From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Subject: Chinese Protection Bill
Originator: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 19:54:39 GMT

This is an anonomous letter writen by a chinese student who fears
the proponents of S1217 (the Chinese National Protection Bill). The
This student may be affraid because the IFCSS, a group which has
been lobbying for the bill, claims that Chinese nationals who oppose
S1217 will be put under observation by the FBI and prevented from ever
being able to immigrate through normal means. (One of the more couragous
Chinese students who opposes S1217 visited a local FBI office and found
this not to be the case.) 

This bill has recieved very little plublicity outside of the Chinese
student population. News releases by the IFCSS make it clear that they
fear the possible response of the American people if they knew more 
about it.


-- An anonymous Chinese student wrote the following article

---------------------------------------------------------------------

       Greencard:  Don't leave the US without it!
          -- Is the Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 Necessary and Fair?

Shortly after that tragic day of June 4, 1989, many People's Republic of China
(PRC) nationals in the US expressed their fear that they would face severe 
persecution upon their return to China.

President Bush has issued two Executive Orders which protect some of these PRC
nationals from being forced to return to China.

Congress has just passed a "Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992", which may
grant the immigrant status (greencard) to the same group of PRC nationals and
their dependents, about 80,000 in total, using part of the immigration quotas
in the future years.

Some opponents to this Bill suspect that the real issue is immigration, not 
protection, because many such PRC nationals have visited China in the past 
three years, under the "Advanced Parole" arrangement which guarantees their 
re-entry into the US.

An obvious question is whether their fear is that they cannot visit China
(because of the persecution by the Chinese government), or that they cannot 
return to the US (due to the refusal of visa applications by the US consuls). 
In other words, the protection from whom?

This question does not seem a hard one to answer, as we have seen that many 
political refugees dare not set foot on the soil of their home countries until 
they become naturalized US citizens.  The foreign nationals in the US, with 
or without the immigrant status (greencard), are well aware that during their 
visits to their home countries, the US government cannot protect them from
being persecuted by their own governments.

However, some of these non-immigrant PRC nationals seem to have wanted the 
"protection greencards" as a guarantee to return to the US after their home 
visits to China.

While the leading lobbyist for the bill wrote a "report on immigration 
lobbying" and asked for donations to be sent to the "Committee of Chinese 
Student Affairs/Immigration Fund", his fellow lobbyists issued the warning 
"please be careful in choosing the words.  When talking to American friends 
and Congressmen, please refer [to] this bill as the PROTECTION bill, DO NOT 
say it is an immigration bill, this is important".

Is the US giving away 80,000 greencards to these PRC nationals, many of whom 
have deliberately hidden their real intention from Congress and the American 
public?

If the protection is really needed, what about other PRC nationals in the US? 
Everybody under an authoritarian regime has an equal share of the fear for
persecution.  After all, in the eyes of the Chinese government, occupying  
the Tian'anmen Square (which many of the newcomers participated) was no lesser 
a crime than marching in the US streets.

If the US really has to arbitrarily cut off somebody from the protection, 
at least it should not take away these people's immigration quotas in favor 
of the ones who hired professional lobbyists to push for this protection 
(immigration?) bill in their "three years' persistent, well-measured effort".

Or is it just the American way?  I hope not.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.correct