Right of abode help urgently!!

[DiehardHongkong]

Hello, I am a student currently doing the IB programme, for one of the pieces of coursework we have to do, we have to carry out a debate on Hong Kong's Right of Abode.

Our house is on the against side, we believe that that filipinos should not be given Right of Abode in Hong Kong.
The other House believes that filipinos should be given right of abode in Hong Kong.

Note that Right of Abode is not about Hong Kong Residency, or so says my teacher. We are using the example of filipinos because it is a example that has already happened IRL.

If there is anyone out there who is willing to provide information or give their opinion on this topic, it would greatly appreciated.

My research so far has only included article 24 of the basic law and some basic reading of case studies. I'm not a law person, so it would be of great help too if anyone could clarify on any articles related to the Right of Abode in Hong Kong.

Note to any filipinos reading this, please do not be offended, in fact, give your opinion on why you should be given right of abode, it will also be very useful to us.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH

[Rob2020]

So, what is your definition of Right of Abode if it's not about Hong Kong Residency?

Also, you may start the conversation by stating your opinion perhaps?

[DiehardHongkong]

Ok, well in my opinion Right of abode is HK residency and i guess you can just assume that, its just my teacher doesnt think so.

Also are you asking me for my personal opinion or the debate opinion?

[Rob2020]

Ok, well in my opinion Right of abode is HK residency and i guess you can just assume that, its just my teacher doesnt think so.

Also are you asking me for my personal opinion or the debate opinion?

1. you will have quite a problem if you don't agree with your teacher on the definition of the term, probably best to sort that out first
2. I was referring to your points to support your debate opinion, I wasn't clear there

[Claire ex-ax]

What course is this - law?

[DiehardHongkong]

Nope, its English B Higher Level.

@rob
well, my teacher is running it as a semi-official debate, so she'll probably accept the definition me and my group make.

Also, as for the points, I've not much, only started research a day ago, article 24 of the basic law and other right of abode related case studies.

[bibbju]

Nope, its English B Higher Level.

@rob
well, my teacher is running it as a semi-official debate, so she'll probably accept the definition me and my group make.

Also, as for the points, I've not much, only started research a day ago, article 24 of the basic law and other right of abode related case studies.

Since it's an English course, a good start will be using grammatically correct English. It's "my group and I" not "me and my group".

[Claire ex-ax]

My thought was, if it were law, then it could be argued on the contractual terms.

My other thought, if not about 'residency', could it be argued on the social impact?

[DiehardHongkong]

Heh, I'm usually a grammar nazi mahself, but on the internet, im a turncoat with the allies so no, i wont be cleaning up mah language XDXD

@ Claire, well actually, you may as well do both, contractual terms, such as the terms set by the FDH and the Basic Law is good stuff, but as I said before, I'm not a law person so I don't know much about how to go about arguing through that viewpoint.

Also social impact is also good as my friend has been watching vids of legco members talking about it, would be nice if you gave your view too

and here's a video if you understand Cantonese
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Da8UGfqDE