RIGHT OF ABODE HELP URGENT TY!!!

Hello, I am a student currently doing the IB programme, for one of the pieces of coursework we have to do, we have to carry out a debate on Hong Kong's Right of Abode.


Our house is on the against side, we believe that that filipinos should not be given Right of Abode in Hong Kong.

The other House believes that filipinos should be given right of abode in Hong Kong.


Note that Right of Abode is not about Hong Kong Residency, or so says my teacher. We are using the example of filipinos because it is a example that has already happened IRL.


If there is anyone out there who is willing to provide information or give their opinion on this topic, it would greatly appreciated.


My research so far has only included article 24 of the basic law and some basic reading of case studies. I'm not a law person, so it would be of great help too if anyone could clarify on any articles related to the Right of Abode in Hong Kong.


Note to any filipinos reading this, please do not be offended, in fact, give your opinion on why you should be given right of abode, it will also be very useful to us.


THANK YOU VERY MUCH

I think the premise of the debate is flawed. Change "Filipino" to to any other nationality (e.g. Indian, Nepali, Indonesian, etc.) and it will still look racist (because one nationality is picked on).


Maybe you're talking about maids and not nationalities?

Against: FDH contracts specifically state that they cannot obtain permanent residency / right of abode from work as a FDH. They cannot retroactively change their contracts after the terms have long since been agreed to.


For: why does a government (a group of bureaucrats) have the right to determine who can and cannot reside in privately owned property that is within boundaries (lines drawn in the sand) of a country? If I own a HK apartment and a FDH has rented it out to me, why does a government bureaucrat have the right to use the force of a gun to remove that FDH from my privately owned property?

Malka,


I'm sure that you are speaking in hypotheticals, and to be clear, I was too.


Anyways, I am getting at a slightly deeper point then that. Ignoring the whole FDH angle for a moment, imagine that I rent a HK property I own to a foreign national. It is my private property and I have contractually given another person the right to occupy it - why do we allow government bureaucrats to get between this private matter by preventing the foreign national from staying in my property? It starts becoming questionable as to whether you really own your property if you cannot do with it what you want.


The whole concept of passports and visas are a relatively new revival in history - brought back into existence by the soviets and kept in use since then. Prior to that there were large parts of the world, such as Europe, where a person could travel and reside anywhere without documents or government approval. How lovely a world it must have been to be able to live where you want rather than stuck tied to the dirt you were born on.

@ Punter, well tbh, in fact, our teacher said "Ethnic Minorities", defined in terms of who holds the most social power. i only chose filipino because most of them work as maids and its a very controversial topic that has already been discussed. Meaning easier time getting info. haha :D


@Lucane, I didn't know about the FDH and rules, Thank you for that. Appreciate it. But despite the FDH contracts, it is possible for them to work seven years then complete the contract or back out. After the seven years, she or he would have fulfilled the right of abode requirements of Article 24 of the basic law, which would entitle them to hk residency.


The thing i need now are reasons why the government would refuse them this. As far as me and my friends know, there has only been 3 cases brought to court and won, meaning that other cases have lost. But i dont see how they don't fulfill the requirement if they have worked for 7 years.


Anyways, i really appreciate the input, if at all possible, could you get your friend on this as well? i want to explore this from all angles.


Also heres an interesting link my friend found, have a look if you understand cantonese, which i hope you do :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5Da8UGfqDE

DHHK,


You should read the legal cases / legal summaries from the most recent FDH Right of Abode case that ruled against FDH. Online commentary from us, or even newspapers (especially newspapers) is not necessarily reliable.


Also you should find the FDH visa, employment contracts, and immigration forms that the FDH fill out to obtain their visas.


The ruling judge should have written a summary explaining why he ruled against FDH right of abode.


Also keep in mind that the government has the power to do whatever it wants. Governments make the laws and enforce (or not enforce) them as they wish. Such is life.

Malka,


Yes, I am insinuating that I'd ideally prefer the whole world to be like a Schengen Area - no passports and no visas required. Live where you want, work where you want doing what you want - no bureaucrats banning people from living the way they want to.


This is not some radical idea - we've liberated the career option (no longer must you do the work your father did or your surname bears), we've liberated the flow of goods and the trade we conduct, next is to liberate our choice on where to live and where to work. Why should people be tied by political and regulatory chains to the dirt they were randomly born on? Why can an African not freely rent a property and reside in the US but an African American can? Does it really make logical or moral sense that one person should have the right to live in the US because he was born within its borders but those who weren't can't?


If anything I'd rather live with the immigrants than the random people who also were born on the same plot of dirt as I was. The immigrants have looked at the culture, style, way of life and determined that this is the type of society they want to be a part of. The natural born citizen is just randomly living there by accident of birth - he may or may not actually prefer to live in that society, but he's stuck there because it's too damn hard to expatriate (for most people).


The real problem with open borders is the welfare state. The solution to this problem should not be to throw up walls but rather to abolish the welfare state.

@malka


Yes, that was what i was wondering too, i read on the FDH website that most FDH have a 2-year contract, i was discussing with my friends whether or not after the 2 year contract, would a new contract contribute to the years stayed in Hong Kong. Could you help me clarify on a point? After the two-year contract, they have to apply for a new visa, so that does mean that it cannot be counted towards a 7 year stay right?


@ Lucane01, as i understand it, Hong Kongers are very different from what you expect, see, in the first place, culturally, we are more collectivist, unlike most westerners who are mostly individualistic.


Sure there might be several guys that think like you do, but thats already rare. From what i have heard from my friends, my parents, my parents friends as well as my friends parents, it seems as though they would prefer to live with "random people born on the same plot of dirt" as you put it.


In fact, thats the entire reason why Hong Kong is so racist, both towards you westerners, towards the ethnic minorities as well as the mainlanders. is because we're all born on the same plot of dirt. Dont forget that our plot of dirt in in fact very very small, so small, property prices have been skyrocketing. We discriminate because our population is high enough as it it and we dont need the added burden of immigrants.


this was something i discuss in my english class with my teacher and she is a black person, light brown to be fair, and she thinks that while Hong Kong is racist, its more in your face in the open racism, than the behind your back racism you'd expect in the west, or so shes says.


Anyways, i feel like im getting off topic, in the end, I'm to argue why we should not allow ethnic minorities right of abode in Hong kong.


Lastly, it doesnt have to be an arguement based on the contractual terms, it can also be argued on the social impacts that granting right of abode to ethnic minorities including FDH filipinos could cause.

Malka is right that you can argue this from a legal or emotional prospective. Really you should have both arguments prepared because I'm sure both will be brought up by your opponents. You should also be careful not to mix your two arguments together - be clear to distinguish between a legal reason and an emotional reason.


For your legal reasons you'll be best off reading the legal summary written by the judge you ruled the last case (which was against FDH). It probably would be wise to also read the summary by the judge of the previous case who ruled in favor of the FDH (your opponents will probably discuss it).


As for my emotional argument, you can better bolster your arguments by trying to counter my argument for open borders (it's a good way to better formulate your thoughts).


You say that HKers are so collectivist and unlike Westerners. I disagree. Go to Italy, Ireland, Scandanavian countries, etc and tell me that they are not the same way. Go to America as an immigrant who speaks poor English - you'll find out that most Americans want you to leave America if you can't speak English like us. A westerner who speaks no Cantonese is treated very friendly in HK - go to France and speak no French and see how they treat you. Go to America without speaking a single word of English and Americans will tell you to learn English or get out. If anything HK is far more welcoming and friendly towards foreigners than the west is. The west likes to put up a charade of diversity but in reality they shun all who do not speak and think the same as the rest.


Anyways, I don't think that HK nor China are unique regarding their views towards foreigners.


Food for thought, where would HK be today if foreigners never took it over and managed it for centuries? Where would HK be if it didn't allow outsiders from Guangdong to move in? Where would America be if it didn't have fully open borders for 150 years? Open borders are a very healthy thing - HK still benefits today from having a relatively open and easy border, but it'd be better if it was a non-existent border.

And to pre-emptively counter any argument that we cannot allow a flood of poor immigrants... remember that America was based on inviting poor immigrants from across the world. America accepted millions of poor immigrants from across Europe, most who could not speak a word of English nor had a penny in their pocket, yet America let them in with no questions asked - and these people were the foundation of industrial America that turned it into the world's most wealthy and powerful nation.