Proposals for an immigration scheme to comply with the right of abode ruling breach the Basic Law, a judge was told yesterday.
They were a cosmetic exercise that would effectively put the old system back in place, it was claimed.
Lawyers for 17 migrants fighting to stay in Hong Kong amended their case after being provided with evidence of the proposals.
In fresh arguments, supplied to the judge in written form, the lawyers said: 'The proposed new scheme so closely resembles the scheme found to be unconstitutional by the Court of Final Appeal that the court should refuse to take any notice of it.' The scheme would introduce new measures by which mainlanders claiming the right of abode could apply for a certificate of entitlement.
Criticisms of the plans, set out in the migrants' application for judicial review, state that: They give a 'fact-finding' role to officials from the mainland's Bureau of Entry and Exit Administration, which is said to be contrary to the landmark judgment; Nothing in the new scheme suggests the Government is seeking to fulfil its constitutional duty to verify the status of as many mainlanders as possible and as quickly as possible; Evidence suggests the new scheme would operate alongside an unconstitutional quota system, limiting the number of permanent residents whose status is verified; A 'verification queue' giving some applicants priority over others appears to be suggested. This is also said to be unconstitutional; and, Bureau of Entry and Exit Administration officials may be able to use the proposed scheme to delay mainlanders getting right of abode until they receive a one-way permit.
Philip Dykes SC, for the migrants, told the Court of First Instance: 'The evidence of the Director of Immigration strongly suggests that the new scheme is the old scheme cosmetically rearranged.' He said his clients all fell outside the certificate of entitlement scheme.
