Legal Studies Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

efficacious Studies - Term Paper Exampleose living in Hong Kong always for seven years, shall be deemed as standing(prenominal) house physicians of HKSAR as per Article 24(2) category (3) of the basic law.As per the provisions of basic law, many parents qualifying for permanent resident status in HKSAR had children born in Mainland China, who have then moved to Hong Kong and overstayed there illegally. However, they approached the Immigration department for getting recognition of their status as permanent residents of HKSAR, as well as, for issuing them the necessary identity cards for this purpose. On 11 July 1997, Provisional Legislative Council of Hong Kong enacted the Immigration Amendment 3 ordinance of 1997, while specifying the brass of a certificate entitlement scheme, which required compliance from all permanent residents of HKSAR. Accordingly, Bureau of Exit-Entry was set up for this purpose at Mainland china, for applying under this scheme at Mainland China. However, performing as per this ordinance 3, the Director of Immigration refused permission to those, who applied after 1 July 1997, while ordering them to return to Mainland China. Hence, certain test cases were selected, which approached the Director of Legal Aid for challenging this ordinance. The Na Ka Ling Vs. Director of Immigration is one such test case. The child was able to prove being natural resident of Hong Kong, as also being lawful child of permanent Hong Kong residents. (Hong Kong Cases, pages 296-301)While all the four test cases were consolidated for hearing before Keith J, the judge discount all cases, including the Na Ka Ling case, with the exception of case involving Cheung Lai Wah, on 9th Oct 1997.The test applicants appealed against the order of dismissal, in the Court of Appeal. Hence, the court was requested to address the issue of constitutionality of formula 3 and validity of wedlock requirement for defining the parent-child relationship, as per the ordinance 2. However, on 2nd April, 1998, this court upheld