The Historical Context of Qin’s Open-Door Policy

For over a century before the reign of Ying Zheng (later Qin Shi Huang), the Qin state had actively courted talent from the “Six Eastern States” (山东六国). This policy, initiated during Duke Xiao’s era (361–338 BCE) with the recruitment of Shang Yang, became a cornerstone of Qin’s administrative and military strength. By Ying Zheng’s time, nearly a quarter of Qin’s population—over 2.3 million people—were immigrants or descendants of immigrants from rival states. These included scholars like Li Si (from Chu), engineers like Zheng Guo (from Han), and military leaders like the Meng family (from Qi).

The policy’s success was evident:
– Administration: 60–70% of mid-to-low-ranking officials were non-Qin natives.
– Military: Foreign-origin officers like Wang Jian and Meng Tian held key commands.
– Economy: Projects like the Zheng Guo Canal (泾水河渠) boosted agricultural output.

The Spark: The “Spy Scandal” and Political Paranoia

The crisis erupted when Ying Zheng, exhausted from inspecting the Zheng Guo Canal project, received alarming reports:
1. “Spy Fatigue” Allegation: A merchant claimed Zheng Guo was a Han operative sent to drain Qin’s resources (间人疲秦).
2. Lü Buwei’s Shadow: The late chancellor (and Ying Zheng’s former regent) was accused of knowingly employing foreign agents.

In a rage, Ying Zheng issued the Expulsion Decree (逐客令) in 237 BCE, ordering all non-Qin officials to leave within days. The decree reflected:
– Xenophobia: Rooted in recent scandals (Lü Buwei’s alleged treason, Lao Ai’s rebellion).
– Power Struggles: Conservative Qin nobles resented foreign influence.

Collapse and Chaos: The Decree’s Immediate Fallout

Within weeks, the decree backfired catastrophically:

### 1. Administrative Paralysis
– Vacancies: 30–40% of officials and 70% of clerks—mostly Easterners—vanished.
– Document Chaos: Remaining staff ransacked Lü Buwei’s archives for reference.

### 2. Economic Disruption
– The Zheng Guo Canal project halted, threatening famine.
– Merchants fled, disrupting trade routes.

### 3. Social Unrest
– Families like the Mengs (3rd-generation Qin residents) faced accusations of disloyalty.
– Even Zhao Gao, Ying Zheng’s childhood attendant (from Zhao), was nearly expelled.

Li Si’s Masterstroke: The “Petition Against Expulsion” (谏逐客书)

While fleeing, Li Si composed a legendary appeal:

### Key Arguments:
1. Historical Precedent: Qin’s greatness relied on foreign talent—from Duke Mu’s advisors (百里奚) to Shang Yang.
2. Hypocrisy: Qin embraced Eastern luxuries (jade, music) but rejected their people.
3. Strategic Folly: “Driving talent to enemy states is like gifting weapons and grain.”

### Rhetorical Brilliance:
– Contrasted Qin’s cultural borrowing (“You enjoy Zhao music yet expel Zhao people!”)
– Invoked proverbs: “The ocean is vast because it rejects no stream.”

Ying Zheng’s Reckoning and Reversal

The king’s awakening unfolded in stages:

### 1. Personal Realizations
– Guilt: His decree endangered even loyalists like Meng Tian.
– Fear: The decree’s logic could target him—born in Zhao as “Zhao Zheng.”

### 2. Military Intervention
General Meng Tian revealed secret measures:
– Covert Rescues: 2,000+ expelled officials were hidden as “soldiers” at border checkpoints.

### 3. The Climactic Decision
After reading Li Si’s petition, Ying Zheng:
– Dispatched riders to recall Li Si (successfully).
– Publicly revoked the decree within a month.

Legacy and Lessons

### 1. Qin’s Resurgence
– Retained talent critical for unification (e.g., Li Si designed centralized bureaucracy).
– The Zheng Guo Canal irrigated 40,000+ hectares, fueling Qin’s wars.

### 2. Historical Paradox
– Ying Zheng’s adaptability here contrasts with his later rigidity (e.g., book burnings).
– Demonstrated the tension between meritocracy and nationalism in empires.

### 3. Modern Echoes
– Brain Drain vs. Nationalism: Analogous to contemporary debates on immigration.
– Leadership Under Stress: Ying Zheng’s recovery highlights crisis management through:
– Receptiveness to criticism.
– Willingness to reverse catastrophic decisions.

In the annals of statecraft, this episode remains a timeless study of how inclusivity fuels power—and how even the mightiest rulers must confront their own biases to secure a legacy.