From: mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha)
Subject: Re: Two important points
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 18:46:57 GMT

This (a) does not constitute proof. You *believe* your parents are *afraid*
that speaking out will endanger them & you. Beliefs are not proof.
>      (b) Returning CSS dare not to talk openly the truth about West.
>          That is my personal experience.
>          - My office mate in China is a returning CSS from Princeton.
>             We were quite close, but she never spoke much about US.
>          - Our director, my nextdoor office, is also a returning CSS
>            from France, he never talked about his personal experience
>            in France, even to his graduate student. He only said France
>            has "Red Light area"(Hooker)
>          - My advisor who have been to Japan for one month never talked
>            about Japan. "Japan is very clean", he only said that.

These in (b) are all instances of the lack of a statistic, of which I wrote
in my previous posting. The fact that they *don't* speak out isn't *proof*
that they will be arrested if they do speak out. Again, it's merely a belief
on their part.

>
>        PS. I was & am politically inactive, friendly, able to keep silent.
>             The above facts shall not be attributed to their untrust of me.
>      (c) More recently, a young man in Shanghai was arrested for his
>          intention to orgnize a campaign to ask apology from Japan.
>          He was silenced.

This is evidence. But you forgot to show that his return was long term, and
not short term. This is what we're arguing.

>      (d) Shen Tong serves another example.

Shen Tong's return was only a couple of weeks before he was taken in. Does
this make it long term?


>
>  The above facts cover the whole spectrum of Chinese in PRC, it is enough
>to demonstrate the existence of ongoing political forcing for silence against
>people's own will.
>
>  (2) "Permentant return" puts your life under the full control of CCP,
>                          ============================================
>       While the "short term visit" does not.
>
>  (3) "Permentant return" will force you to give up your value system,
>                                            =========================
>       your sense of justce, your belief of freedom, your belief of
>       ============================================================
>       democracy, your belief of human rights. That is the most
>       =====================================
>       outrageous political proscetution!
>
>       While "short term visit"  does not.
>
>
>  (4) The risk of political prosecution will increase as time goes by.
>      You will expose your political view in one way or another. Some people
>      just cann't keep silent too long or too silent.
>
>  Enough to distinguish the two?
>
>Now let's take a look at the "statistics"
>
>   The statistics of 'permenant return' is NOT representive of CURRENT
>CSS.
> (1) Very few CSS retruned permenantly since June 4th The fate of such
> a handful people does not explain anything.
> (2) The political value of those returned  does not represent that of
>    most CSS
>    Here is an example of a returnee. XX returned three months after
>    June 4th. His parents are high ranking millitary official (general).
>    People's Daily praised highly of his return. He is now middle ranking
>    millitary official. His wife told me he is a die hard CCP
>
>Z. You
>
>>> Further protection of Chinese nationals in US is really needed. There shoul
d
>>>be no doubt on that. It is still unsafe for CSS to return permenantly.
>>>                                                          ============
>>>The statistics will show very few of CSS who stayed here longer than two or
>>>three years returned permenantly.   However, the statistics might show it
>>>                     ============
>>>is safe to pay a short term home visit, and it only shows that, any
>>>
>>>generalization or analogy will turn out invalid.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Z. You
>
>

In another posting I pointed out that this type of persecution (and I do
agree that it's persecution) is true of *all* Chinese in China, regardless
of where they've been. Furthermore, this has always been the case, and
everyone has been aware of it since October 1, 1949. This is the fate of
all (PRC) OCChinese people! According to your description of persecution,
all Chinese should be eligible for political asylum in the U.S. (And so
should a lot of people all over the world.) What is it that distinguishes
the 80,000 covered by the bill from the rest of the Chinese here and the
Chinese in China? That's the case you need to prove.

If you respond to this, could I ask you to edit it down or start a new
thread? I'm using a new editor and having trouble getting it to do what
I want it to. Thanks.

Mark