From: "Raymond C. Luh" <luh@NAS.NASA.GOV>
Subject:      Re:  IFCSS: TROUBLE WITH IMMIGRATION BILL
Reply-To: "Raymond C. Luh" <luh@NAS.NASA.GOV>
Organization: Indiana University
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:34:16 -0700
Comments: cc: soc-rights-human@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

>        To:    Chinese Students and Scholars Nationwide

This must be a message to the 40,000+ CSS that the IFCSS claims
to represent.

>        From:  Haiching Zhao, President of IFCSS

It is interesting the new council members of IFCSS are already in full
swing but not the new president.  I am nevertheless impressed by this
outgoing lame-duck president's diligence in assisting his benefactors
in the US Congress.  The urgency with which he is reacting to the
perceived crisis is enough to convince me that his livelihood, if not
his life, depended on it.  I am sure the new president-elect shares
fully this sense of urgency.

>We had a hectic day at the Capitol Hill today.  We organized
>a coalition meeting with other 25 organizations to set up the
>strategy for the collective MFN-lobby effort in the Senate for the

"We organized"?  The IFCSS is more influential than I had imagined.
The CSS community had better rally behind it, or else what would the
"other 25 organizations" think?

>next couple of weeks.  The key to the MFN lobby is in the Senate.
>Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, who is also the major
>author of the bill in the Senate, is strongly committed to the

I wonder who is/are the minor author(s) of the bill.

By the way, there is one thing unique about the IFCSS lobbying effort.
While other lobbys exert their influences through campaign contributions
to targeted US lawmakers, the IFCSS lobby is able to exert its influence
without wasting a dime.  Of course, there is no free lunch.  IFCSS
"officials" and others like Chai Ling have to allow themselves to be
puppeted around in front of Congressional subcommittees and party
national conventions.

>The House Judiciary Committee took up our immigration bill at 10:00

"our" immigration bill?  It is news to me that the US Congress is
deliberating on a bill sponsored by the IFCSS.  Now, I am beginning
to comprehend the urgency displayed by the outgoing president and the
new council members of IFCSS.

Dr. Zhao: Dear Congresslime XXX, please help pass OUR immigration bill.

XXX:      At ease, my Dr. Zhao, I will vote for YOUR immigration bill.

>in the morning.  One amendment proposed by the Justice Department
>(INS) was attached to the bill.  It is a technical amendment
>changing the period for application from six month to a year and
>making sure that people who have lapsed their status during certain
>periods are eligible to apply for adjusting their status.  On the
>technical merits, it is a good amendment and these are the issues
>we raised in the past.

So, at one time, the IFCSS lobbied for this amendment in the interest
of the greater CSS community.

>However, since we are trying to keep our
>bill out of the conference, the fewer differences between the
>Senate and the House versions, the better.  And this amendment
>means that the bill can not go to the President directly, rather
>it has to be sent back to the Senate again for a vote.

Now, however, for the benefit of the lesser CSS community, the
IFCSS would rather the amendment stayed out.  "Screw those who
do not file within 6 months."  We should thank the IFCSS, or at
least the outgoing president Zhao, for tantalizing our imagination
with new interpretation for the proverb -- ye4chang2meng4duo1 (
the night too long, the dreams too many).

>The real problem on the Chinese Protection bill is the attempt made
>by Michigan Congressman John Conyers Jr.  He attempted to attach
>an amendment on protecting Haitians in this country.  Congressman

I do not see that as a problem.  In all honesty, Haitians do need all
the help and protection they can get.

>Bill McCollum of Florida challenged the amendment by questioning
>its germaneness to our bill.  There was a heavy debate on this
>issue and we all know that by attaching this provision the bill
>would be certainly vetoed by the President.  Chairman of the
>Judiciary Committee, Congressman Jack Brooks of Texas ruled that
>the amendment was NOT german.  So we are safe for now.  However,

The word is germane.  I know where the "e" went -- Dan Quayle borrowed
it the other day for his spelling of potato.

OK, so "we" are safe for now because a US lawmaker ruled the amendment
to protect Haitians NOT germane.  He reminds me of the brave man who
stood in front of a column of tanks.  More interestingly, those lawmakers
opposed to "our immigration bill" reminds me of the tanks.  This bodes
well for "us" because we know who wins when a man takes on a column of tanks.

>we are almost certain this will surface again when the bill reaches
>the House floor and in the Senate.

Don't worry, the tanks are far outnumbered by the brave men.

>Haitian refugee issue is a very tough one.  We are sympathetic to
>the Haitians, on one hand; on the other hand, this is a highly
>political issue because the President decided to turn the Haitians
>away.  This issue involves the Presidential politics.  If the
>amendment is successfully attached to our bill, which we hope not,

Exactly.  "If the amendment is successfully attached to "our bill,"
then it is no longer "our" bill.  "We" shouldn't get involved in
presidential politics.  What?  The Democratic party platform meeting
attended by Dr. Zhao does not count.

>that would be the end of the bill.  Another difficulty is that the
>issue is a very popular one.

Don't feel bad.  Human rights is a universal concern after all.

>If it reaches the floor for a vote,
>many members will have a very hard time to vote NO to the
>amendment.

Haitians everywhere unite!  Learn from the IFCSS and lobby the Congress!

>The only way to stop the amendment being attached to our bill on
>the House floor is for the Rules Committee to issue a rule for the
>bill not to allow any additional free amendment on the floor.

Yes, "we" must have that ruling from the Rules Committee to save "our"
bill.  That ruling will seal the fate of Haitians and every CSS who fails
to apply within 6 months.

>Our emergent task is to let the Rule Committee members know what
>we want by calling their offices and asking for CLOSED RULE ON
>S1216. Our argument should be very simple: THIS AMENDMENT CAN ONLY
>CAUSE A PRESIDENTIAL VETO.  Therefore, it will not help the
>Haitians and it will hurt the Chinese students.

Brilliant!  I think Dr. Zhao made a mistake in not running for re-election.

>This problem is serious and urgent.  We also have knowledge that
>the Chinese Government is at least partially behind this effort  -
>- this would be an effective way to kill the bill.

dao4gao1yi4chi3, mo2gao1yi2zhang4!

serious...urgent...kill...safe...

What a life and death drama!


Ray
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  Raymond C. Luh        |  So many deeds cry out to be done always urgently.  |
|  (415)-604-4494        |  The world rolls on.  Time presses.                 |
|  luh@ame.nas.nasa.gov  |  Seize the day.  Seize the hour.   --  Mao Zedong   |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china