From: mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha)
Subject: Re: Poor Shannon
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 01:25:17 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.154115.17757@news.acns.nwu.edu> usenet@news.acns.nwu.edu (Usenet on news.acns) writes:
>In article <1992Oct15.015535.3263@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>  
>mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>> 
>> The problem is this: the people arguing for the bill are saying, "I am
>> so commited to seeing democracy in China that if I went back, I just
>> couldn't keep from fighting for it, and I'd be persecuted." But these
>> same people, once they get their green cards, I predict, will no longer 
>> be so dedicated to democracy in China. It may a hobby or a wish, but no 
>> longer this unsurpressable urge. *If* my prediction is right, don't you
>> see a real contradiction there?
>> 
>> Mark
>> 
>
>
>Mark, first I'd like to tell you that there are verious kinds of CSS here. 
>
>The first kind of CSS are those who had already lost any hope on CCP way before  
>6.4 incident. So, even before 6.4, they had already felt insecure if they were  
>forced to go back. But, since many of them held J-1 visa, they were supposed to  
>go back to a country where they feared they might be prosecuted. They have 2  
>choices. Choice one was to seek political asylum, which was not a good way  
>because their relatives in China might be prosecuted. Choice two was to go back  
>and live like cold-blooded turtles for several years and wait for another  
>chance to come out again holding visa other than J-1.
>
>The second kind of CSS are those who did had a little hope on CCP before 6.4  
>and then totally lost the hope after 6.4. Before 6.4, they thought of going  
>back to China and trying to change Chinese society and political system under  
>the leadership of CCP. 6.4 broke their dreams into pieces. Now they are as same  
>as the first kind of CSS who would not go back in the near future. 
>
>For those CSS mentioned above, they feel insecure and various incidents had  
>already proved that they are going to be prosecuted if they continue living a  
>life like they are now. So, they are not lying to the US public. They just  
>speak out what they think and fear. 

I think that "losing hope in the CCP" is irrelevant to political asylum in
the U.S. U.S. political asylum is granted only to those who will be 
*persecuted*. 

Call me cynical, but I think "losing hope in the CCP" is a code word for
"can't have a comfortable life". 

>
>The third kind of people are those who come here for better lives. They care  
>less about the democracy and freedom in China. Some (if not many) are  
>opportunists. However, these people usually just sit there and wait to be  
>beneficiaries. Very few of them lobby hard and speak out. So, accusing them of  
>lying and selling their own country is unfair. I don't think it is wrong to be  
>beneficiary by doing nothing.

I do. In fact, I couldn't disagree more. Were the Japanese citizens who
reaped all the benefits of Japan's occupation of China not guilty because
they were "beneficiaries by doing nothing".

And why were those who *were* lobbying insistent on getting green cards
for all Chinese. If there were some who did not deserve green cards, they
should have been excluded from the bill.

>
>I hope my post can clearify a little bit about your misunderstanding towards  
>CSS as a whole. Your reply is appreciated.

Thank *you* for your explanations.

>
>Carl


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china