- 在線時間
- 13 小時
- 最後登錄
- 23-3-5
- 國民生產力
- 0
- 附加生產力
- 342
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 15-1-12
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 102
- 主題
- 0
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 444
- UID
- 1757878
|
本帖最後由 random_dad 於 16-9-22 09:49 編輯
FattyDaddy 發表於 16-9-20 13:42
No I would not say it is a bit of a reach if we put things into context.
The majority of ethnic Chin ...
Respectfully, I would suggest that your application of context isn't correct.
Ethnic Chinese Hongkongers that have never emigrated elsewhere would not be part of this context of the renunciation of their Chinese nationality, because they will not be able to, as one cannot renounce their nationality without having already obtained another. You cannot become stateless voluntarily. The context of which the renunciation applies is only for, as you put it, the minority who have obtained foreign nationality.
Within this subset of people of which the rule can only apply to, from my personal experience, I would still like to suggest that your observation isn't entirely correct. I will suggest that there are two categories of people within this subset; the "parents" and the "children".
While a significant portion of "parents" may have returned to Hong Kong, I don't think it's the majority. For example, the statistics in the early 2000's suggested that there were more than 400,000 Chinese in the Greater Toronto Area (the largest Chinese population outside of China/Hong Kong), with the overwhelming majority from Hong Kong, as immigration from Mainland China was few and far in between. Further, there was steady emigration from after 1989 right up to the handover, as the events of 1989 triggered a wave of application, and time for applications + time needed to stay in a foreign country for the majority would have been 5 years or greater (2 years application + 3 years stay for Canada or 5 years for Australia or 7 years for USA), and as such returning before 1997 would have been difficult for many. Of these folks, only those that entered Hong Kong just before July 1 1997 or the 18 months following would have qualified for retaining their Right of Abode if they were to renounce their Chinese nationality. Those returning after that would have needed to not have entered Hong Kong at all for more than 36 months continuously.
For the "children", as anecdotal evidence, I have noticed the migration back to Hong Kong began just after 2000 and continued throughout the decade, having graduated from University and having perceived their economic opportunities were better in Hong Kong as a result of their language and cultural deficiency. These same "children" that have returned are now looking at returning overseas or having recently done so, as they now have their own children and are looking at the education system here as dysfunctional as compared to what they have attended overseas, and therefore desiring an international school now, with the consideration of sending their children overseas soon or in the near future. I can tell you from personal experience that a great majority of those I know that have primary school aged children today and hold a foreign nationality has already returned to the foreign country within the last year or two, or is on their radar to go well before upper secondary school begins. The events in Hong Kong in the last two years seems to have been a contributing factor as well, whether as an excuse or not for their decision to leave.
For what it's worth. It's my 2 cents. You may disagree. :)
|
|