This article examines how Britain, Canada, and Australia managed the political and moral challenges of Hong Kong's impending 1997 handover through migration policy. Drawing on archival sources and recent scholarship, it situates Hong Kong's emigration debates within the broader contexts of decolonization and evolving Commonwealth relations. As Britain negotiated the Sino-British Joint Declaration and faced mounting anxiety among Hong Kong's population – particularly after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre – it sought to reassure the colony's residents while avoiding large-scale immigration to Britain. Britain's 1990 Nationality Scheme, which granted citizenship to only 50,000 Hong Kong families, reflected this constrained strategy. To mitigate the risk of mass migration, London turned to its Commonwealth partners, urging Canada and Australia to share responsibility. Yet both governments responded according to national interests: Canada upheld its universalist immigration principles, and Australia exercised selective flexibility to attract skilled migrants. Together, these measures transformed migration into a form of geopolitical management rather than imperial obligation. By tracing these negotiations, the article reveals how post-imperial states used immigration policy as a pragmatic tool to navigate the end of empire – not through sovereignty transfer alone, but through the bureaucracies of migration and belonging.
Dalton Rawcliffe (Mon,) studied this question.