, note 12 at 3. For the same reason, after the P.R.C. started to impose stringent
exit controls on Chinese citizens in 1951, the Chinese government did not request the Hong
Kong government to repatriate Chinese who left the P.R.C. unlawfully: ibid.

Immigration, supra, note 4.

74Podmore, supra, note 11 at 25.
“Hong Kong: The Facts –
76At the peak of the immigrant traffic on 23 May 1962, 5,620 illegal immigrants were arrested
in the border area, and 5,112 were returned to China: see HongKong: TheFacts –
Immigration,
supra, note 4. According to Podmore, supra, note 11 at 38-39, over 60,000 people were arrested
and returned to China in 6 weeks in April to May 1962, and it was estimated that a similar
number succeeded evading arrest in the same period.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

illegal immigrants did continue to come to Hong Kong, in addition to legal
immigrants –
those granted exit permits by the Chinese authorities and
permitted to enter and stay in Hong Kong by the Hong Kong government.
The colony of Hong Kong, which possesses many deserted coastlines and
includes many sparsely populated islands, offered good opportunities for
illegal entry.77 When illegal immigrants were intercepted, whether they
would be repatriated or allowed to stay depended entirely on how the im-
migration authorities exercised their discretion in deciding whether to grant
permission to enter.78 The law did provide that any person dissatisfied with
the exercise of any discretion or decision under the ordinance may appeal
to the Governor in Council,79 but persons repatriated immediately on arrest
would hardly be able to avail themselves of such a channel of appeal.

The legal machinery for immigration control was refined and improved
in 1958 by the enactment of the Immigration (Control and Offences) Or-
dinance,80 which replaced the Immigrants Control Ordinance 1949. The
basic elements of the 1949 legislation were retained, but some supplemen-
tary provisions were added. In particular, more detailed rules were intro-
duced to deal specifically with illegal immigrants, i.e. those who had entered
without the permission of the immigration authorities and subsequently
discovered in the colony. It was expressly provided that an illegal immigrant
could remain in the colony if he was granted a permit to do so by the
immigration authorities. 81 Such permit may be subject to various
conditions 82 and limits83 of stay. On the other hand, if the authorities de-
cided not to grant such a permit to an illegal immigrant, the latter could
be arrested and repatriated by an order of the Governor.8 4 For the first time,
the harbouring of an illegal immigrant was made a statutory offence. 85 In
1961, an Immigration Department, separate and distinct from the police,
was established by the Hong Kong government to deal with the increasing
volume of immigration work.8 6

Under the legal framework described above, whether illegal immigrants
were strictly dealt with and repatriated or leniently treated and permitted

77Podmore, supra, note 11 at 37.
78Immigrants Control Ordinance 1949, supra, note 56, ss 2, 18.
791bid., s. 35; Immigration (Control and Offences) Ordinance 1958, infra, note 80.
80Ordinance No. 34 of 1958.
81Ibid., s. 4.
821bid., s. 15.
831bid., s. 22.
84Ibid., s. 11(5)(c). Compare this with s. 33(3) of the Immigrants Control Ordinance 1949,
supra, note 56, under which the power to order expulsion was vested in a magistrate and not
the Governor.

85Supra, note 80, s. 40.
86Hong Kong: The Facts –

Immigration, supra, note 4.

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

to stay was a matter of executive policy from time to time. Following the
“great exodus” of 1962, the pronounced policy was that illegal immigrants
from mainland China would be repatriated, though a limited number of
entry permits were also issued, after making allowances for individual cir-
cumstances, to enable some of these immigrants to stay. The result was that
an average of a few thousand illegal immigrants per year from mainland
China were absorbed in the period 1963-67.87 In 1967, the Hong Kong
government decided to resume a more open door policy. In most cases,
illegal entrants from mainland China who were discovered in Hong Kong
would not be repatriated but would simply be required to report to the
authorities to obtain entry permits for the purpose of regularizing their stay.88
This lenient policy continued until 1974, which saw changes to be discussed
in the next part of this essay.

IV. 1971-1980

A. The Immigration Ordinance 1971

The year 1971 marked the beginning of a new stage of the history of
immigration law in Hong Kong with the enactment of the Immigration
Ordinance 1971.89 The ordinance consolidated and revised the existing im-
migration and deportation laws90 as contained in the Immigration (Control
and Offences) Ordinance 1958, the Deportation (British Subjects) Ordinance
193691 and the Deportation of Aliens Ordinance 1935.92 The main features
of the two latter ordinances are reviewed here to facilitate understanding
of the background to the 1971 ordinance.

The 1935 and 1936 ordinances were passed to replace the deportation
law previously set out in the Deportation Ordinance 1917, which has been
mentioned above. As regards aliens (i.e. non-British subjects), the 1935
ordinance extended the deportation powers of the Governor in Council,
empowering it, inter alia, “to make summarily a deportation order against
the alien” if it “deems it to be conducive to the public good.”‘ 93 As against
British subjects, the 1936 ordinance also granted increased deportation pow-

87Lui, supra, note 12 at 5.
88Ibid.. Podmore, supra, note 11 at 38.
89Ordinance No. 55 of 1971.
9As pointed out in the explanatory memorandum of the bill, reprinted in Hong Kong Han-

sard, 1970-71 at 786.

91Ordinance No. 16 of 1936.
92Ordinance No. 39 of 1935.
93Ibid., s. 3(l)(c). Section 17 provided that the decision of the Governor in Council as to
whether any person was liable to deportation or should be deported shall be final and conclusive
for all purposes whatsoever.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

ers compared to the 1917 legislation. However, a British subject who was
born in Hong Kong or who had been ordinarily resident in Hong Kong
continuously for a period of seven years could not be deported. 94 The or-
dinance also provided that no deportation order may be made against a
British subject unless a court had so recommended or unless the Governor
in Council decided to make the order after considering a report by a judge
on the matter.95 There were other provisions 96 which effectively guaranteed
a higher degree of procedural due process compared to the procedure for
deportation of aliens. The Immigration Ordinance 1971 was described by
a legislative councillor at the time of its enactment as “probably the most
important measure that has come before this Council in the past few
years.”’97 Its importance lies in the fact that it not only consolidated and
amended the existing deportation and immigration laws but also introduced,
for the first time in Hong Kong’s history, the definitions of three categories
of Hong Kong residents, which collectively embraced almost all people
resident in Hong Kong. The three groups may be briefly described as
follows: 98

(1) Hong Kong Belongers: All British subjects born in Hong Kong were
included in this category.99 It should be noted that under the then existing
British nationality law as set out in the British Nationality Act 1948, the
general rule was that every person born within the United Kingdom or its
colonies was a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (“C.U.K.C.”)
and also a British subject. Under that Act, “British subject” had the same
meaning as “Commonwealth citizen”, and the terms embraced C.U.K.C.s
as well as the citizens of some Commonwealth countries. Hong Kong Be-
longers had “the right to land in Hong Kong” 100 and could not therefore
be refused entry by Hong Kong’s immigration authorities10’ or made subject
to conditions of stay.102 They also had a full right to reside in Hong Kong

94Deportation (British Subjects) Ordinance 1936, supra, note 91, ss 3, 2(2).
95Ibid., s. 4.
96Ibid., ss 5-8, 9(3).
97Hong Kong Hansard, 1971-72 at 103 (13 October 1971; 0. Cheung).
98For a more detailed analysis, see W.S. Clarke, “Hong Kong Immigration Control: The Law

and the Bureaucratic Maze” (1986) 16 Hong Kong L.J. 342.

99See the definition of Hong Kong Belonger in section 2 of the ordinance. The section also
provided that a British subject who was married to or was the child of a Hong Kong Belonger
was also a Hong Kong Belonger. Apart from birth as a British subject in Hong Kong, the status
of Hong Kong Belonger could also be acquired by naturalization or registration as a British
subject in Hong Kong (under section 7(2) of the British Nationality Act 1948 (U.K.), 11 & 12
Geo. 6, c. 56.

1’0 Immigration Ordinance 1971, supra, note 89, s. 8(1)(a).
0lOIbid., s. 7(a).
l2Ibid., s. 8(2).

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

in the sense that they could not be removed’0 3 or deported 0 4 from the
colony.

(2) Chinese Residents: This concept did not exist in the original bill for the
ordinance but was inserted when the ordinance was passed in response to
public criticism of the failure of the bill to give due recognition of the rights
of non-British Chinese residents in Hong Kong.105 The introduction of pro-
visions about “Chinese residents” in the Immigration Ordinance 1971 was
thus intended to give them “a greater feeling of security”‘ 0 6 as regards their
rights of residence in Hong Kong. Chinese Residents were defined as non-
Hong Kong Belongers (i.e. persons who did not fall within the definition of
Hong Kong Belongers) who were “wholly or partly of Chinese race” and
had “at any time been ordinarily resident in Hong Kong for a continuous
period of not less than seven years.”‘ 1 7 Thus Chinese Residents referred
mainly to Chinese born outside Hong Kong who had emigrated to Hong
Kong and stayed for seven years or more. These people were given a general
right to land in Hong Kong,10 8 but their right of residence in Hong Kong
was, relatively speaking, more limited than that of Hong Kong Belongers
because they may be the subject of a deportation order by the Governor in
Council. Such a deportation order could only be made if the person had
been convicted in Hong Kong of an offence punishable with imprisonment
for not less than two years, or if the Governor in Council deemed it to be
conducive to the public good, 109 and the law also provided some procedural
safeguards 10 by prohibiting a deportation order against a Chinese Resident
from being made except (a) on the recommendation of a court, (b) after
consideration of a deportation tribunal’s report, or (c) “where the Governor
certifies that the case concerns the security of Hong Kong or the relations
of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom with another
country.”‘ 1 ‘

(3) Resident United Kingdom Belongers: This term referred to C.U.K.C.s
by reason of birth, adoption, naturalization or registration in the U.K. (in-
cluding the wife and child of such a person) who had been ordinarily resident

1031bid., ss 18, 19(2).
141bid.,
105See the second reading debate on the bill in Hong Kong Hansard, 1971-72 at 101-09 (13

s. 20.

October 1971).

72 at 109 (13 October 1971).

106Speech of the Attorney General during the debate on the bill, Hong Kong Hansard, 1971-

107See the definition of “Chinese resident” in s. 2 of the Immigration Ordinance 1971, supra,

note 89.

08Ibid., s. 8(1)(c).
s. 20(2).
191bid.,
“t0lbid., s. 20(3).
“‘Ibid., s. 20(3)(c).

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years. 12 Their
right to land in Hong Kong”l3 and their possible liability to deportation
were similar to those of Chinese Residents, except that the grounds on which
Resident United Kingdom Belongers could be deported were more limited
than those applicable to Chinese Residents: the former could only be de-
ported “if the Governor in Council deems it to be conclusive to the public
good on the ground that the departure of such person from Hong Kong is
necessary in the interest of the security of Hong Kong or for political reasons
affecting the relations of Her Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom
with another country.”‘ ” 4
(4) Others. People not falling into any of the three categories above have” 5
no inherent right to land in Hong Kong and may only enter Hong Kong
with the permission of the immigration authorities,” 6 who can in their
discretion give permission to land or remain in Hong Kong subject to such
conditions of stay as they may impose. 17 They have the power to authorize
persons who landed in Hong Kong unlawfully to remain in Hong Kong.” 8
Thus each illegal immigrant arriving from mainland China who is discov-
ered in Hong Kong may either be given permission to remain or be removed
from Hong Kong. The latter alternative is governed by a set of express
provisions on the making of removal orders, which may be made against
persons who do not have a right to land in Hong Kong and have entered
or remained in Hong Kong without the permission of the immigration
authorities or in breach of conditions of stay subject to which such per-
mission had been granted.” 9

In addition to the possibility of being removed, illegal immigrants are
also liable to criminal punishment under the ordinance. It is a criminal
offence for a person (not having the right to land in Hong Kong) to land
or remain in Hong Kong without permission. The maximum punishment
was a fine of HK$5,000 and imprisonment for three years.’ 20 Captains and
owners of ships carrying illegal immigrants landing or seeking to land in

” 2See the definitions of “resident United Kingdom belongers” and “United Kingdom be-

longers”, ibid., s. 2.
“‘Ibid., s. 8(l)(b).
“41bid., s. 20(4).
“‘The present tense is used here and at appropriate places below in describing a point of
law which has not changed since the introduction of the legislation under discussion and which
is therefore still valid at present.

“6Ibid., ss 7, 11.
17Ibid., s. 11.
“81bid., s. 13.
1191bid., s. 19.
120lbid., s. 38(1).

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

Hong Kong are also guilty of an offence, 121 and the ships are liable to for-
feiture. 122 Finally, it should also be noted that a person (not having a right
to land in Hong Kong) who has been granted permission to land or remain
in Hong Kong commits a criminal offence if he contravenes a condition to
stay subject to which the permission has been granted. 123

Even if such a person has not directly contravened any relevant con-
ditions of stay, a removal order or deportation order can still be made against
him in certain situations. Firstly, if such a person has only been ordinarily
resident in Hong Kong for less than three years, he can be removed if he
is considered an “undesirable immigrant.”‘ 124 Secondly, such a person can
be deported by the Governor in Council if he has been convicted in Hong
Kong of an offence punishable with imprisonment for not less than two
years or if the Governor in Council deems it to be conducive to the public
good.125

Looking at the Immigration Ordinance 1971 as a whole and from a
historical point of view, its most significant feature lies probably in the
introduction of the “right to land in Hong Kong” and the corresponding
limitation on removal and deportation powers against those who possess
this right, which together pointed to, though they did not amount to a clear
formulation of, a right of abode in the territory. Before 1971, immigration
authorities had in law an almost unfettered discretion in granting or not
granting permission to enter Hong Kong.126 The 1971 ordinance took away
the discretion as far as Hong Kong Belongers, Chinese Residents and Res-
ident United Kingdom Belongers were concerned. However, the existence
of deportation powers against the two latter groups, and the wide and vague
terms in which the condition for the exercise of such powers were formu-

’21Ibid., ss 38(4), 39.
s. 47.
1221bid.,
231bid., s. 41.
1241bid., s. 19(1)(c). Although the ordinance defined “immigrant” as “a person who is not a
Hong Kong belonger”, there was no definition of “undesirable immigrant” in the ordinance.
It should be noted that the making of a removal order against a United Kingdom Belonger
(i.e. a C.U.K.C. by reason of birth, adoption, naturalization or registration in the U.K.) on this
ground was subject to a special procedural safeguard (regarding the holding of an inquiry by
a deportation tribunal) in s. 19(3).

125Ibid., s. 20(l). Again the making of a deportation order against a United Kingdom Belonger

was subject to special procedural safeguards in s. 20(3).

126See the previous discussion in this article on the Immigrants Control Ordinance 1949,
supra, note 56, and Immigration (Control and Offences) Ordinance 1958, supra, note 80 and
accompanying text.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

lated,127 meant that these two groups of people did not possess a full right
of abode in the colony.

The power to make deportation orders is not merely of academic or
theoretical significance. It is a real power that was actually exercised from
time to time not only to remove criminals from the territory, 128 but also in
accordance with the needs of the sensitive political climate in the colony.
For example, in the early 1950s, when tense relations existed between the
P.R.C. and Britain, some pro-P.R.C. trade union activists and writers in
Hong Kong were deported. 129 It has also been pointed out that in later
periods, when Sino-British relations had improved, the deportation power
has also been used against spy rings and agents of Taiwan and the Soviet
Union in Hong Kong, probably in deference to the wishes of the P.R.C.
government. 30

In relation to the admission of and permission to stay for persons who
were not Hong Kong Belongers, Chinese Residents or Resident United King-
dom Belongers, the discretionary powers of the immigration authorities
have remained unfettered under the scheme of the 1971 ordinance. In prac-
tice, however, it is known that they exercise their powers in accordance with
definite policy guidelines which are applied in a rather rigid and inflexible
manner.’ 31 Hence a characteristic of the system is that changes, even major
changes, in immigration policies can often be made without necessitating
legislative debate and amendment. In other words, Hong Kong’s immigra-
tion law has been able to accommodate a wide range of different policy
options towards different types of immigrants to Hong Kong.

One example of a change in policy but not in law relates to the ad-
mission of Commonwealth citizens. Before 1969, Commonwealth citizens,
unlike non-Chinese aliens, were generally permitted to enter Hong Kong
without a visa, even for the purpose of residence or employment. In 1969,

127See the criticism in Clarke, supra, note 98 at 355-56. The writer concluded that “the power
to deport Chinese residents, resident British citizens and resident United Kingdom belongers
is so wide as to permit the deportation of persons simply because they express views which
are unpopular or contrary to the official position.” For the definitions of “Chinese residents”
and “resident British citizens”, see Part IV, section A, above.
1281n 1976, 90 deportation orders were approved by the Governor in Council: see Hong Kong
1977, supra, note 70 at 136. In 1977, 79 such orders were made (see Hong Kong Government
Information Service, Hong Kong 1978 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1978) at 135). Most
of the orders were against persons convicted of criminal offences.

129Hong Kong and China, supra, note 72 at 11-12.
‘ 30N.J. Miners, The Government and Politics ofHong Kong, 3d ed. (Hong Kong: Oxford
131See generally Clarke, supra, note 98 at 358ff; A. Hicks, “Admission of Foreign Domestic
Helpers: Some Legal Issues” (1983) 13 Hong Kong L.J. 194. The guidelines have not been
published in a form available to the general public.

University Press, 1981) at 21.

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

in view of the increasing numbers of unskilled immigrants entering the
colony, immigration controls on aliens were extended to Commonwealth
citizens, except that persons born in Hong Kong or the U.K., or naturalized
or registered as British subjects in Hong Kong or the U.K., were still exempt
from the controls. 132 The policy was further tightened in 1972, when United
Kingdom Belongers (as defined in the Immigration Ordinance 1971) were
also required to obtain permission before they could enter and remain in
Hong Kong. 133

Another fundamental rule of policy implemented by Hong Kong’s im-
migration authorities is that intended immigrants from mainland China
who have been granted “one-way exit permits” by the P.R.C. authorities
have invariably been given permission by Hong Kong’s immigration au-
thorities to enter and remain in Hong Kong.134 Such immigrants are known
as “legal immigrants”, in contrast to illegal immigrants –
those who have
entered Hong Kong without permission by physically evading the immi-
gration control system. Apart from the “one-way exit permits” mentioned
above, “two-way exit permits” are also issued by the P.R.C. authorities to
enable mainland residents to visit Hong Kong for a limited period and then
to return to China. Again, Hong Kong’s immigration authorities invariably
grant permission to holders of such permits to enter Hong Kong and remain
in Hong Kong for the relevant period. Indeed, the conditions of stay pro-
vided for in the permission by the Hong Kong authorities are usually iden-
tical to the conditions set out in the two-way exit permit granted by P.R.C.
authorities. 135

B. The Policy Towards Illegal Immigrants

While the policy to admit holders of P.R.C.-issued one-way exit permits
as legal immigrants has been a consistent one, the treatment of illegal im-
migrants was the subject of policy changes made in response to changes in
the rate of illegal immigration. This topic was partially covered in Part II

132Hong Kong Government Information Service, Hong Kong Annual Report 1969 (Hong

Kong: Government Press, 1970) at 149.

133Hong Kong: The Facts –

Immigration, supra, note 4. They are normally given such
permission subject to an initial limitation on the length of stay: see Clarke, supra, note 98 at
359.

134Clarke, supra, note 98 at 360; W.S. Clarke, “Freedom of Movement” in R. Wacks, ed.,
Civil Liberties in Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Oxford University Press, 1988) c. 11 at 327, es-
pecially note 31. See also Hong Kong Hansard, 1973-74 at 844 (8 May 1974; Secretary for
Security); Hong Kong Hansard, 1980-81 at 103 (23 October 1980; Governor); Hong Kong
Hansard, 1986-87 at 828 (18 February 1987; Secretary for Security).
13SClarke, supra, note 98 at 360. The writer commented on this system as follows at 360-
61: “So automatically does the Hong Kong Immigration Department implement the conditions
imposed by the mainland authorities that the question of unlawful subdelegation is raised.”

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

of this essay. In the 1970s, the turning point in the policy towards illegal
immigrants from mainland China came in November 1974. Before that, as
discussed above, the prevailing policy adopted since 1967 was an “open
door” one, allowing most (though not all) of the illegal immigrants from
mainland China to stay in Hong Kong. This policy did not survive 1973,
a year in which an estimated 56,000 illegal immigrants arrived from the
mainland.136 This was a dramatic increase compared to the figures for the
preceding years: in the whole of the decade 1962-72, the total number of
illegal immigrants from China was about 60,000, only 4,000 above the figure
for the single year of 1973.137 A new policy, taking effect on 30 November
1974, was therefore introduced to deal with the situation. This policy has
become known as the “touch-base” or “reach-base” policy: illegal immi-
grants who were arrested in the border region or on Hong Kong territorial
waters during their attempt to enter Hong Kong would be repatriated, but
all others who evaded immediate capture, entered the urban areas and sub-
sequently gained a home with relatives or otherwise found proper accom-
modation (i.e. those who “reached base”) would be given permission to
stay in Hong Kong when they applied for it at the Immigration Depart-
ment. 138 The rationale for leniency to those who “reached base” was to
avoid the creation of an underground community of second-class residents
who were compelled to live on the fringe of society and likely to resort to
criminal activities in order to survive. 139

The change in policy in 1974 only affected illegal immigrants; mainland
residents who obtained permission from the P.R.C. authorities to leave
mainland China and settle in Hong Kong continued to be accepted as legal
immigrants. For example, in 1974, Hong Kong accepted 36,224 legal im-
migrants, mostly from China. 140 In 1976 and 1977, the figures for immi-
grants from China were approximately 27,500 and 34,000.141 But before we
return to the topic of immigrants from mainland China in the next section
of this essay, let us now turn to another major source of immigration into
Hong Kong in the late 1970s – Vietnamese refugees.

136Lui, supra, note 12 at 5.
1371bid.
138Hong Kong 1981 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1981) at 145; A.H.Y. Chen, “Judicial
Review of Immigration Tribunal Decisions” (1985) 15 Hong Kong L.J. 212, 213, especially
note 8; Lui, supra, note 12 at 6; Harris, supra, note 17 at 86; Clarke, supra, note 98 at 361.
139Hong Kong 1981, ibid. at 145; Lui, supra, note 12 at 6; Hong Kong Hansard, 1980-81 at

104 (23 October 1980; Governor).

14Hong Kong Government Information Service, HongKong 1975 (Hong Kong: Government

Printer, 1975) at 123.

141Hong Kong Government Information Service, HongKong 1977 (Hong Kong: Government
Printer, 1977) at 136; Hong Kong Government Information Service, Hong Kong 1978 (Hong
Kong: Government Printer, 1978) at 135.

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

C. The Arrival of Vietnamese Refugees

Vietnamese refugees started to arrive in Hong Kong after the fall of
Saigon to the Communists in April 1975. Most of them came in small boats
hence the name “boat people”; some were however rescued at sea by
–
ocean-going vessels, 142 and there were also several occasions in which they
came in chartered ships. In contrast to the policy of repatriating illegal
immigrants from mainland China, the Hong Kong government regarded
these “boat people” as refugees and granted temporary asylum to them in
accordance with international law regarding refugees.At this point it may
be noted that there have never existed any statutory rules regarding either
the definition or treatment of “refugees” in Hong Kong. The concept of
refugees has never been openly invoked by the Hong Kong government in
dealing with immigrants from mainland China. The U.K. government has,
for reasons which have not been made explicit, refrained from extending
to the colony of Hong Kong the 1951 convention 143 and 1967 protocol 44
relating to the status of refugees. 145 One writer speculated that “the British
Government has been wary of the possibility of encouraging the flow of
illegal immigrants from China (who might claim refugee status in Hong
Kong) and of potential difficulties with the Chinese authorities who might
have raised objections to the designation of arrivals from China as “‘ref-
ugees’ in what they consider to be, in the final analysis, a part of Chinese
territory.”‘ 146 Although there existed no Hong Kong law on refugees and on
their right to asylum, the Hong Kong government adhered to the “first port
of call principle”1 47 in relation to the boat people from Vietnam, who were
designated refugees in accordance with administrative procedures: 148 ship-
wrecked survivors rescued by ocean-going vessels whose next scheduled port
of call was Hong Kong would be allowed to land in Hong Kong. Refugees
coming on small ships or boats were also allowed ashore: the policy was
not to turn away persons in such vessels in circumstances in which loss of
life may occur. 49 Thus, generally speaking, temporary refuge was extended
to Vietnamese refugees for whom Hong Kong was a “country of first asy-
lum”, pending their permanent resettlement in other countries;150 the prin-

vessels to Hong Kong as the next scheduled port of call: see Lui, supra, note 12 at 16.

1420f all the refugees arriving from Vietnam in 1975-1982, less than ten were brought by
143Convention of 28 July 1951, 189 U.N.T.S. 137.
‘”Protocol of 31 Jan. 1967, 606 U.N.T.S. 267.
145R. Mushkat, “Refugees in Hong Kong: Legal Provisions and Policies” (1980) 10 Hong

Kong L.J. 169 at 172.

146Ibid.
147Mushkat, supra, note 145 at 173-74.
148For details concerning such procedures, see ibid. at 177-78.
149Hong Kong Hansard 1978-79 1038 (1 August 1979; Secretary for Security).
150R. Mushkat, “Hong Kong as a Country of Temporary Refuge: An Interim Analysis” (1982)

12 Hong Kong L.J. 157 at 171.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

ciple of non-refoulement –
that a refugee should not be forcibly returned
to a country where he is likely to suffer political persecution – was fol-
lowed.15 1 Thus as from 1975, camps were set up by the government in Hong
Kong to provide temporary accommodation for the Vietnamese refugees,
and arrangements were made through the United Nations High Commis-
sioner for Refugees (U.N.H.C.R.) for finding permanent homes for them
overseas. 152 A limited number of such refugees were accepted for permanent
resettlement in Hong Kong itself.153 It should be noted that Hong Kong’s
approach to arriving Vietnamese refugees was more humane than that
adopted by most neighbouring Asian countries. 154 In this regard, the desire
of the British government to adhere to international norms regarding treat-
ment of refugees was probably a major factor. However, the expenses of
operating the refugee camps, and of feeding and providing various social
services to the refugees, were largely borne by Hong Kong taxpayers, al-
though the U.N.H.C.R. also shared a portion of the cost.’ 55 In some sections
of the Hong Kong community, there was possibly some resentment at the
government’s policy towards Vietnamese refugees, partly because some of
the services and material benefits which the refugees were provided exceeded
those available to many working class people in Hong Kong itself,156 and
partly because of the contrast between the repatriation of “illegal immi-
grants” from mainland China – many of whom were relatives of Hong
Kong residents – and the indiscriminating admission of all “refugees” from
Vietnam. 5 7 The flexibility of the immigration control scheme under the
Immigration Ordinance 1971 was such that no change in the law to address
the problem of Vietnamese refugees was introduced until 1979, although
such refugees started to come in 1975. The number of arriving refugees was
3,743 in 1975, falling to 191 in 1976, then rising to 1,001 in 1977, 6,678 in
1978 and then dramatically to 74,483 in 1979.158 In the light of the growing
magnitude of the problem and the revelation that syndicates were operating
to ship Vietnamese Chinese to Hong Kong for monetary rewards, the Hong
Kong government decided to introduce legislation in 1979 to impose severe

supra, note 4.

151Mushkat, supra, note 145 at 176.
152Lui,supra, note 12 at 9; Harris,supra, note 17 at 84;Hong Kong: The Facts-Immigration,
153Mushkat, supra, note 145 at 170; Mushkat, supra, note 150 at 169; Hong Kong Government
Information Service, Hong Kong 1982 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1982) at 154. At least
14,000 were so resettled in Hong Kong.
154Mushkat, supra, note 150 at 171-72.
155For example, in 1979 the Hong Kong government incurred HK$70 million in direct

expenditure on the refugees: Mushkat, supra, note 145 at 171.

t56Mushkat, supra, note 145 at 171. The benefits included, for example, rent-free accom-
modation, basic cooking facilities, free-of-charge child-care services for working parents, and
subsidy allowances from the U.N.H.C.R.

t57Mushkat, supra, note 150 at 177.
58Ibid. at 157.

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

penalties on those who organized for profit the illegal shipment of Viet-
namese refugees and other illegal immigrants into Hong Kong. The relevant
law was the Immigration (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 1979,159 which
added the new parts VIIA and VIIB to the existing Immigration Ordi-
nance.1 60 Under the new provisions, it is a criminal offence, punishable by
a maximum fine of HK$5,000,000 and life imprisonment, for crew members
or owners of ships to bring “unauthorised entrants”’16 1 to Hong Kong,’162 or
for any person to arrange or assist the passage to Hong Kong of unauthorised
entrants,1 63 unless the ship has been granted special permission to enter
Hong Kong or unless the ship’s first port of call is Hong Kong and “the
unauthorised entrant was taken on board without reward pursuant to a legal
obligation to go to his assistance.”” 64 Ships used in the commission of such
an offence are liable to forfeiture. 165 The introduction of these relatively
draconian provisions 66 was not, however, aimed at the refugees themselves,
who would continue, in accordance with Hong Kong’s existing humanitarian
refugee policy, to be permitted to stay in Hong Kong pending resettlement
and would not be prosecuted for illegal entry.167 As will be seen in the next
part of this essay, the Vietnamese refugee problem continued to aggravate
after 1979 and eventually led to the introduction of further legislative
measures.

159Ordinance No. 61 of 1979 [hereinafter Immigration Ordinance as amended (1979)].
‘6WIn 1972 the previous Immigration Ordinances were consolidated by L.N. 62/84 as the
Immigration Ordinance, Laws of Hong Kong, c. 115 [hereinafter Immigration Ordinance as
consolidated (1972)]. Sections 37M and 37T of the consolidated ordinance provided for the
expiration of the two parts on 31 December 1980 unless the Legislative Council by resolution
otherwise determined. At the Legislative Council debate on the bill, councillors believed that
the severe measures in the new parts VIIA and VIIB were unusual and of an emergency nature
only: see Hong Kong Hansard, 1978-79 at 1037, 1040 (1 August 1979). However, the two parts
have in fact been continuously extended subsequently and are still in force at present in 1988.
161Vietnamese refugees are unauthorised entrants; so are illegal immigrants from mainland
China: see section 37B of the Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), as amended by
the Immigration (Amendment) (No. 3) Ordinance 1979, supra, note 159, and the Immigration
(Unauthorised Entrants) Order made under the ordinance. Thus the provisions against traf-
ficking in illegal immigrants have been applied to combat illegal immigrants from China as
well as Vietnamese refugees: see the Legislative Council debate on the 1979 ordinance in Hong
Kong Hansard, 1978-79 at 1037-41, notably 1040 (1 August 1979; 0. Cheung) and Hong Kong
Hansard, 1980-81 at 155 (5 November 1980; Attorney General).

’62 lmmigration Ordinance, ibid., ss 37C and 370.
163Ibid., ss 37D and 37P.
164Ibid., ss 371 and 37R.
1651bid., ss 37E and 37Q.
166They may be compared to those in part VIII of the ordinance, ibid., such as ss 38(4) and
39 (on the punishment of captains and owners of ships carrying illegal immigrants to Hong
Kong), which cover similar activities but do not impose such heavy sentences.

1671.e. under s. 38, ibid.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

V. The 1980s

A. The Abolition of the “Reached Base” Policy

October 1980 marked another turning point in Hong Kong’s immigra-
tion policy. To understand the background of this development, it is nec-
essary to review the situation regarding immigration from mainland China
in the late 1970s after the adoption in November 1974 of the policy of
repatriating illegal immigrants caught in the border area but not those who
managed to “reach base.” That policy was indeed effective in bringing down
the number of illegal immigrants in 1975-1977. In these three years, the
numbers of illegal entrants from mainland China arrested on arrival and
repatriated were approximately 1,200, 800 and 1,800 respectively. At the
same time, it was estimated that the numbers of those who evaded capture
at the border and “reached base” in the three years were 6,600, 6,100 and
6,600 respectively.168 However, beginning from 1978, the numbers increased
dramatically, probably as a result of the more relaxed political atmosphere
in China and increased contact between her people and the outside world. 69
In 1978 the numbers of those repatriated and those who reached base rose
to 8,200 and 28,000 respectively, and in 1979 they rose even more sharply
to 90,000 and 108,000.170 The situation continued in the first ten months
of 1980, for which the relevant figures were 80,500 and 69,500
respectively. 171

The flood of immigrants in 1978-1980 was the third major surge of
migration from the mainland to Hong Kong, following the first wave in the
late 1940s and the second in 1962.172 This time it was all the more threat-
ening to Hong Kong because by June 1980, Hong Kong’s population had
reached an estimated 5,067,900, giving a population density of 4,776 persons
per square kilometer 173 and making it one of the most densely populated
places in the world. 174 Among the five million people, nearly 10 per cent
(or, more exactly, 460,000) were immigrants who came to Hong Kong from

168Government Secretariat of the Hong Kong Government, Information Paper on the Back-
ground to the Problem of Illegal Immigration from China into Hong Kong (Hong Kong: Gov-
ernment Printer, 1980) at 5 [hereinafter Information Paper].

Immigration, supra, note 4. See also the attempted explanation

’69Hong Kong: The Facts –

in Harris, supra, note 17 at 85-86.

17Olnformation Paper, supra, note 168 at 5.
171Hong Kong: The Facts –
172Lui, supra, note 12 at 7.
173Lui, supra, note 12 at 7; Information Paper, supra, note 168 at 3. It should also be borne
in mind in this regard that a large portion of Hong Kong’s land is rugged and uninhabitable.
’74In 1980, the density in the Mong Kok district in the urban area of Hong Kong was 145,000

Immigration, supra, note 4.

per square kilometer- Information Paper, supra, note 168 at 3.

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

mainland China since the beginning of 1975,175 and 28,200 were Vietnamese
refugees waiting to resettled. 176 In 1979 the rate of population growth in
Hong Kong was over 5 per cent, and if Vietnamese refugees were also taken
into account, it was 6.3 per cent, over five times the natural growth rate of
1.2 per cent. 177 Given these circumstances, it was widely felt in 1980 that
Hong Kong could no longer continue to absorb the huge influx of immigrants
without experiencing gradual deterioration in the quality of life. In partic-
ular, the existing social services –
such as housing, medical and health
services, education, social welfare, and transport –
and their further de-
velopment as originally planned would not be able to cope with such an
abnormally high rate of population growth. There was also concern about
the involvement of new immigrants in crimes. 178 On 23 October 1980, the
government proposed a piece of legislation which “would radically change
the traditional policy towards illegal immigrants from China”. 179 That law
passed all its
–
three readings in the Legislative Council on that day. In presenting the
proposal, the administration explained that the “reached base” policy was
no longer appropriate in the existing circumstances of Hong Kong. The
policy “has become a tragic charade in which the illegal immigrant has little
to lose and everything to gain by attempting to run the gauntlet of Chinese
and Hong Kong forces, and even if caught has every incentive to try
again.”180 It was therefore decided to introduce the new policy of repatriating
all illegal immigrants regardless of whether they had “reached base” or
not. 181 It is interesting to note that this change of policy would not in itself
have required any legislative action, because under the existing system the
immigration authorities had full power to decide whether an illegal im-
migrant should be allowed to stay or be repatriated. The Immigration
(Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1980182 was therefore designed to facilitate
the enforcement of the new policy rather than to enact the policy itself. It

the Immigration (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 1980 –

at 5.

Hansard, 1980-81 at 111 (23 October 1980; 0. Cheung).

175Ibid. Most of them (about 80%) were farmlaborers before they came to Hong Kong: ibid.
176 lnformation Paper, supra, note 168 at 6.
1771bid. at 3. During 1971-1977, the average annual rate of population growth was 2%.
78See generally Information Paper, supra, note 168; Lui, supra, note 12 at 7-8; Hong Kong
1
179Hong Kong Hansard, 1980-81 at 103 (23 October 1980; Governor).
l8OIbid. at 104.
‘8 1Ibid. The new policy applied to all illegal immigrants entering Hong Kong from China
after 23 October 1980. However, illegal immigrants from China who were already in Hong
Kong on 23 October and who had not yet registered with the authorities were given a period
of three days to do so: ibid. at 105; Information Paper, supra, note 168 at 1.

182Ordinance No. 62 of 1980. As was pointed out by Huggins V.-P. in Mak Yiu-ming v.
Attorney General, [1981] H.K.L.R. 435 at 437 (C.A.), the abolition of the “touched base” policy
was only a change in executive policy; even before 1980, the existing law permitted the re-
patriation of all illegal immigrants, whether they had “reached base” or not.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

made improved provision for the detection and removal of illegal immi-
grants in two ways. First, the ordinance introduced the new Part IVA of the
Immigration Ordinance, which requires all persons in Hong Kong aged
fifteen or above to carry at all times their identity cards or some other
acceptable proof of identity, and to produce them on demand to the police;
failure to do so without reasonable excuse carries liability to a fine of
HK$1,000.’8 3 Persons discovered on identity checks 184 to be illegal immi-
grants will be arrested and repatriated as mentioned below. Secondly, the
new Part IVB of the Immigration Ordinance introduced by the 1980 amend-
ment prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants: it is obligatory for
employers to inspect the identity cards of all those either on their payroll
or whom they wish to recruit, and it is a criminal offence, punishable by a
fine of HK$50,000 or imprisonment for a year, to employ someone without
a relevant identity document. 85 The object of this measure was to debar
illegal immigrants from employment and from earning income, thus deter-
ring them from coming to Hong Kong and forcing those who were in Hong
Kong to surrender to the authorities. The measure was enforced by inspec-
tors of the Labour Department visiting various work places and inspecting
records on employees’ identity. 8 6 In addition to the above, a related policy
was also introduced to discourage illegal immigration to Hong Kong, al-
though this was not expressly provided for in law. It was declared that
production of identity cards would henceforth be needed for the transaction
of day-to-day business with government departments, and, in particular, for
the provision of public service (other than services of an emergency kind
such as urgent medical treatment or the saving of life and property). “[T]he
intention is that all the normal Government services enjoyed by residents
of Hong Kong will be denied to illegal immigrants.”’18 7

The government acknowledged that the new policies would be some-
what painful to enforce, but explained that they were indeed necessitated
by the drastic immigration situation. In the words of the Chief Secretary in
the second reading debate on the 1980 enactment:

The severe problems brought about by illegal immigration are well known.
What has to be done is quite clear: but in taking this essential, no longer
avoidable, action which we propose today, let us be clear also the penalties
which we –
have to pay, the frustrations and problems
with which we shall be presenting ourselves, are very considerable too. It is a

as a community –

183Section 17C of the Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160.
1841n the following four months, police patrolling in the streets checked on the identity

documents of approximately three quarters of a million people: Lui, supra, note 12 at 14.
185Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, ss 17H, 171 and 17J.
18S6bid., ss 17K and 17L. In the following four months, records in 40,000 work places were

inspected: Lui, supra, note 12 at 14.

187Hong Kong Hansard, 1980-81 at 110 (23 October 1923; Chief Secretary).

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

choice of evils. In many ways the Hong Kong of the future will not be the sort
of Hong Kong we all have known until today. 88

Another point to note about the Immigration (Amendment) (No. 2)
Ordinance 1980 is that it altered the existing procedure regarding removal
of illegal immigrants who were not captured during their attempt to enter
but were discovered subsequently. The power to make removal orders
against such illegal immigrants in most cases was transferred from the Gov-
ernor to the Director of Immigration or his deputy.189 As a safeguard, a new
system of appeals was instituted. A person against whom a removal order
has been made may appeal to an immigration tribunal, consisting of lay
assessors, on the ground that (a) he has the right to land in Hong Kong, or
(b) he had, at the time of the making of the removal order, the permission
of the Director of Immigration to remain in Hong Kong.’ 90

The introduction of the 1980 measures was not a unilateral decision
on the part of the Hong Kong government; they were adopted only after
consultation with the U.K. government, the central government of the P.R.C.
and the provincial authorities of Guangdong.191 Consultation with the
Chinese government was even more important in relation to the number
of legal immigrants from mainland China to Hong Kong. As mentioned
above, Hong Kong’s immigration policy has always been such that all hold-
ers of one-way exit permits issued by the Chinese authorities would be
automatically given permission to enter and reside in Hong Kong, and such
immigrants are known as “legal immigrants.” Such legal immigration
reached a peak in December 1978, when the number of legal immigrants
from China entering Hong Kong was 310 per day. 92 Thus the total number
of such immigrants in 1978 was 67,495, compared to 25,373 in 1977.193 In
response to representations to the P.R.C. authorities from the Hong Kong

’88Ibid, at I11.
189Sees. 19 of the Immigration Ordinanceas consolidated (1972),supra, note 160, as amended
by Ordinance No. 75 of 1981, s. 7; Ordinance No. 62 of 1980, supra, note 182; Ordinance No.
31 of 1984, s. 7, Ordinance No. 79 of 1982, s. 8; and Ordinance No. 78 of 1982, s. 6.

19Section 53A(1), Immigration Ordinance, ibid., as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, as
amended by Ordinance No. 62 of 1980, supra, note 182. See generally Chen, supra, note 138.
191lnformation Paper, supra, note 168 at 4; Hong Kong Hansard, 1980-81 at 104 (23 October

1980; Governor).

192HongKongHansard, 1979-80 at 45 (17 October 1979; Secretary for Security); Information

Paper, supra, note 168 at 5.

193Ibid.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

and U.K governments,194 the volume was reduced to 150 per day in 1980.195
This still represented an addition of about 55,000 a year. A further reduction
was later negotiated, 196 as a result of which the number of legal immigrants
from China since 1983 stayed at approximately 27,000 per year (or 75 per
day).197 The number is likely to remain at this level in the foreseeable
future. 198 Returning to the subject of illegal immigration, it may be noted
that the 1980 measures proved to be largely effective in curbing the flood
of illegal immigrants. In the months preceding October 1980, an average of
450 illegal immigrants were intercepted per day during their attempt to enter
Hong Kong. 199 In 1981 this figure was reduced to 21 per day, while another
5 per day on the average were detected in the city (after successfully evading
arrest at the border) and repatriated. 200 In the following years, the numbers
of illegal immigrants captured during entry and those subsequently arrested
within the city were respectively 23 and 6 in 1982;201 13 and 8 in 1983;202
26 and 8 in 1984;203 35 and 9 in 1985;204 46 and 10 in 1986.205

B. Illegal Immigrant Children, Wives and Mothers

One problem which attracted attention in the 1980s was the smuggling
of child immigrants from mainland China to Hong Kong. The demand for
the “services” provided by the traffickers arose from the fact that some

194Hong Kong Hansard, 1978-79 at 904 (6 June 1974; Secretary for Security); Hong Kong
Government Information Service, Hong Kong 1979 (Hong Kong: Government Printer, 1979)
at 142. See also Lui, supra, note 12 at 20-21, in which the author points out that such discussion
was a politically sensitive matter because the Chinese government holds the view that Hong
Kong is part of China and Chinese people should not in principle be debarred from entering
Hong Kong; the negotiating approach of the Hong Kong government must therefore be to win
China’s sympathy and support as regards Hong Kong’s immigration problems.

195HongKongHansard, 1979-80 at 45 (17 October 1979; Secretary for Security); Information
Paper, supra, note 168 at 5; HongKong Hansard, 1980-81 at 103 (23 October 1980; Governor).

196Hong Kong Hansard, 1981-82 at 309 (6 January 1982; Secretary for Security).
197Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 167 (29 October 1986; Secretary for Security), 758 (21

January 1987; Secretary for Security), 828 (18 February 1987; Secretary for Security).

198Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 758 (21 January 1987; Secretary for Security). It should
be noted that the number of Chinese entering Hong Kong with two-way permits (for the purpose
of visiting Hong Kong and then returning to China) was also limited by the Chinese authorities
on the basis of an understanding with the Hong Kong government in December 1982. Initially
it was also set at 75 per day, but it has subsequently been increased to 140. See Hong Kong
Hansard, 1985-86 at 454 (8 January 1986; Attorney General).

199Hong Kong 1982, supra, note 153 at 152.
200Hong Kong Government Information Service, Hong Kong 1983 (Hong Kong: Government

Printer, 1983) at 157.

2Olbid.
202Hong Kong 1984, supra, note 2 at 181.
203Hong Kong 1985, supra, note 7 at 229.
204Hong Kong 1986, supra, note 5 at 208.
205Hong Kong 1987, supra, note 70 at 223.

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

mainland Chinese had emigrated to Hong Kong leaving their children be-
hind,206 and they wanted their children to join them now. There are also
cases of Hong Kong residents travelling to mainland China to marry and
their wives have given birth to children there. In both types of cases, it
normally takes a long time, usually a number of years, before the children
can be admitted to Hong Kong as legal immigrants, because of the quota
on legal immigrants agreed between the two governments as mentioned
above. 20 7 Hence the desire to avoid the queue by resorting to smuggling,
which in may cases is hazardous and puts the lives of the children at risk.208
In December 1981 the government took legislative action against the prob-
lem, and, in particular, to close a relevant loophole in the existing law, under
which the power to make a removal order against an illegal immigrant 20 9
was dependent on an offence of unlawful landing in Hong Kong210 having
been committed. Similarly, many of the supplementary sanctions against
illegal landing (such as the forfeiture of ships) were also tied to the com-
mission of the offence of unlawful landing.211 The problem was that it was
difficult to show that a child illegal immigrant had committed such an
offence: under Hong Kong law, a child under the age of seven is conclusively
presumed to be incapable of committing any offence, and children between
the ages of 7 and 14 are presumed to be so incapable unless there is sufficient
evidence proving that they have the intention and mental capacity to com-
mit the offence.21 2 Hence there were legal difficulties in effecting the removal
of illegal immigrant children and in prosecuting those who smuggled them
to Hong Kong. The Immigration (Amendment) (No. 4) Ordinance 1981213
dealt with this problem by deleting, from the relevant provisions in the
existing law, the references to the commission of the offence of unlawful
landing and substituting instead reference merely to “landing unlawfully in
Hong Kong.” The 1981 amendment ordinance also added a new section
37DA to Part VIIA214 of the Immigration Ordinance. The new provision

206Some of these immigrants might have lied to the authorities when they applied for em-
igration, claiming that they had no dependants: see “Tough policy on child illegals must remain”
[Hong Kong] South China Morning Post (17 November 1986).
207See Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 472 (19 November 1986; Secretary for Security). It
was pointed out that at least half of those emigrating from China to Hong Kong on the 75-a-
day one-way permit system are children joining their parents in Hong Kong.

20 See South China Morning Post, supra, note 206.
209lmmigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, s. 19(1)(b), as amended
21OSection 38(1) of the Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, s.

by Ordinance No. 75 of 1981, s. 7.

38(1).

21’Hong Kong Hansard, 1981-82 at 245 (9 December 1981; Attorney General).
212 bid.
213Ordinance No. 75 of 1981.
2″4This part has been discussed in Section III of this essay in connection with Vietnamese

refugees.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

made it an offence, punishable by a maximum fine of HK$200,000 and
imprisonment for ten years, to assist an unauthorised entrant 15 to remain
in Hong Kong. Thus it can be used to prosecute parents or relatives living
with illegal immigrant children in Hong Kong. When introducing the bill,
the Attorney General said:

Obviously, prosecutions under the new section 37DA involving, as they some-
times will do, prosecuting relatives for assisting an unauthorised entrant to
remain will have to be taken with discretion and after careful consideration
of all the circumstances of the case. That will be ensured by existing section
37L which provides that no prosecution under Part VIIA may be brought
without the consent of the Attorney General. 16

From the humanitarian point of view, 2 17 the post-1980 system of im-
migration control can be criticized since it requires the forcible separation
of spouses from each other or of child from parent in cases where a person
enters Hong Kong as an illegal immigrant to join his or her family and
finally meets the fate of being repatriated and separated from the Hong
Kong family members again. The more sensational cases of this nature in
recent years include those of the “boat-wives” and the “illegal immigrant
mothers.”

The problem of the “boat-wives” arose in 1985, when it was discovered
that some women from mainland China who were married to Hong Kong
fishermen were living with their husbands on land in Hong Kong. The
general rule is of course that illegal immigrant spouses of Hong Kong res-
idents will be repatriated: they should not “jump the queue” (of legal im-
migrants under the daily quota of 75) but should, while they are in mainland
China, apply for one-way exit permits from the Chinese authorities, upon
obtaining which they will be allowed to enter and stay in Hong Kong by
Hong Kong’s immigration authorities. The special circumstances in the case
of the boat-wives were that these women had already been issued “landing
and boarding permits” by the Guangdong authorities, who had allowed them
to leave P.R.C. territories and to enter Hong Kong waters with their fish-
ermen-husbands on fishing vessels. However, since they were not immi-
grants under the “one-way exit permit” system, Hong Kong’s immigration
authorities had not given them permission to land and reside in Hong Kong.
The practice adopted instead was “to tolerate the presence of these ‘boat-
wives’ on fishing vessels in Hong Kong waters but not to allow them on

215As mentioned above, the Immigration (Unauthorised Entrants) Order provides, inter alia,

that illegal immigrants from mainland China are unauthorised entrants.

216Hong Kong Hansard, 1981-82 at 247 (9 December 1981; Attorney General).
217See also art. 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and art. 10 of
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights regarding the protection
of the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society.”

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

land except in special circumstances, such as when they need medical at-
tention. ‘218 Thus when some of them were found living ashore in 1985
(because their husbands had changed occupation or because the living con-
ditions on the boats had become too poor), they were forcibly separated
from their families and repatriated to mainland China. 219 The policy pro-
voked a lot of public criticism but was nevertheless implemented. Fortu-
nately, the subsequent applications by the repatriated boat-wives for
immigration under the one-way exit permit system were successful, and it
was reported in 1987 that they had now returned to Hong Kong as legal
immigrants. 220 In 1987 it was estimated that there were still 1,000 boat-
wives in Hong Kong who had not yet obtained the one-way exit permits
and thus permission to land in Hong Kong. The policy is still that they will
only be allowed to stay in Hong Kong waters with their families, but not
to reside on land, until and unless they obtain the permits (which of course
requires waiting in the queue under the 75-immigrants-a-day system). Mean-
while the Hong Kong government has initiated discussion with the Guang-
dong authorities and a “long-term solution” 22’ has now been found: after
10 August 1986, the Guangdong authorities would no longer issue “landing
and boarding permits” to Chinese women who marry Hong Kong fishermen
after that date; and any Chinese women (i.e. non-Hong Kong resident) found
on Hong Kong waters without landing and boarding permits (and without
any other official permission to leave mainland China and settle in Hong
Kong) would be repatriated by Hong Kong’s immigration authorities, even
if they are the wives of Hong Kong fishermen. 222

Another incident which attracted much criticism from the humanitar-
ian point of view was the repatriation of certain “illegal immigrant mothers”
in January 1988.223 The matter arose out of an “amnesty” on 28 April 1987
granted to unregistered or illegal immigrant children in Hong Kong. Some
mothers, who were themselves illegal immigrants, brought their illegal im-

218Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 631 (7 January 1987; Tam).
219It is known that an exception was made for a very small number of them, who were
allowed to stay, but the special circumstances justifying the exceptional treatment were not
disclosed so as not to create a precedent for others to imitate: see “Solving the problem of the
boat-wives” [Hong Kong] Ming Pao (12 August 1986) (in Chinese).

220 See Hong Kong Hansard, supra, note 218, which discusses 14 such boat-wives.
“2’Ibid.
2 lbid.; “Solving the problem of the boat-wives”, supra, note 219.
22See generally “Church protest by illegals” [Hong Kong] South China Morning Post (12
January 1988); “Illegal mothers call off protest” [Hong Kong] South China Morning Post (13
January 1988); “Merciless act to part mothers and infants” [HongKong] South China Morning
Post (11 January 1988) (editorial); L.S. Lee (for Secretary of Security), “Illegal immigrant
mothers had to be returned to China” [Hong Kong] South China Morning Post (30 January
1988) (letter to the editor); N. Jayawickrama, “Disregarding solemn international treaty ob-
ligations” [Hong Kong] South China Morning Post (11 February 1988) (letter to the editor).

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

migrant children to register with the authorities in order to obtain the benefit
of the amnesty. As a result, the identity of the mothers as illegal immigrants
was discovered and it was decided to repatriate them. 224 The government
defended the forcible separation of the mothers from their families, includ-
ing their small babies in some cases, by arguing that the measure was nec-
essary in order to deter mainland residents, particularly the large number
of wives in mainland China married to Hong Kong residents, from jumping
the queue (under the daily legal immigrant quota of 75) by illegal entry. In
addition, it was pointed out that other illegal immigrant women in similar
situations have been repatriated in the past two years225 and it would be
unfair to them and to others waiting in the queue if these particular illegal
immigrant mothers were allowed to stay.2 2 6

C. The Immigration Tribunal and the Courts

Since the change in immigration law and policy in 1980, a body of case
law has emerged relating to their implementation. The following features
are noteworthy:

(1) It is clear 227 that the Immigration Tribunal, 228 to which appeals against
removal orders he229 and whose decisions are final,230 is not entitled to
review the exercise of discretion by immigration officials by, for example,

224Again, an exception was made for 4 of these mothers, who were allowed to stay for special
humanitarian reasons which were not disclosed. The number of those to be repatriated was
65.

m2 According to L.S. Lee writing on behalf of the Hong Kong government, supra, note 223:
“Hundreds of women, many of whom had been in Hong Kong for a number of years and had
also given birth to children while they were here, have been sent back since October 1980
when we began to repatriate adult illegal immigrants. In 1986 alone we repatriated 156 illegal
immigrant mothers and last year we repatriated 144.”

226According to recent figures, in cases of Hong Kong residents who marry in China, the
average time it takes for the mainland Chinese spouse to obtain a one-way permit for reunion
is 3 to 5 years from the time of marriage in China. Over 98% of those who emigrate to Hong
Kong from China through the one-way permit system come in order to be reunited with their
immediate families. “As long as local residents continue to go back to China to get married
there are bound to continue to be families being separated temporarily until exit permits can
be issued for them to join their spouses or parents in Hong Kong”: Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-
87 at 828-29 (18 February 1987; Secretary for Security).

227From the cases ofRe Hsu Ching-po (10 August 1984), M.P. No. 2007 of 1984, Mantell J.;
Yip Chi-lin v. The Director of Immigration (4 February 1986), Civ. App. No. 144 of 1985 (C.A.).

228 See generally Chen, supra, note 138.
229Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, s. 53A, as amended by

ordinance No. 62 of 1980, s. 9.

23Ibid., s. 53D(2).

McGILL L4W JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

re-assessing relevant humanitarian considerations. 231 As laid down in the
Ordinance, 232 the function of the tribunal is strictly limited to the deter-
mination of the question of whether the appellant has a legal right to land
in Hong Kong or has obtained the permission of the Director of Immigration
to remain in Hong Kong. If the question is answered in the negative on the
facts of the case as the tribunal finds them, the appeal must be dismissed
and the removal order affirmed even if there were overwhelming human-
itarian considerations suggesting that the appellant should be allowed to
stay. In the words of the Chief Justice of Hong Kong:

It is not for the Tribunal to enquire as to whether or not there are hu-
manitarian grounds, which the Director [of Immigration] should consider, nor
to make any recommendations to the Director in that regard. Whether or not
a person is ultimately to be repatriated is a matter within the discretion of the
Director who, no doubt, in practice, takes into account such humanitarian
grounds as he considers merit consideration. 233

(2) Although the courts have accepted that they have no power whatsoever
under the immigration legislation as it stands to intervene in removal de-
cisions on humanitarian grounds, they have in a number of cases expressly
or impliedly criticized the conduct of the immigration authorities from a
moral point of view.

For example, in Attorney General v. Cheung Kam-ping,234 a majority
of the Court of Appeal held that the respondent, who had entered Hong
Kong as an illegal immigrant in 1970 and had thereafter “for ten years led
a blameless life… as a peaceful, useful and worthy citizen” and “made what
appears to be a very valuable contribution to the community in which he
lives”, did not have the right to reside in Hong Kong as a Chinese Resident
under the Immigration Ordinance, because he had not been lawfully resi-
dent, and therefore not been “ordinarily resident” in Hong Kong for seven
years. While upholding the removal order, one of the justices of appeal
remarked: “One would hope that even now with the principle [regarding

23 Compare, for example, the English system, under which the appellate authorities can
indeed review the exercise of discretion by immigration authorities: see generally I.A. Mac-
donald, Immigration Law and Practice, 2d ed. (London: Butterworths, 1987) at 427ff.

amended by Ordinance No. 62 of 1980 s. 9.

2 2Section 53D of the Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, as
233Roberts C.J., in Yip Chi-lin v. The Director of Immigration, supra, note 227. There is
however evidence that the tribunal does sometimes invite applicants or their legal represen-
tatives to address it on humanitarian factors, and makes informal recommendations to the
immigration authorities: Re Hsu Ching-po, supra, note 227; A.Y.E Chan, Immigration Law in
Hong Kong, (unpublished dissertation no. 846, Faculty of Law, University of Hong Kong,
1986) at 22.

23[1980] H.K.L.R. 602 (C.A.).

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

if it is vindicated

the legal meaning of “ordinarily resident”] vindicated –
–

it is not too late for more humane considerations to prevail. ‘235
In Re Wong Shu-hung,236 two boys had been smuggled across the border
in 1982 to join their parents in Hong Kong. Their parents, who had lied
about the number of children they had when they themselves applied for
emigration to Hong Kong several years before, took the two boys to the
immigration authorities to be registered. After a protracted examination of
the case by the authorities, removal orders were issued against the two
children in 1984. While upholding the removal orders on the ground that
permission by the Director of Immigration to remain in Hong Kong could
not be implied from the act of “suffering” the children to remain during
the investigation process, Mantell J. said:

Therefore, it would seem that if these removal orders are carried into effect
the result will be that the Wong family will be separated perhaps indefinitely,
and, as Mr Wong himself affirms, it is not known what will become of the two
boys. It is a sorry business and taking into account the period of time which
was allowed to elapse before the removal orders were made, the discretion to
make them seems to have been insensitively exercised. 237

Yet he went on to say:

But all that is immaterial. The Director of Immigration and the Deputy
Director of Immigration are not answerable to the court for the manner in
which they exercise their discretion ….238
A similar situation was revealed in Chen Chiu-lin v. The Director of
Immigration.239 A fourteen-year old girl, together with her three sisters,
entered Hong Kong illegally in October 1984 to join their parents. The father
immediately reported them to the authorities and applied for permission
for them to stay in Hong Kong. In February 1985, the girl was detained; in
March, a removal order was made against her. An appeal to the Immigration
Tribunal was dismissed in March but the tribunal forwarded relevant in-
formation to the Secretary for Security for further consideration. The girl
was released from custody in August on a recognizance entered by her father.
In November, the Secretary for Security finally decided to uphold the re-
moval order. Although the Court of Appeal also upheld the order, it com-
mented that “these long delays, for which no sensible explanation has been
offered, shows a serious disregard for humanitarian considerations which
does no credit to those involved.” 240

235ibid.
236[1985] H.K.L.R. 463 (H.C.).
2 371bid at 465.
238Ibid. at 466.
239(28 February 1986) Civ. App. No. 20 of 1986 (C.A.).
240lbid.

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

A case which was even more unfortunate was that of Cheung Yuk-sai
v. The Director of Immigration.241 In October 1984, a fifteen-year old girl,
together with her two sisters, entered Hong Kong unlawfully and were re-
ported to the immigration authorities. The two sisters were allowed to stay
but the girl was not: after a period of investigation which lasted for one and
a half years, she was arrested and a removal order was made against her in
March 1986. An appeal to the Immigration Tribunal was dismissed without
a hearing.242 Her father applied for leave for judicial review of the decision;
such leave was refused by the High Court but was granted by the Court of
Appeal in April 1986, on the ground that the notice of appeal to the Im-
migration Tribunal did raise a reasonably arguable point. In making this
decision, Silke J.A. said:

This matter has been outstanding for an unconscionable period of time.
It cannot be right, whatever policy decisions might be pending, that a fifteen
year old girl should be kept for over a year in limbo and with the strong
likelihood of there being raised in her mind a reasonable expectation of her
being allowed to stay with the rest of her family. This goes to the humanitarian
aspect of this case but is not a factor which can, in law, be for the consideration,
in these proceedings, of this Court or indeed for the Tribunal. 243

Alas, it was not until another year later that the fate of the girl was
decided. After judicial review by the High Court of the Immigration Tribunal
decision, the case was remitted for a further hearing before the tribunal.
This time the tribunal found in favour of the girl. The Director of Immi-
gration in turn sought judicial review, and the High Court granted judicial
review, holding that there was no evidence to justify the tribunal’s findings
and remitting the matter to the tribunal to make a decision in accordance
with the High Court’s finding. On appeal by the father again to the Court
of Appeal, it was held in February 1987 that the appeal was wholly without
any merit, and the father’s protracted legal campaign to keep his daughter
finally failed. On the father’s efforts, Clough J.A. commented: “[H]e appears
to have been under the misapprehension during the course of this hearing

241(25 April 1986), Civ. App. No. 42 of 1986 (C.A.), app’d, Director of Immigration v. Cheung

Yuk-sai (13 February 1987), Civ. App. No. 113 of 1986 (C.A.).
242Under s. 53C of the Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, as
amended by ordinance No. 62 of 1980, s. 9, the tribunal may dismiss an appeal without a
hearing where it is satisfied, upon an examination of the written grounds of appeal, that “the
facts or matters on which the appellant is seeming to rely are matters which would not entitle
the appellant to succeed in the appeal.” It has been held that notices of appeal to the Immi-
gration Tribunal should be read liberally and sympathetically, because a person against whom
a removal order is made has only 24 hours in which to serve the notice of appeal (s. 53A(2)).
Thus the tribunal should hold a hearing if the notice contains a reasonably arguable ground
of appeal. See ReHuiLai-ming (7 September 1984), M.P. Nos. 1714 and 1715 of 1984, Mayo
J.; Chen, supra, note 138; Re Wong Shu-hung, supra, note 236.

243Cheung Yuk-sai v. The Director of Immigration, supra, note 241.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

that the court has power to decide generally whether his daughter may
remain in Hong Kong. This is of course a matter for the Director of Im-
migration to whom he should make such representations that he may think
fit.” 244

(3) In applying the penal provisions of the Immigration Ordinance designed
to combat illegal immigration, the courts are highly conscious of policy
considerations of deterrence and the current immigration situation. The
more common charges relating to illegal immigration include:

(a) Landing in Hong Kong unlawfully or remaining in Hong Kong with-
out the authority of the Director of Immigration.245 The maximum penalty
for this offence is a fine of HK$5,000 and imprisonment for three years.
Thus an illegal immigrant may have to serve a prison sentence in Hong
Kong before being repatriated to mainland China. The usual sentence im-
posed by the courts is nine to fifteen months’ imprisonment. 246

(b) Having a forged identity card without lawful authority or excuse.247
The maximum penalty is a fine of HK$50,000 and imprisonment for seven
years on conviction on indictment, and a fine of HK$20,000 and impris-
onment for two years on summary conviction. It is settled that “except
where there are strong humanitarian considerations, a sentence of fifteen
months’ imprisonment is a proper sentence” 248 for an illegal immigrant
convicted of this offence.

(c) Using another person’s identity card.249 The maximum penalty is a
fine of HK$5,000 and imprisonment for two years. Although there were
once conflicting decisions on sentencing in this regard, the Court of Appeal
has now held that fifteen months’ imprisonment is also the appropriate
sentence, in the absence of strong humanitarian considerations, for a person
convicted of using another person’s identity card in circumstances where it
is being used in order to remain illegally in Hong Kong.250 The courts
however recognised that the same approach would not necessarily be ap-
propriate to Hong Kong residents (not being illegal immigrants) committing

244The Director of Immigration v. Cheung Yuk-sai, supra, note 241.
245lmmigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, s. 38(1), as amended by

Ordinance No. 15 of 1980 s. 10.

246R. v. Lau Chung-kwan, [1987] H.K.L.R. 203 at 204, 207 (C.A.). For an exceptional case
in which an illegal immigrant mother was leniently dealt with, see NgFong-yu (5 March 1985),
Cr. App. No. 83 of 1985, Barnes J. (digested in (1985) 15 Hong Kong L.J. 251).

by Ordinance No. 54 of 1981, s. 4.

247Section 7A, Registration of Persons Ordinance, Laws of Hong Kong, c. 177, as amended
248R. v. Lau Chung-kwan, supra, note 246 at 205.
249Reg. 12(3), Registration of Persons Regulations, L.N. 86/83 (consolidated with Laws of
250R. v. Lau Chung-kwan, supra, note 246, especially at 209.

Hong Kong, c. 177).

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

the same offence. The fact that the defendant is an illegal immigrant using
the card to masquerade as a lawful resident can properly be considered as
a relevant factor in sentencing for the offence.251

It is essential, if the underlying purpose of the ordinance is to be achieved,
that the prospective illegal immigrant should be made aware that, just as in
the case of forged identity cards so in the case of the use of another person’s
card for the purpose of entering or remaining or working in Hong Kong will
be severely punished.252
Heavy deterrent sentences are also imposed by Hong Kong courts on
persons who assist in bringing illegal immigrants to Hong Kong. Such per-
sons may be charged either for aiding and abetting illegal immigrants in
unlawfully landing in Hong Kong (for which the maximum penalty is three
years’ imprisonment or a fine of HK$5,000),253 or for carrying unauthorised
entrants into Hong Kong by ship or boat (which carries a maximum penalty
of life imprisonment or a fine of HK$5,000,000 on conviction on indictment,
or of three years’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$100,000 on summary
conviction).2 54

Those who take part … in the smuggling of illegal immigrants for gain must
expect the courts to regard such conduct as deserving of severe punishment….
[A] magistrate would be correct to take into account the very serious nature,
in present conditions in Hong Kong, of offences involving illegal immigrants.255

Thus in Attorney General v. Leung Ming 56 the Court of Appeal, on the
Attorney General’s application for a review of sentences imposed by a mag-
istrate for the carrying of unauthorised entrants to Hong Kong by a mo-
torized sampan, increased the sentence to two years’ imprisonment. In R.
v. Chan Kwok-keung,257 the Court of Appeal held that a sentence of three
and a half years imprisonment imposed on the defendants, themselves illegal
immigrants aged seventeen and nineteen, for assisting the passage to Hong
Kong of unauthorised entrants was appropriate.

supra, note 246 at 206.

251R. v. Lam Shui-leung, [1987] H.K.L.R. 57 at 58 (H.C.), appr’d in R. v. Lau Chung-kwan,
252R. v. Lau Chung-kivan, supra, note 246 at 209.
2531mmigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, s. 38(l)(a), as amended

by ordinance No. 15 of 1980.

2541bid., s. 37C(l)(a).
255A.-G.H.K. v. Leung Ming, [1980] H.K.L.R. 341 at 343, 342 (C.A.).
2561bid.
257(3 December 1987), Crim. App. No. 244 of 1987 (C.A.). It should be noted that the above
is not an exhaustive discussion of all relevant cases on immigration law in Hong Kong. For
other interesting cases, see e.g. Mak Yui-mingv. A.-G.H.K (1980), [1981] H.K.L.R. 435 (C.A.);
A.-G.H.K v. Ng Yuen-shiu, [1983] 2 W.L.R. 735 (C.A.); Cheung Cheong v. A.-G.H.K. (1986),
[1987] H.K.L.R. 356 (C.A.); Director of Immigration v. Ng Shun-Ioi, [1987] H.K.L.R. 798
(C.A.); Elvira Vergara v. A.-G.H.K. (14 October 1987), Civ. App. No. 120 of 1987 (C.A.); Re
Tse Chuk-fuk (13 April 1987), M.P. No. 537 of 1987, Godfrey J.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

D. Further Controls on Vietnamese Refugees

Before we close this survey of past and present immigration law and
policy in Hong Kong, the discussion about Vietnamese refugees in Part III
of this essay needs to be brought up to date. Two main legislative measures
were introduced in the 1980s relating to these refugees. The Immigration
(Amendment) Ordinance 1981258 provided a statutory framework for im-
posing conditions of stay on Vietnamese refugees allowed to stay in Hong
Kong pending resettlement and for their proper control. One reason for the
introduction of the ordinance was that some refugees who were offered
resettlement places by particular countries “became rather choosey”259 and
delayed in accepting such offers in the hope that other better arrangements
could be made. Hence it was provided under the new amendment ordinance
that one condition of stay for Vietnamese refugees was that they shall not,
inter alia, without reasonable excuses fail or refuse to accept an offer of
overseas settlement. 260

Furthermore, they were required to comply with the rules of refugee
centers and abide by conditions relating to employment. Breach of condi-
tions of stay became punishable by detention for 28 days, 261 and contrav-
ention of rules by a fine of HK$100 or confinement for a period of seven
days. 262

1982 saw a further tightening up of Hong Kong’s policy towards Vi-
etnamese refugees. At that time the refugee population in Hong Kong was
10,800 and was rising, because the rate of settlement overseas had slowed
down due to exhaustion or reduction of quota or tightening of eligibility
criteria by resettlement countries, 263 while the inflow of refugees into Hong
Kong continued. Indeed, the figures showed that Hong Kong had become
an attractive destination for Vietnamese refugees compared to other coun-
tries in the region, probably because Hong Kong not only provided asylum
for them and accommodated them in camps, but also allowed them to move
freely in Hong Kong, to work outside the camps and earn income.

258Ordinance No. 35 of 1981. The ordinance added a new Part IIIA to the Immigration

Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160.

by Ordinance No. 35 of 1981.

259Hong Kong Hansard, 1980-81 at 868 (13 May 1981; Secretary for Security).
26See Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, s. 13A, as amended
261 lmmigration Ordinance, ibid., s. 13A(6).
262Immigration Ordinance, ibid., s. 13C.
263There was concern that many refugees were in fact “economic migrants” trying to better
themselves economically by settling overseas rather than escaping from political or racial
persecution: Hong Kong Government Information Service, Hong Kong 1983 (Hong Kong:
Government Printer, 1983) at 158; Lui, supra, note 12 at 12.

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

To deter more refugees from coming, the Hong Kong government de-
cided to introduce a new “closed camps” policy.264 All Vietnamese refugees
arriving in Hong Kong on or after 2 July 1982 were to be detained in closed
camps. The Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance 1982265 empowered the
government to set up such camps, to detain refugees in them, and to draw
up rules for their management. It also made it possible for the authorities
to transfer refugees previously allowed to stay in open centers to closed
camps if they have contravened any condition of stay or been found guilty
of any offence punishable by imprisonment.2 66 In addition, even if a refugee
has not been proved to have breached his conditions of stay or the law, the
Director of Immigration may still detain him in a closed camp if “the
Director certifies that it is necessary in the interests of order or good man-
agement in any refugee centre” that the refugee be detained.2 67 “This power,
deliberately far reaching, is an indication to refugees who are already here
that we intend to maintain better order in open refugee centres in the future
than some of them have been ready to accept in the past. ‘268

The closed camps are administered by the Correctional Services De-
partment.269 Refugees detained in the closed camps are subjected to regu-
lation and control. They are not allowed to seek outside employment; visits
are regulated and generally limited to relatives and close friends;270 refugees
are required to abide by disciplinary rules governing the daily running of
the camps. Families split between open and closed centers are allowed to
be reunited in closed centers.271 The policy of closed camps has been called
one of “humane deterrence. ‘272 It has been pointed out that the adoption

by Ordinance No. 42 of 1982.

264It was noted that the most effective deterrent would be repatriation, but it was not feasible
without the co-operation of the Vietnamese authorities, and there was no early prospect of
securing this: Hong Kong Hansard, 1981-82 at 1022 (30 June 1982; Secretary for Security).
265 Ordinance No. 42 of 1982.
266Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, s. 13A(6), as amended
267Immigraiion Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, s. 13A(6A).
268Hong Kong Hansard, 1981-82 at 1023-24 (Secretary for Security; June 30, 1982). There
were in fact instances of disorder in the open centers before the introduction of the closed
camp policy, such as that at the Kai Tak Transit Centre in May 1982: see Hong Kong 1983,
supra, note 263 at 158. Disturbances also broke out at two centers in 1984: see Hong Kong
1985, supra, note 7 at 231.
269Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, s. 13C(4), as amended
by Ordinance No. 42 of 1982. This department was formerly known as the Prisons Department
and is also responsible for management of prisons in Hong Kong: see Lui, supra, note 12 at
17.

270Hong Kong 1984, supra, note 2 at 182.
271See Hong Kong 1986, supra, note 5 at 210.
272Hong Kong 1983, supra, note 264 at 158.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

of this approach in Hong Kong merely brought its Vietnamese refugee policy
into line with that already practised in other countries in southeast Asia.273

After 1982, the inflow of Vietnamese refugees continued despite the
new policy. In 1983, 3,651 arrived; 274 in 1984, 2,230;275 in 1985, 1,112;276
and in 1986, 2,087.277 Figures in early 1987 show that more than 104,570
Vietnamese refugees had been resettled from Hong Kong since 1979, but
about 8,000 refugees still remained, and it has become increasingly difficult
to find permanent homes for them as resettlement opportunities overseas
decrease.278 By December 1987 the refugee number in Hong Kong increased
to 9,529;279 Hong Kong taxpayers were footing the bill to the extent of
HK$117 million in the financial year 1985-86 alone,280 and no end to the
problem is yet in sight. There is a growing feeling of disappointment 281 at
the British government’s refusal after September 1986 to provide resettle-
ment places in the U.K.2 82 (which if provided would have the effect of
encouraging other resettlement countries to increase their intake) and its
failure to engage actively in negotiations 283 with the Vietnamese government
on repatriation of refugees to Vietnam.

Meanwhile, the Hong Kong government continues to maintain that
involuntary repatriation, 284 though a true long term solution, will not be
pursued until and unless it is “reasonably satisfied that [the refugees] will
not be treated inhumanely on their return to Vietnam.” 285 As one Legislative

Immigration, supra, note 4.

(in Chinese).

273Lui, supra, note 12 at 17; Hong Kong 1983, ibid. at 158.
274Hong Kong 1984, supra, note 2 at 182.
275Hong Kong 1985, supra, note 7 at 230.
276Hong Kong 1986, supra, note 5 at 210.
277Hong Kong 1987, supra, note 70 at 224.
278Hong Kong: The Facts –
279″Call to end ‘country of first asylum’ policy” [Hong Kong] Ming Pao (30 December 1987)
280Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 659 (7 January 1987; Fan).
281See generally the adjournment debate in the Legislative Council in January 1987, Hong
KongHansard, 1986-87 at 658ff; S. N. Harte, “Facing refugee problem without British backing”,
[Hong Kong] South China Morning Post (22 November 1987); “Time for HK to take initiative
on refugees” [Hong Kong] South China Morning Post (10 September 1987) (editorial).

282Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 389 (6 November 1986; Ho).
283It was reported in Sept 1987 that there was no possibility of such negotiation in the near
future: S. Macklin, “The refugee reality starts to dawn”, [Hong Kong] South China Morning
Post (14 September 1987).
284It may be noted that the legal power to repatriate does exist under s. 13E of the Immigration
Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, as amended by Ordinance No. 42 of 1982.
285 Hong KongHansard, 1986-87 at 675 (7 January 1987; Secretary for Security). It is implied
in the official statements that such “reasonable satisfaction” can only be based on an express
agreement with the Vietnamese government. See also Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 529
(26 November 1986; Attorney General), 1385 (8 April 1987; Secretary for Security). It has also
been noted that “it is difficult for Hong Kong to agree that it must accept Vietnamese non-

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

Councillor put it: “We must steer a narrow course between treating hu-
manely the refugees who are already in Hong Kong and deterring new ref-
ugees from coming. ‘ 286 As we approach the end of the parts of this essay
dealing with the past, it is apparent that the development of the whole of
Hong Kong’s immigration policy in recent decades has been a difficult and
often painful exercise in steering a narrow course.

VI. The Future

Until 1 January 1983, the date when the British Nationality Act 1981
came into force, the general rule governing the nationality status of Hong
Kong people had been that persons born in Hong Kong, whether Chinese
by race or not, were in British and Hong Kong law Citizens of the United
Kingdom and Colonies (“C.U.K.C.”). Thus they shared exactly the same
citizenship with British people in the U.K. Before 1962, they even had the
right to enter, live and work in the U.K. itself, but this right was taken away
by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962.287 Under Hong Kong’s Im-
migration Ordinance 1971, they were Hong Kong Belongers as explained
above and had the right to land and reside in Hong Kong.

One of the purported objectives of the British Nationality Act 1981 was
to rationalize the existing nationality law and provide for citizenship statuses
which correspond more closely with, or reflect more truly, the relevant right
of abode.288 The Act replaces the corporate Citizenship of the United King-
dom and Colonies by three separate citizenships – British Citizenship (for
those British nationals with a full right of abode in the U.K.), British De-
pendent Territories Citizenship (“B.D.T.C.”), and British Overseas Citizen-
ship. Hong Kong residents who were formerly C.U.I.C.s by virtue of a
connection with Hong Kong (such as birth in Hong Kong) are given the
new status of B.D.T.C.s. 289 Although this was largely a change in nomen-
clature only –
the pre-existing position as regards the right of abode not
having. been changed –
some Hong Kong people interpreted the devel-

refugees, in other words those who cannot establish that they have refugees status, those that
are economic migrants, when it has to return… all other illegal arrivals to Hong Kong including
close relatives of people already here who have arrived from China”: see Hong Kong Hansard,
1986-87 at 675-76 (7 January 1987; Secretary for Security).

286Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 384 (6 November 1986; P.C. Wong).
287British Nationality Act 1981 (U.K.), 1981, c. 61; Commonwealth Immigrants Act (U.K.),

10 & 11 Eliz. 2, c. 21. See Clarke, supra, note 134 at 344-45.

28 H. Street & R. Brazier, eds, de Smith’s Constitutional and Administrative Law, 5th ed.

(Hammondsworth, Eng.: Penguin Books, 1985) 429; Macdonald, supra, note 231 at 1.

289In 1981, 2.6 million of the 5 million inhabitants of Hong Kong were C.U.K.C.s: (1982)

4:1 Hong Kong J. of Pub. Admin. 101.

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

opment pessimistically as “an act of political disengagement ‘ 290 by the Brit-
ish government in preparation for possible withdrawal of British
administration over Hong Kong.291

In relation to the citizenship status of children born in Hong Kong after
1 January 1983 the law did change significantly. Under the 1981 Act292 and
the consequential amendment to the Immigration Ordinance introduced by
the Immigration (Amendment) (No. 2) and (No. 3) Ordinances 1982,293 such
children would only acquire B.D.T.C. status and that of Hong Kong Belon-
gers (a) if at the time of birth his father or mother was either a B.D.T.C. or
“settled” 294 in Hong Kong, or alternatively, (b) upon registration as a
B.D.T.C. if (i) his father or mother becomes a B.D.T.C. or settled in Hong
Kong while he is still a minor, or if (ii) he remains in Hong Kong for the
first ten years of his life. Thus children born in Hong Kong of parents who
are both illegal immigrants or Vietnamese refugees will not be entitled to
any form of British nationality or to reside in Hong Kong as of right.

As mentioned near the beginning of this essay, the greater part of the
colony of Hong Kong was the subject of a 99-year lease by the imperial
Qing government of China to Britain commencing from 1898. As Hong
Kong moved into the 1980s, there was an increasing feeling of uncertainty
about the constitutional and political future of Hong Kong. On this matter
the British government commenced negotiations with the PR.C. govern-
ment in September 1982. These ultimately led to the signature of the Joint
Declaration of the U.K. Government and the P.R.C. Government on the
Question of Hong Kong on 19 December 1984.295

The Joint Declaration formally came into effect on 27 May 1985 when
the exchange of the instruments of ratification took place. This is a re-

of Lord MacLehose, former Governor of Hong Kong, in the U.K. House of Lords).

29Hong Kong Hansard, 1981-82 at 384 (22 December 1982; Lobo) (quotation from address
291See Hong Kong J. of Pub. Admin., supra, note 289.
292See particularly s. 15 of the British Nationality Act 1981, supra, note 287.
293Ordinances Nos 78 and 79 of 1982. Another change brought about by the former ordinance
was that a new category of classification called “Resident British Citizen” was introduced. This
is the equivalent of “Resident United Kingdom Belonger” under the Immigration Ordinance
1971 as mentioned above. See the definition of Resident British Citizen in the revised s. 2 of
the Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, as amended by Ordinance
No. 78 of 1982, s. 2; Clarke, supra, note 98 at 351-52.
294″Settled” is defined in s. 50(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, supra, note 287 to mean
ordinarily resident in the territory without being subject under immigration law to any re-
striction on the period for which the person may remain. Thus in the case of Hong Kong, legal
immigrants from mainland China are not settled in Hong Kong (because they will be subject
to conditions of stay imposed on them when they enter) until they have resided in Hong Kong
for 7 years and thereby acquired the status of Chinese Residents.

295See supra, note 7.

REVUE DE DROIT DE McGILL

[Vol. 33

markable document, serving as a detailed blueprint for the future of Hong
Kong. Briefly speaking, it provides that British rule over the whole of the
present territory will come to an end on 30 June 1997. Hong Kong will then
become a Special Administrative Region (“S.A.R.”) of the P.R.C. As such
it will be ruled by local inhabitants and enjoy a high degree of autonomy.
The existing capitalist system will remain unchanged for fifty years as from
the establishment of the S.A.R. The existing legal system, social system and
life-style of Hong Kong people will also be preserved. On the same day as
the signature of the Joint Declaration, there was also an exchange of
memoranda296 between the two governments on nationality issues relating
to the people of Hong Kong. The Chinese memorandum states in unequi-
vocal terms that “[u]nder the Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of
China, all Hong Kong Chinese compatriots, whether they are holders of the
“British Dependent Territories Citizens’ Passport’ or not, are Chinese na-
tionals.” This position is probably based on the P.R.C. view297 that Hong
Kong has always been and is Chinese territory and its non-recognition of
the claim of British sovereignty over Hong Kong, which leads to the prop-
osition that Chinese persons born in Hong Kong are Chinese nationals in
the same way as Chinese born in mainland China are Chinese nationals.298

The British memorandum states that all persons who on 30 June 1997
are B.D.T.C.s by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong will cease to be
B.D.T.C.s with effect from 1 July 1997 but “will be eligible to retain an
appropriate status which, without conferring the right of abode in the United
Kingdom, will entitle them to continue to use passports issued by the Gov-
ernment of the United Kingdom.” According to the Chinese memorandum,
“Chinese nationals in Hong Kong who were previously called ‘British De-
pendent Territories Citizens’ “will be permitted by the Chinese government
to use “travel documents” issued by the U.K. after 1 July 1997 for the
purpose of travelling to other states and regions. 299 This is understood as

296Ibid.
297This is reflected in the text of the Joint Declaration itself, in paragraph 1 of which the
P.R.C. government declares that “it has decided to resume the exercise of sovereignty over
Hong Kong with effect from July 1, 1997.”
298According to art. 4 of the P.R.C. Nationality Law 1980, any person born in China whose
parents are Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national has Chinese
nationality. Art. 3 provides that dual nationality for any Chinese national is not recognised.
See Clarke, supra, note 98 at 349. For a general discussion, see G. Ginsburgs, “The 1980
Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China” (1982) 30 Am. J. Comp. L. 459; T. Chen,
“The Nationality Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Overseas Chinese in Hong
Kong, Maco and Southeast Asia” (1984) 5 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 281.
299The Chinese Memorandum to the Joint Declaration, supra, note 7 also expressly provides
that they “will not be entitled to British consular protection in the Hong Kong Special Ad-
ministrative Region and other parts of the People’s Republic of China on account of their
holding the above-mentioned British travel documents.”

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

a compromise reached on pragmatic considerations: the “travel documents”
referred to in the Chinese memorandum are the “passports” referred to in
the U.K. memorandum, though the Chinese government will not expressly
recognize them as such, just as it will not recognize the “appropriate status”
under British nationality law mentioned in the U.K. memorandum insofar
as it is purportedly conferred on “Hong Kong Chinese compatriots.”

That “appropriate status” has now been defined by the Hong Kong Act
1985 as British Nationals (Overseas) (“B.N.O.”), a new form of British
nationality created to provide for the Hong Kong situation.300 Detailed rules
relating to this status were enacted in the Hong Kong (British Nationality)
Order 1986,301 under which B.D.T.C.s by virtue of a connection with Hong
Kong have a right, after 1 July 1987 and before 1 July 1997 to be registered
as a B.N.O. and to be issued a passport appropriate to that status.302 How-
ever, Hong Kong B.D.T.C.s who do not apply to be so registered will not
retain any form of British nationality after 1997.303

Arrangements concerning passports, travel documents and identity
cards were among the matters discussed in the Sino-British Joint Liaison
Group set up pursuant to the Joint Declaration to conduct consultations
on the implementation of the Joint Declaration. Agreement has now been
reached on various matters, such as the issue of identity cards and travel
documents34 in the pre-1997 transition and their continual validity after
1997, and the terms of the “right of abode endorsement” in the B.N.O.
passports to be issued by the U.K. government concerning the holders’ right
of abode in Hong Kong.305

The basic principles governing the right of abode in the Hong Kong
S.A.R. and the issue of passports and travel documents after 1997 are set
out in section XIV of Annex I of the Joint Declaration. To bring Hong

30oSee para. 2(1) of the schedule to the British Nationality Act 1981, supra, note 287.
30’Hong Kong Government Gazette 1986, L.S. No. 2 at B623 (L.N. 233/86).
302Article 3 of the Order. Thus as from 1 July 1987 B.N.O. passports have been issued. These
types of passports can continue to be used by their holders after 1997, but the Hong Kong
B.D.T.C. passport will no longer be valid after the establishment of the Hong Kong S.A.R.:
Hong Kong Hansard, 1987-88 at 16, 40-41 (7 October 1987; Governor).

3O3An exception is however provided by the provisions for reducing statelessness in article
6. For a critical discussion, see “Anti-climax over nationality” [Hong Kong] South China Morn-
ing Post (I May 1986) (editorial).

34For the various types of travel documents issued by the Hong Kong government, see

Clarke, supra, note 134 at 341-43.

305See generally “Joint Liaison Group Reports” Hongkong Standard (15 March 1986); “10-
year validity period for CIs after ’97” Hongkong Standard (26 July 1986); “Exchange of mem-
oranda concerning use of ‘DI’ after ’97” Wen Wei Po (19 May 1987) (in Chinese). See also
Hong Kong Hansard, 1985-86 at 1100 (30 April 1986; Chief Secretary); Hong Kong Hansard,
1986-87 at 1390ff(8 April 1987; Secretary for Security).

McGILL LAW JOURNAL

[Vol. 33

Kong’s existing law closer to those principles, the Immigration (Amendment)
(No. 2) Ordinance 1987306 and Registration of Persons (Amendment) Ordi-
nance 1987307 were enacted. The former introduced an express provision
about “the right of abode” in Hong Kong for the first time in the history
of Hong Kong immigration law. The right is defined to include the right to
land in Hong Kong, and the right not to be subject to any condition of stay,
deportation order or removal order.308 The term “Hong Kong permanent
resident” was also introduced into the law, and any person having this status
is given the right of abode in Hong Kong.309 The definition of “Hong Kong
permanent resident” is such that all Hong Kong Belongers and Chinese
Residents 310 under the existing law, of which there were 3.25 million and
1.74 million respectively in 1987,311 became “Hong Kong permanent res-
idents. ‘ 312 Under the Registration ofPersons (Amendment) Ordinance 1987,
they are entitled to the new “permanent identity card” which, unlike the
existing cards, contains a statement that the holder has the right of abode
in Hong Kong.

As regards the problem of immigration from mainland China into Hong
Kong, section XIV of Annex I of the Joint Declaration provides that “[e]ntry
into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of persons from other
parts of China shall continue to be regulated in accordance with the present
practice.” In the current draft of the Basic Law of the Hong Kong S.A.R.,
a document intended to serve as the constitutional instrument for the Hong
Kong S.A.R. and which is in the process of being drafted by the P.R.C.
authorities, there is a brief provision that “[p]eople from other parts of China
who wish to enter the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall have
to apply for permission. ‘ 313 However, the exact mechanism for this aspect
of future immigration control is yet to be worked out.314 Whether the in-

amended by Ordinance No. 31 of 1987.

36Ordinance No. 31 of 1987. See Clarke, supra, note 134 at 325-26.
30 7Ordinance No. 32 of 1987.
308The new s. 2A of the Immigration Ordinance as consolidated (1972), supra, note 160, as
3091bid.
310Thus former Chinese Residents, who now acquire the status of “Hong Kong permanent
residents”, can no longer be deported; this is different from the position under the pre-existing
law as mentioned above. See also Clarke, supra, note 134 at 325-26.

pointed out in Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 1665 (27 March 1987; Cheong-leen).

31’Hong Kong Hansard, 1986-87 at 1390 (8 April 1987; Secretary for Security).
312Thus 90% of Hong Kong’s population became “Hong Kong permanent residents”, as
313Art. 21 of the draft Basic Law, published in Wen WeiPo (13 December 1987) (in Chinese).
314:See Special Group on Inhabitants’ and Other Persons’ Rights, Freedom, Welfare, and
Duties, Basic Law Consultative Committee, “Final Report on Definition of Inhabitants, Right
to Land, Right of Abode, Freedom from Deportation, and Rights to Vote and Stand for Elec-
tion”, unpublished document of the Basic Law Consultative Committee, CCBL-SG/RDI-00-
FR02-870220(E); “Control on number of mainland immigrants to Hong Kong” [Hong Kong]
Ming Pao (29 October 1987) (in Chinese); “Fear over ‘legal immigrants’ “[Hong Kong] South
China Morning Post (29 October 1987).

1988]

IMMIGRATION LAW IN HONG KONG

corporation of Hong Kong into the P.R.C. in 1997 will result in any sig-
nificant change to the present inflow of legal and illegal immigrants from
mainland China to Hong Kong remains to be seen, and this is indeed one
of the critical issues on which the future political stability and economic
prosperity of Hong Kong depend.

It may be seen from this short history of immigration law and policy
in Hong Kong that though politically a British colony in modem times,
Hong Kong has been all through its colonial history largely a society of
immigrants from mainland China. The development of its immigration law
testifies to the dilemmas of growth of this peculiar society. Although the
eventual return of Hong Kong to China should probably have been per-
ceived as inevitable even in the past, the definite provisions of the Joint
Declaration and the approach of 1997 have produced mixed reactions from
the people of Hong Kong. Some observers point to a crisis of confidence
as indicated by rising numbers of applications for emigration overseas. 315
Others raise the concern that post-1997 Hong Kong might not be able to
resist immigration pressure from mainland China, which will ultimately
result in a deterioration in the standards of living in Hong Kong. This is
not the place to offer predictions; it is only to be hoped that the present
study has illuminated some fundamental aspects of the Hong Kong expe-
rience for the purpose of comparative research.

315See e.g., HongKongHansard, 1986-87 at 637 (information on emigrants from Hong Kong),
1513-16 (on the general level of confidence in Hong Kong). According to a survey conducted
by a market research company in January 1988, 14% of the 1.5 million families in Hong Kong
have at least one family member with a right of abode in a foreign country, and another 7%
have at least one family member attempting to emigrate overseas: “20% of families may em-
igrate” [Hong Kong] Ming Pao (13 February 1988) (in Chinese).