From: Yuhe Liu <liu@ATMOS.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      S1216, jobs and quota
Reply-To: Yuhe Liu <liu@ATMOS.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:48:57 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

It seems that I lost my mail posted to China-nt on October 1. At present,
the bill will be over. Although it seems not neccesary, I'd like post it
again, since it was posted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
						October 1

Dear Fellows:

     Based on the general thinking I posted last night, I am trying to
talk about the impact of protection of CSS on jobs and quota. Let's
simply review the basic points of the general thinking:

     * CSS in the US need to protect.
     * The protection bill cannot be provided to all CSS, so we have to
       have Group B.

     Now let's discuss the schemes of the protection. There are two
extreme schemes:

     1. All covered people become PR automatically without any changes
of quota. It must severely influence the immigration policy to protect
nearly 10,000 Chinese nationals. The US Congress would definitely adjust
the immigration quota. This scheme has no any chance to pass the
Congress. We have to forget it.

     2. All covered people may stay in the US without PR status. The US
would not force them back to China, but not provide "Green Card" as
well. For example, extend the protection provided by the President's
Executive Order to another four years, and another another four years.
In this scheme, people in Group A can stay America, anyway.
But they have to find jobs without PR requirement and be patient
to wait on a long waiting line to get PR. People in Group B, in
general, should graduate from schools later than Group A and have
to follow the regular procedure to get jobs after graduatin if they
want to stay in the US, while Group A can have working permission
even before graduation which provides more opportunities and
convenient than Group B to find a job. In this scheme, Group B has to
unequably compete with Group A in the same job markets. That definitely
would sharply decrease chances for either Group A or B. Well, anyway I
think we have to avoid this scheme.

    Now, we have to look for the third scheme which should most benefit
all CSS either Group A or B, at least avoid more damages, as well as
is practically possible. In my opinion, S1216, if not the best, should
be a better one.

    After post last mail to the net, I have received many positive
responses both from Group A and B. I hope both Group A and B can pay
more attention to IFCSS's work. There is no perfect in this world. But
if we CSS all concern IFCSS and contribute to her, we can make our IFCSS
the best.

     Thank you for your attention.


                                                Sincerely,

                                                Yuhe Liu

                                                University of Maryland
                                                at College Park

===========================================================================
  From:  Yuhe Liu
  The 4th IFCSS Council Member
  Department of Meteorology                Telephone: (301) 405-8045 (O)
  University of Maryland                              (301) 779-0350 (H)
  College Park, MD 20742                   Email:     liu@atmos.umd.edu
===========================================================================
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china