作者：LIU XIAOCAI

一个普通人想出国读书、工作、探亲，或者只是看看世界，应当拥有多大的自主权？当政府能够阻止一个人离开时，它又应当承担怎样的说明义务，接受怎样的监督？这些问题关系到每个人能否安排自己的生活，也关系到公民与政府之间最基本的权利边界。

2026年9月15日起施行的《国务院关于出境入境管理的规定》，使这些问题再次受到关注。需要准确地说，这份规定没有宣布全民禁止出境，不能直接等同于关闭国门。但其中涉及出境事由核实、不准出境和告知例外的内容，确实值得公众认真审视。批评应当从具体条文出发，追问权力边界与公民保障。

出境自由从来不只是买一张机票、去一个地方。它关系到一封来之不易的录取通知，一份支撑家庭生活的工作，一场等待多年的团聚，或者与病重亲人的最后一次见面。一次出境受阻，对于管理部门也许只是一个决定，对于当事人却意味着无法弥补的损失。

正因为如此，限制出境不能成为轻率的管理手段。作出决定的人，应当考虑它给一个家庭带来的后果。限制依据是否明确，证据是否充分，期限是否合理，有没有影响更小的替代措施，这些都应当经得起追问。公民需要能够理解规则，也需要能够挑战错误的决定。

新规第三条涉及身份和申请事由核实，允许有关机关要求提供相关资料，并规定提供虚假材料、作出虚假陈述导致不予签发证件或者不准出入境。这使核实标准尤为重要：一般疏漏、行程变化和故意欺骗，应当如何区分？什么资料与核实目的有关？个人需要配合到什么程度？

如果标准不够清楚，普通人就陷入一种不安：材料交了，还不知道是否足够；问题回答了，还担心表达是否会被误解。这不是说上述情况必然发生，而是任何涉及重大自由的制度，都应当提前防范这种风险。规则越具体，公民越容易遵守，执法也越容易接受监督。

第六条原则上要求书面告知不准出境的事实、理由、依据和救济途径，同时为影响国家安全、刑事案件侦查等情形设置不告知的例外。告知义务具有重要意义，而例外的适用同样需要严格约束。一个人如果难以知道自己为何被限制，就难以有效提出异议。

国家安全当然需要维护，但这一理由必须具有可审查的具体内容。即使某些信息确实需要保密，也应当有相应机制核查限制是否合法、是否必要、是否仍应继续。保密不能让错误无法纠正，更不能使受到影响的人无限期地等待。

新规第二条还涉及对特定高风险目的地的提醒和必要时劝阻。“劝阻”不能直接解释为全面禁止出境，但其执行边界应当清楚。对于具有判断能力的成年人，政府应提供可靠的风险信息，并尊重其依法作出选择的能力。任何进一步的强制措施，都需要明确依据。

保护公民的责任，与尊重公民的自主权，应当同时得到落实。人们前往某个地方，涉及工作、家庭和其他迫切需要。行政管理必须认真对待这些具体处境，不能只从管理便利出发，把复杂的人生选择简化成一句“最好不要去”。

也应看到，出境查验和不准出境制度并非此次新规才建立。2013年施行的《出境入境管理法》已经规定相关手续与限制情形。因此，讨论的重点应当是限制范围、执行标准和纠错保障，而不能把过去描述成毫无限制，再把今天描述成所有人都无法离开。

事实上的准确，不会削弱对自由的坚持。公众完全可以在承认管理制度存在的同时，要求它受到严格约束。政府掌握的决定权越大，就越应说明如何防止误用。权利保障不能停留在原则表述中，还应体现在当事人能够及时获得解释、提出异议和得到处理的每一步里。

如果一个政府担忧人才流失，或者担忧人们对未来失去信心，就应认真了解离开背后的原因。人们期待怎样的工作机会和教育环境？他们能否通过劳动获得稳定生活？遇到不公时，是否相信问题会得到公正处理？这些问题影响着人们愿不愿意留下，也影响着他们愿不愿意回来。

当然，并非所有出国的人都不愿回来。求学、探亲、旅行和移居有着不同目的，不能把每一次离开都理解为对国家的否定。一个人热爱自己的语言、文化和亲人，也可以选择在海外生活。公民不应因为拥有不同的人生计划，就被要求不断证明自己的忠诚。

即使有人决定长期定居海外，这种选择也应受到尊重。国家的发展最终应当服务于人的生活。人们愿意留下，是因为看见机会、感到安心，并相信自己的努力能够有所回报。增加离开的困难，无法代替改善这些条件，更无法自动赢得信任。

值得警惕的是自由在日常手续中逐渐缩小。如果材料要求不断增加，核实范围不断扩大，而解释、监督和救济没有同步加强，个人安排生活的空间就受到挤压。防止这种风险，需要公开的规则、清楚的责任，以及对执行情况持续而具体的监督。

所谓防止把人“焊死在国内”，应当落实为可以检验的要求：限制必须有依据，期限必须受约束，错误必须能纠正，受到影响的人必须有切实可用的救济途径。公众不必等到大门彻底关上，才有资格讨论门上的锁由谁掌握。

护照依然握在手里，航班依然起降。每个人都应能够相信，自己符合明确、合理的法律条件时，生活计划会得到尊重。一个有信心的政府，应当努力创造让人愿意留下的环境，也尊重人选择离开的自由。

编辑：张致君 校对：毛一炜 翻译：戈冰

Do Not Let Freedom of Departure Become a Privilege Awaiting Approval

By LIU XIAOCAI

How much autonomy should an ordinary person have if they wish to go abroad to study, work, visit relatives, or simply see the world? When the government is able to prevent a person from leaving, what obligation of explanation should it bear, and what oversight should it accept? These questions concern whether every individual can arrange their own life, as well as the most basic boundary of rights between citizens and the government.

The Regulations of the State Council on Exit and Entry Administration, implemented on September 15, 2026, have brought these issues under public scrutiny once again. To state it accurately, these regulations do not announce a nationwide ban on departure, nor can they be directly equated to closing the country’s borders. However, the provisions concerning the verification of exit reasons, non-permission to exit, and exceptions to notification indeed deserve serious public examination. Criticism should proceed from specific clauses, questioning the boundaries of power and citizen protections.

Freedom of departure has never been merely a matter of buying a plane ticket and going somewhere. It concerns a hard-won letter of admission, a job that supports a family’s livelihood, a reunion awaited for years, or a final meeting with a gravely ill loved one. A blocked departure may be just a decision for an administrative agency, but for the person concerned, it signifies an irreparable loss.

Precisely because of this, restricting departure cannot become a light or hasty administrative tool. Those who make such decisions should consider the consequences inflicted upon a family. Whether the basis for restriction is clear, whether the evidence is sufficient, whether the timeframe is reasonable, and whether there exist alternative measures with lesser impact—all of these should stand up to rigorous questioning. Citizens need to be able to understand the rules, and they also need to be able to challenge incorrect decisions.

Article 3 of the new regulations concerns the verification of identity and application grounds, permitting relevant organs to require the provision of pertinent materials, and stipulating that providing false materials or making false statements shall result in the non-issuance of documents or non-permission to enter or exit. This makes verification standards particularly crucial: How should general omissions, changes in itinerary, and intentional deception be distinguished? What materials are relevant to the purpose of verification? To what extent does an individual need to cooperate?

If standards are insufficiently clear, ordinary people fall into a sense of anxiety: documents have been submitted, yet one does not know whether they are sufficient; questions have been answered, yet one still worries whether their expressions might be misunderstood. This is not to say that the aforementioned situations will inevitably occur, but rather that any system involving major freedoms should guard against such risks in advance. The more specific the rules are, the easier it is for citizens to comply with them, and the easier it is for law enforcement to accept oversight.

Article 6 in principle requires written notification of the facts, grounds, legal basis, and avenues of relief regarding non-permission to exit, while simultaneously setting exceptions to notification for circumstances such as impacting national security or criminal case investigations. The obligation to notify possesses important significance, and the application of exceptions similarly requires strict constraints. If it is difficult for a person to know why they are being restricted, it becomes difficult to effectively raise an objection.

National security naturally requires safeguarding, but this reason must possess concrete content that is subject to review. Even if certain information indeed requires confidentiality, there should still be corresponding mechanisms to check whether restrictions are lawful, necessary, and whether they should still continue. Confidentiality must not render errors uncorrectable, nor should it subject affected individuals to indefinite waiting.

Article 2 of the new regulations also involves reminding and, when necessary, dissuading individuals regarding specific high-risk destinations. “Dissuasion” cannot be directly interpreted as a total ban on exit, but its boundary of enforcement should be clear. For adults with capacity for judgment, the government should provide reliable risk information and respect their ability to make choices in accordance with the law. Any further compulsory measures require an explicit legal basis.

The responsibility to protect citizens and the respect for citizens’ autonomy should be implemented simultaneously. When people travel to a certain place, it involves work, family, and other urgent needs. Administrative management must take these concrete circumstances seriously; it cannot proceed merely from administrative convenience, simplifying complex life choices into a single phrase: “it is best not to go.”

It should also be recognized that exit inspection and the system of non-permission to exit were not newly established by these regulations. The Exit and Entry Administration Law, implemented in 2013, had already stipulated relevant procedures and restriction circumstances. Therefore, the focus of discussion should be the scope of restrictions, enforcement standards, and safeguards for correcting errors, rather than describing the past as completely unconstrained and then describing today as a state where no one can leave.

Factual accuracy will not weaken adherence to freedom. The public can fully acknowledge the existence of the administrative system while simultaneously demanding that it be subjected to strict constraints. The greater the decision-making power held by the government, the more it ought to explain how to prevent misuse. The protection of rights cannot remain in principled expressions; it should also be reflected in every step where the person concerned can promptly obtain explanations, raise objections, and receive processing.

If a government worries about the brain drain, or worries that people are losing confidence in the future, it should earnestly understand the reasons behind people leaving. What kind of employment opportunities and educational environments do people look forward to? Can they obtain a stable life through their labor? When encountering injustice, do they believe the issue will be handled fairly? These questions influence whether people are willing to stay, and also influence whether they are willing to return.

Of course, not everyone who goes abroad is unwilling to return. Pursuing studies, visiting relatives, traveling, and emigrating serve different purposes; every departure cannot be understood as a negation of the nation. A person can love their language, culture, and loved ones, while also choosing to live overseas. Citizens should not be required to continuously prove their loyalty simply because they possess different life plans.

Even if someone decides to settle overseas long-term, such a choice should also be respected. A nation’s development should ultimately serve people’s lives. People are willing to stay because they see opportunities, feel at ease, and believe that their efforts can yield returns. Increasing the difficulty of leaving cannot replace improving these conditions, much less automatically win trust.

What warrants vigilance is freedom gradually shrinking within daily procedures. If documentation requirements continuously increase, if the scope of verification continuously expands, while explanation, oversight, and relief are not strengthened synchronously, the space for individuals to arrange their lives becomes squeezed. Preventing this risk requires public rules, clear accountabilities, and continuous and concrete oversight of implementation.

The so-called prevention of “welding people shut inside the country” should be implemented into verifiable requirements: restrictions must have a legal basis, time limits must be constrained, errors must be correctable, and affected individuals must possess practical and usable avenues of relief. The public does not need to wait until the main gate is completely closed before being qualified to discuss who holds the lock on the door.

Passports remain in hand, and flights continue to take off and land. Every person should be able to believe that when they meet clear and reasonable legal conditions, their life plans will be respected. A confident government should strive to create an environment that makes people willing to stay, while also respecting people’s freedom to choose to leave.

Editor: Zhang Zhijun Proofreader: Mao Yiwei Translator: Ge Bing