作者：贾嘉

近年来，“国家安全”逐渐成为中国越来越多法律法规中的关键词。 随着2026年9月15日新的出入境管理规定即将实施，不少人开始讨论一个问题：未来，中国人的出境会不会越来越难？截至目前，公开法规并没有规定普通公民一律不得出境。

但如果未来相关政策在实践中呈现更加严格的审核趋势，我们仍然可以思考一个更深层的问题：一个社会如果不断提高人员流动门槛，最终影响的是什么？ 很多人第一反应是旅游。事实上，旅游只是最表面的影响。真正受到影响的，是整个社会与世界之间的联系。

历史上，每一次文明进步，都伴随着人员流动。商人带来了贸易。留学生带来了知识。科学家带来了技术。普通游客带来了文化交流。开放，从来不仅意味着经济利益，更意味着思想的交流。

如果未来越来越多的人因为程序复杂、审核严格或不确定性增加而放弃出境，那么首先减少的，不只是游客数量，而是人与世界直接接触的机会。一个长期缺少外部交流的社会，更容易形成信息孤岛。人们了解世界，不再依赖亲身经历，而更多依赖别人告诉自己世界是什么样子。当一个人没有机会亲眼去看，他更容易相信别人替他描绘的世界。

其次，人才流动也会受到影响。今天世界各国都在争夺人才。优秀的人才希望拥有更多选择。企业也希望能够自由开展国际合作。如果国际往来成本不断提高，长期来看，企业的全球竞争力、科研合作以及国际投资都可能受到一定影响。

再进一步，这还关系到社会心理。自由流动，本身就是现代社会的重要组成部分。一个普通人知道自己可以去看世界，和一个普通人觉得自己随时可能受到更多限制，心理感受是完全不同的。即使最终大多数人仍然能够正常出境，不确定性的增加，也可能改变人们对未来的预期。经济学中有一个概念：预期比现实更重要。当人们开始担心未来，消费会更加谨慎，投资更加保守，创业更加犹豫。政策的影响，往往不仅来自条文本身，也来自公众如何理解和预期它。

当然，也有人认为，加强出入境管理有其现实背景。国际竞争加剧，数据安全、技术安全、国家安全的重要性不断提升，各国都在调整自己的边境管理制度。这是值得讨论的一面。但任何管理都需要在安全与开放之间寻找平衡。安全固然重要。开放同样重要。如果一项制度能够精准识别真正存在风险的对象，同时尽量减少对普通守法公民正常出境的影响，那么安全与开放并非不可兼得。

真正值得关注的，不是管理是否更加严格，而是这种管理是否透明、是否依法进行、是否具有明确标准，以及是否能够让公众形成稳定、可预期的信心。如果一个人想离开自己的国家，需要面对越来越多的审查、越来越复杂的程序、越来越大的不确定性，那么我们应该如何理解这种变化？

有人说，这是国家安全的需要。也有人说，这是国家治理能力的体现。但对于普通人来说，他们更关心的是另一个问题：我的自由，是否正在一点一点缩小？一个社会是否开放，不只是看外国人能不能进来，更要看本国公民能不能自由地走出去。因为走出去，不只是一次旅行。它意味着求学、探亲、创业、工作、合作，也意味着一个人拥有了解世界、比较世界、选择人生的机会。

真正自信的国家，往往不害怕自己的公民看见外面的世界。因为它相信，了解世界的人，不一定会背离自己的国家；相反，他们可能带回新的知识、新的经验和新的机会。相反，当一个社会越来越强调”为什么要出去”“出去做什么”“有没有必要出去”，这种变化本身就值得讨论。

当然，任何国家都有权维护国家安全。问题不在于是否管理，而在于管理是否有清晰边界。如果法律赋予行政机关更大的裁量空间，却没有足够透明的标准和有效的救济机制，那么公众最容易失去的，就是确定性。而一个社会一旦失去确定性，人们就会开始调整自己的行为。企业减少长期投资。年轻人推迟人生规划。国际合作变得更加谨慎。 普通家庭也会开始担心：未来是不是还有更多自己无法预料的变化？ 有人认为，这只是个别人的担忧。但历史经验告诉我们，一个社会的发展，从来不仅依赖资源和资本，更依赖信心。信心来自稳定、可预期的规则。当人们相信规则不会轻易变化，他们愿意投入时间、财富和未来。反之，如果公众越来越依赖猜测政策、揣摩尺度，那么社会运行成本也会随之上升。

更值得警惕的是，任何一项权力，在缺乏足够约束和监督时，都可能不断扩张。今天是出入境。明天可能是其他领域。现代法治的意义，不只是赋予政府管理能力，更重要的是明确管理边界，让权力始终受到法律约束，让每一位公民都知道：什么可以做，什么不能做；什么情况下会受到限制，什么情况下能够获得救济。

一个社会真正的安全，不只是边境安全、数据安全或技术安全。还包括制度的可信赖、规则的透明、公民对未来的信心。如果人们因为担心不确定性而不敢规划未来，如果越来越多人觉得自己的选择空间不断缩小，那么这种代价，可能比我们想象的更加深远。对于任何国家来说，安全与自由并不是非此即彼的选择。真正高水平的治理，不是用更多限制来证明管理能力，而是在维护公共利益的同时，最大程度保障普通人的合法权利。只有当权力始终运行在清晰、透明、可监督的规则之下，一个社会才能既安全，也充满活力。

真正值得思考的，不是如何让人留下，而是如何让人愿意留下；不是如何限制离开，而是如何让人相信，这里依然值得托付自己的未来。

编辑：韩立华 校对：王滨 翻译：戈冰

If Leaving the Country Becomes Increasingly Difficult, What Is Truly Lost May Be More Than Just Free Movement

By Jia Jia

In recent years, “national security” has gradually become a key term in an increasing number of China’s laws and regulations. With the new exit-and-entry administration regulations set to take effect on September 15, 2026, many people have begun discussing a question: In the future, will it become increasingly difficult for Chinese citizens to leave the country? As of now, public regulations do not stipulate that ordinary citizens are forbidden from exiting the country across the board.

However, if relevant policies demonstrate a trend toward stricter review in practice in the future, we can still ponder a deeper question: If a society continuously raises the threshold for human mobility, what will ultimately be affected? Many people’s initial reaction is tourism. In fact, tourism is merely the most superficial impact. What is truly affected is the connection between the entire society and the world.

Historically, every advancement in civilization has been accompanied by the movement of people. Merchants brought trade. International students brought knowledge. Scientists brought technology. Ordinary tourists brought cultural exchange. Openness has never meant solely economic benefit; it means, even more so, the exchange of ideas.

If an increasing number of people choose to give up on traveling abroad in the future due to complex procedures, strict reviews, or heightened uncertainty, then what decreases first will not merely be the number of tourists, but the opportunities for people to have direct contact with the world. A society that lacks external exchange for a long time is more prone to becoming an information island. People will no longer rely on personal experience to understand the world, but will rely more on what others tell them the world looks like. When a person lacks the opportunity to see with their own eyes, they are more likely to believe the world as depicted for them by others.

Secondly, the flow of talent will also be affected. Today, countries around the world are competing for talent. Outstanding talents wish to have more choices. Enterprises also wish to freely conduct international cooperation. If the cost of international exchanges continues to rise, in the long run, corporate global competitiveness, scientific research cooperation, and international investment may all be impacted to a certain extent.

Going a step further, this also touches upon societal psychology. Free movement is itself an important component of modern society. For an ordinary person to know that they can go see the world vs. feeling that they could be subjected to more restrictions at any moment produces entirely different psychological feelings. Even if the majority of people can still exit the country normally in the end, the increase in uncertainty may alter people’s expectations for the future. There is a concept in economics: expectations matter more than reality. When people begin to worry about the future, consumption becomes more cautious, investment more conservative, and entrepreneurship more hesitant. The impact of policy often stems not only from the provisions themselves, but also from how the public interprets and anticipates them.

Of course, some also argue that strengthening exit-and-entry administration has its practical context. As international competition intensifies, the importance of data security, technological security, and national security continues to rise, and countries around the world are adjusting their own border control systems. This is an aspect worth discussing. However, any administration needs to strike a balance between security and openness. Security is undeniably important, but openness is equally important. If a system can precisely identify individuals who truly pose risks while minimizing the impact on ordinary, law-abiding citizens’ normal travel abroad, then security and openness are by no means mutually exclusive.

What truly deserves attention is not whether administration has become stricter, but whether such administration is transparent, conducted according to law, backed by clear standards, and capable of fostering stable, predictable confidence among the public. If an individual wishing to leave their own country must face increasingly rigorous screening, increasingly complex procedures, and growing uncertainty, then how should we understand such a change?

Some say this is a necessity for national security; others say it is a reflection of national governance capacity. For ordinary people, however, they care more about another question: Is my freedom shrinking bit by bit? Whether a society is open depends not only on whether foreigners can enter, but even more so on whether its own citizens can freely step out into the world. Because stepping out into the world is not merely a trip. It signifies pursuing education, visiting family, starting businesses, working, and collaborating—it means that an individual possesses the opportunity to understand the world, compare the world, and choose their own life path.

A truly confident nation is rarely afraid of its citizens seeing the outside world. This is because it believes that those who understand the world will not necessarily turn away from their own country; on the contrary, they may bring back new knowledge, new experiences, and new opportunities. Conversely, when a society increasingly emphasizes “Why go abroad?”, “What are you going out to do?”, and “Is it necessary to go out?”, this shift in itself becomes a matter worthy of discussion.

Of course, any country has the right to safeguard national security. The question is not whether to manage, but whether management has clear boundaries. If the law grants administrative organs greater discretionary power without sufficiently transparent standards and effective remedy mechanisms, then what the public is most prone to lose is certainty. Once a society loses certainty, people will begin to adjust their behavior. Enterprises reduce long-term investment. Young people postpone their life plans. International cooperation becomes more cautious. Ordinary families will also begin to worry: Will there be even more unpredictable changes in the future? Some believe these are merely the concerns of a few individuals. However, historical experience tells us that the development of a society never relies solely on resources and capital, but even more so on confidence. Confidence stems from stable, predictable rules. When people believe that rules will not easily change, they are willing to invest their time, wealth, and future. Conversely, if the public increasingly relies on guessing policies and gauging official discretion, the operational costs of society will rise accordingly.

What warrants even greater vigilance is that any power, in the absence of sufficient restraint and oversight, is capable of continuous expansion. Today it is exit and entry. Tomorrow it may be other domains. The significance of the modern rule of law lies not only in empowering governments with management capacity, but more importantly in defining the boundaries of management—ensuring that power remains bound by the law, and that every citizen knows what is permissible and what is forbidden, under what circumstances restrictions will apply, and under what circumstances remedies can be obtained.

The genuine security of a society encompasses more than border security, data security, or technological security. It also includes the trustworthiness of institutions, the transparency of rules, and the confidence of citizens in the future. If people dare not plan for the future out of fear of uncertainty, and if an increasing number of people feel that their space for choice is continuously shrinking, then this cost may be far more profound than we imagine. For any nation, security and freedom are not an either-or choice. Truly high-level governance does not demonstrate management capacity through more restrictions, but rather safeguards the legitimate rights of ordinary people to the maximum extent while maintaining the public interest. Only when power consistently operates under clear, transparent, and supervised rules can a society be both secure and full of vitality.

What is truly worth contemplating is not how to make people stay, but how to make people willing to stay; not how to restrict departure, but how to make people believe that this place remains worthy of entrusting their future.

Editor: Han Lihua Proofreader: Wang Bin Translator: Ge Bing