作者：吕小静
2026年9月13日，民运人士在中共驻旧金山总领馆前集会，抗议出入境新规、向家属施压及跨国镇压。（本文照片由Robert提供）
【旧金山讯】 2026年9月13日下午，在中国新的《国务院关于出境入境管理的规定》即将于9月15日施行之际，中国民主党旧金山党部、中国民主教育基金会在中共驻旧金山总领事馆前举行 “TTT ACTION｜真相行动”。参与者围绕“抗议出境管控、反对向家属施压、呼吁停止跨国镇压”三条主线展开活动，并不断追问：“你离开了中国，控制离开你了吗？”
活动现场，多名民主人士结合近年来发生的案例以及自己的亲身经历，批评中共不断扩张的权力控制。他们表示，当一个人已经身处美国，却仍然担心自己的一句话、一场抗议，会不会给远在中国的父母、配偶和子女带来压力，那么这种政治压力已经跨越国境，并将恐惧延伸至海外。
活动由民主党党员李小林、郭志军共同主持，首先介绍此次行动背景。他们指出，现场关注的不只是一项新的出入境规定，而是三个彼此相连的问题：一个公民能否自由离开自己的国家？一个人在海外表达意见，为什么压力可能落到国内家人身上？一个人已经来到美国，为什么仍会因为政治表达而感到恐惧？
两位主持人随后介绍罗岱青、李明哲、张雅笛、高兟、桂民海、陈有林等案例，将其概括为一条值得警惕的风险轨迹：“海外表达——回国追责——家属受压——跨境控制。” 郭志军进一步表示，不能因为类似的管控“过去一直存在”，就把它视为理所当然。“一直都这样”不是合理的证明，更不能成为沉默的理由。他呼吁已经来到自由社会的人不要继续向恐惧低头。
来自河南的李晓艳将“家属施压”从一个政治概念变成了一个母亲正在承受的现实。
她说，今年3月1日，自己19岁、正在就读医学本科的女儿准备从上海浦东国际机场前往日本考察京都大学和大阪大学医学部，在排队出境时突然被带走询问。女儿随后告诉她，工作人员追问她是不是准备“去美国找妈妈”。与此同时，孩子的父亲在国内也曾多次被国保找上门讯问，并被检查手机及聊天记录。
讲到女儿当时受到惊吓、忍不住哭泣时，李晓艳在现场也一度落泪。
她说，当海外人士为自由、民主和人权发声，国内的父母、配偶和孩子却可能因此承受压力，这正是她希望国际社会关注跨国镇压的重要原因。
“不要把父母、子女和其他家属变成政治施压的工具！我们争取的是自由，也希望我们的家人能够拥有自由。”
中国民主党旧金山党部秘书长郑云则以自己长达多年的亲身经历，讲述政治压力如何越过国境。
她回忆，“709律师大抓捕”发生后，由于自己曾与相关人士保持网络联系，加上孩子年幼，她带着恐惧举家离开中国。来到美国后，她曾以为自己终于获得了自由。
然而，当她开始在美国参加公共活动后，压力却逐渐落到国内弟弟身上。郑云称，国保曾多次找弟弟谈话，要求他劝阻自己停止活动，否则可能影响工作；有关人员还曾拿着她在美国参加活动的照片向他人打听她的情况。
这段经历让她意识到：人可以离开中国，但独裁统治的阴影并不会止步于国境。对国内亲人的施压，正在成为迫使海外异议人士沉默的另一种手段
郑云表示：“我们虽然恐惧，但不能停止发声。因为如果我们都不发声，那国内的人就更没有办法发声了。”
中国民主党旧金山党部文宣部副部长吕小静将矛头指向另一种更隐蔽的政治压力——对海外异议人士国内亲属的施压！
她表示，对于一些身处海外的中国人而言，即使来到自由社会，仍无法真正的摆脱恐惧，还要始终担心国内亲人，父母接到一个电话会让人不安，家人被找去问话会让人害怕，甚至通过微信与亲人正常联系，也要反复考虑哪些话可以说、哪些话不能说。
她现场质问：“我们明明已经身在美国，为什么说一句话，还要担心千里之外的父母？”
她表示：“不能让亲情成为逼迫我们沉默的工具，更不能让政治打压跨越国界、延伸到自由社会！”
中国民主党党员国盼在发言中表示，自由出境本应是一项基本权利，而不应成为由权力决定、需要被“恩赐”的特权。
她批评层层审查以及针对家属的压力，认为当亲情被用来迫使一个人沉默时，受到伤害的不只是出入境自由，更是一个普通家庭最基本的尊严。
国盼激动地说：“家人，不应该成为被施压的工具；亲情，不容被权力的恐吓所绑架！”
民主党党员杨朝全则将关注点放在新规所涉及的审查权上。
他指出，当出入境事由是否“真实、合法”需要接受审查时，最值得警惕的是：谁来定义什么是“合法”？这种权力又受到怎样的约束？
杨朝全表示，他反对的不是正常的边境安全管理，而是担忧“安全”与“合法性审查”被用于选择性限制敢于发声的人。
他将这种危险概括为一句话：“把恐惧合法化，把控制制度化。”
当天活动的另一个特点，是两名中国民主党党员选择直接用英文向现场和路过的美国民众表达诉求。
民主党党员常国栋在英文演讲中表示，一个人不应该被迫在自由发声与保护家人之间作出选择。即使来到美国，一些人仍然担心自己的言论最终让国内父母和亲人承担代价。
演讲进入高潮时，他高声强调：
“我的声音属于我！我的未来属于我！我的自由属于我！没有任何政府可以拥有我的声音和良知！”
随后，他带领现场民众高喊：
“NO MORE FEAR！FREEDOM NOW！STOP CCP CONTROL！”
抗议声浪随之高涨。
中国民主党党员康嘉铭同样选择以英文发言。他特别解释，自己之所以讲英文，就是希望让现场经过的英语民众能够听懂：“我们为什么站在这里，我们究竟在抗议什么。”
康嘉铭表示，护照不应成为独裁政权控制人民的锁链，家人更不应成为政治施压的工具。他呼吁停止跨国镇压，并强调：人民可以离开中国，但政治控制不能跟着他们跨越国境；自由必须走得比恐惧更远。
多位民主人士接连发声 抗议独裁与跨国镇压
活动中，罗艳丽、郭鉴鑫、高志彬、赵明等人也先后从不同角度发言，表达对中国出入境政策的反对，并抗议中共的独裁统治。
随着一位又一位参与者走到麦克风前，现场不断响起：
“反对出境管控”
“反对向家属施压”
“停止跨国镇压！”
“STOP TRANSNATIONAL REPRESSION！”
这些口号也与当天主持稿确定的核心诉求相呼应：真正的自由不仅意味着能够跨过国境，更意味着跨过国境之后能够摆脱恐惧。
集体朗诵《美国独立宣言》 “我们是自由和独立的人民”
活动最后进入高潮。现场民主人士共同朗诵《美国独立宣言》相关内容：
“人人生而平等。”
“造物主赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。”
朗诵中，人们再次强调，政府的正当权力来自被治理者的同意；当长期不断的滥权与掠夺试图把人民置于绝对专制统治之下时，人民拥有摆脱专制、重新保障自身自由与安全的权利。
最后，现场众人共同宣告：
“我们是自由和独立的人民。”
从李晓艳含泪讲述女儿的遭遇，到郑云回忆国内亲属承受的压力；从吕小静追问“人在美国为什么说话还要担心父母”，到常国栋、康嘉铭直接以英文向美国社会发声——当天不同人的经历最终汇聚到同一个问题：
一个人离开了中国，是否也应该有权真正离开恐惧？
抗议者表示，国境可以划定国家的疆界，却不应该成为独裁权力任意跨越的界线；亲情不应成为威胁异议者的筹码，护照不应成为控制人民的锁链。
参加本次活动的民运人士名单：郑云，胡丕政，李小林，刘静涛，郭志军，郭鉴鑫，吕小静，康嘉铭，国盼，李晓艳，罗艳丽，高志彬，赵明，杨朝全，姚荣涛，周祺禄，吴志创，常国栋等（排名不分先后）
活动采访发言及现场剪影。
编辑：钟然 校对：毛一炜 翻译：戈冰
San Francisco Rally Protests CCP’s New Exit Regulations, Calls for an End to Transnational Repression
Author: Lyu Xiaojing
Abstract: San Francisco pro-democracy activists protested China’s exit controls and transnational repression, exposing the reality that overseas dissidents live under a cloud of fear while their domestic relatives face pressure, and calling for an end to holding freedom hostage through family ties so that the Chinese people may truly possess the right to leave fear behind.
[San Francisco Dispatch] On the afternoon of September 13, 2026, as China’s new “Regulations of the State Council on the Administration of Exit and Entry” was set to take effect on September 15, the San Francisco Headquarters of the China Democracy Party and the Chinese Democracy Education Foundation held a “TTT ACTION | Truth Action” rally in front of the Chinese Consulate General in San Francisco. Participants organized the activity around three main themes: “Protest Exit Controls, Oppose Pressuring Family Members, and Call for an End to Transnational Repression,” while repeatedly asking: “You have left China, but has the control left you?”
At the rally site, several pro-democracy activists criticized the Chinese Communist Party’s continuously expanding power and control, drawing on cases from recent years as well as their own personal experiences. They stated that when a person is already in the United States yet still worries whether a single word or a protest might bring pressure upon their parents, spouse, or children far away in China, then this political pressure has already crossed national borders and extended fear overseas.
The activity was co-hosted by Democracy Party members Li Xiaolin and Guo Zhijun, who first introduced the background of this action. They pointed out that the focus on site was not merely a new exit-entry regulation, but three interconnected questions: Can a citizen freely leave their own country? When a person expresses opinions overseas, why might the pressure fall upon their family members back home? When a person has already arrived in the United States, why do they still feel fear because of political expression?
The two hosts subsequently introduced cases such as those of Luo Daiqing, Lee Ming-che, Zhang Yadi, Gao Shen, Gui Minhai, and Chen Youlin, summarizing them into a alarming risk trajectory: “Overseas Expression — Domestic Retribution — Family Pressure — Cross-Border Control.” Guo Zhijun further stated that one must not treat similar controls as matter-of-fact simply because they have “existed all along in the past.” “It has always been like this” is not a proof of reasonableness, much less a justification for silence. He called on those who have already arrived in a free society not to continue bowing to fear.
Li Xiaoyan, who hails from Henan, turned “pressuring family members” from an abstract political concept into a reality currently endured by a mother.
She stated that on March 1 of this year, her 19-year-old daughter, an undergraduate medical student, was preparing to depart from Shanghai Pudong International Airport for Japan to inspect the medical faculties of Kyoto University and Osaka University, when she was suddenly taken away for questioning while queuing for exit clearance. Her daughter later informed her that the officers repeatedly grilled her on whether she was planning to “go to the United States to find her mother.” Meanwhile, the child’s father in China had also been approached and interrogated multiple times by Domestic Security Bureau (Guobao) officers, who inspected his mobile phone and chat records.
When speaking of how frightened her daughter was at the time and how she could not help weeping, Li Xiaoyan also shed tears on site.
She emphasized that when overseas individuals speak out for freedom, democracy, and human rights, their parents, spouses, and children in China may bear the pressure as a result, which is precisely the primary reason why she urges the international community to pay attention to transnational repression.
“Do not turn parents, children, and other family members into tools of political pressure! What we strive for is freedom, and we also hope our families can enjoy that freedom.”
Zheng Yun, Secretary-General of the San Francisco Headquarters of the China Democracy Party, drew upon her own multi-year personal experience to recount how political pressure crosses national borders.
She recalled that after the “709 Lawyers Crackdown” occurred, because she had maintained online contact with relevant individuals and her child was still young, she fled China with her family in fear. After arriving in the United States, she once believed she had finally obtained freedom.
However, once she began participating in public activities in the United States, pressure gradually fell upon her younger brother back home. Zheng stated that Domestic Security Bureau (Guobao) officers approached her brother multiple times for talks, demanding that he persuade her to cease her activities or risk jeopardizing his job; relevant personnel even carried photographs of her participating in events in the United States to inquire about her status with others.
This experience made her realize: a person can leave China, but the shadow of authoritarian rule does not stop at the border. Pressuring domestic relatives is becoming another tactic to force overseas dissidents into silence.
Zheng Yun stated: “Although we are afraid, we cannot stop speaking out. Because if none of us speak out, those inside China will have even less of a way to make their voices heard.”
Lyu Xiaojing, Deputy Director of the Publicity Department of the San Francisco Headquarters of the China Democracy Party, directed her criticism at another more covert form of political pressure—the pressuring of domestic relatives of overseas dissidents!
She stated that for some Chinese living abroad, even after arriving in a free society, they are still unable to truly escape fear and must constantly worry about their relatives back home. A single phone call received by parents can induce anxiety, having family members summoned for questioning instills fear, and even routine communication with relatives via WeChat requires repeatedly pondering which words are safe to say and which are not.
She questioned on site: “We are clearly already in the United States, so why must we, when speaking a single sentence, still worry about our parents thousands of miles away?”
She declared: “We cannot allow family affection to become a tool to force us into silence, nor can we allow political suppression to cross national borders and extend into a free society!”
Guo Pan, a member of the China Democracy Party, stated in her speech that the freedom to leave the country should inherently be a basic right, rather than a privilege determined by power and requiring “bestowal.”
She criticized the multi-layered vetting process and the pressure exerted on family members, arguing that when family affection is weaponized to force an individual into silence, what is harmed is not merely the freedom of exit and entry, but the most fundamental dignity of an ordinary family.
Guo Pan said with emotion: “Family members must not become tools of pressure; family affection will not tolerate being taken hostage by the intimidation of power!”
Yang Chaoquan, a member of the Democracy Party, focused his attention on the vetting power involved in the new regulations.
He pointed out that when whether the purpose of exit and entry is “genuine and lawful” requires examination, what warrants the greatest vigilance is: who defines what is “lawful”? And how is such power constrained?
Yang Chaoquan stated that he is not opposed to normal border security management, but is concerned that “security” and “legality vetting” will be used to selectively restrict those who dare to speak out.
He summarized this danger in a single sentence: “Legalizing fear and institutionalizing control.”
Another feature of that day’s activity was that two members of the China Democracy Party chose to express their demands directly in English to the local and passing American public on site.
In his English speech, Democracy Party member Chang Guodong stated that no one should be forced to choose between speaking out freely and protecting their family. Even after coming to the United States, some people still worry that their speeches will ultimately cause their parents and relatives back home to pay the price.
As his speech reached its climax, he emphasized in a resounding voice:
“My voice belongs to me! My future belongs to me! My freedom belongs to me! No government can own my voice and my conscience!”
Subsequently, he led the crowd on site to chant loudly:
“NO MORE FEAR! FREEDOM NOW! STOP CCP CONTROL!”
The waves of protest rose higher following his call.
Kang Jiaming, a member of the China Democracy Party, likewise chose to speak in English. He specially explained that the reason he spoke in English was that he hoped passing English-speaking members of the public on site could understand: “Why we are standing here, and what we are ultimately protesting against.”
Kang Jiaming stated that passports should not become chains for an authoritarian regime to control its people, and family members should even less become tools of political pressure. He called for an end to transnational repression and emphasized that while people can leave China, political control cannot follow them across national borders; freedom must travel further than fear.
Multiple Pro-Democracy Figures Speak Out in Succession to Protest Dictatorship and Transnational Repression
During the event, Luo Yanli, Guo Jianxin, Gao Zhibin, and Zhao Ming, among others, also spoke successively from different perspectives, expressing opposition to China’s exit-entry policies and protesting against the CCP’s dictatorial rule.
As one participant after another stepped up to the microphone, shouts resounded continuously at the scene:
“Oppose Exit Controls!”
“Oppose Pressuring Family Members!”
“Stop Transnational Repression!”
“STOP TRANSNATIONAL REPRESSION!”
These slogans also echoed the core demands set forth in the day’s hosting draft: true freedom means not only being able to cross a national border, but even more so, being able to shed fear after crossing that border.
Collective Recitation of the United States Declaration of Independence: “We Are Free and Independent People”
The event ultimately reached its climax. Pro-democracy activists at the scene collectively recited relevant passages from the Declaration of Independence of the United States:
“All men are created equal.”
“They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
During the recitation, people once again emphasized that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed; when a long train of abuses and usurpations evinces a design to reduce the people under absolute despotism, it is the right of the people to throw off such despotism and to provide new guards for their future security and freedom.
Finally, everyone at the site jointly declared:
“We are free and independent people.”
From Li Xiaoyan tearfully recounting her daughter’s encounter, to Zheng Yun recalling the pressure borne by relatives in China; from Lyu Xiaojing questioning “why someone in the United States must still worry about their parents when speaking,” to Chang Guodong and Kang Jiaming directly speaking out to American society in English—the experiences of different individuals that day ultimately converged on the same question:
When a person has left China, should they also have the right to truly leave fear behind?
Protesters stated that national borders can define the boundaries of a state, but they should not become lines that authoritarian power arbitrarily crosses; family affection should not become leverage to threaten dissidents, and passports should not become chains to control the people.
List of pro-democracy activists who participated in this event: Zheng Yun, Hu Pizheng, Li Xiaolin, Liu Jingtao, Guo Zhijun, Guo Jianxin, Lyu Xiaojing, Kang Jiaming, Guo Pan, Li Xiaoyan, Luo Yanli, Gao Zhibin, Zhao Ming, Yang Chaoquan, Yao Rongtao, Zhou Qilu, Wu Zhichuang, Chang Guodong, among others (names listed in no particular order).
Event interview speeches and on-site silhouettes.
Editor: Zhong Ran Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Ge Bing
