Immigration was central to the Brexit referendum, and so when the British government announced that Hong Kong residents would be eligible for a special visa it certainly raised eyebrows. A recent paper from Lancaster University suggests the move had distinctly “colonialist overtones”.
The paper describes the offer aims to infuse new meaning in the afterlife of empire that had been largely absent of any real significance. It was an offer that was introduced after the introduction of National Security Law in Hong Kong in a move that the UK believes violates the agreement made between the country and China when Hong Kong was handed to the Chinese in 1997.
The new visa depends on this residential status and will allow British Nationals (Overseas) (HK BN(O)) and their dependent family members to live in the UK for up to five years. They will then be eligible for residual status, and ultimately British citizenship.
Empirical overtones
The paper highlights how the visa is the latest in a long history between Britain and Hong Kong that has long seen the people of Hong Kong as distinct from the UK’s wider immigration policies. The article specifically looks at the notion that Hong Kongers are “good migrants” for the new “global Britain”, and what this rhetoric might be concealing.
“Rather than a case apart in the context of increasingly restrictive immigration controls, the renewal of Britain’s obligations, commitments, and responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong through this visa scheme provide further evidence of the enduring colonial entanglements in the formation of ‘Global Britain’ and the new immigration plan,” the author explains.
The introduction of the HK BN(O) visa represents what the UK government believes is their “fair and generous” approach to immigration, which is obviously at odds with their rhetoric about also being “tough on immigration”.
“This is not an easy story to tell,” the author continues. “Along with many other people, part of me wants to believe that the HK BN(O) Visa is, indeed, an exceptional act that offers hope not only to those seeking to leave Hong Kong but also to those of us staunchly opposed to the increasingly exclusionary and brutal conditions of the UK’s migration governance, legislation, and policy.”
“However, by recognizing the longstanding presentation of the Hong Kongers as an exception, new sightlines into the coloniality of British citizenship are opened which reveal that not all is as it seems.”
A mixed response
Indeed, the reception to the move in Hong Kong itself was decidedly mixed, as while some welcomed the move, others criticized the UK for interfering and highlighting a distinct lack of confidence in the future of the territory.
The visa is being used as part of the new “Global Britain” that has supposedly “taken back control of its borders”, with the various rhetoric around the announcement portraying Hong Kongers as “good migrants” who are hardworking and entrepreneurial, and therefore should be welcomed.
“A bespoke scheme such as this demonstrates that the Government are now in a position to choose which particular migrants will be beneficial to ‘Global Britain’,” the author explains.
“This revitalisation of Britain’s interest in its self-claimed moral responsibilities, obligations, and commitments to the people of Hong Kong has further significance in the context of Britain’s post-Brexit position on the world stage.”
“Through this lens, its provisions for the Hong Kongers emerge as the exception that proves the rule that Britain has taken back control of its borders and is able to pick and choose who might be ‘good migrants’ for ‘Global Britain’.”
