To get her passport back, she could only have the unit fired herself: freedom of exit in China is being abducted by employment.

On September 9, a Chinese netizen publicly described her experience of leaving the original unit in order to restore freedom of exit: because of the units limitation of exit, she could not normally hold a passport to travel abroad; at the same time, the unit also stipulated not to resign within 5 years after entering the job. She finally communicated with the leadership, through a continuous absence of 15 days to trigger the resignation process, it took about 3 months to end the labor relationship and retrieve the passport. The relevant experience sparked discussion after the transfer of the X platform account "Teacher Li is not your teacher." An adult to retrieve their private travel documents, need to first design a "was dismissed," which is not normal human resource management, but the work unit to turn the freedom of exit into an organization control tool.

* Ordinary passports are not unit assets, illegal seizure is expressly prohibited by law.

Article 2 of the Passport Law of the People's Republic of China clearly stipulates that a passport is a document proving nationality and identity of Chinese citizens entering the country and abroad, and stipulates that "no organization or individual may ... unlawfully seize a passport".

The public service guidelines of the National Immigration Administration also stipulate that state employees who register the application for ordinary passports need to obtain the consent of the unit where they are located. The system itself has bound the private travel rights of some people to the approval of the unit. In recent years, public reports further show that the approval of passports has expanded from traditional civil servants, confidential personnel to state enterprises, schools, hospitals, research institutions and even some units outside the system.

When an entity can decide whether an adult can get his passport back, private travel is no longer a private matter.

“5 years can not resign” and “passport coverage” overlap, forming a factual double lock

In the experience of this netizen, it is truly remarkable to note the overlap of two systems: on the one hand, the unit restricts its exit and holds a passport, and on the other hand, the internal rules that "cannot actively resign within 5 years" restrict her to leave the work relationship.

If the internal system of the unit requires a service period, a training period or a period of confidentiality, it should usually be settled through a labor contract, a service period agreement and default liability, rather than by seizing personal documents. When a person has to be “dismissed” by working out of work to end the relationship, it means that the labor relationship has been alienated to an administrative tool that restricts the movement of individuals.

This logic is not unfamiliar to the long-standing “unity system” in the Chinese regime. Traditional units manage not only wages and jobs, but also housing, archives, marriage, overseas and political censorship. Marketization reforms once weakened this control, but in the context of national security and people management re-expansion, passports and exit approvals are allowing units to regain border control over private life.

Passport transfers are expanding from a handful of confidential positions to a wider range of professions

Free Asia Radio in August that China has many cases requiring all sorts of people to submit passports, covering institutes, key laboratories, civil servants, institutions, large state-owned enterprises, university teachers, secondary teachers, secondary school teachers, a part of the staff of the hospital and some countries, high-tech civil enterprise employees. The different regions and units are not consistent, but the trend has common characteristics: Exit management is no longer only carried out by the national immigration management authorities, but is submerged into work units and grassroots organizations.

These units often use "confidentiality", "national security", "prevention of overseas risks" as reasons, but after the scope has been expanded, the issue has turned from confidentiality management to social governance.Whether a secondary school teacher, a hospital employee or an ordinary state-owned company employee can travel to Japan, Europe or Southeast Asia is not directly related to state secrets; once all departure actions require organization approval, individual freedom is redefined as the treatment that the unit can grant or withdraw.

The new entry and exit regulations come into force tomorrow, putting the "safe" in a more reliable position

The new regulation emphasizes the establishment of a “China Citizens’ Exit Safety Risk Prevention System” and authorizes immigration management agencies to warn and even deter persons travelling to high-risk countries or regions in specific circumstances.

In terms of the text, the new regulation is mainly aimed at war, public security, disasters and high-risk areas, and does not directly authorize ordinary workers to seize individual passports, but it continues an increasingly obvious policy direction: Citizens are increasingly being incorporated into “safety governance” rather than a mere framework for individual rights.

When the concept of security at the national level is combined with personnel, confidentiality and political scrutiny within the unit, actual control is often broader than the legal provisions themselves. Many restrictions are not completed by a formal "no-exit decision", but resolved in advance at the unit level: passports, exit approvals, leadership signatures, political scrutiny records. The biggest feature of doing so is that citizens do not even see an administrative decision that can formally appeal.

* Formal border inspection at the airport, the real first "border inspection" may be at the office

Under normal circumstances, a Chinese citizen who holds a valid ordinary passport and has no legal restrictions shall decide whether to leave the country through formal border control procedures.

But the unit withdrawal of passport system has made another set of "frontal border inspection": the person has not yet arrived at the airport, the unit has decided whether he can travel. Official border inspection according to the law, unit border inspection according to internal regulations; the former exists at least clear state organs and statutory procedures, the latter often only lead signature, internal notification and oral requirements.

This makes recourse difficult.If the state agencies formally decide not to leave, the parties at least know where the restriction comes from; if the passports are kept by the unit, the parties face a set of organizational pressures such as labor relations, personnel records, job assessments, promotion and disciplinary sanctions.

From domestic unit control to overseas cross-border repression, the essence is to see people as organizational affiliates.

“Outside the Red Wall” is concerned about such events because it continues with China’s cross-border control logic.In the country, organizations can restrict their departure through work, passports, files and families; in overseas, the war, national security and consular system can continue to pressure through families, emigrants, social platforms and identity relationships.

The common logic behind the two is: Individuals are not viewed as entities with independent political and action rights, but as members of organizations that can be managed continuously. Exit is therefore not only a travel act, but also means individuals temporarily separated from domestic information, units and social control systems, which is why passports become a sensitive document of power.

For ordinary people, the most immediate consequences of this system are not the ambitious political, but very specific life choices: whether to travel, whether to visit relatives, whether to attend overseas meetings, whether to leave work freely.

“To be fired is free” is the most accurate system footnote.

The internet user eventually started the resignation process by leaving the unit, and after three months she got her passport back. She described her choice with "breaking the iron bowl with her own hands and unlocking the iron barrel with her own hands."

This phrase resonates because it reveals the other side of what is called “stable work” under the Chinese regime: stability means not only income and well-being, but may also mean stronger personal attachment. When a job requires you to exchange security with freedom to go abroad, “iron bowl” can also become a “iron bowl.”

The working relationship in a modern society should be based on contracts and wages, not extending to whether an adult has the right to hold his or her passport. The unit can manage the work, but should not have the boundaries of the people around whom employees work. China’s increasingly widespread passport entry and exit approval phenomenon is blurring this most basic boundary.