Thread by @aaronMCN

Some proposed amendments to the Immigration Ordinance are now getting even more media attention.

So it's worth sharing the HK government's explanation for the change, which some have described as a potential means to prevent anyone from leaving Hong Kong. legco.gov.hk/yr20-21/englis…

Section 3 of the Immigration (Amendment) Bill 2020, the section which has provoked this controversy, can be read below:

First and foremost, the section ought to be read together with whatever regulations come later as a result of it, which we haven't seen yet and can't pre-judge

But even without knowing what's coming later, the government's explanation asks us to read the (b) subsection together with the (a) subsection.

According to the government, this amendment is intended to fulfil HK's obligations under the Convention on International Civil Aviation

Advance Passenger Information is nothing new.

If the U.S. decides to deny you entry, they don't need to wait until you arrive at a U.S. airport. You can be denied at the point of departure before even boarding.

API is the system which makes it possible to screen you so early.

The U.S. has been doing this since long before 2018, when ICAO member states were legally obliged to implement API.

If HK wants to start doing it too (which, admittedly, the government hasn't actually mentioned) then the (b) subsection would be one way to achieve that objective

That obviously doesn't mean that the subsection couldn't be used to achieve other objectives too.

It's the possibility of exit bans on Hong Kong residents that has garnered the most media attention, as well a submission from the Hong Kong Bar Association. hkba.org/sites/default/…

The government says it will ensure that the regulations which may follow the amendment will conform with the Basic Law right of Hong Kong residents to enter and leave the city.

We will need to wait until the regulations are published to judge whether that assurance has been kept

But no matter how HK changes its laws, there's no foolproof way of knowing whether someone is emigrating, or travelling for another reason.

Unless people think it's realistic that the government would ban foreign travel for any reason at all, this controversy seems misplaced.

If this amendment were to be used for any political purpose, the more plausible one is actually the opposite of what the focus is on now.

People like Benedict Rogers or Kenneth Roth could in the future be denied entry to HK at the point of departure, instead of when they arrive.

The point of this thread is not to dismiss legitimate questions being asked during a legislative exercise.

But the document linked to in my first tweet has been online for almost two weeks and appears to have been overlooked, so my contribution to the discussion is to share it.