For Morrison

[IceEagle]

You said previously your Chinese is not advanced enough to understand it.

I did.

After that, it was explained to you, and confirmed by others.

Indeed. My Chinese language abilities aren't as good as yours though, so it's much harder for me to dismiss it out of hand when conflicting information arises.

Now that we've reviewed it (again), the evidence overall still seems to say to me that you are correct. I'm a person who would always welcome new evidence, of course.

[Morrison]

My previous post was for Hairball who wrote
"I still find the Chinese version of Article 5 ambiguous."

I did not refer to anything you have posted.

[IceEagle]

While this has been discussed for quite some time now, what I am most interested in seeing is definitive evidence either from a HK Immigration Department ruling or a court ruling either way.

Ugh. I can't believe this. This is so embarrassing.

The relevant HK court ruling was made in 2008 - and it's linked to indirectly from Hairball's Guide to ROA. (Guide -> case of master Lamb Nicholas Edward -> case of Azan Aziz Marwah)

How could we have missed it?

As I said in the other thread I'm leaning towards what Morrison thinks it is, though I still find the Chinese version of Article 5 ambiguous.

Actually, the HK court ruling confirms your original interpretation as well as the lawyers that I originally quoted. Morrison and I were wrong.

From AZAN AZIZ MARWAH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER [2008] HKCFI 1090; [2009] 3 HKC 185; HCAL 38/2008 (9 December 2008)

28. For a person born outside China,

(a) if none of the parents is a Chinese national at the time of birth, the person does not have Chinese nationality at birth (art 5), but he may, if he wishes to acquire Chinese nationality subsequently, apply for naturalisation pursuant to arts 7 and 8;

(b) if (i) one or both parents are Chinese nationals at the time of birth, (ii) one or both of them have settled aboard at the time of birth, and (iii) the person has (具有) foreign nationality at birth, then that person does not have Chinese nationality at birth (art 5), but he may apply for nationalisation pursuant to arts 7 and 8 if subsequently he wishes to acquire Chinese nationality;

(c) if one or both parents are Chinese nationals at the time of birth, and (i) none of them has settled aboard at the time of birth or (ii) the person does not have foreign nationality at birth, that person has Chinese nationality at birth (art 5).

But like Morrison is mentioned if someone with two Chinese parents and one is settled abroad is granted the status, there won't be anything to "challenge".

The interesting thing here is that the judge in this case seemed to make this ruling, even though it wasn't relevant to the case - since in Azan only one parent ever obtained Chinese nationality.