From: mliu@pt.com (Fred Liu)
Subject: Re: A letter of urging President to veto the bill
Organization: Performance Technologies, Incorporated
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:07:44 GMT

In article <BvEAsF.DDJ@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> HAIHUAN@ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>Subj:	A letter of urging President to veto the bill
>
**some lines deleted**

>Please veto this bill.  It is damaging the interests, equal rights, and equal
>opportunities of Chinese nationals who arrived in this country after April 11,
>1990.
>
You are blind.  This is the weakest argument toward veto of the bill.
If I were the President, I would not consider this, I would do everything
that is good to American.  I would not care what's good or bad to Chinese
people.  Everybody would do something good to some people and bad to
others.  Don't be mad if you are one of the OTHERS.

>The main reason for this bill, as it has declared, is the STATUS QUO of human
>rights in China.  It is obvious that all Chinese nationals in the U.S., not
>only those who arrived by an arbitrary date nearly three years ago, will be
>confronting similar situation upon returning home if human rights will not
>have improved by July 1993, as required by the bill. Why is this bill aiming to
>protect only some of them, whereas totally ignore the others?
>
Yes, you want to be protected and you want to stay here, no matter what reason.
But the administration can not give everybody this grant.  US can not afford
to take every Chinese here and give them green card.  If you want to stay
here, either you can take this opportunity by using the bill, or you can do
it by yourself.  The only difference between these two ways is: the lobby
team works for themself and all the other people came before 9/11/90, while
you work for JUST yourself and you have to pay a little if you want to hire
a lawyer.  Who is more respectable?

>Those who are requesting you to sign the bill may claim they are working for
>the human rights in China.  Have you received so many phone calls, letters, and
>fax for the bill concerning China's MFN, to which Congress has attached human
>rights requirements?
>
I don't think those who will be protected will face persecution in China if
they go back to China quietly.  I do think those who go back to China will
be sentensed if they want to speak something publically.  The fact does not
have to be proved by sending some people back.  The Chinese government says
it in all occations.

>If this bill becomes law, it implied that those who arrived in after April 11,
>1990 do not need protection, because if they did, the bill would have extended
>to cover them.  This will put them in an extremely difficult situation, and
>even deprive the genuine democracy activists of chance of success for regular
>asylum application.
>
The bill does not mean the unqualified people does not need protection.  It
just protects some of the people who need protection.  The bill sets this
quota because US can not just give everybody a green card here.  Once you
understand this, you would not be mad.

>The bill will also put the late arrivals in a disadvantageous situation whey
>they try to stay by finding employment.  Suddenly they have to compete with a
>increased population of permanent residents.  It is obvious that employers are
>more willing to hire permanent residents than foreigners.  I believe many
>Americans' job or potentials will be negatively influenced by this bill, too.
>
This is true and I agree with it.  But, are you JUST competing with CHINESE
in this United States of America?  If you do think so, you are one of the
most ugly Chinese in this country.  I have heard so many stories that some
Chinse only fight to their brothers and sisters and bend to foreingers!
-- 
Fred Liu, Performance Technologies Incorporated		mliu@pt.com
315 Science Parkway, Rochester, New York 14620		uupsi!ptsys1!mliu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china