Custody and repatriation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Custody and repatriation (Chinese: 收容遣送; Pinyin: shōuróng qiǎnsòng) (C&R) was an administrative procedure, established in 1982 and ended in 2003, by which the police in the People's Republic of China (usually cities) could detain people if they did not have a residence permit (hukou) or temporary living permit (zanzhuzheng), and return them to the place where they could legally live or work (usually rural areas). At times the requirement included possession of a valid national identity card.

Contents

[edit] Background

The Chinese C&R system was similar to existing systems of legal arrest, detention, and deportation of vagrants or illegal aliens (illegal immigration), or aliens who commit crimes, in other countries including the United States [1]. In both cases the detentions were usually extrajudicial, as even though the police acted under regulations or laws, it was difficult or impossible for accused to use the law to correct mistakes or appeal. In both cases the reason for many detentions and deportations were essentially economic migration although on the face of it the application was to criminals. (Land in rural China since the Revolution is owned by communes, and by the people in urban areas; in other countries with private land ownership the economic burden is often through individual property taxes.) For years people have moved from farms to work in cities everywhere in the world, and usually governments try to control this in some ways. In apartheid South Africa the system to regulate migrant workers was based on race, while the system of handing migrant workers in other countries such as China was not.

In China there were reported to be some 800 detention camps in 2000 (not including Beijing), and by then several million people had been through them. As well as migrant workers, the Chinese camps usually contained vagrants, beggars, petitioners, and criminals, and the police (Public Security Bureau) earned income by this traffic and sometimes workers' unpaid labor. Often the detentions were unfairly long.[2]

In China as well as other countries such as the U.S., human rights organizations have protested excesses in such legal C&R systems. Although there is recognized a universal fundamental right to work and travel, this is always regulated and rights violations depend on the particular case details. Migration and deportation impose costs and someone must pay.

[edit] History

The ostensible reason for the C&R regulation in 1982 in China was to ameliorate the situation of people in the cities who were beggars or homeless. Originally it applied to "three withouts persons," those with "no fixed place of residence, no means of livelihood and no permits to live in the city in question" but later it was applied in 1991 to others without just the residence or work permits. [3] It built on a 1961 Party directive implementing the hukou system of residence (traditional family registers found in several Asian countries), work permits (issued by police on behalf of work units or employers) to prevent uncontrolled population movements, as passports and visas do internationally, and identification cards, (Jumin Shenfenzheng (居民身份证). In turn, this regulation extended older rules that were used to enforce extrajudicial movements of Nationalist troops away from liberated cities. But as the economic development of cities in the east later required increased domestic migrant workers, the regulations were not adequately adapted or were unfairly enforced, by the Public Security Bureau (police, supposed to be in charge of deportation) instead of the Ministry of Civil Affairs (supposed to be in charge of detention). These abuses became apparent in years before 2003 and there were internal and external warnings and discussion, with some improvements but little effect overall. There were some unpublicized deaths similar to what later occurred. [4]

[edit] The case of Sun Zhigang

The legal procedure of C&R for migrant workers was ended by the central government in 2003 after a related death received massive attention in newspapers and on the Internet in China.

March 20, 2003, 27-year-old Sun Zhigang died in the medical clinic of a detention center in an area of south China that depends on migrant labor. Sun was a Wuhan university graduate and fashion designer who had gone to Guangzhou to work. Three weeks later, as he walked to an internet bar, police asked for his temporary living permit and his identity card. He had not applied for the permit and he had forgotten the ID card (which contains the place of registration but does not give the right to live or work in some area). His residence permit (hukou) was with his family in Hubei. He called his friends to bring his ID card. Three days later, a friend called his family to tell them of the death. [5]

An official autopsy authorized by Sun's family later at Zhongshan University showed a savage beating of his body 72 hours before the death, although there were no signs of external damage. The detention center's medical clinic had reported the cause of death was a heart attack, or a stroke. [6] Sun's father stated that he was sorry that because Sun was a university graduate he probably argued or resisted the police over what he considered a human rights issue. [7]

[edit] Arguments

Sun's family reported the information to investigative reporters at Nanfang Dushi Bao (Southern Metropolitan Daily) in Guangdong, on April 25, during the SARS epidemic--the official reaction or lack of it to SARS had already created much controversy on the Internet, so Internet activity soon skyrocketed, hundreds of thousands of messages, with help from Sun's friends and outraged sympathizers. Some believed that the government censored postings, while most people wanted the government to take some action, but attention was focused only on the Sun case, not the general issue of C&R.[8]

Among these reactions, two groups of senior Chinese legal scholars wrote to the National People's Congress, questioning the constitutionality of the C&R regulation. One particular problem with the regulations was said to be that they had been adopted as regulations by the State Council of the People's Republic of China (State Council) and not as a law by the full Congress. As a result, it was argued, the C&R law for migrant workers was unconstitutional, on the grounds that it violated citizen rights articles of the Legislation Law of the People's Republic of China. As in many other countries, Chinese law does not provide for constitutional judicial review, and, as in systems without a constitution as the UK, the legislature or administration instead of judges must change laws deemed unconstitutional. There has been some movement by legal reformers to use courts (xianfa sifahua) and bureaucracy to experiment with constitutionalism.[9] [10]

A similar argument was that the C&R regulations "violate the 1996 Administrative Punishment Law, which states that administrative punishments which restrict personal freedom may only be authorized by laws passed by the [full] Congress." Both criticisms echoed statements published in earlier years by lawyers and legal scholars. [11]

In addition to the legal arguments, some reports by those with contact with the detention centers (including an official report) indicated that not only were the conditions worse than prisons or reeducation camps (including beatings and prolonged detentions without trial), but also sometimes the police used the system to kidnap and extort more than expenses from the families of the accused. These reports echoed earlier ignored warnings. [12]

[edit] Results

On 20 June 2003, Premier Wen Jiabao announced that C&R regulations were abolished (effective August 1) and the detention centers would be replaced by simply Measures for Assisting Vagrants and Beggars with No Means of Support in Cities, just to care for poor beggars or homeless persons. No discussion ensued about any basis for the decision in the constitutional arguments. The continuing centers for vagrants were not allowed to collect fees from families nor require work. The legal system of hukou and residency and work permits for migrant workers did not change, but enforcement has not been as strict in most cases, and migrant labor and travel has continued unimpeded. Although there is no C&R, there is still some difficulty since workers from rural areas use city services without paying for it like registered urban residents, or are denied services such as schools. In addition, some migrant construction workers have been reported to have been unable to collect wages, insurance, or medical care from employers.[13]

During the Internet discussion in China after Sun's death there were many viewpoints as to problems and solutions, but the fervor died down after the central government's compromise solution, which may have avoided the underlying issues. The government's action met approval by citizens as well as netizens. Some believe the activity demonstrated the power of unrestrained Internet use by individual citizens against government power, but in the end, as in the SARS crisis, it appealed to and reaffirmed government power. law, and social harmony.[14]

Nanfang Dushi editor Cheng Yizhong and three editors were charged with corruption in connection with the Sun case reporing, and other offenses. Allegedly Cheng misused funds from a (local) state-owned enterprise. Human rights lawyers asserted that the actions were local official revenge for the journalists' expression of press freedom [15]. Whatever the case, their defense lawyers quickly secured his release from prison. as well as that of another, and reduced sentences for the others. Human rights lawyers considered the Sun and Cheng cases together as a victory for human rights legal struggle ("weiquan").

A few months later, two men found directly responsible for murdering Sun were sentenced to death (one suspended), 10 accessories were sent to prison for terms between six months and life, six civil servants were sentenced to prison terms of two to three years for malpractice, [16] and later a head nurse was sentenced to two years in prison. [17] Some criticized the decisions because the police investigated, but they concluded no police were indicted. [18] Sun's father, Sun Liusong, received a $53,000 settlement from the government and stated "now Zhigang can sleep well in the nether world." [19]

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Inalienable Rights (Human Rights Watch, 1-10-2004)
  2. ^ Human Rights in China
  3. ^ Human Rights in China
  4. ^ Human Rights in China
  5. ^ 84 Days and Nights in Guangzhou
  6. ^ 84 Days and Nights in Guangzhou
  7. ^ Human Rights Watch - Censorship - China - Sun Zhigang
  8. ^ Human Rights Watch - Sun Zhigang
  9. ^ Human Rights Watch - Sun Zhigang
  10. ^ Asia Times Online :: China News, China Business News, Taiwan and Hong Kong News and Business
  11. ^ Human Rights in China
  12. ^ http://www.hrichina.org/fs/downloadables/video/tongyi.pdf?revision_id=8925
  13. ^ China: Beijing’s Migrant Construction Workers Abused (Human Rights Watch, 12-3-2008)
  14. ^ Human Rights Watch - Sun Zhigang
  15. ^ China Digital Times » Rise of Rights?
  16. ^ Sun Zhigang's brutal killers sentenced
  17. ^ Head nurse in Sun Zhigang case gets 2 years
  18. ^ Statement by Tong Yi
  19. ^ 84 Days and Nights in Guangzhou

[edit] External links

Languages