Hong Kong’s new Immigration Bill: Explainer

Overview

On 28 April 2021, the Hong Kong Legislature made up entirely of pro-Beijing legislators passed an immigration bill which will give immigration officials powers to stop any individual leaving or entering the city.

What does the bill do?

The Immigration Bill does two specific things:

• It legally requires airline carriers to pass on the information relating to the carrier, its passengers, and the members of its crew to the Director of Immigration.

• It gives the Director of Immigration the power to direct that a passenger or a member of the crew of may or may not be carried on board the airline carrier.

If an airline carrier or individual refuses to provide information or cooperate with the Director of Immigration under this legislation they risk being fined.

The Director is also given the power to exempt any individual or carrier from these new requirements.

Aside from proposals that give officials the power to prevent individuals from leaving the city. The legislation also includes provisions that would allow the arming of immigration officials, the extension of detention powers, and the creation of a new detention centre in Tai Tam Gap.

Why do the Hong Kong Authorities claim they need it?

The Hong Kong Government has claimed that these new powers are needed to screen illegal immigrants and deal with a backlog of 13,000 asylum applications.

Currently the USA and EU require passenger details and crew information in advance of travel. The Hong Kong authorities claim they are merely following suit.

What are the concerns of civil society and the legal sector?

Civil society in Hong Kong have warned that these new powers could be used to stop specific pro-democracy activists from leaving the city or even restrict the movement of the population of Hong Kong to enter and leave the city.

The Hong Kong Bar Association warned in February that the bill confers "an apparently unfettered power" on the director of immigration "to prevent Hong Kong residents and others from leaving Hong Kong". They have called for the Government to amend the bill to narrow its scope to only include inbound flights and to state that that such ‘power of prohibition does not affect in any way the right of a Hong Kong resident and person with the right to enter and remain in the HKSAR.’

Migration charities, like the Refugee Concern Network, have also raised concern about the treatment of refugees and asylum seekers as a result of the changes outlined in the Immigration Bill. This includes allowing immigration officials to be armed, expanding their powers of detention, and the creation of a new detention centre in Tai Tam Gap.

The bill also ignores existing concerns that have been raised about possible human rights violations when it comes to the detention and treatment of refugees in Hong Kong.

Could the law really be used to stop pro-democracy activists and Hong Kongers from leaving the city?

In recent years the Chinese Government has used the introduction of “exit bans” in the mainland to restrict freedom of movement in and out of the country. The common use of these bans raises questions as to whether the broad powers in this immigration bill would be used to similar effect.

Beijing has previously floated the idea of restricting the flow of immigration as a possible counter measure to the UK’s BNO visa scheme and the lifeboat schemes put forward by Canada and Australia. While pro-Beijing lawmakers in the Hong Kong Legislature have called for new powers for immigration officials to prevent pro-democracy activists leaving the city and going into exile, following the exit of notable activists including Ted Hui, Nathan Law, and Dennis Kwok.

These powers are largely unnecessary when it comes to the vast majority of pro-democracy activists awaiting trial. Under Hong Kong’s bail system, those awaiting trial are required to surrender their passport and regularly report to a local police station.

What should the international community do in response?

1.       International lawmakers should closely monitor the situation in Hong Kong and make it clear to Beijing that any attempt to restrict freedom of movement in or out of the city will have serious consequences.

2.       Likeminded partners should consider introducing lifeboat schemes as a matter of urgency, increasing the opportunities for Hong Kongers to leave the city to work and live abroad. This includes the USA, EU, and New Zealand introducing lifeboat schemes and the UK, Canada, and Australia examining how they can improve the schemes already in place.

3.       International lawmakers should draw up and propose a list of Hong Kong and Chinese officials who should be placed under Magnitsky sanctions.