3 - Graduated Citizenship and Social Control in China’s Immigration System

Summary

Abstract

This chapter examines the legal framework of the Chinese immigration system since 2001 starting with a focus on how new categories and immigration schemes were created for some groups while others were disregarded. Building on discourse analysis of legal documents, academic publications and policy papers, it presents key characteristics of the Chinese immigration system, its norms, rules and historical trajectories and the different immigration labels, legal provisions and discourses that construct regular and irregular immigration, refugees, border residents and border tourists. The chapter shows that the Chinese state tightly controls regular immigration through means of ‘necessary registration’ and imposing time limits on residence and work permits. Nevertheless, with regard to irregular immigration and potential refugees, authorities apply strategies of local exceptions (i.e. individual and ad hoc decisions to maintain control over the group).

Keywords: migration, irregular migration, border residency, social hierarchy, neoliberal governmentality, refugees.

The Power to Choose

When China's National People's Congress (NPC) adopted the Entry and Exit Administration Law (Zhonghua renmin gongheguo chujing rujing guanlifa, or EEL) in 2012, the Chinese immigration system was fundamentally reformed. The law delegated new responsibilities within the political system for issuing regulations and visas, strengthened the role of local Public Security Bureaus, and outlined regulations for permanent residency. The law, however, was silent on several important immigration management issues that were increasingly the subject of public discourse, such as how to regulate ‘illegal’ immigrants and refugees. While the law omits some groups, it creates specific categories of immigrants, stipulates their rights and whose responsibility they are within the immigration system (ministerial or local responsibilities). As such, the law institutionalizes legal authority over the immigrants. However, while the law establishes a system of authority at a central national level, how this authority is challenged and understood on a local level is a different story. While legal authority is produced in the Party bureaus and ministries, day-to-day authority is produced through the manifold immigration practices in Public Security Bureaus, by border guards and immigration officers. The question what is considered regular immigration and who is considered ‘illegal’ can mean something different at the border than in national policy discourses.