改革IA與BNA難度

http://www.commonsleader.gov.uk/output/page2653.asp

好多人唔明,點解原定在2009年1月14日公布,並進行首讀的英國兩份改革入境法草案,突然首讀無期,唔知幾時出到Full Bill。

以我的分析,很可能啹喀兵炸中了一些大地雷,英國未知如何收科。

在啹喀兵案前,Borders, Immigration and Citizenship Bill只做以下平權工作,在去年七月的Partial Draft未寫入去

Ensuring fairness in nationality cases by removing the historical cut-off point for enabling children of British mothers born before 1961 to become British themselves

在啹喀兵案宣判後,又加了以下部分

recognising our obligation to the armed forces by enabling those serving overseas to register their children as British.

問題來了,啹喀兵案要平權的,是不是只有這麼多?

在Lord Goldsmith的Goldsmith’s Report website中,精選了三份submission來擺在網站,包括了The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association提交的平權submission,這當然有政策指導性

http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/ilpa-citizenship.pdf

這份submission羅列了一份清單,這份清單中的第32點,就是啹喀兵案,亦包括了1961年cut off的膠問題,亦即係清單第9點。這份清單涉及問題不只BN(O)平權,還有BN(HK)A 1990, 1997留下一堆膠問題,例如BN(HK)A 1990或BN(HK)A 1997得到英國公民的子女,必須在英國生仔才可傳英國國籍(係,如果你係居英權持有人,想傳居英權落下一代,要去英國生仔),有印巴裔人士不受BN(HK)A 1997和NIAA 2002保障搞到半天吊一大堆。甚至BHK Pierre提及的叛國問題,都有提及,因為現時一堆英國反恐法律辣到連BN(O)都走唔甩(R. v. Casement [1917] 1 K.B. 98 at 130,我呢度要承認,Pierre提出的叛國罪平權方案,係可以行得通,因為會變成英國當局煽惑英國國民背叛英王的問題,即係會膠)。仲要一樣嘢,Lord Goldsmith自己喺Report到都認咗,有歧視BN(O)

一堆膠到無朋友的問題,依家只係解決兩件,咁其他呢?你解唔解決佢?至低限度,放唔放BN(O)入BNA 1981 4B,解決因1997年2月4日唔係通常居住香港而搞出嚟的膠?結果係,英國一係唔好郁,郁得啹喀兵案,就要全郁,否則就打官司打到你抽筋。

所以,英國依家係要成條Bill寫過,半天吊平權的結果就係自己攞嚟煩。依家啹喀兵案有判決,無得唔做第32點,所以睇要做幾多,但太離譜的個案我估會做咗嘢先。正如英國自己講

We recognise that this is a major undertaking which needs to be done well rather than done quickly. We will make a full draft available as soon as we can.

急嘅結果,只係得個膠字。

後話:The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association提出的平權方案,我覺得Lord Goldsmith係考慮過,就係將BNA 1981 4B或者BN(HK)A 1997無限擴大,申請人無需證明自己無第三國籍,都可以選擇登記成為英國公民。我認為將BN(HK)A 1997在其他國籍的條款和1997年2月4日居住條款移除達致平權是可以考慮,因為香港有些人,可能不方便或未適合成為英國公民,例如立法會議員,如果一夜之間BN(O)直升英國公民,可能會令香港出現極大的憲政危機,我認為The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association的方案是深思熟慮過。

8 thoughts on “改革IA與BNA難度

  1. 講起立法會議員,有d係有所謂中國國籍,但係無入中共國權,係地都唔知算唔算實際上有full Chinese citizenship。

    佢地有義務要守中國法律,但係就無入境中共國權。

  2. 如果禁既情況, 我覺得BN(O)有機會成為英國公民, 但推斷落去, 英國其實會唔會取消某d英籍呢?? 另外, 我都有幾個問題:

    1) 如果沒有申請BN(O), 但可能仍然有CUKC及BDTC身份既香港人(根本無放棄過!!), 但Border, Immigration & Citizenship Bill出左, 禁法理上又可唔可以承認佢係有英籍?

    2) 如果英國承認CUKC=英國公民, 禁馬英九同馬太又係唔係仍然擁有CUKC呢?? (我都好貿想知佢地當時係唔係以CUKC身份移民台灣!!!)

    我有一樣野唔明:
    “Pierre提出的叛國罪平權方案,係可以行得通,因為會變成英國當局煽惑英國國民背叛英王的問題”??

    Martin, 可唔可以解釋一下??

  3. To Oliver:

    1) 依家無BN(O)的CUKC呢個問題,係好尷尬,但有可能都會承認係英籍,因為依家無BN(O),但又無中國國籍的CUKC,係合符申請BN(HK)A 1997資格。

    2) 我之前都講,馬英九可能一夜成為英國公民,情況係會好膠。但依家馬英九,亦無任何辦法退出英國國籍,所以將BN(HK)A 1997無限擴大,對台灣係有好處。

    3) 睇R. v Casement案例以下判詞,好辣:
    「“High treason, being an offence committed against the duty of allegiance, it may be proper … to consider from whom and to whom allegiance is due.With regard to natural born subjects, there can be no doubt. They owe allegiance to the Crown at all times and in all places. This is what we call natural allegiance, in contradistinction to that which is local. … Natural allegiance is founded on the relation every man standeth in to the Crown considered as the head of that society whereof he is born a member: and on the peculiar privileges he deriveth from that relation which are with great propriety called his birthright; this birthright nothing but his own demerit can deprive him of; it is indefeasible and perpetual; and consequently the duty of allegiance which ariseth out of it and is inseparably connected with it, is in consideration of law likewise unalienable and perpetual”」

    同埋,如果唔將其餘英國國民納入反恐法管制對象,同英國公民一樣,就會出現很難解釋的國家安全漏洞。

  4. 我睇過條Bill

    比較個Draft Bill,EEA同British Citizen的Rights唔見咗,即係咁講,Simplification Bill見真章。

  5. Martin,

    Do you have any clues why the contents of EEA has been taken out?

    EEA issues wouldn’t be with Simplification Bill, because this bill is for British Nationals

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *