A Program Analyst with Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) provided the following information regarding the repatriation of 90 Chinese illegal emigrants from Canada to Fuzhou in May 2000 (8 Aug. 2000). According to the Program Analyst, a Canadian delegation, responding to an invitation by the Public Security Bureau and the Foreign Affairs Office of Fujian Province, and consisting of the Program Analyst, two senior CIC officials, two Canada-based senior officials and a locally engaged interpreter from the Canadian Embassy in Beijing visited the No.2 Detention Center of Public Security of Fuzhou in Mawei. According to the Program Analyst, citing a senior Chinese official:

Minors would be processed quickly and released into the custody of their families within a day of their arrival. Persons who leave China legally with a valid Chinese passport, obtaining the necessary exit permissions would be punished with administrative fines of up to $1,000CDN. Those unable to pay the fine would receive administrative jail terms of up to a maximum of 15 days. Leaving China without exit permission or a passport is a criminal offence in China punishable of up to one year in prison. Only repeat offenders would get a sentence approaching the maximum.

Most first time offenders would get a short sentence, depending on the circumstances of their case but probably with sentences of 3 months. However, he emphasized that the prosecution and judging of the case belong to an entirely separate body called the Procuratorate. Normally, all persons being investigated are detained until the trial is completed. The first group of ninety deportees was dealt with in this manner.

The Program Analyst provided additional details regarding the detention facilities:

The Detention facilities are approximately one hour drive from downtown Fuzhou. The road to get there follows the river where we could see hundreds of boats navigating both ways or simply anchored off. The area would be considered fairly well off by Chinese standards with a lot of new housing construction evident. We were told that a lot of those houses were paid with money remitted from overseas.

The detention centre itself is situated in a small town not far from a large church The centre was built two years ago. The staff lives about 50 metres from it in a small apartment building. The detention centre is a rectangular, four story building with a large enclosed courtyard. It can accommodate a maximum of 100 detainees. The cells are all around the building with recreation facilities such as a ping pong table in the courtyard. On the first floor, there are several rooms for questioning deportees. Those rooms are fairly small with a plexiglass divider separating the detainee and the interviewer. We recognized one of the deportees of the previous day being questioned as we walked by

Each cell can accommodate up to 10-12 people. The cells are large rectangular rooms with an elevated floor on each side where mattresses are set at night and rolled up during the day. Each cell has it's own bathroom, television, and window. From what we could see most of the inmates were sleeping, watching television or playing cards. A larger room is used as a cafeteria and "re-education" room. The whole detention centre is very clean and the living conditions did not appear to be particularly harsh, almost comparable to the equivalent in Canada.

We found it quite interesting that at the entrance of the detention facility there is a huge sign that states that in 1999, 47 groups of deportees went through that facility for a total of 4,698 persons. 3,174 were sentenced to 15 days or less of detention. The remaining 1524 persons were referred to the judicial system where their cases were reviewed and the maximum sentence of one year meted out. Unfortunately photographs inside the institution were not permitted on this visit (ibid.).

Additional information regarding the treatment of the 90 persons repatriated to China from Canada in May 2000 is scarce among the sources consulted by the Research Directorate. According to a 28 July 2000 report in the Ottawa Citizen, Victor Wong of the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians stated that four minors returned in May 2000 had been released, but that 86 adults remained in detention, citing the families of the returnees and of others still in detention in Canada, as the source of this information. According to the organization's Website, the Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians is a group that is "advocating for the Chinese refugee claimants" (n.d.).

The issue of people-smuggling and repatriation of illegal emigrants to China has also received attention in the Chinese press. According to the Wen Wei Po, a PRC-owned Hong Kong daily newspaper, the Fujian Frontier Defence Department investigated 132 "smuggling crimes" involving 2012 people in 1999, an 86.8 per cent increase in the number of people smuggled (20 June 2000). According to the article 4,048 people were repatriated in 1999 and over 1,000 had been repatriated in 2000 (as of June) (ibid.). However, the report does not provide any information regarding the sanctions faced by the returnees.

An AFP report on the persistence of illegal emigration from Fujian, even in the wake of the deaths of 54 Fujianese in Dover, England in June 2000, claims that one factor exacerbating this persistence is the "lack of government effort" (25 June 2000). According to the report, although returnees face fines of 20,000 Yuan ($3,600 CDN), "few Chinese 'snakeheads', or leading smugglers, have been arrested and none has received a harsh sentence."

Dr. Ko-lin Chin, an associate professor at the School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University-Newark who recently returned from Fuzhou, stated in a telephone interview that he had been unable to obtain any information regarding the 90 persons repatriated from Canada in May (20 July 2000). In a 28 July 2000 report in the Vancouver Sun, Dr. Chin repeated these comments, elaborating that state-owned media are reluctant to publicize returns as they constitute "a loss of face." In the report Dr. Chin made additional statements regarding the penalties faced by returnees:

Chin said migrants returned to China are usually taken to the Border Patrol Education Camp in Fujian province where they are interrogated by Chinese authorities to find out how they were smuggled out of the country.

Most are then given a fine of between 10,000 and 20,000 Yuan [$1,800 to $3,600 CDN]. Those that pay the fine are released immediately, Chin said. Those that cannot pay are sent to "re-education through labour" for up to a year at a massive prison in the city of Mawei just outside Fuzhou.

Further information regarding fines faced by returnees is found below.

In a telephone interview with the Research Directorate Dr. Charles Burton, former Political Counsellor with the Canadian Embassy in Beijing who undertook a fact-finding mission to Fuzhou in January 2000, stated that he did not have any information regarding the sanctions faced by those returned in May 2000 (25 July 2000).

In collaboration with the Canadian Embassy in Beijing, the Research Directorate posed a series of questions on the treatment of returnees to Beijing-based diplomatic officials from four countries: Canada, Australia, Japan and the United States. The questions and replies from each of the officials follow. These replies were forwarded in a 3 July 2000 letter to the Research Directorate and are presented as received with minor editing for grammar.

What are the normal penalties in practice for returnees (fines - amount, detention - length)?

Dr. Charles Burton, Political Counsellor, Embassy of Canada:

Fines are rarely imposed in practice and will only be imposed if foreign attention is raised. Chinese central authorities will put pressure on local authorities to levy fines or force imprisonment in these two circumstances: if the individual has hurt the 'national pride' or if there is willingness from Beijing to implement the law on exit administration.

Dr. Grahame Nieman, First Secretary, Immigration - Compliance, Embassy of Australia:

The standard fine is 5000 Yuan [$900 CDN]. Local authorities are usually soft on fines unless there is strong pressure coming either from Beijing or other foreign governments. For example, two recidivists from Nanning were sentenced, under various pressures, to a three-year prison term and eight-year service term in local organizations. However, the two convictions were later suspended.

Mr. Morio Matsumoto, Counsellor, Director Consular Affairs Office, Embassy of Japan:

The standard fine is up to 5000 Yuan [$900 CDN] and returnees are normally detained for four or five days.

Mr. Thomas J. Smiley, Country Immigration Assistant Attaché, US Immigration and Naturalization Service, Embassy of the United States of America

The normal penalty for a first offense is 2 days of detention, with no fine; for a second offense a fine of 200 to 500 Yuan [$36-$90 CDN].

Question 2: Are the returnees subject to any risk from organized crime elements that may have funded their journey?

Dr. Charles Burton, Canada:

There is no evidence to indicate that this occurs.

Dr. Grahame Nieman, Australia:

The "snakeheads" would be more likely to encourage returnees to attempt to leave again than to threaten them.

Mr. Morio Matsumoto, Japan:

There is no such risk. The snakeheads finance trips on the basis that the fees will be paid after reaching the designated country. If the client is returned, the 'contract' is over. Successful landing in the chosen country is the main condition for payment.

Mr. Thomas J. Smiley, United States:

There is no such risk. The 'snakehead' guarantees he will get his client to a designated country. In sum, if the client does not make it to the US, it is not considered to be the client's fault. The clients only have to pay for the journey after reaching the US.

Question 3: Are there long term repercussions for returnees in terms of access to housing, employment, etc.?

Dr. Charles Burton, Canada:

On the basis of information gathered on a fact-finding mission to Fuzhou (described in report Heaven is High and the Emperor Far Away, available in Regional Documentation Centres), the evidence is that returnees are "courted" by local officials who offer them benefits to encourage them to stay.

Dr. Grahame Nieman, Australia:

Ethnic Chinese Vietnamese who had been repatriated were offered housing in city suburbs. Repatriated Fujianese suffered no discrimination.

Mr. Morio Matsumoto, Japan:

Mr. Matsumoto indicated that he did not think that returnees suffered any discrimination.

Mr. Thomas J. Smiley, United States:

No information.

Question 4: Does treatment differ based on where people are repatriated to (Beijing vs. Fuzhou)?

Dr. Charles Burton, Canada:

The returnees flown to Beijing are transferred to Fuzhou and there is no difference in treatment.

Dr. Grahame Nieman, Australia:

The procedures differ according to where the person has been returned. In Beijing, returnees will be questioned at the airport. In Dongbei, returnees are given accommodation near the train station and train fare to go back to their village. In Shanghai, returnees walk through the airport.

Mr. Morio Matsumoto, Japan:

Mr. Matsumoto indicated that the treatment did not differ on the basis of where people had been returned.

Mr. Thomas J. Smiley, United States:

Criminals are usually sent to Beijing and most illegal immigrants are sent to Guangzhou, from where they are taken to Fuzhou. No information was provided regarding differences in treatment.

Question 5: Does treatment differ based on where people are repatriated from (Canada, USA, Australia, Japan)?

Dr. Charles Burton, Canada:

The treatment differs according to the returning government's demands. The Japanese and American governments pressure the Chinese authorities to imprison returnees.

Dr. Grahame Nieman, Australia:

Dr. Nieman indicated that he did not think that treatment differed according to the country of deportation.

Mr. Morio Matsumoto, Japan:

Mr. Matsumoto indicated that the treatment did not differ according to the country of deportation.

Mr. Thomas J. Smiley, United States:

Mr. Smiley stated that there was no difference according to the country of deportation.

Question 6: What are the procedures for handing over returnees to the Chinese authorities?

Dr. Charles Burton, Canada:

In order to repatriate unsuccessful claimants, the returning government needs the Chinese government's consent. The Chinese authorities have to acknowledge the Chinese citizenship of the illegal immigrants to be returned. This has proven to be difficult with marine arrivals, as the Chinese authorities usually want the whole boatload back rather than selected individuals.

Dr. Grahame Nieman, Australia:

There is an existing liaison between Australia and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing. On landing in Australia, illegal immigrants are first asked for some identification and whether they have family on the boat. Then permission to send them back is requested from China. Chinese officials will greet the returnees at the airport and interviews may take place.

Mr. Morio Matsumoto, Japan:

There are various scenarios. In the case of a boat intercepted at sea, the Japanese Ministry of Transport will be responsible and will report the interception to the Chinese Embassy in Tokyo. This Embassy will then contact the Chinese Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Public Security. The Ministry of Public Security will usually send a boat to take its nationals back.

If the Chinese illegal immigrants reach Japan, they are detained and they will be asked for identification. If the Chinese illegal immigrants do not cooperate, the Ministry of Law in Japan will notify the Japanese Embassy in Beijing. Officials from this Embassy will request that the Chinese government 'admit' that the illegal immigrants are Chinese. This is usually a mere formality. The name of the ship used, or of its owner, as well as the route taken by the ship are generally solid evidence.

Mr. Thomas J. Smiley, United States:

First the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) will ask them to fill out an identification form (most Chinese irregular arrivals do not have identification documents). Those who co-operate will be sent back to China. However, the Chinese government will not take back illegal immigrants who refuse to be identified. As a result, the United States has 20,000 undocumented Chinese irregular arrivals in detention on United States territory.

Question 7: What are the limitations on the follow-up regarding returnees?

Dr. Charles Burton, Canada:

The Fujian authorities have been very cooperative in permitting follow-up and fact-finding.

Dr. Grahame Nieman, Australia:

As far as the Australian government is concerned, there is no need for follow-up.

Mr. Morio Matsumoto, Japan:

From the perspective of the Japanese government, the follow-up action taken is to place returnees on a "blacklist"; these persons will never receive a visa for Japan.

Mr. Thomas J. Smiley, United States:

The United States asks for local press coverage when irregular arrivals are returned. The snakeheads are advertising their journeys to the US as safe and reliable. The potential illegal immigrants need to know that most attempts to sneak in to the US will be prevented. Extensive media coverage of the repatriation of illegal immigrants is the most effective way to deter illegal immigration. This strategy has apparently led to concrete results, since no boat of illegal immigrants reached the American coast so far this year (as of June 2000) in comparison to five in 1999.

Question 8: Is there any information available regarding penalties in practice for returned minors?

Dr. Charles Burton, Canada:

Only those 15 and older may be imprisoned.

Dr. Grahame Nieman, Australia:

No information.

Mr. Morio Matsumoto, Japan:

No information.

Mr. Thomas J. Smiley, United States:

No information.

Question 9: Is there any information regarding treatment of returnees who have received extensive media coverage in the receiving country?

Dr. Charles Burton, Canada:

No information.

Dr. Grahame Nieman, Australia:

An Australian public affairs program (Australian "60 minutes" equivalent) reported that a Chinese returnee had a forced abortion on return to Beihai. Both the Chinese and Australian governments were disturbed and the use of extensive diplomacy was required to quiet down the issue. In the end, the woman was given a new working unit (where she actually did not work but got paid) and new two bedroom accommodation.

Mr. Morio Matsumoto, Japan:

Japan rarely has a problem with this. The Japanese press does not tend to turn illegal immigration into a political issue.

Mr. Thomas J. Smiley, United States:

No information.

Question 10: Is it possible to receive statistical information on penalties for a number of returnees to get a quantitative as opposed to an anecdotal view of the subject?

Dr. Charles Burton, Canada:

It may be possible but we do not have that information.

Dr. Grahame Nieman, Australia:

It would not be possible. How can one know how many people were stopped at the airport? There are no standard arrest warrants for such an offence.

Mr. Morio Matsumoto, Japan:

No information.

Mr. Thomas J. Smiley, United States:

No information.

This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the Research Directorate within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.

References

Agence France Presse (AFP). 25 June 2000. Cindy Sui. "Dover Truck Tragedy Fails to Shatter Chinese Dreams Behind Human Smuggling." (FBIS-CHI-2000-0625 25 June 2000/WNC)

Burton, Charles. Former Political Counsellor, Canadian Embassy, Beijing. 25 July 2000. Telephone interview.

Canadian Embassy, Beijing. 3 July 2000. Results of Interviews with Diplomatic Representatives Regarding Questions Submitted by the Research Directorate, IRB.

Chin, Ko-lin. Associate Professor. Rutger's University-Newark. 20 July 2000. Telephone interview.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC), Ottawa. 8 August 2000. Correspondence with Program Analyst.

Ottawa Citizen. 28 July 2000. Jason Proctor. "86 Migrants Ousted by Canada Jailed by China: Canadian Process Puts Chinese at Risk, Critics Charge."

Vancouver Association of Chinese Canadians. n.d. "Chinese Refugee Claimants." http://www.refugees.freeservers.com/ [Accessed 9 Aug. 2000]

Vancouver Sun. 28 July 2000. Chad Skelton. "Bill for Migrants Rises to $36 million: Officials Hope Thursday's Deportation of 90 - On a Flight Chartered For $700,000 - Will Deter Others. But An Expert Says Few in China Know About the Expulsions."

Wen Wei Po [Hong Kong, Internet version in Chinese]. 20 June 2000. Lo Chin-wen and Ouyang Chin. "Fujian Cracks Down Hard on People Smuggling." (FBIS-CHI-2000-0620 20 June 2000/WNC)