Like Tree2Likes

For Morrison

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    At an undisclosed location.
    Posts
    387

    For Morrison

    I was quite surprised to see the following from this web page: Enrolling Binational Children in Beijing International Schools: Immigration Law Issues - U.S. & China Visa Law Blog | Chodorow Law Offices

    (1) no Chinese parent has settled abroad;
    I find that website to be a really good and reliable source of information, thus I was really surprised to see them state this when I had believed previously that - if both parents are Chinese, then - both Chinese parents had to be settled abroad for the child to fail to receive Chinese nationality.

    The website is run by actual lawyers who specialize in immigration matters, particularly in China<->US immigration matters, so I'd expect them to actually know about matters like this. (That is, they have actual and direct experience on precisely this issue.)

    Actually, I think that I'm still in a state of shock over this.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,745

    Well, I don't want to destroy your belief system.

    If you would like to study this subject in more detail, I recommend you read through the thread we have had about this with Hairball and others.

    Again, in Chinese Nationality law it's unambiguous, and a correct English version can be found on HK Immi's website. And that's what they work with.

    Article 5: Any person born abroad whose parents are both Chinese nationals or one of whose parents is a Chinese national shall have Chinese nationality. But a person whose parents are both Chinese nationals and have both settled abroad, or one of whose parents is a Chinese national and has settled abroad, and who has acquired foreign nationality at birth shall not have Chinese nationality.

    GovHK: Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China

    imparanoic likes this.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    At an undisclosed location.
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrison:
    Well, I don't want to destroy your belief system.

    If you would like to study this subject in more detail, I recommend you read through the thread we have had about this with Hairball and others.
    I already have, thanks: http://hongkong.geoexpat.com/forum/5...ml#post2924661

    Quote Originally Posted by Morrison:
    Again, in Chinese Nationality law it's unambiguous,
    I thought so as well: http://hongkong.geoexpat.com/forum/5...tml#post544653

    Quote Originally Posted by Morrison:
    and a correct English version can be found on HK Immi's website. And that's what they work with.
    They shouldn't, as the Chinese language version is the controlling one. If there were any differences between the two, the Chinese version would win out. I agree with you that in this particular case though, they seem to agree.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Tsim Sha Tsui
    Posts
    3,963

    They shouldn't, as the Chinese language version is the controlling one. If there were any differences between the two, the Chinese version would win out. I agree with you that in this particular case though, they seem to agree.
    On what do you base this on?

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,745

    It's true, it is stipulated somewhere on hK Immis website.

    btw, I meant Chinese Nat Law as it is,That's what HK Immi works with,
    as opposed to how some lawyer sees and posts it on his website.


  6. #6

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    At an undisclosed location.
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by Proplus:
    On what do you base this on?
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrison:
    It's true, it is stipulated somewhere on hK Immis website.
    Yes, it says at GovHK: Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China the following:


    Note: The English translation of these explanations was prepared by the
    Department of Justice, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative
    Region. It is for reference only and has no legislative effect.
    Also, if you look at Instrument 14 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong: http://www.basiclaw.gov.hk/en/basicl...text_doc14.pdf

    In case of any
    discrepancy in the meaning of wording between the English text and the
    Chinese text, the Chinese text shall prevail.
    This is a little unusual, as most laws in HK would adopt an interpretation that best reconciles the different language texts if any differences were to arise, see Cap 1 s 10B Construction of Ordinances in both official languages (INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE)

    However, the Basic Law and the Nationality Law are laws passed by the National People's Congress in Beijing, not LegCo in Hong Kong, so it's understandable why the Chinese version would be controlling in those specific cases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morrison:
    btw, I meant Chinese Nat Law as it is,That's what HK Immi works with,
    My apologies for misunderstanding. I believe you are 100% correct here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morrison:
    as opposed to how some lawyer sees and posts it on his website.
    Again, you are 100% correct here.

    What I just can't wrap my head around is how a team of professional lawyers who specialize in these matters, who are fluent in Mandarin and familiar with the relevant Chinese laws (in the original Chinese text naturally), and have direct experience with dealing with the government authorities on this exact issue, could have possibly made that kind of mistake. It just doesn't add up for me.
    Morrison likes this.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,745

    I have spotted a whole bunch of ( wording ) mistakes on said lawyer's site.

    In the previous discussion we have had with Hairball, I have also tried to explain how this kind of mistakes usually happen, sometimes it is just lack of attention to the detail.
    On other occasions, particularly when a task is extremely difficult the mind comes up with a solution that sounds about right. This saves glucose.
    In other words, it's a habit we have in order to survive.
    It's very hard to control.

    Thinking, Fast and Slow, I would like to recommend this book.

    Last edited by Morrison; 22-09-2014 at 07:20 PM.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    At an undisclosed location.
    Posts
    387
    Quote Originally Posted by Morrison:
    I have spotted a whole bunch of ( wording ) mistakes on said lawyer's site.
    Considering how closely lawyers have to deal with nuances of language, I'd agree that this would certainly looks bad. But I can see them having lower paid secretaries type out most of the information on the website (while the valuable high powered lawyer time is spent on actual money making cases). Additionally, I can see them deliberately making word choices that are incorrect (e.g. using "begs the question" to mean "asks the question" instead of its true meaning) in order to reach out to a wider audience that may not understand the more correct terminology. (I'm thinking specifically of Americans here.)

    Speaking of which, I'm wondering if some of that is simply American vs British word usage.

    Quote Originally Posted by Morrison:
    In the previous discussion we have had with Hairball, I have also tried to explain how this kind of mistakes usually happen, sometimes it is just lack of attention to the detail.
    While this sounds plausible, there's simply no getting around the fact that they have direct experience handling cases that involve dealings with the governmental authorities in charge of these matters.

    The explanation that seems to fit best is that this is just another difference in the interpretation of the Law between the mainland and HK. I can certainly see the mainland authorities being fussier about who is allowed to be born a Chinese national abroad, even if such a view isn't completely in line with a strict literal reading of said law.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    779

    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.

    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.

    Another thing that I want to add, is that it seems like generally speaking they will use the English version of laws (even though in this case it is unofficial) in terms of the cases unless it is determined there is a conflict in which the Chinese version will prevail. 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".

    Last edited by Hairball; 22-09-2014 at 11:15 PM.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    6,745

    You said previously your Chinese is not advanced enough to understand it.
    After that, it was explained to you, and confirmed by others.

    Last edited by Morrison; 23-09-2014 at 12:35 PM.

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast