From: ZHAO%HUXTAL.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: CCSA: IMMIGRATION LOBBYING PACKAGE (II)
Date: 30 Jul 92 05:42:00 GMT
Reply-To: ZHAO%HUXTAL.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu
Organization: Indiana University

Distribution-File:
        council@math19.gatech.edu
        cnd-us@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
        svc@hal.cwru.EDU
        IFCSS@HAL.CWRU.EDU
        CHINA-NT@UGA.BITNET
        osu.chinese@pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu
        china-news-post@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
        ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu,
        cgsa@fuzzy.umd.edu,
        cnd-us@library.uta.edu,




*****************************************************************



        IFCSS/CCSA: IMMIGRATION BILL LOBBYING PACKAGE (II)


****************************************************************






                To:    Chinese Students and Scholars Nationwide


                From:  Haiching Zhao


                Date:  July 29, 1992


        Due to the irresponsible message sent by Mr. Geng Xiao and confusing
E-mail messages sent out by the HQ in recent days,  our lobbying effort on
the Capitol Hill has met unprecedented nightmare.  Many offices in the House
are confused by different messages from students, some are even upset.  The
law firm in D.C. had to stop its normal lobbying operation and to figure
out a way to resolve the disagreement between the Student Affairs Committee
and the newly elected HQ.  I have tried my best to concentrate on the Capitol
Hill and let Ji Yingquan and others to deal with the internal dispute.
Unfortunately, things just got worse and this has caused a detremental effect
on the passage of the immigration bill.  Many people have urged me to come
out and make things clear.  I also feel the responsibility to do so since
I have worked on this legislation for almost three years and this bill will
affect more than 80,000 people's lives.

        First, we need to get our message clear and correct.  Please read the
following lobbying package carefully before you talk/write to congressional
offices and other American friends.

*************************************************************************


                II.  CHINESE STUDENT PROTECTION ACT OF 1992

                     RESPONSES TO CHINESE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIONS


Some opponents of the bill, including agents of the
Chinese government, have reportedly raised some objections to
the bill. We respond to what we understand some of the arguments
to be as follows:


Q:      I have heard that Beijing government is opposed to this
        legislation.    Let's not antagonize Chinese Government.

A:      Chinese Government has no room to complain, for it holds the
        keys to prevent the legislation from taking effect.  Instead
        of complaining, Chinese Government should begin now to take
        the steps necessary to convince the President, by July 1, 1993,
        that Chinese nationals may return home in safety.  To achieve
        this, the minimum they have to do is to release those students
        arrested during and after Tiananmen Square massacre and
        genuinely improve human rights situation in China.


Q:      Considering the investment China has in these, the best
        and brightest of their young people, wouldn't it cause a
        "brain drain" if this legislation goes into effect and
        students choose to not go back?

A:      Better "brain drain" than "brain wash" or "brain damage".
        Chinese nationals involved in pro-democracy activities here
        are already subject to the charge of being
        "counter-revolutionaries" -- a capital offense.  Upon our
        return, at the very least, we have to follow the government's
        political line and would be subject to "re-education" and
        "self-criticism"; at the worst, forced labor or perhaps the
        prison terms.


Q:      Shouldn't we consider Chinese Government's financial support
        for students and agree to let them go back?

A:      a. Any loss of financial investment is de minimis.  It is
        often non-existent, a token amount, or nothing more than
        plane fare.

         b. The bulk of financial support for students and scholars
        in the United States has come from their own private sources,
        including work and fellowship grants.

         c. Many students were forced to be on J-1 visa or signed the
        so called "returning contract" unwillingly.  Otherwise, they
        would not be able to obtain a passport even though they had
        their own financial support.

Q:      Shouldn't we change the standard of "safety" to U.S. "national
        interest"?


A:      a. The President is already on record stating that no
        Chinese national will be forced to return unless it is safe.
        This legislation gives the President the very tools that he
        needs to make good on that promise.

         b. The "safety" standard tells Beijing  government that the
        safety of Chinese nationals here is non-negotiable.  Trade
        concessions or arms control bargaining chits will not prevent
        the law from taking effect -- only genuinely improving human
        rights situation in China will.

        c. This standard also has the salutary effect of creating
        an incentive for Chinese Government to improve its
        human rights record at home; first, in order to
        persuade the President that he can make a determination
        that Chinese nationals can return home in safety; failing
        that, they will have an incentive to prove to each
        individual national that such person is welcome home and
        will not be punished for his or her pro-democracy stand
        while in the U.S.


Q:      Why do we need this legislation in light of the President's
        Executive Order?

A:      The Executive Order, issued over two years ago with the hope
        that conditions in China would soon improve, will expire at
        the end of 1993. If we do not enact legislation before then,
        thousands of Chinese Nationals protected by that order will
        be thrown into a state of limbo.  While some may be able to
        adjust to a different immigration status, thousands could
        suddenly find themselves in illegal status.  Thus, by
        enacting this legislation, we provide for the continued
        safety and well-being of those protected by the Executive
        Order, while still holding out hope that Chinese government
        can improve its human rights record within a year.


Q:      Why not wait until next year and see what happens?

A:      a. It would not be fair to the students.  We need to get on
        with our lives and make plans for our future.  We need to
        know now that our fate will not be left hanging until
        the last minute.

         b. If we wait, we increase the chances that Chinese government
        will continue to do nothing to improve its human rights record.
        The incentive to make China safe for the students' return would
        be lost.


\end