How could a British passport allow someone from Hong Kong to travel abroad, yet leave them needing permission to move to Britain? This question has shaped the choices of several generations. It also explains why the introduction of the BN(O) visa in 2021 marked such a significant turning point. Today, many families complete five years in Britain before applying for permanent settlement and, later, citizenship. Yet some Hongkongers once shared the same citizenship category as people in Britain: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The journey from shared citizenship to separate residence rights, and eventually to a new migration route, reveals how Britain repeatedly redrew the boundaries of its responsibilities.
Britain originally defined the relationship between individuals and the Crown through the status of British subject. People born in Hong Kong who met the legal conditions of the time could acquire that status through their birthplace. The British Nationality Act 1948, which took effect on 1 January 1949, established citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, commonly abbreviated to CUKC. Both Hong Kong and Britain belonged within this framework. British subjects could, in principle, enter and live in Britain. For ordinary families, British status therefore once carried a route to a life in the country itself. Colonial residents nevertheless had different political rights from those living in Britain. Shared citizenship existed alongside substantial inequalities in power and status.
As Commonwealth migration increased after the war, Britain began narrowing that route through immigration controls. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 brought large numbers of Commonwealth citizens, including some CUKCs, under immigration control. People coming to work faced requirements such as employment vouchers. Exemptions included people born in Britain and holders of passports issued by the British government that met the legislation’s definition. British passports issued by colonial governments could receive different treatment. For Hongkongers, a crucial change had begun: passports bearing the same country’s name could lead to different immigration rights, depending on birthplace and the issuing authority. A boundary between Britain and its colonies was emerging within their shared citizenship.
In 1968, Britain tightened the exemptions again. Some Asian residents of East Africa had retained CUKC status and held passports issued by the British government, placing them outside the restrictions introduced in 1962. As discriminatory policies in East Africa prompted more of them to move to Britain, Parliament rapidly changed the law. The exemption now required specified connections to Britain through the birth, adoption, registration or naturalisation of the individual, a parent or a grandparent. Although the immediate circumstances concerned East Africa, the wider institutional message was clear for Hongkongers too. British nationality and a British passport were becoming insufficient guarantees of entry. Connections between a person’s family and Britain itself increasingly determined the rights they enjoyed.
The Immigration Act 1971 organised these distinctions around a formal right of abode. Its main provisions took effect on 1 January 1973. Those with the right of abode could enter, leave and live in Britain freely; others needed immigration permission. Eligibility covered specified connections through birth, ancestry or residence. It included CUKCs who met the conditions relating to settlement and five years of ordinary residence in Britain. For citizens whose principal connection was with Hong Kong, British nationality and the freedom to move to Britain had become separate matters. The position familiar to later generations, holding a British passport while still needing permission to enter and settle, had taken shape long before the handover.
Nationality categories subsequently caught up with this reality. The main provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981 took effect on 1 January 1983. They divided CUKC status into three principal categories: British citizenship, British Dependent Territories citizenship and British Overseas citizenship. CUKCs who already had the right of abode generally became British citizens. Those whose main connection was with a dependent territory such as Hong Kong became British Dependent Territories citizens, or BDTCs, where the relevant conditions were met. A previously shared citizenship label became a set of distinct legal statuses. Britain had separated residence rights through immigration law, then embedded those divisions in nationality law. Many Hongkongers retained British nationality while losing the security of a guaranteed home in Britain.
Negotiations over Hong Kong’s future made the issue more pressing. As arrangements for the 1997 transfer of sovereignty were established, Britain created British National (Overseas) status, or BN(O), for eligible Hong Kong BDTCs. Registration allowed them to retain a form of British nationality. The status could be held for life, but could not be passed to the next generation, and registration closed with the handover. BN(O) preserved access to a British passport and a legal connection to Britain, while leaving its holders subject to British immigration control. For families worried about the future, it provided an identity document they could keep in a drawer. Whether they could actually make a home in Britain still depended on finding a separate immigration route.
Following the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989, Britain introduced another arrangement. The British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 established the British Nationality Selection Scheme, often known in Hong Kong as the right of abode scheme. It allowed up to 50,000 principal applicants to be selected, with spouses and minor children also able to register under the rules. Successful families obtained British citizenship directly, without first having to spend several years living in Britain. Selection used occupational categories and other criteria, with objectives including retaining skilled people and maintaining confidence in Hong Kong. The incentive was striking: Britain gave some Hongkongers the security of being able to leave, hoping that this would encourage them to stay. Most families continued to face an uncertain future without that guarantee.
On 1 July 1997, BDTC status acquired solely through a connection with Hong Kong ended. Those who had registered retained BN(O) status. Their legal relationship with Britain continued, while the right to move there remained unresolved. Britain made another important choice in 2002, when most people holding British Overseas Territories citizenship through a qualifying territory automatically became British citizens as well. Hong Kong had left that nationality framework five years earlier, so BN(O) holders did not receive the same benefit from the reform. The sequence of events sent people who had once belonged within the same colonial nationality system towards different sets of citizenship rights.
It took the introduction of Hong Kong’s National Security Law in 2020 for Britain to substantially expand migration arrangements for BN(O) holders. The new visa opened on 31 January 2021. The British government linked the policy to the Sino-British Joint Declaration and its historic and moral commitment to Hongkongers. Eligible applicants and family members could live, work and study in Britain, normally applying for settlement after completing five years of qualifying residence, and subsequently applying for British citizenship if they met the conditions. The route has distinct legal stages. A visa provides time-limited permission to stay. Settlement allows long-term residence. British citizenship brings the legal right of abode.
At each stage, families face requirements they must meet. Alongside visa fees, the immigration health surcharge and living costs, settlement requires compliance with rules on continuous residence, English language ability, the Life in the UK test and criminal history. Those requirements may become stricter as policy changes. Families invest years in building their lives before securing permanent status. Whether they obtain it still depends on the rules in force when they apply and the assessment of their applications.
Across this history, Britain first included Hongkongers within a shared citizenship, then progressively restricted entry to the country and eventually wrote the distinctions into separate nationality categories. The 2021 arrangements reconnected eligible Hongkongers with a route to Britain, while requiring families to obtain more secure rights through residence, eligibility checks and applications. Britain places the arrangement within immigration management. Hongkongers also understand it through colonial history and their nationality ties. The gap between those perspectives lies at the heart of today’s disputes. Should Britain’s historical responsibility to BN(O) holders extend only to offering a conditional immigration route, or should it provide a firmer guarantee of settlement?
