# Talk:Right of abode in Hong Kong

What is the right of abode of people that are not chinese citizens?  Do all those Brits and ex-pat Aussie and Americans have any rights, some were even born there.  What about guest workers who've been in HK for a decade or longer? SchmuckyTheCat 22:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

the answer is here: http://www.immd.gov.hk/ehtml/faq_roaihksar.htm so now we just need to work it into the article. SchmuckyTheCat 22:55, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The article should be edited by specifying which laws and rulings are for chinese citizens and which are for foriegners.  I was getting confused for a little bit.  A very small clean up.  109.202.232.126 (talk) 10:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The background of the issue is missing: 

In 1980s Hongkong gave up Touch Base Policy
"Right of abode" defined in Joint Declaration, Appendix 1
The cause/flaw in Joint Declaration, Appendix 1
The flaw in Basic Law provision as following the Appendix 1
The neglect of both Chinese and British government before handover
The basic issue is missing:

Legitimate Expectation from the HK right of abode claimant based on Basic Law
The incompatibility between Basic Law and local Ordinance
The massive arrest by Immigration Department
The judgment of Court of Final Appeal is not the cause of "Right of abode issue". It is the process. When talking the cause, it should be start from the handover, or the neglect of both government, or even the Joint Declaration itself. It is POV to blame the Court of Final Appeal at the very start of description the cause of the issue.
--Csmth (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I removed the protests section as it was, due to it being completely unreferenced, having been tagged so since July 08. If anyone can find any references, especially for the bridge-blocking and fire incidents, then do feel free to addthemback with citations. - Chrism would like to hear from you 20:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Good job; I was going to 'do the dirty' there my self, but lacked the guts to do it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.187.203 (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC) 

It seems that the article currently focuses on one specific issue on the right of abode in Hong Kong: the debate concerning the Article 24(2)(3) of the Hong Kong Basic Law. IMO, the article should talk and explain more generally on the right of abode in Hong Kong, which dates back to the British period. --Joshua Say "hi" to me!What I've done? 05:01, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The entire article is focused on the Ng Ka Ling case in 1999. Nothing is said about subsequent controversies and litigations, such as the Chong Fung Yuen case which concerns mainland pregnant women giving birth in Hong Kong. Craddocktm (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Massive rewrites are being carried out regarding the topic of Right of Abode in Hong Kong. Topics to be included are situations before and after the Handover, as well as definition from Sino-British Joint Declaration and Basic Law. --Kvasir (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This article is full of factual inaccuracies in its coverage of British law's effect on Hong Kong. I'm beginning to clean it up. Please refer to http://www.legco.gov.hk/yr98-99/english/hc/sub_leg/sc58/papers/2496e01.pdf --Jiang (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Please help to expand the section for the recent debate about the Filipinos' application for judicial review of their right of abode. Lots of information can be found in the Chinese Wikipedia. --Quest for Truth (talk) 22:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Right of abode in Hong Kong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120423135953/http://www.hk-lawyer.com/InnerPages_features/0/2054/2004/12 to http://www.hk-lawyer.com/InnerPages_features/0/2054/2004/12
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Right of abode in Hong Kong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nova Crystallis (talk · contribs) 17:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 17:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Expansion on who gets the permanent HKID or the regular HKID would be great.
Lau Kong Yung v Director of Immigration and Vallejos v Commissioner of Registration should be directly mentioned in the text.
Not much really, already got polished enough during the two FACs. Nova Crystallis (Talk) 23:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Nova Crystallis: Thanks for reviewing! Addressed those two points and should be good to go. 07:54, 28 May 2020 (UTC)