From: yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
Subject: Re: Action-9201.appendix
Date: 7 Oct 92 22:52:23 GMT
Organization: Netix Communications, Inc.

129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) wrote:

+In article <2AD21004.22944@news.service.uci.edu>, yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon
+Yeh) writes:
+> 
+> I thought that many Chinese people in China did not understand what was 
+> cooking here.  But I am wrong!  Whenever I arbitrarily talk with any friend 
+> of mine in China, they know who those CSS are, and they know what those CSS 
+> are trying to do.
+> 
+> However, the situation is a little bit "confusing" this time: the US government
+> is quiet on this blood card bill; and the Chinese government is quiet, too,
+> on this blood card bill.  The only party who is angry toward this blood card
+> bill is the Chinese people such as Shannon Yeh.  The reason for the White
+> House to be quiet is so that they cannot see any direct benefit from granting
+> this bill; the reason for the Chinese government to be quiet is so that they
+> feel "losing-face" if they over-react to this "Chinese-sell-Chinese" case.
+> The reason for the Chinese people to be angry is so that they feel the justice
+> has been raped by those CSS, and the facts has been twisted by those CSS.
+> 
+> Regardless this bill will be passed or not, most of the CSS, including those
+> CSS, will go home someday.  By then, the Chinese PEOPLE will hate the blood
+> carders.  If the regular CSS do not distinct themselves from those CSS, they
+> will suffer when they return to China someday: who knows you did not work on 
+> the blood card in 1992?
+> 
+> So, if you did not directly support the blood card petition, I strongly 
+> recommend you to sign up at "blood-card@netix.com".  If you do not speak out 
+> your standing, you may be misunderstood in the future.
+> 
+> Obviuosly, upon your own discretion.
+> 
+> shannon
+> -------
+> 
+> 
+
+1) I agree with you, I do not like the word "Protection".

	Thank you.

+but,
+
+2) It is not a case of "Chinese-sell-Chinese".  I do not think Chinese have
+to limit themselves inside a fixed political boundary.  If British limited
+themselves inside the British islands, how to establish countries like U.S,
+Australia, South Africa?

	The difference is just simple as: the British came to the new 
	continental and killed the then-time local residents and established
	their own country; the Chinese came to the US and sold their own
	people back in China in exchange for a right-to-live.

+3) This bill will hurt U.S. more than C.G.  If this bill get passed, U.S.

	No.  How you will get your name back?  For example, a prostitute can
	make more money than I do, should we say "prostitution hurts fuckers
	more than fuckees"?

+will lose 80,000 jobs to CSS. Think of that how many jobs can be saved by

	Well, the US senators are stupid then:-).  

+selling F-16 to Taiwan and selling F-15 to Saudi.  Because this is election
+year, Clinton try to use this case to embarrass Bush.  That is the only
+chance to get the bill passed.  Oterwise, I do not think either Bush or
+Clinton would sign it.  "Saving face" is not only Chinese problem, it is
+also U.S. problem. 

	Then, George Bush should not sign this bill.

+4) It will not hurt C.G so much.  How many of these 80,000 CSS you think
+are very important?  For those hi-tech engineers/scientists, they can find

	Whether those CSS are important is a different topic.  Getting
	right-to-live (i.e. Green Card) via political protection, has more
	weight on the "protection" rather than the "right-to-live" itself.

+jobs easily.  It does not matter this bill passed or not.  So, I think C.G
+will protest this bill ( again, just for face saving), but will not
+retaliate upon U.S; because the overall result is not bad for C.G.

	My understanding about CCP's attutude on this bill is: they do not
	like the word of "protection", but they do not warmly welcome those
	CSS to come back to China.  (This is my personal understanding
	about CCP's attitude--I do not and I cannot speak as a CCP agent.)

+Suggestion:
+
+1)  Living in U.S. does not means you can not love the contry you came
+from.  Try to learn the lesson from Jewish people how to  make U.S. help
+Israel.

	I wish the Chinese would behave like the united Jewish.  But the
	difference is clear: the US Chinese help one group of Chinese (i.e.
	those CSS and their compatibles) to fight with another group of
	Chinese (i.e. CCP and their compatibles); while the US Jewish help
	their home country to fight with anyone who does not respect their
	territory.

+2)  Political issue is not black and white usually.  It is gray, light
+gray, or dark gray.  Yes, I don't like the word "protection" and some
+sentence in the bill.  However, in gneral, this bill favors both C.G. and
+CSS.  That is the reason I am not against it. 

	I know that you are not the only one who holds this view.  But,
	why they do not name it as "Green Card Bill" or "The Chinese
	Nationals Right-to-live Bill" if the word "protection" has no
	value?

+3)  Unificatoin is strength.  You can break one chopstick easily, but you
+can not break a bundle of chopsticks.  How to unify CSS is more important
+than polarize CSS.  That is why I am very disappointed to see some
+D(Dog)-figher fighting over how to distribute the pie instead of make the
+pie bigger.

	Why didn't these "a bundle of chopsticks" be together to fight with
	the US Senators to rename the bill as "Chinese Nationals PR Bill"?

+Final Words:
+
+Even I do not fully agree with you, I still respect your view point,
+because you pointed out the deficits of this bill which are neglected by
+most of CSS.

	Those CSS's point is clear, i.e.:

 _\  _|_   / |=|   _|_ _\_  __|__  __\|/__    _|_|_
 /|/|--/  /|--|--   |/|--| ___|_/_    | |    |-------|
  |\|\/    | /|\   /| |       /|=|   /  |      --|--
  |/ /\    |  |    \|/       / |=| |/   |__|   / | \   ,

 _\  _|_   / |=|   _|_ _\_   __|__    |==|   _|_|_   _|_/ _\_
 /|/|--/  /|--|--   |/|--|  ___|_/_  -----  _|=|=|-  // | -|-
  |\|\/    | /|\   /| |        /|=|   /|--     /\   //_\| -|-
  |/ /\    |  |    \|/        / |=|  /\|___   /  \      |__|__  .


shannon
-------