From: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (David Thomas Croft)
Subject: BASIC DECENCY
Originator: dtc9h@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:44:40 GMT

From root Fri Oct  2 12:55:59 1992
Received: from NETIX.COM by glueckauf.che.Virginia.EDU (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/4.03)
          id AA04764; Fri, 2 Oct 92 12:55:50 -0400
Received: by netix.com (4.1/LLNL-1.18)
	id AA03263; Fri, 2 Oct 92 09:54:18 PDT
Received: from CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu by netix.com (4.1/LLNL-1.18)
	id AA03258; Fri, 2 Oct 92 09:53:49 PDT
Received: from CWU.BITNET by CORNELLC.cit.cornell.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 2456; Fri, 02 Oct 92 12:59:17 EDT
Received: from CWU.BITNET by CWU.BITNET (PMDF #12518) id
 <01GPGWB9XZKW8WWN5L@CWU.BITNET>; Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:55 PST
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:55 PST
	<blood-card-request@netix.com>
Return-Path: <blood-card-request>
From: TAN%CWU.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu
Subject: A letter to s.c.c. or/and s.p.c.
To: blood-card@netix.com
Message-Id: <01GPGWB9XZKW8WWN5L@CWU.BITNET>
X-Envelope-To: blood-card@netix.com
X-Vms-To: IN%"blood-card@netix.com"
Status: OR

To whom it may concern:

I have no accesee to usenet.  Could you kindly help post the following letter to
soc.politics.china and/or soc.culture.china?  Thanks.

**************************   Cut by this line  ****************************

Dear Later comers (later than April 11, 1990):

Please rush faxing this letter to the White House at 202-456-2461, or call
202-456-1111 to voice your OPPOSITION to the bill S1216.  Your inexperience and
immaturity with American politics are being taken advantage of by the
blood-carders.
===============================================================================

October 2, 1992

To: President George Bush
Re: Bill S1216

Please veto this bill.  It is damaging the interests, equal rights, and equal
opportunities of Chinese nationals who arrived in this country after April 11,
1990.

The main reason for this bill, as declared, is the STATUS QUO of human
rights in China.  It is obvious that all Chinese nationals in the U.S., not
only those who arrived by an arbitrary date nearly three years ago, will be
confronting similar situation upon returning home if human rights will not
have improved by July 1993.  Why is this bill aiming to protect only some of
them, whereas totally ignore the others?

Those who are requesting you to sign the bill may claim they are working for
the human rights in China.  Have you received so many phone calls, letters, and
fax for the bill concerning China's MFN, to which Congress has attached human
rights requirements?

If this bill becomes law, it implies that those who arrived in after April 11,
1990 do not need protection, because if they did, the bill would have extended
to cover them.  This will put them in an extremely difficult situation, and
even deprive the genuine democracy activists of chance of success for regular
asylum application.

The bill will also put the late arrivals in a disadvantageous situation when
they try to stay by finding employment.  Suddenly they have to compete with a
increased population of permanent residents.  It is obvious that employers are
more willing to hire permanent residents than foreigners.  I believe many
American people's jobs or potentials will be negatively influenced by this
bill, too.

Your earnest consideration on this issue is highly appreciated.

Respectfully,



(Signature)

Newsgroups: soc.culture.china,talk.politics.china