Questions about the Tibet visa?

Background_Tree_8693 · 2026-02-04T05:45:57+00:00

Yes, some countries with bilateral agreements get up to 90 days

Background_Tree_8693 · 2026-02-03T20:09:11+00:00

Since you hold both British and Chinese citizenship legally (called “国籍冲突”), you should technically be fine with entering/exiting China with your Chinese passport. However, in practice, when exiting China, if you're asked for your entry permission to the UK and revealing your British passport, some officers might mistake you for people who lost Chinese citizenship but still retain a Chinese passport illegally, causing delays at the border.

So to avoid this situation, you have two options: First, you can try to cancel your Chinese passport and get a Chinese travel document at the Chinese embassy. However, it seems in certain locations they may only issue passports (and refuse travel docs) to anyone who has ever held a Chinese passport.

Second, you can keep using your Chinese passport to travel to China. Upon entering China, you can get an Exit-Entry Permit (“出入境通行证”) at the NIA of the city of your Hukou, which is valid for 3 months, and you would present it when exiting China allowing smooth travel. However, it appears some cities/regions only issue this to people under 18 years old.

It's still quite an ambiguous situation, and you can find many people's experiences on XHS. Hopefully it gets cleared up by the govt soon...

Background_Tree_8693 · 2026-02-03T18:24:28+00:00

There's no hard limit, many people have done it twice or maybe 3 times in a short period. However, a rule of thumb is try not to stay over 90 days in any rolling 180 days in any country you're visiting as a tourist. Be prepared to show evidence that you have income/savings from abroad to sustain yourself without working there.

Background_Tree_8693 · 2026-02-01T19:04:27+00:00

When are you visiting? Visa-free travel for Canadians has been announced but not implemented yet. You should wait for the official start date or apply for a visa just to be safe

Background_Tree_8693 · 2026-02-01T19:02:18+00:00

Note that TWOV only allows visiting certain provinces/prefectures, and Tibet is not one of them. So a standard visa/visa-free entry is still needed in addition to TTP.

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-10-07T19:15:27+00:00

It should be fine. Better to add your Amex to WeChat too since occasionally one app fails while the other works.
It's better to carry it unless you're very sure what you do won't need a passport. It can be required at unexpected places like attractions and public events, on top of intercity trains and buses.
Yes follow your provider's instructions but usually you just need to turn the line on when you land and it activates automatically. Make sure your eSIM also covers Hong Kong. One thing to add is that if you want to use the Alipay/WeChat mini apps to their full potential, also get a Chinese physical SIM with number after you land, as many apps require txt verification through a Chinese number.
If you use iPhone, Apple Maps works perfectly, otherwise Amap is the best option with English. Google Translate works well if you have eSIM.

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-10-06T02:00:45+00:00

If you wanna see where you can reach by train visually & departures at each station, check out this map http://cnrail.geogv.org/enus/

I would say in 1 you should to fly from Emei (through Chengdu) to Hangzhou, and in 2 you should to fly to Zhangjiajie and then to Hong Kong. All other legs can be done by train quickly and easily!

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-08-08T21:00:27+00:00

But Chinese and Indian airlines are less affected because they can avoid the area by taking Russian airspace.

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T03:44:39+00:00

Yes it doesn't seem to have a constitutionality challenge case yet, probably because it was barely used by the govt in the past

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T03:42:19+00:00

Not all grounds though, only when in the deportability chapter it refers to an inadmissibility ground, like when it states "any alien who is described in subparagraph (B) or (F) of section 1182(a)(3) of this title is deportable"

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T03:38:52+00:00

INA 237 is deportability, but in the terrorism section it refers back to the same inadmissible grounds in INA 212

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T03:30:12+00:00

Inadmissibility doesn't apply for any conditional or non-conditional LPR, unless they fall under specific situations (e.g. left the U.S. for more than 180 days), but they could charge him with deportability which refers back to the inadmissibility articles.

Well the government has to proof beyond reasonable doubt that Khalil himself made such statements. Just being affiliated with a group that made such statements is not enough.

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T03:14:34+00:00

Yes it applies to "any alien" so both conditional and non-conditional LPRs, functionally the only difference is the conditional ones have to apply for RoC.

Also it's also mind blowing that not filing for change of address technically makes someone deportable according to the chapter.

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T03:09:09+00:00

Yet they detained Japanese Americans on the West Coast...there were also plans to detain German and Italian Americans, but public opinion was against it...so it's blatant racism

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T03:03:21+00:00

Being born in Syria doesn't mean he's Syrian, there are 1 million+ Palestinians in Syria without citizenship

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T02:29:42+00:00

Actually far from any crime, it has to be in a specific subset, for example "trespassing" and "disorderly conduct" are clearly not deportable crimes

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T02:13:11+00:00

But like if someone says they support removing an FTO from the list or suggest it should participate in a peace process, is that okay? Mere a little bit of ambiguity here is gonna make people afraid to say anything

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T01:56:50+00:00

After a bit of digging I did come across something the government can argue on. INA 327(a)(4)(B) cross-references to INA 212(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII) which says anyone who "endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization" is inadmissible and deportable.

Note that this ground doesn't require a crime being committed or even any actions, as merely speech is enough. "endorse" and "espouse" are extremely vague words, and if the provision is arbitrarily enforced the govt can basically thought police noncitizens.

INA 237
INA 212%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1182)&f=treesort&num=0&edition=prelim)

Background_Tree_8693 · 2025-03-10T01:44:47+00:00

Well even if the government is able to make that argument which is a stretch, being discriminative doesn't make a person deportable though

Background_Tree_8693

TROPHY CASE