Two senior judges protested yesterday when told by the Government they must do as Beijing says - regardless of their own opinions - when ruling on the Basic Law. The arguments were raised in an attempt by the Director of Immigration to prevent children born in Hong Kong to mainland visitors from having the right of abode. Mr Justice Anthony Rogers responded by saying: 'So, really, we can rip up the Basic Law and just look at what people have got to say about it.' According to the Government, if the court thought 'X', it would still have to rule 'Y' because of comments made by the National People's Congress Standing Committee, he added. Mr Justice Simon Mayo said this would mean the judges doing as they were told instead of following the usual legal principles and looking at what the law said. What the Government was really saying was if the Court of Appeal did not rule in its favour, its judgment would be overturned should the case later be referred to Beijing, he added. 'What it says in fairly simple terms is we have got to do as we are told,' he said. The Government is seeking to reverse a court ruling in December which said the Basic Law gives the right of abode to two-year-old Chong Fung-yuen, born while his mother was in the SAR on a two-way permit. Joseph Fok SC, for the Director of Immigration, invited the court to consider the way in which the National People's Congress (NPC) would consider the case. He said the Court of Appeal should follow the opinions of the now-defunct Preparatory Committee when deciding what the law meant because this was what would happen if the case was considered in Beijing. The NPC Standing Committee said, when interpreting a different part of the Basic Law in June last year, that it regarded those opinions as reflecting the true meaning. 'It just does not make sense for Your Lordships to ignore what the Standing Committee has said,' Mr Fok said. If the court follows the Preparatory Committee's opinions, the Government will win the case. Mr Fok claimed a victory for Fung-yuen would prompt a massive influx from the mainland of pregnant women desperate to get to Hong Kong so their offspring could secure the right of abode. Gladys Li SC, for the child, disputed the claim and will also argue that the court does not have to follow the opinions of the Preparatory Committee. The case, also considered by Mr Justice Arthur Leong, continues today.