If you are not allowed to live in the UK, then you are not a citizen. You are not anything. If this needs anymore explaining, then I'm not sure what else can be said.
What can I say, it's British law. Don't ask me why, but BNOs are a type of national. Also being a national isn't always the same as being a citizen. Again, don't ask me why.
If your purpose is not to visit, or to stay for more than 6 months, then you need to go to a separate entry do you not?
No, there are only two lanes - UK/EEA nationals (plus Swiss?), and everyone else. Immigration lanes don't switch depending on the purpose of your visit. In some countries there are other lanes for non-national residents. UK doesn't bother with that.
Almost assuredly their first question is have you ever been convicted of a crime in your home country.
That's nonsense. I've known a number of long-term residents to the UK (non-EEA) and they've said they've only been asked questions like how long they were staying for, what the nature of their visa was and, if they were on a work visa, about their work. They've never been asked about criminal convictions.
Even then, immigration officers' discretion is totally irrelevant. As I mentioned, it will be dependent on the immigration/asylum hearing presided over by a JUDGE, not some plexiglass bloke.
1. That's only if they claim asylum. If they enter on the new BNO system they won't need to claim asylum. Their only barrier to entry will be Border Force. If the immigration officer waves them through, they're free to work and settle down.
2. A judge does not need to get involved if the UK Gov approves the asylum application. Judges only get involved if asylum is refused and there's an appeal.
The judge must apply the law correctly. If someone was convicted by a "free and independent court" (i.e. the UK government will be taking the position that this was the case before the NSL), then it must accept the judgement as sound.
I'd rather not do extensive research on this point for you, but to be refused asylum because of criminality requires a high threshold. In the time I've got I managed to find the attached.
Feel free to browse it for yourself, but it basically says to be excluded from the Refugee Convention a person:
a) has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn upto make provision in respect of such crimes
b) has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to admission to that country as a refugee
c) has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations
Throwing stones at a protest or getting involved in a punch-up with a police officer isn't going to be any of the above. I suspect that even throwing molotov cocktails probably wouldn't cut it.
If not, then there is precedent for all the triad gangsters to claim they are victims of heavy handed sentencing.
My guess is that a notorious Triad gangster will have committed crimes under point b). Also, they're unlikely to want to travel to the UK permanently because their business is mostly in China. Why would they move from a country where there's more of a history of tolerance by law enforcement to a place where the police are much more likely to treat them harshly?
Asylum claims are routinely denied on the basis of criminality because all countries know that the process is abused to try to get around criminal records.
See above. The scope for rejecting an asylum claim on the basis of criminality is severely limited in the UK.
they can never go back to HK
Sucks for them, but if you leave your home to claim asylum that rather implies circumstances are dire enough you don't want to stay.
likely not see their family (at least until they have official citizenship)
Their family could still visit them.
not take money from their family
Why? Is China now going to make it illegal for HKers to send money overseas?
All of these would be grounds to disqualify their claim.
Why would any of those points disqualify an asylum claim? Lots of asylum seekers have to risk losing contact with their families.
Arguing this point is totally disingenuous.
It's really not. Most people didn't want the protests to be a zero-sum game.
It is a low risk, yield political capital (stand up to China during this pandemic), and maybe yield a small financial boost. Just because they can print their own money, doesn't mean it's not worth it to them finanically.
It's hardly low risk. The UK housing market is already pretty over-priced. If there was high take up on the new immigration rules from Hong Kong those people would need to be housed somewhere. Accommodation would be found, but certainly there'd be a risk of increased homelessness or new arrivals being in competition with longer-term residents for housing.
Voting? You think the issue in South Africa was voting?
It was a huge part of it. If you can't vote, you can't change the government. By getting the vote, black South Africans were able to install a government of their choosing that respected their rights. Nelson Mandela became leader of South Africa
after the 1994 election, not as some sort of deal with the previous de Klerk administration where he was simply given the position.
Also no one is comparing people in HK to Mandela himself. It's about the movements as a whole, if any comparisons are to be made.
