From passports to technical secrets: Order 841 comes into force, China pushes the border "not to leave" further

15 September in ChinaOrder No. 841 of the State CouncilThe newly revised Foreign Entry and Exit Management Regulations of the People's Republic of China are essentially a set of rules on visa, residence and exit procedures, but they are embedding national security, national secrets, technology and industrial security deeper into the administrative power of "who can leave China".In the meantime, the system for Chinese citizens to be restricted to exit due to cases, confidentiality, national security or other legal reasons is still operating.Exit management is transforming from traditional border inspection affairs into a set of governance tools that connect justice, national security, industrial security and administrative control.

The border is not just a geographical border, it is also the last doorway to administrative control.

The new regulations clarify the implementation procedures for foreigners being decided to leave the country for a limited period of time, deportation and other circumstances within the territory of China, and allow relevant authorities to restrict people to leave the country in specific circumstances. For Chinese citizens, laws such as the Law on Exit and Entry Management, the Law on Supervision, have provided many routes to restrict exit; public servants, state enterprises and some teachers have also seen a group of passports centralized storage in recent years. In the past, more restriction of exit has been understood by the public as criminal cases or debt disputes, and now the fields of national security, anti-espionage, data and technical security are constantly expanding, meaning the application scenario of border control is also expanded.

Human Rights Watch said on the day the new rules entered into forceUnder China’s current system, not only can criminal suspects be restricted from leaving the country, but those involved in investigations, business disputes or national security matters may also find themselves unable to leave the country after arrival at the airport. For employees of foreign companies, scholars, journalists and those with cross-border business, this uncertainty itself changes the risk judgment: entering China no longer means only obtaining an entry permit, but also means considering whether the right to leave may be suspended in administrative proceedings.

"Technical and industrial security" has entered the outbound control context, and the flow of people and knowledge has begun to be bound

Among the most notable changes in this round of institutions is the closer and closer connection between people's exit and technology, industry and national security. In recent years, China has revised the Data Security Act, the Anti-Spying Law, export control and state secrets to expand the scope of security governance. After the new rules landed, people in enterprises have sensitive technology, data or business information, and their cross-border flows are easier to understand within the national security framework.

This logic is fundamentally different from traditional border management.Traditional border inspections answer “does this person have legal documents?” and a secure exit management answer “what this person can take, say, and affect after leaving.”When the latter judgment becomes an important basis for administrative authorities, the restriction of exit is not only a measure aimed at individuals but can also be a means of controlling the flow of information, technology and organizational relationships across borders.

Foreigners can also be the subject of this system.

International enterprises have long been concerned about China’s “exit ban”. Some foreign corporate executives and people with Chinese-foreign family connections have been prevented from leaving China in the past due to commercial or judicial disputes.The new regulation does not create all of these powers, but it further institutionalizes the administrative chain of foreigners staying, residing, investigating and leaving China.

This leads to a realistic consequence: when companies evaluate risks in the Chinese market, people’s safety can no longer be calculated separately from business risks.A contract dispute, an investigation issue or a national security review can affect executives and employees’ departure, and “personal mobility” itself becomes part of the business environment. Multinationals used to focus on whether money can be transferred, data can be cross-bordered, and now must focus on whether people can leave freely.

Passport centralized storage shows that restriction of movement has long been not only for a small number of people involved

A previous investigation by Radio Free Asia found that Chinese civil servants, state-owned employees, teachers and other public sector workers were required to present their passports and abroad required the approval of the unit. Passports are legally a travel document issued by the state, but when the unit is able to centrally store the ordinary employee passports for a long time, freedom of exit is actually placed under the organization’s prior approval – even without the need to wait for a formal border control restriction decision.

This type of management, along with the official ban on exit, consists of two levels of control: the first one occurs within the units and organizations, preventing the freedom to arrange travel through passports, approvals and discipline; the second one occurs at the border, where the public security, court, supervision or national security system decides whether a person can truly cross the border.

The real change is the power relationship between the state and the individual about “leaving”

Order 841 itself is an administrative regulation, which does not mean that all foreigners or Chinese citizens traveling to China will be subject to exit restrictions, but putting it into the institutional changes of the past few years shows a clear direction: the concept of national security continues to expand, data, technology, industry, business investigation and human movement are incorporated into the same security governance framework, and borders become one of the most effective places to implement this governance.

As the border reaches, individuals have little room for negotiation. Flight time, visa duration and working arrangements can’t change a restrictive decision that has already entered the system. For a governance system that emphasizes national security above the freedom of movement of individuals, “letting who stay” and “allowing who leave” are actually two sides of the same power. The new regulations are truly worth worrying, not only adding what procedures, but China’s right to exit is increasingly evident from personal freedom, transformed into a permit that can be redefined by security, judicial and administrative goals.