International Open Access Journal Platform

1 Introduction

Foreigners’ permanent residence legislation in China is an important part of China’s foreign-related legal construction. Formulating and improving legislation on permanent residence of foreigners is not only a positive response to China’s opening-up policy, but also a practical need to meet the needs of international talent flow and promote economic and social development. On the one hand, with the acceleration of globalization and the intensification of international talent competition, China needs to attract more high-quality and high-skilled talents to work and live in China, providing strong talent support for the country’s economic and social development. Establishing a sound and coherent legal system for permanent residence provides such individuals with a stable and predictable legal environment, thereby enhancing their willingness to contribute to China’s development. On the other hand, legislation on the permanent residence of foreigners is also necessary to safeguard national security and social stability. By clearly defining the eligibility criteria and procedural requirements for permanent residence and by strengthening the administrative oversight of foreign nationals, the legal framework helps to mitigate potential risks associated with illegal immigration, terrorism, and other security-related threats. In this regard, the foreign permanent residence regime has already played a significant role in supporting the national talent strategy, attracting foreign investment, and engaging overseas Chinese communities.

Since the implementation of the system of permanent residence of foreigners in China, it has played an important role in serving the national talent strategy, attracting overseas investment, conserving overseas Chinese resources, and other aspects. However, although China’s current legal framework governing the permanent residence of foreigners is primarily based on the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China and the Measures for the Administration of Examination and Approval of Foreigners’ Permanent Residence in China, the relevant provisions remain overly general and lack sufficient clarity and specificity. As a result, their practical applicability and enforceability require significant improvement(Han, 2023). In particular, the legislation in the management and service of foreigners in China remains in need of further refinement and elaboration, so as to align with the country’s developmental objectives and the practical needs of foreign residents in the new era.

Therefore, it is urgent to establish and improve the legislative model of permanent residence of foreigners in the field of foreign-related rule of law in China. A sound legislative model for the permanent residence of foreigners can regulate the approval and daily management of foreigners’ permanent residence qualifications, and better serve the economic and social development of the country and the legitimate rights of permanent residents in China. Chinese scholars have done some research on this: in terms of the system, Liu Guofu, in his article “Critical Legal Thinking on Chinese Permanent Resident(Green Card) System Reform”, analyzes several issues within China’s permanent residence regime for foreigners, including ambiguities in legislative rationale and objectives, and deficiencies in the frameworks for investment-based immigration, skilled migration, and family-based reunification, etc., and put forward suggestions for improvement through critical thinking on these issues (Liu, 2008); Zhang Qingyuan, in his book Research on the System of Foreigners’ Right of Residence, proposes that the right of residence should be classified on the basis of formulating the immigration law, and that a two-card management system should be implemented according to the different needs of foreigners living in China and overseas Chinese returning home (Zhang, 2014); In terms of legislation, Liu Guofu pointed out in his book “Migration Law” that the general law of legislative development is from a decentralized model to a legal code model. The legislative timing for China to formulate an immigration basic law that includes a permanent residency system is becoming mature, and the legislative body has accumulated rich experience in relevant legislative development and is fully capable of formulating a good immigration basic law that adapts to the development of the situation (Liu, 2010); In terms of comparative analysis, Ji Hong deeply analyzed the background and core elements of the formation of the US skilled immigration system, while clearly pointing out the existing problems and advantages of the system that are worth learning from (Ji, 2013); Sun Haolei made a detailed comparison of the multi-dimensional differences in the permanent residence system of foreigners between China and the United States, covering management system, legislative framework, visa system, refugee policy and other aspects, and on this basis, put forward comprehensive and comprehensive improvement suggestions (Sun, 2019). In summary, although there is a considerable amount of research on the permanent residency system in China, most of the studies lack specificity and ultimately focus on developing a unified immigration code. As Liu Guofu said, the development of legislation does follow a pattern from decentralization to codification, but it should not be limited to the transition between extreme states. More attention should be paid to the continuous improvement and optimization of permanent residency legislation in various stages of institutional development, as a bridge connecting the past and future immigration legal systems, ensuring the coherence and foresight of the legal system.

The author selected the United States as the subject of comparative analysis for two main reasons: first, the US immigration system has a long history and has absorbed a large number of immigrants for a long time; Second, the immigration legislation in the United States is relatively early, and after decades of evolution, a relatively complete immigration legal system has been formed, which has a significant impact on the international community. Based on the actual situation of China, this paper is committed to an in-depth analysis of the current situation and characteristics of the permanent residence system of foreigners in China. By comparing the specific provisions and practices of the permanent residence system of foreigners in China and the United States, the author explores the similarities and differences between the two countries from the perspectives of legislative structure, system purpose, and specific provisions. This comparative analysis aims to provide a solid theoretical basis and practical reference for China’s future planning and design of legislation on permanent residence of foreigners, and promote the improvement of relevant legal systems and internationalization.

2 Historical Development of Permanent Residence Legislation for Foreigners in China

China did not formally establish a permanent residence system until 1985, marking a significant milestone in the governance of long-term foreign residency. According to a series of important laws and regulatory frameworks on the management of foreigners’ long-term residence issued by the state in recent years, the author, starting from the basic principles and purposes of legislation, divides the historical evolution of China’s foreigners’ permanent residence system into three distinct stages: the embryonic stage, which marks the beginning of the system; During the formation period, the system framework is gradually constructed and completed; And during the development period, the system is continuously optimized and improved in practice, which is more in line with China’s national conditions and the needs of international exchange and cooperation.

2.1 Embryonic Stage (1964–1984)

Compared with countries with developed immigration, China’s permanent residence system for foreigners started relatively late. It was first seen in China’s legislative system, and the matters related to foreigners’ residence in China can be traced back to the Regulations on the Administration of Aliens’ Entry, Exit, Transit, Residence and Travel promulgated in 1964. The core purpose of this regulation was to govern the procedures for foreigners’ entry, exit, transit, and travel within China, while setting out detailed procedural requirements such as residence registration and household registration declaration. These provisions laid the legal foundation for the legitimacy of foreigners’ residence status in China. However, the regulation did not address specific provisions or institutional arrangements concerning permanent residency. At this stage, China had yet to establish a permanent residence system for foreigners, and relevant legislation remained at a nascent stage.

2.2 Formative Stage (1985–2003)

The concept of “permanent residence” was first explicitly introduced in Chinese legislation through the Law of the People’s Republic of China on Control of the Entry and Exit of Aliens, adopted by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress in 1985. The law stipulated that three categories of foreigners were eligible to apply for permanent residence: investors, individuals engaged in economic, technological, or cultural cooperation, and other persons requiring long-term residence1. In order to further refine the above legal provisions, the Ministry of Public Security and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs promulgated the Rules Governing the Implementation of the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Entry and Exit of Aliens in 1986, which article 18 specifically sets forth the conditions for foreigners to obtain permanent residence permits, that is, they must achieve significant achievements or important achievements in their fields before they are eligible to be granted permanent residence certificates.

During this stage, although China had established a legal framework for the permanent residence of foreigners, the system still faced numerous challenges due to limited legislative experience. Clear and specific guidance regarding the eligibility criteria and application procedures for permanent residence was lacking, leaving considerable room for interpretation. For instance, while the law provided that foreign investors could obtain permanent residence, it did not specify the required investment amount. Similarly, the standard of “remarkable achievements” stipulated in the implementing rules was not clearly defined. Therefore, this period may be characterized as the formative phase of China’s permanent residence regime for foreigners.

2.3 Developmental Stage (2004–Present)

It was not until the promulgation of the Measures for the Administration of Examination and Approval of Foreigners’ Permanent Residence in China in 2004 that China’s permanent residence system for foreigners was formally established. The Measures introduced significant institutional refinements and clarifications in various aspects, including the definition of eligibility criteria, the classification of application categories, and the design of approval procedures, thereby providing clearer and more detailed legal guidance for foreigners seeking long-term residence in China.

In addition, China has continued to improve its permanent residence system for foreigners through inter-agency collaboration..In 2011, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security issued the Interim Measures for Social Insurance System Coverage of Foreigners Working within the Territory of China, which significantly enhanced the legal protection for foreigners working in China to participate in the social insurance system and ensured their legitimate right to enjoy corresponding social insurance benefits. In 2012, the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress officially promulgated the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China, thereby establishing the basic legal framework for China’s permanent residence system for foreign nationals. In 2015, the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, in conjunction with 24 other departments, introduced the Measures for Relevant Treatments Enjoyed by Foreigners with Permanent Residence Status in China, which explicitly clarified a comprehensive set of entitlements in employment, investment, housing, tax incentives, financial services, foreign exchange administration, travel facilitation, consumer protection, transportation, and education for accompanying children. This reflects China’s firm commitment to safeguarding the rights and interests of foreigners with permanent residence status. Since 2016, China has taken the lead in launching the pilot project of the permanent residence system for foreigners in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangdong, especially customizing the “permanent residence shortcut” for high-level talents, aiming to simplify the process and accelerate their integration into Chinese life and work. In 2018, the establishment of the National Immigration Administration marked a new stage of professionalization and systematization of the permanent residence and immigration management of foreigners in China. The agency is mainly responsible for the management of national immigration affairs, the drafting of relevant laws and regulations, and the organization and implementation of visas for foreigners coming to China, which has pushed China’s management level in this field to a new height.

In addition to the aforementioned legal and regulatory system, China has been continuously committed to optimizing and improving the legal framework for foreigners’ permanent residence in China, and has started to promote the formulation of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners. The draft version of the regulation for soliciting opinions was released to the public in February 2020, marking an important step forward for China in this field. In the future, with the deepening of international exchanges and the continuous improvement of China’s opening-up level, the legislation on permanent residence of foreigners is expected to usher in a more comprehensive, systematic, and in-depth development and improvement, further promoting China to become a more open, inclusive, and legal international environment.

3 Current Status and Challenges of China’s Permanent Residence Legislation for Foreigners

3.1 Current Legislative Framework for Foreigners’ Permanent Residence in China

The legislative mode of permanent residence in China is mainly decentralized, which regulates the permanent residence of foreigners in China from four levels: laws, administrative regulations, departmental rules, and local regulations. These four levels of legal documents are interlinked and complementary to each other, which together build a solid foundation for the legal system of permanent residence in China, and each plays an indispensable key role in its legal position (Sun, 2019).

At the level of the laws, the Exit and Entry Administration Law of the People’s Republic of China, promulgated by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, does cover matters related to the permanent residence of foreigners. However, the relevant provisions are limited in number and are primarily concentrated in Articles 47 to 49, which respectively stipulate the eligibility criteria for application, the authorities responsible for accepting applications, and the circumstances under which permanent residence status may be revoked. It is worth noting that the law has not reached a comprehensive and detailed standard level in all aspects of the permanent residence system for foreigners. In view of this, the Exit and Entry Administration Law, as the cornerstone of the legal framework for the administration of foreigners in China, is still insufficient in its main normative effect, which makes it difficult to give full play to the leading and normative role in the management of permanent residence of foreigners at the legal level (Weng & Xia, 2015).

At the level of administrative regulations, in order to more effectively implement the provisions on permanent residence in the Exit and Entry Administration Law, the State Council timely issued the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of the Entry and Exit of Foreigners, which to some extent refined the Exit and Entry Administration Law. While this regulation provides a certain degree of elaboration on the Exit and Entry Administration Law, it primarily focuses on matters related to temporary residence. It fails to draw a clear distinction between temporary and permanent residence, nor does it specify the conditions and procedures for transitioning from temporary to permanent residence (Sun, 2019).

At the level of departmental regulations, in addition to the core regulation — the Measures for the Administration of Examination and Approval of Foreigners’ Permanent Residence in China — there are also the Measures for Relevant Treatments Enjoyed by Foreigners with Permanent Residence Status in China, jointly issued by 24 relevant departments. This measure provides comprehensive coverage across multiple dimensions and sets forth in detail the various rights and benefits that foreigners may enjoy during their period of permanent residence in China.

At the level of local regulations, governments at various administrative levels have also issued specific provisions governing the residence-related affairs of foreigners within their respective jurisdictions. Taking Guangdong Province as an example, its Interim Provisions on the Administration and Service of Foreigners in Guangdong Province is an important document that comprehensively regulates the living, employment, and business activities of foreigners in Guangdong.

3.2 Challenges in China’s Legislation on Permanent Residence for Foreigners

3.2.1 Legal Framework of China’s Permanent Residence System for Foreigners

(1) Lack of Systematic Structure in the Legal Framework China’s legislative framework governing the permanent residence of foreigners is complex, encompassing a wide range of legal instruments across different levels, from laws to local regulations, departmental rules, policy documents, and administrative notices. In addition, in the process of dealing with the issue of permanent residence of foreigners, China tends to adopt flexible means such as policies and departmental regulations for regulation. However, normative documents aimed at enhancing adaptability and flexibility, due to their relatively low legal status, have insufficient legal effectiveness and lack necessary authority (Sun, 2019). This institutional gap highlights the lack of a robust legal framework underpinning China’s permanent residence system for foreigners, thereby limiting its capacity to address the growing demands of immigration governance in a changing context.

(2) Limitations of Legislative Philosophy and the Need for a Paradigm Shift Although the Exit and Entry Administration Law clearly proposed the concept of “permanent residence” for the first time, the formulation of the law lacks systematic theoretical guidance. In addition, China is not a traditional country of immigration and lacks ready experience for reference. China’s entry and exit management system mainly draws on the Soviet model (Weng & Bi, 2006).Therefore, the management of foreigners in China has mainly followed the legislative idea of taking entry and exit management as the core from the beginning2. However, with the expansion of international exchanges and the increasing demand for attracting foreign talent, this legislative approach is no longer sufficient to meet the practical needs of contemporary China.

In 2018, China established the National Immigration Administration, which indicates the country’s emphasis on the concept of balancing management and service in international immigration management. However, overall, there is still a focus on administrative management, emphasizing the maintenance of the sovereignty, security, and social order of China (Xiong, 2020).

Although the current system of permanent residence of foreigners in China mainly focuses on entry and exit management, which really plays an important role in safeguarding national security and strengthening the management of foreigners in China, with the development of the times and the complex and changeable situation at home and abroad, the legislative idea focusing on entry and exit management has been difficult to fully meet the current practical needs of China. Therefore, China should not simply follow the traditional administrative management framework and focus solely on managing or restricting international immigration (Liu, 2008).On the contrary, China’s green card system should be based on its national conditions, actively innovate, establish an awareness of openness, inclusiveness, and competition, and attract more high-quality and skilled international talents to immigrate through measures such as optimizing policy environment and improving service quality, injecting new vitality into the country’s economic, technological, and social development.

3.2.2 Ambiguities in Legal Provisions and Challenges in Implementation

(1) Vague Legal Terminology

Both the existing Measures for the Administration of Examination and Approval of Foreigners’ Permanent Residence in China and the 2020 Draft Version for public comment suffer from vague legal language. Improper or imprecise use of legal terminology may undermine the effectiveness of China’s green card system (Liu, 2007). For instance, terms such as “outstanding contribution”, “outstanding achievements”, “good conduct”, “stable status”, and “major impact” lack specific, quantifiable criteria under current regulations, making implementation difficult and compromising the fairness and transparency of the approval process. Similar ambiguities persist in the 2020 Draft Version. Article 12, for example, fails to clarify the threshold for “outstanding achievements”3—whether this requires an international award or a core leadership role remains uncertain. Likewise, Article 15 allows graduates from “well-known international universities”4 to apply, but does not define the term. Given the diverse and dynamic nature of global university rankings, this ambiguity adds uncertainty to policy implementation.

The ambiguity of legal language, due to the lack of clear quantitative standards, has brought difficulties to the practical operation of law enforcement agencies. If these vague terms are interpreted arbitrarily, it will lead to differentiated evaluation criteria for different applicants, thereby causing excessive expansion of the discretion of the responsible authorities. This not only hinders the fair implementation and strict review of policies but may also weaken the effectiveness of China’s permanent residency system.

(2) Inverted Legal Hierarchy There are indeed a limited number of provisions related to the permanent residence of foreigners in the Exit and Entry Administration Law, and the content is broad and not clear enough. As a higher-level law, there are obvious deficiencies in the implementation procedures, management mechanisms, and specific settings of the competent authorities for permanent residency, which appear relatively weak. The specific regulations regarding the treatment and participation in social insurance for foreign nationals permanently residing in China are currently based on normative legal documents. Due to their low legal status, they face many restrictions in the actual implementation process, which weakens their authority and coercive power as legal norms. Even the 2020 Draft Version has not adequately addressed this issue.

At present, the administration of permanent residence for foreigners primarily relies on ministerial regulations, which may create coordination challenges when enforcing the rules in conjunction with other governmental departments. Although in recent years, various guiding opinions and facilitative measures have been issued—demonstrating a degree of flexibility in administrative legislation—these instruments lack long-term legal stability. Furthermore, enforcement of the system is often refined through internal departmental policies. However, due to insufficient support from superior legislation, the practical implementation tends to rely heavily on departmental interpretations of general clauses, which results in excessive administrative discretion and compromises both policy stability and predictability. Variations in the professional competence of enforcement personnel may also lead to inconsistencies in the approval outcomes of permanent residence applications. On the one hand, rigid application procedures risk excluding qualified applicants; on the other, excessive discretion may pose potential risks to national interests.

More critically, the authority for permanent residence approval remains highly centralized at the ministerial and provincial levels, limiting the autonomy of local governments. This centralization hinders the fairness and efficiency of policy implementation and negatively affects the transparency and credibility of government administration.

3.2.3 Legislative Gaps

Article 49 of the Exit and Entry Administration Law provides a detailed list of five specific circumstances under which permanent residency will be revoked. However, in practice, the enforcement of these provisions remains relatively lax, creating certain challenges for law enforcement authorities.

Although the Measures for the Administration of Examination and Approval of Foreigners’ Permanent Residence in China stipulate clear requirements regarding the duration of stay for foreigners holding permanent residence, border inspection authorities have at times failed to strictly examine compliance with these requirements upon entry, particularly when individuals present permanent residence identity cards. This has led to insufficient oversight and difficulty in ensuring that all entrants continue to meet the criteria for permanent residence. Moreover, public security agencies tend to adhere to a “no report, no action” principle, whereby they generally do not proactively verify the residence duration of permanent residents unless a complaint or specific reason is brought forward. Such a passive approach weakens the effectiveness of regulatory enforcement and impedes the implementation of a robust exit mechanism.

In the past fifteen years, China has successfully approved and granted permanent residency to over 15700 foreign nationals. However, it is worth noting that among this large group, only a very small number of individuals - about ten or so - were disqualified when applying for the replacement of their permanent residence permits due to failure to meet the established residency requirements. This phenomenon highlights the space for further proactive optimization and improvement in the field of permanent residency management in China (Li, 2017). At the same time, the existing constraints on the living and residence time of high-level foreign permanent residents in China still need to be strengthened to ensure that these foreign permanent residents can fully play their positive role in China’s economic and social development.

4 Comparative Analysis of China-U.S. Legislative Models for Foreigners’ Permanent Residence

The United States has a long tradition of immigration, attracting over a million people each year to apply for settlement. Its immigration policies are not only pivotal to the country’s own economic development but also exert a profound influence on the international order. The Immigration and Nationality Act(1965) established a global quota system based on national origin. The U.S. immigration law, which underwent comprehensive reform, officially came into effect on November 29, 1990. This extensive and in-depth revision of the previous immigration law has earned the Immigration and Nationality Act broad recognition worldwide, and it is widely regarded as one of the most comprehensive and advanced models within global immigration legal systems (Weng, 1995).

This paper will introduce the U.S. permanent residence system from the perspectives of legal structure, substantive content, and international responsibility, followed by a comparative analysis with the corresponding framework in China.

4.1 A Comparative Analysis of the Legal Frameworks Governing Permanent Residency in China and the United States

4.1.1 Codified Legislation in the United States vs. Fragmented Legislation in China

The United States incorporates its permanent residence system within a comprehensive immigration legal framework, characterized by a codified legislative model. The cornerstone of this system is the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides the overarching legal structure governing immigration matters. The Immigration and Nationality Act functions as the foundational statute, while judicial decisions and interpretive rulings serve to clarify the specific meanings and applications of its provisions. Administrative agencies, in turn, formulate detailed implementing regulations based on both statutory and judicial guidance. These regulations ultimately constitute the direct basis for the enforcement and administration of immigration affairs. This multi-layered and progressively detailed system design ensures clarity, consistency, and legal rigor, thereby establishing a solid and practicable legal foundation for the effective implementation of immigration law in the United States (Ma, 2008).

The legal framework of permanent residence of foreigners in China is significantly different from that in the United States. It mainly consists of a series of separate laws. However, at the statutory level, the Exit and Entry Administration Law, due to the limitations of imperfect legal provisions and vague expressions, it is difficult for the Law to independently assume the core responsibility of leading the management of the permanent residence of foreigners. In view of this, the specific implementation of foreigners’ permanent residence management depends more on the detailed provisions and guidance of administrative regulations, administrative rules, and a series of guiding documents. The fundamental reason for this difference lies in the profound differences in immigration history and policy traditions between the two countries. As a country known for its immigration policy, the United States has a long history and is full of changes. Long-term practice has built a relatively complete and experienced legal system for permanent residency, providing a solid legal foundation for the implementation and management of permanent residency. On the other hand, in China, the establishment and development of the permanent residency system was relatively late. Despite continuous efforts to improve it in recent years, there is still a certain gap compared to some countries around the world that have already reached a high level of maturity in immigration management. At the current stage, given the gaps and challenges in the gradual improvement of the system, it may be too hasty to directly promulgate a comprehensive immigration code. It is necessary to proceed gradually in order to ensure the scientific and effective nature of legislation.

4.1.2 Divergence in Legislative Philosophy: Pragmatism vs. Service-Oriented Governance

Influenced by the value of “national interest first”, the United States does not blindly open up to foreign immigrants, but adopts a selective acceptance policy. Looking back at the history of American immigration, it can be seen that from encouraging unrestricted immigration in the early days of the founding of the country to gradually evolving into strict restrictions on immigration today (Zhang, 2014), the pragmatic concept has been fully demonstrated in the formulation of American immigration policies towards China (Zheng, 2006).By further observing the dynamic adjustments of immigration policies in various countries, it is not difficult to find that many Western countries have adopted precise strategies of introducing skilled and investment immigrants to optimize their labor force structure, aiming to fill the gap in the domestic labor force. These measures, including the points evaluation system, labor market testing system, occupational list system, and employer guarantee system, all deeply reflect the talent attraction strategies with a clear utilitarian orientation formulated by countries based on their own development needs.

In contrast, China’s permanent residence system, from its inception, was influenced by the Soviet model and shaped by specific political considerations. As a result, its legislative orientation was primarily management-driven. In order to safeguard national security and maintain social stability, the Chinese immigration framework adopted a highly restrictive and regulatory approach. This historical legacy not only defined the original structure of China’s permanent residence system but continues to exert influence on its current development and operational logic. At present, the Exit and Entry Administration Law and related legal and regulatory provisions on permanent residence remain largely management-centric, reflecting a reactive mode of immigration governance. This passive, control-oriented approach is increasingly ill-suited to the evolving global landscape of migration governance and the demands of a more open and competitive international environment

In addition, with the intensification of national comprehensive strength and international talent competition, there is an urgent need to create a more favorable environment for opening up to the outside world with a more proactive, open, confident, flexible and pragmatic attitude (General Office of the CPC Central Committee and State Council, 2016). The foreigner’s permanent residence system, as a key way to attract and serve foreigners to come to China for venture investment, employment, and residence, has become increasingly important. Further strengthening and optimizing the management of foreigners’ permanent residence services is of far-reaching and significant significance for the in-depth implementation of the strategy of strengthening the country with talents, promoting high-quality economic and social development, improving the country’s global competitiveness and attractiveness, and building a more harmonious and stable social environment in the new era.

4.2 A Comparative Analysis of the Legal Provisions on Permanent Residence in China and the United States

4.2.1 The Systematization and Refinement of U.S. Immigration Law

The U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act is divided into five parts, covering four core areas: immigration, nationality, refugee protection, and legal remedies. It achieves an organic integration of immigration law and nationality law, providing a unified and systematic legal framework for the administration of immigration and citizenship affairs. The Act clearly defines the responsibilities of immigration approval and administrative agencies, establishes standardized procedures for visa applications, enforces strict immigration screening criteria, and outlines efficient entry-exit inspection protocols as well as a regulated residency management system. In addition, it incorporates comprehensive mechanisms for evaluating immigrants’ skills, robust safeguards for immigrant rights and interests, well-defined legal remedies, and strategies aimed at promoting social integration and setting specific conditions for naturalization. The Act also extensively addresses refugee protection policies and mechanisms for effectively managing issues related to illegal immigration, thereby forming a comprehensive and detailed immigration governance framework.

On the contrary, there are still many imperfections in China’s legal and regulatory system for the permanent residence of foreigners. The Exit and Entry Administration Law, as the fundamental law in this field, has incomplete and ambiguous provisions, which directly weaken its operability in the entire immigration legal system. At the same time, although administrative regulations, rules, and normative documents have strong practicality in practical operation, these normative documents have significant problems such as relatively low legal hierarchy, lack of effective connection and system integration between each other, and even more so, some documents still have contradictions with each other, which undoubtedly adds a lot of inconvenience and trouble to the actual implementation process.

4.2.2 Revocation Mechanisms

Once an alien has obtained the permanent residence qualification, he or she may also lose this qualification due to certain circumstances, which is called the loss of permanent residence qualification. The US Immigration and Nationality Act clearly defines the concept of permanent residency, which is a right granted by the law that allows individuals to reside in the United States as immigrants for a long and permanent period of time, and this status remains valid until it is formally changed. If a permanent resident chooses to change their status, their original permanent residency rights will automatically become invalid, reflecting two situations where permanent resident status may terminate due to legal deprivation or voluntary abandonment (Liu, 2010). Therefore, the loss of permanent residency in the United States can be divided into two situations: deprivation and automatic abandonment. In contrast, China’s legal system only specifies the circumstances for depriving permanent residency rights and lacks clear provisions regarding automatic waiver of permanent residency rights.

There are significant differences between the United States and China in the administration of permanent residency rights. U.S. law stipulates four circumstances under which permanent residency may be revoked, as well as three situations in which individuals are deemed to have voluntarily abandoned their permanent resident status due to their personal conduct. China’s Exit and Entry Administration Law outlines five situations that may lead to the cancellation of foreigners’ permanent residence qualifications. There are significant institutional differences between China and the United States regarding the requirements for the departure time limit for permanent residents in these regulations. The Measures for the Administration of Examination and Approval of Foreigners’ Permanent Residence in China specifically stipulates that foreign permanent residents of China must stay in China for three months each year and for one year within five years, otherwise they will face the risk of being disqualified from permanent residence. In contrast, China’s requirements for foreigners’ residence time in China are indeed more relaxed. However, there is still room for improvement in the management of living and residence time for high-level foreign permanent residents, in order to ensure that they can reside in China more stably and fully play a positive role in promoting the country’s economic and social development.

5 Recommendations for Improving China’s Permanent Residence Legislation for Foreigners

With the increasing number of foreigners applying for permanent residence qualification in China5, and the increasing severity of population aging, the traditional population-based “demographic dividend” effect is gradually weakening, posing new challenges and transformation needs to the economic and social development model. For this reason, China urgently needs to build a perfect system of permanent residence for foreigners to enhance the magnetic attraction effect on high-level talents around the world, accurately select and retain these outstanding talents for a long time, and then transform and enhance the “talent dividend” to inject strong impetus into the sustainable development of the country. Meanwhile, a sound and open permanent residency system is an important manifestation of a country’s soft power and international image. By providing qualified foreigners with the right of permanent residence, China demonstrates its commitment to valuing international talent and embracing an open and inclusive approach, thereby enhancing its international competitiveness and attractiveness. In 2020, the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (Draft Version) publicly solicited public opinions, which indicates that the specific management system of foreigners’ permanent residence in China is also under active construction. However, by comparing the legislative models of permanent residence of foreigners in China and the United States, it is not difficult to find that the current system of permanent residence of foreigners in China still faces problems such as an imperfect legal system, vague or missing contents of some provisions, which limit its ability to cope with changes in the current domestic and international situation.

Many scholars believe that China should compile an Immigration Law that fully covers the management of foreigners. However, in view of the fact that the field of immigration law in China is still in the development stage, and there are differences in understanding and cognition, the development of immigration law needs to first deeply understand its multiple functions, build a flexible and efficient institutional framework, and be closely related to social, economic and cultural development, and timely revise and improve it (Liu, 2010). Based on the above considerations, the author suggests that priority should be given to the formulation and implementation of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (Draft Version) at the current stage. The promulgation of this single line law can improve the following issues:

5.1 Building a Comprehensive Legal System for Foreigners’ Permanent Residence

5.1.1 Improve and promulgate the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (Draft Version)

A comprehensive and complete immigration legal system plays an irreplaceable core role in the global talent competition. The openness and welcome of a country towards immigrants are most directly reflected in the formulation and implementation of its immigration policies, and a sound immigration legislation is a key cornerstone for enhancing a country’s international competitiveness and attractiveness. Currently, many developed countries such as the United States, Germany, France, Canada, etc. have issued independent immigration codes, clearly expressing their high attention and positive attitude towards the introduction of global high-skilled talents and international capital, as an important strategic means to promote national innovation and economic growth. In contrast, China’s current legal norms on the permanent residence of foreigners are still insufficient, mainly in the form of laws and regulations, with low legal effect and scattered distribution. In view of this, the urgent task at present is to adopt and promulgate the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (Draft Version), rather than rushing to promote the comprehensive formulation of the Immigration Law. The legislative work of the Immigration Law should wait for the implementation of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (Draft Version) for a period of time, accumulate rich practical experience and confirm its effectiveness, and then gradually start depending on whether the conditions are ripe or not.

The proposal stems from a significant shortcoming in the field of permanent residency legislation in China - the lack of a high-level and overarching legal document. At present, various regulations on permanent residency are scattered among different laws, administrative regulations, and departmental rules, lacking uniformity and coordination, making it difficult to effectively promote the development of the permanent residency system. In the absence of such a comprehensive and systematic single line law, directly initiating the development of an immigration code appears too hasty. This not only contradicts the scientific and rigorous requirements of legislative work, but also hinders the long-term stable development of China’s immigration legal system. In contrast, the promulgation of a well-designed and fully demonstrated Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners will effectively fill the current legal gaps, solve the aforementioned problems, and lay a solid practical foundation and legal framework for the formulation of the Immigration Law in the future. Given that China’s immigration legislation experience is still shallow and relevant practical cases are limited, directly crossing the stage of single line law to formulate an immigration code may be difficult to achieve the expected results due to a lack of sufficient experience support. As demonstrated by the compilation process of China’s Civil Code, the formulation of a code is a complex and arduous task that requires extensive social consensus, profound theoretical research, and rich practical experience.

In addition, even in countries with relatively complete immigration legal systems, such as the United States, their immigration legal system is centered around the Immigration and Nationality Act, supplemented by numerous separate laws (Xiao, 2019).This fully demonstrates the complexity and diversity of immigration management, which requires multi-level legal norms to jointly address. Therefore, China should also learn from this experience, first accumulate experience through the implementation of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners, and then gradually build and improve China’s immigration legal system.

5.1.2 Clarifying Legislative Objectives and Shifting Legislative Thinking

The legislative purpose of improving China’s permanent residency system is helpful in clarifying the legislative direction and establishing legislative goals from a macro perspective. When formulating clear legislative objectives, an open and pragmatic attitude should be upheld, it is necessary to actively absorb and draw on advanced legislative experience and concepts from the international community, as well as deeply understand and closely integrate with the actual situation and special national conditions of the country, to ensure that the legislative objectives are both forward-looking and operable. The legislative core concept of international immigration law is of great reference value. It aims to promote friendly exchanges and interactions among people around the world, promote the rational and orderly flow of talent resources, standardize immigration management processes and order, effectively curb illegal immigration activities, and protect the freedom of movement rights of every individual in accordance with the law. Therefore, China should adjust its legislative approach, shifting from solely focusing on immigration management to emphasizing both management and services, while avoiding blindly copying other countries’ immigration oriented permanent residency systems, as China is not a traditional immigrant country. In formulating the permanent residence system for foreigners, the starting point should be to attract talents and promote venture capital, rather than merely to absorb immigrants.

The Exit and Entry Administration Law clearly states its main purpose at the beginning, which is to safeguard national sovereignty, security, and social order, and actively promote friendly exchanges between countries. However, it must be pointed out that there is still room for improvement in reflecting the respect and protection of human rights in this law, and it needs to be further strengthened to be in line with international human rights standards, so as to fully demonstrate the humanistic care spirit of the law and enhance its value and significance at the social level. This situation has been significantly improved and perfected in the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (Draft Version). The first article of the draft not only clearly stipulates the management principles for foreigners’ permanent residence in China, but also emphasizes the protection of the legitimate rights and interests of foreigners who have obtained permanent residence qualifications. This is a major change and a new beginning in the thinking of China’s permanent residence legislation.

5.2 Clarifying the Legal Content of Foreigners’ Permanent Residence

5.2.1 More Precise and Detailed Standards

In China’s legislation on the permanent residence of foreigners, some key contents need to be further refined and clarified, especially the vague words mentioned above, such as “significant”, “prominent”, “good”, “stable”, and “major”. Such problems still exist in the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (Draft Version), especially the provisions on the standards and thresholds for talent introduction are not clear enough. In the absence of complete supporting regulations and detailed rules, overly vague regulations will only leave huge room for discretion and operation, inevitably leaving hidden dangers of rent-seeking, interest transmission, and law enforcement corruption in the operation of the system in practice (Wei, 2021).

The author believes that a unified interpretation standard should be jointly developed through cross-departmental consultation. Taking Article 15 of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (Draft Version) as an example, the identification of “well-known international universities” can be included in the rating system of Chinese universities, such as 985, 211 and double-first class universities as one of the reference standards; Meanwhile, for foreign universities, the QS World University Rankings can be used as a reference for evaluation.

5.2.2 Aligning Legal Content with Legal Force

As mentioned above, the provisions of the upper law on the procedures, management mechanism and the establishment of the competent authority of the permanent residence system are weak, and the legal hierarchy of normative documents such as the treatment of foreigners permanently residing in China, social security participation, etc. is low, ineffective, and lacking in authority.

In response to this problem, the primary task is to speed up the legislative process, establish the permanent residence management system for foreigners through the formulation of the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners, and build a multi-level policy and regulation system and implementation rules based on this, so as to enhance the integrity and authority of the system. At the same time, it is advisable to explore and authorize local governments to formulate differentiated local policies based on actual conditions, draw on the successful legislative practices in attracting foreign talents in cities such as Beijing and Shanghai, adhere to the basic principles of the Law on Permanent Residence of Foreigners, grant local governments greater legislative autonomy, and introduce talents with flexibility. However, careful evaluation is needed, especially regarding the potential impact of introducing foreign talents in border areas on national security, which needs to be strictly controlled.

Secondly, the scope of responsibilities of the supervisory department should be clearly defined and strengthened to effectively solve the current problems of multi-headed management and poor execution of government orders. For the introduction of high-level talents, it is recommended to set up a professional talent evaluation agency, which will focus on the in-depth evaluation of technical capabilities and the authoritative certification of foreign qualification certificates, aiming to significantly improve the efficiency and quality of talent introduction, and ensure the optimal allocation and efficient use of talent resources.

Finally, for the permanent residence system of foreigners, it needs to be comprehensively and deeply optimized and upgraded to ensure that it covers all aspects from the definition of application qualifications to social integration strategies, to the treatment of consequences of violations, and to build a complete framework without omission. At the same time, for foreign nationals and refugees who illegally enter, reside, and work, regulatory efforts should be strengthened to ensure the effectiveness and targeting of management measures. On this basis, the competent authorities need to focus on improving service and management efficiency a clearer and more predictable policy environment for foreign permanent residents by enhancing policy transparency. In addition, it is necessary to actively expand relief channels and provide timely and effective legal support for permanent residents who may encounter injustice or difficulties. At the same time, it cannot be ignored that strengthening the professionalization of the law enforcement team, by enhancing the professional competence and practical ability of law enforcement personnel, ensures that the law enforcement process is both strict, standardized, efficient, and fair, which is an important guarantee for maintaining institutional authority and social harmony and stability.

5.2.3 Improving the Content of China’s Permanent Residence System for Foreigners

Although China has made some progress in immigration management and the formulation of immigration laws, it still faces many challenges, such as a lack of humanization, low compatibility with national conditions, and an imperfect immigration legal system. To this end, it is necessary to proceed from multiple dimensions, including but not limited to adding permanent residency clauses for refugees, further safeguarding the rights and interests of Chinese citizens, and comprehensively improving the legal and regulatory system for immigration, in order to promote the continuous optimization of immigration management.

At present, the current provisions on the cancellation of permanent residence qualification in China are all partial withdrawal situations based on the fault of foreigners, and these provisions do not fully cover all possible situations of withdrawal of permanent residence qualification. For example, foreigners may be unwilling to continue living in China for work, life, and other reasons, and want to give up permanent residence on their own initiative, or those who naturally lose their permanent residency due to death. The above situations constitute normal and reasonable termination of permanent residency. However, current laws do not provide for such situations. Compared with the permanent residency withdrawal mechanism in the United States, China still lacks specific regulations on automatic waiver of permanent residency rights and application for withdrawal of permanent residency. In order to manage and utilize the “green card” resources more effectively, China should consider including the application for withdrawal from permanent residence in the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (Draft Version).

In addition, there is still a problem of insufficient relief measures in China’s permanent residency cancellation mechanism. Both the Administrative Reconsideration Law and the Administrative Procedure Law clearly establish that foreigners and Chinese citizens have the same rights, that is, they have the right to apply for administrative reconsideration and bring administrative proceedings. However, in contrast to the Exit and Entry Administration Law, the provisions on the cancellation of permanent residence qualification are vague and fail to provide a clear and specific relief path for the affected foreigners. Given that the loss of the right of permanent residence has a significant and far-reaching impact on the long-term life and rights of foreigners in China, the lack of such legal relief undoubtedly weakens the full protection of their rights and interests, which is inconsistent with the principles of the rule of law and the spirit of protecting human rights advocated today. It is urgent to clarify and improve through legislation or judicial interpretation. Therefore, the author believes that the relief clause for canceling the permanent residence qualification can be added to the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Permanent Residence of Foreigners (Draft Version).

References

1. Han, Y. H. (2023). On the Transformation of China’s Foreign - related Legislation. Oriental Law, 2(110).
2. Liu, G. F. (2008). Critical Legal Thinking on Chinese Permanent Resident(Green Card) System Reform. Hebei Law Science, 3(51/57).
3. Zhang, Q. Y. (2014). Research on the Residence Rights of Foreigners. Law Press, Beijing.
4. Liu, G. F. (2010). Migration Law. China Economic Publishing House, Beijing.
5. Ji, H. (2013). American Policy on Talents Introduction. The Chinese Journal of American Studies, 3(94).
6. Sun, H. L. (2019). A Comparative Study on the Permanent Residence System of Foreigners between China and the United States. Journal of Political Science and Law, 3(122).
7. Sun, H. L. (2019). A Comparative Study on the Permanent Residence System of Foreigners between China and the United States. Journal of Political Science and Law, 3(122/123).
8. Weng, L., & Xia, Q. Y. (2015). On the Reform of China’s Exit - Entry Legal System. Journal of Zhejiang Police College, 4(59).
9. Sun, H. L. (2019). A Comparative Study on the Permanent Residence System of Foreigners between China and the United States. Journal of Political Science and Law, 3(122).
10. Sun, H. L. (2019). A Comparative Study of the Permanent Residence Systems for Foreigners in China and the United States. Journal of Political Science and Law, 3(126).
11. Weng, L., & Bi, W. (2006). On Alternative System of Exit - Entry in China. Journal of Zhejiang Police College, 4(84).
12. Xiong, W. Z. (2020). Comparative Analysis and System Construction of Chinese Immigration Legal System. Journal of Comparative Law, 5(180).
13. Liu, G. F. (2008). Critical Legal Thinking on Chinese Permanent Resident(Green Card) System Reform. Hebei Law Science, 3(52).
14. Liu, G. F. (2007). A Review of the System of Permanent Residence of Aliens in China(Chinese Green Card). Journal of Shanghai Police College, 6(70).
15. Li, P. (2017). A Comparative Study of Foreigner Permanent Residence System Between China and U.S. and it’s Implications.People’s Public Security University of China, 29.
16. Weng, L. (1995). A Preliminary Exploration of International Immigration Law. Zhejiang Social Sciences, 3(51).
17. Ma, Y. (2008). The Inspiration of the American Immigration Law System on China. In Proceedings of the 21st Century Exit and Entry(Migration) Administration Conference, 227.
18. Zhang, Q. Y. (2014). Research on the Residence Rights of Foreigners. Law Press, Beijing.
19. Zheng, L. (2006). On the Pragmatic Principles in the Evolution of U.S. Immigration Policies Toward China. Theory Monthly, 3(148).
20. General Office of the CPC Central Committee and State Council. (2016, February 18). Opinions on Strengthening the Service and Management of Foreigners’ Permanent Residence. Retrieved October 20, 2023, from https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2016-02/18/content_5043448.htm．
21. Liu, G. F. (2010). Migration Law. China Economic Publishing House, Beijing.
22. Xiao, Q. L. (2019). On the Legislation Mode of Immigration Management in China. Xiamen University, 164.
23. Wei, Z. X. (2021). Permanent Residence for Foreigners: Legislative Considerations and Principles. Theoretical Exploration, 4(113).