The "technical security" of September 15 could be a reason for restricting exits.

On 15 September, the new Regulations on the Administration of Entry and Exit entered into force. As of today, Chinese citizens who violate the regulations on export control, control of the import and export of technology, etc., and are considered by the relevant authorities to be potentially dangerous to the security of the country's industrial or technical security, may be denied permission to leave the country by direct decision of the competent business departments of the State Council. For those who are engaged in sensitive industries such as technology, semiconductors and advanced manufacturing, the possibility of individuals leaving the country is beginning to have a more direct legal link to the country ' s technological security.

Reuters reported that same day that the new set of rules had further institutionalized the increased immigration controls in Beijing in recent years. In the past, strict private exit restrictions were concentrated on senior officials, informants and some State managers; Today, concepts such as “export controls” “export and import control of technology” “industry security” “technical security” are clearly included in administrative regulations that can restrict the departure of Chinese citizens from the country.

New decision-makers added to the border control counter

The provision in article 4 distinguishes between several different restrictive mechanisms. (b) Chinese citizens who are administratively detained for fraudulently obtaining entry/exit documents or illegal entry/exit may be restricted from their country of departure for six months to three years; Persons who commit offences outside China and endanger the national security and interests of China may also be restricted from travelling abroad for a period of six months to three years upon return. The text does not provide for a fixed period of time for persons involved in export control and in the management of the export and import of technology, who may endanger the security of industry or technology, but only provides that the competent authorities of the State Council, such as the commercial authorities, may decide not to allow them to leave the country.

This allows for the first time that commercial, industrial and technical regulators have entered the individual ' s exit determination chain in such a clear manner. In the past, border controls were often understood as the competence of the public security, immigration and judicial system, and the new rules linked technical security judgements to border enforcement: decisions were taken by the competent authorities and immigration authorities were implemented at the border.

The new regulations also expand the powers of border authorities to access information. When verifying identity and conduct, immigration authorities and visa authorities may request documents, information and electronic data from the person concerned, which the person concerned must cooperate. (b) In principle, persons who have been determined not to leave the country shall be informed in writing of the facts, reasons, grounds and avenues of redress; However, the provision also provides that if the information is likely to affect national security or the investigation of a criminal case, it may be withheld from the person concerned.

Such exceptions make national security a way to reduce the transparency of the process. A person may touch the “technical security” border as determined by the competent authority in his day-to-day work, technical cooperation or cross-border operations, while the actual restriction is eventually realized at the airport, at the port or at the document processing point.

From protection technology to control of brain circulation

The new regulations are in the context of long-term technological competition between China and the United States and its allies around chips, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing, rare earth, batteries and key supply chains. The expansion of the export control and national security legal system in Beijing in recent years, with the aim of halting the drain of key technologies, data and industrial capabilities; This time, the target of control further extends from goods, technologies and data to those who possess them.

Reuters indicated that the Government had previously strengthened its scrutiny of the private exit of civil servants and State employees and had followed up on its overseas contacts. The new legislation extends similar security logic to the areas of technology import, export and industrial security. He may also be considered a “safe resource” to control movement when an engineer, researcher or business manager is considered to have mastery of critical technology.

Taiwan has already directed its risks directly to the science and technology industry. On September 14, Taiwan Marine Commission publicly warned that the business, executives, semiconductors and other high-tech operators working on the mainland were among the more at-risk groups. The Deputy Chairman of the Commission expressed his sincere appreciation for the new regulations “law-making” of border control practices, which lacked a clear legal basis in the past, and for the expansion of the discretionary space of law enforcement agencies; Of particular note is the possibility for border control authorities to request electronic information from passengers and to refrain from informing in advance the reasons for the restrictions on departure when national security is involved.

Beijing Taiwan has denied this risk judgement, stating that the people of Taiwan “have no need to worry” about going to the mainland and that the new regulations are intended to regulate the administration of entry and exit, safeguard legitimate rights and interests and preserve the interests of national sovereignty, security and development.

The differences expressed by the parties are just a reflection of the political implications of the new rules at their core. Beijing emphasized national security and technical protection, and Taiwan was concerned about law enforcement borders and individual freedoms. Under China's existing national security system, the “technical security” of “industry security” is specifically judged by the executive, rather than by an independent court.

In the past few years, Beijing has extended the concept of national security to data, counter-intelligence, networks, supply chains, scientific cooperation and corporate compliance. The new regulations, which came into force on 15 September, have incorporated the right of exit into the system. It did not restore the regime of the Maoist era, which generally restricted the departure of ordinary people, but it clearly demonstrated the direction of Xi Jinping: The more international competition is concentrated on technology and talent, the more individuals are likely to be redefined as national security matters.

For the Chinese technology industry, the cost of such a change in the system is not only in the presence of a person who is blocked at the airport. Multinational enterprises, scientific institutions and technical teams will have to reassess the risks of mobility, overseas training, academic exchanges and cross-border projects. When technical protection further extends from restricting exports of products to restricting the exit of skilled people, China is integrating talent itself into the administrative control of strategic national resources.