>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> National * Committee * on * Immigration <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
News Release #9512
Sunday, August 27, 1995
==============================================================================
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
The National Committee on Immigration is a coalition of Chinese Students,
Scholars & Professionals who work against the anti-immigration bill HR1915
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
==============================================================================
1. Action-India Calls for Signatories .................................... 146
2. A Cracking Course on Congress - How a Bill becomes Law ................ 82
3. Case Study on CBS-IC: A Wakening Public (pt.3/3) ...................... 293
==============================================================================
Editor's Note: Action-India has done an excellent job in their studies -- lots
quotations from new media, experts, or even from Congress where
the anti-immigration bills run wild. This has provided a good
example for our lobbists - how to make convincing arguments by
presenting statistics and in-depth analysis, not just anger.
Since China has a total different political system from
America, it might be very important for our readers, especially
those who are still "new-comers", to learn more about U.S.
political system, how it works, and how we can influence the
course of its decision making. In order to "stop/block/whatever"
the anti-immigration bills, we are going to provide a cracking
course on this subject.
==============================================================================
1. Action-India Calls for Signatories .................................... 146
From: kvaid@cs.binghamton.edu
ACTION-INDIA (North East USA)
28 August 1995
To
Honorable Representative <Full Name>
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative <Last Name>,
We are writing on behalf of Action-India to convey our serious concern regarding
attempts to amend the immigration legislation through H.R. 1915 (Immigration in
the National Interest Act of 1995, introduced on June 22, 1995). We request you
to strongly oppose the moves to restrict legal immigration proposed in this bill.
Action-India is a worldwide, voluntary, non-profit organization of people of
Indian origin living outside India, that conveys the feelings of the Indian
community to lawmakers and leaders of representative governments. Action-India
also responds to the information needs of legislators with a view to facilitating
their taking informed decisions concerning India and the global Indian community.
This proposal runs counter to all the three central tenets of our national
immigration policy -- family reunification,attainment of specialized labor skills,
and provision for political safe haven. This reform package cuts legal immigration
in all three categories by about 30 percent over several years. The U.S. currently
admits approximately 1.1 million international immigrants each year as a part of a
conscious policy designed to serve its national interests. This bill creates a
global target level of annual immigration at 585,000. These proposals are short-
sighted and will only serve to cause long-lasting harm to our national interests.
(1) Family unification has been the cornerstone of our nation's immigration policy
all these years.This bill provides for a reduction in the size and scope of family-
reunification quotas. The lawful and orderly immigration of spouses, children,
parent, and siblings of U.S. citizens should not be diminished. American society
and American families are strengthened by the rational immigration policy based on
family unification. Please do not support any legislation that would prevent
American families from reuniting.
(2) One of the three priorities that dictate the U.S. immigration policy is to
selectively allow U.S. employers to bring in a relatively small number of highly
specialized or uniquely skilled people, regardless of their nationality. The
success of the U.S. economy depends to a large extent on the idea of the free
enterprise that facilitates business organizations to function at the most
efficient level. The U.S. companies are able to stay competitive in the global
marketplace so that they can create more jobs for those at home. Such immigration
fuels American prosperity.
Employer-sponsored immigration with appropriate protections does not undercut U.S.
wages or displace U.S. workers. Employment-sponsored immigrants make up a minuscule
portion of our nation's workforce. There are already significant protections in
the process of hiring such workers to ensure that U.S. workers are not displaced.
Only by proving that no U.S. worker is able and willing to do the job (or by a
Congressional recognition that such a situation exists) can the employee come into
this country permanently. The proposed bill reduces the number of employment based
green cards and H-1B temporary worker visas. This bill would cut off access to the
best and the brightest scientists, engineers, investors and businessmen, which can
only lead to American businesses faltering in global competitiveness.
Business Wire of 16 Mar 95 carried a report on how Anti-Immigration Laws Could
Damage High-Tech Industry. "At every important high-tech company in America, the
crucial players, half of them, are immigrants," says George Gilder, who frequently
writes about international competition and the information superhighway. "You exclude
immigrants from our high-tech industries and what you get is Europe, where they have
no important computer or semiconductor company now after 20 years of focusing on
information technologies." Nathan Rosenberg, a Stanford economist who studies the
history of technology, agrees: "It seems to me that the American high-tech industry
will suffer, will suffer tremendously, if these anti-immigration measures go into
effect" (Business Wire, 16 Mar 95).
The current U.S. immigration policy is directly and effectively designed to benefit
the U.S. economy. Any attempt to take the U.S. backwards into a secluded economy
will lead to undoing the huge technological strides the nation has made so far by
attracting talent from all parts of the globe. Please do not support this
legislation that would endanger our competitiveness.
(3) The United States offers protection to fewer than 1% of the world's refugees
every year. Proposals to limit refugees to 50,000 per year or to summarily exclude
those who seek protection at ports of entry undermine our nation's commitment to
freedom and human rights that is a beacon of hope in the world. Please do not close
the door on refugees.
The Cato Institute and the Urban Institute agree that immigrants are net contributors
to the tax base. According to the nonpartisan Urban Institute, immigrants and refugees
pay approximately $28 billion a year more in taxes than they consume in services.
Considering that only 9% of U.S. population is foreign-born (the percentage was 15% in
1900), the net surplus of $28 billion contributed by immigrants and refugees assumes
great significance. Thus the immigrants not only consume very little of welfare funds,
but they subsidize, as it were, the welfare of others.
Several studies have documented the impact of immigrants on the nation's economic
well-being. In the most comprehensive study to date, the U.S. Department of Labor has
concluded that immigrants keep U.S. industries competitive, increase employment
through higher rates of self-employment, and increase wages and mobility opportunities
for many groups of U.S. workers. The same report also notes that in cities with many
immigrants, there is virtually no evidence that immigrants displace natives and cause
unemployment. "Immigrants bring with them high-tech expertise and the knowledge of the
way businesses organize and market themselves in other parts of the world," says Glenn
Garvin, contributing editor of Reason. "But the recent battle against illegal immigrants
threatens to stem the tide of legal immigrants as well" (Reason Magazine, April 95).
In a speech delivered to a Washington, D.C., think-tank on May 9, 1995 House Majority
Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas) praised the contributions of immigrants to American society
and added, "Should we reduce legal immigration? Well, I'm hard pressed to think of a
single problem that would be solved by shutting off the supply of willing and eager new
Americans. If anything ... we should be thinking about increasing legal immigration."
We endorse closing the back door to undocumented, illegal migration. We appeal to you to
ensure that legal immigration continues to serve the national interests. We request you
to give this bill the deliberation it deserves, and then vote to defeat it.
We will be glad to receive any communication from you which may kindly be addressed to
Action-India's Coordinator for North East USA, Mr. Jagan Peri, <Mailing-Address>.
Thanking you,
Sincerely,
for ACTION-INDIA
=================================================================================
2. A Cracking Course on Congress - How a Bill becomes Law ................ 82
From: ACCA HQ
In order to stop/block the anti-immigration bill, we need to know how this
government works, and how a bill becomes law. Much is to be learnt, since this
government operates in a totally different way which most of us are not familiar
with. In the following issues, National Committee on Immigration will provide our
readers with a crack course on U.S. Government. Only armed with proper knowledge,
can we know where, when, and how can we influence the U.S. Congress to pass a
bill in our favor, just as CSS did several years back during the passage of CSPA.
Congress of the United States
The Congress of the United States, the nation's lawmaking body, is made up of two
houses, the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES and the SENATE. The main power of Congress ,
as set forth in the CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, is to make laws which,
when signed by the PRESIDENT, become the law of the land, governing American life.
Congress also has the responsibility to determine that public policies are being
administered by the government in accordance with the law and as efficiently and
effectively as possible. Moreover, because Congress is intended to represent the
nation's citizens, its members are expected to provide assistance and services to
their constituents--the people back home in their states and districts. The news
reporting of congressional hearings, debates, and other activities provides
citizens with much information about what their government is doing.
THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS IN CONGRESS
The legislative work of Congress begins when a bill is introduced by a member. A
bill is merely a document drawn up to specify the details of a proposal of law.
Public bills concern general questions of policy and become public laws if they
are passed by Congress and signed by the president. Private bills are concerned
with such individual matters as claims against the government or cases having to
do with immigration and naturalization.
House members introduce bills simply by dropping them in the hopper at the clerk's
desk in the House chamber. Senators introduce bills by making a statement offering
a bill for introduction and sending it to the desk of the secretary of the Senate.
Once introduced, bills are referred to committees and, in turn, to subcommittees.
After subcommittees complete their review of bills, they are returned to the full
committees for recommendation as to their passage by the full house. When a
committee sends a bill to the full house membership for consideration, it sends
along a report, or written explanation of its action.
After a bill is reported from the committee that has considered it, it is placed
on a calendar, the agenda for floor consideration of bills. Most House bills are
funneled to the floor for debate and voting by special rules worked out by the
House Rules Committee. In the Senate, bills are normally taken up on the floor by
requests for unanimous consent to do so. Debate on bills in the House is regulated
by a number of rules that place limitations on the number and duration of members'
speeches. In contrast, the Senate normally practices unlimited debate on bills,
although a procedure called CLOTURE exists for putting an end to prolonged
speechmaking, or filibustering (see FILIBUSTER). During floor debate, amendments
may be offered that change or add to the bill.
After debate on a bill is concluded, and voting has taken place on all amendments
offered, the bill is up for final passage. In the House, voting on amendments and
final passage may occur by a voice vote, although a roll-call vote is the normal
procedure on major bills. House members vote during roll calls by using the
electronic voting system in the House chamber. Forty-four voting stations are
located throughout the chamber. Members cast their votes by inserting special
identification cards in a slot on the voting device and pushing the yea or nay
buttons. With this system, 435 House members can cast votes in a short time. The
Senate has no similar system; senators respond to roll calls by answering yea or
nay when the clerk calls their names in alphabetical order.
Bills passed by a majority vote of the members of the House and Senate are sent
to the president for approval. If the president vetoes a bill, the disapproval
may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of both houses. If the House and the
Senate pass bills in different forms, a joint conference committee consisting
of representatives and senators is appointed to work out the differences.
Agreements of a conference committee must, in turn, be approved by both houses.
(from the New Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia)
==============================================================================
3. Case Study on CBS-IC: A Wakening Public (pt.3/3) ...................... 293
B. Another Active Public
1) Problem Recognition
On the surface, the CBS spies report was not intended against Chinese
Americans and long-term permanent residents of Chinese descent. Over the years,
this group had been often portrayed in a positive light, and occasionally
crowned as a " model minority " by some American politicians and the mainstream
media, a fact many members of the group had felt complacent about. They had a
reputation of possessing above-average education and income and a below-average
crime rate. They did not speak with much, or any at all,foreign accent.In fact,
many of them had been thinking and behaving in exactly the same way as
" Americans " had. They might still have some ties with relatives in China, but
such relationships were remote and thin.The only important connections they had
with the country of their ancestors were their ethnic and cultural identities:
they were Mongolians as opposed to Caucasians or Africans biologically,and they
might have inherited varying amounts of traditional Chinese culture.
Yet the only important connections they had with China could, and did, bring
them trouble. Americanization, however thorough and extensive, still could not
change their biological characteristics. They certainly looked Chinese, and
sometimes thought Chinese as well. In a still predominantly white society, they
could not escape the fate of being discriminated by the mainstream society, just
like most other minority groups. Their sheer number was insignificant: less than
2 million, or less than 1 percent of the American population. In a democratic
society, number is sacred. The bigger the number, the louder the voice, and
therefore the greater the power. When you reach a majority, you eventually have
the legitimacy to rule and decide. Inevitably, the decisions thus made would
favor the majority instead of everyone, as that is the only possible solution.
The situation was further complicated by the fact that China was emerging as
a power, if only a regional one for the time being, in the world. Considering
the political and social systems practiced in that country and the potential
threat to the United States when one day China becomes another former Soviet
Union, a real possibility, and the perception that ethnic minorities usually have
some ties with their mother country, particularly when the minority bears
indelible semblance to its motherland more than its country of residence and
citizenship, the minority tends to be subjected to more suspicion and
discrimination of one kind or another. People from the mainstream cannot help
identifying the minority with their foreign origin, and the minority's allegiance
on the whole is often at stake. A frequent, and logical, result is that members
of this minority are looked upon as " foreign," temporarily or forever. The
Melting Pot of America does its job best when the ingredients are similar.
Given the fact of life in the case of any minority, especially given the
potential confrontation between China and the United States, any media reports
that indiscriminately link the Chinese community to the People's Republic of
China pose very real threat to the welfare and future of the whole minority. They
not only reinforce the negative stereotypes sometimes associated with the minority
because of the differences between cultures, but also serve to alienate and
marginalize the minority as representatives of a foreign country. The fact that
some white Americans actually took the trouble to write and send hate mail to
organizations of Chinese Americans right after the CBS spies report very well
illustrated this point. According to Ms. Gong, many of such letters contained
sentences like " Go back to your country !" and " Chinese get out of America !"
There were also reported cases of Chinese Americans losing jobs or suffering other
damages as a result of this harmless-looking news story. Many people of Chinese
origin complained to their ethnic organizations about the effects on them. In
short, problem recognition was high in this public.
2) Constraint Recognition
While experiencing the same constraints it had been always suffering as a
minority group, such as the relative small population, little voice in and general
oversight by the mainstream society, unfavorable stereotypes, and " foreign "
treatment, the Chinese community had a unique pain among all minorities. It was
the only minority that had been legally discriminated against in the history of
America by the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which was in effect
until 1943. This unusual and uncalled for sanction against people of Chinese origin
and the prejudice and bigotry behind it in the last century had often found new
outlets throughout this century. The bleeding wound had never had a chance to heal
completely and on occasions had been hit again and again. When a person had been
repeatedly punished for no reason, he naturally became extremely timid and cautious,
always conscious of potential danger and prepared to run away, As a group, the
Chinese community had been deeply oppressed by such a mindset. Or put another way,
they had learned to adapt to the often hostile environment through submission and
retreat. That mentality in part explained why almost all people of Chinese origin
had turned to science or some other skill-based professions instead of social
sciences or humanities since these were the fields in which they expected least
resistance from the mainstream society, at least at the lower and middle levels.
In a sense, such a fatalistic view of their future and environment constituted the
most difficult hindrance to their efforts, or even intentions of effors, to rise up
and fight for their civil rights and other equal rights.
3) Level of Involvement
Because of the inextricable connections as perceived by the average American
between China and the Chinese community in the United States, it can be safely
stated that everyone in the Chinese American community, be they citizens or permanent
residents, was closely involved in the spies report incident. In fact, one could not
NOT think or feel this way when literally everyone around you insisted on viewing you
in that light.
Another factor that helped implicate the average Chinese American was the actual,
and only valid, example of a Chinese spy cited in support of the claim made by CBS
report. The man, by the name of Kao Yen Men, had been staying legally in the United
States for 23 years. It was not clear whether Mr. Kao was a citizen or not, but he
had to be a permanent resident at the least. Besides, 23 years could well be
considered a long time. This naturally would project suspicions on the first
generation immigrants, and possibly second generation as well. The bottomline was
that Chinese could be either sleeper agents for a long time (indeed " decades ") or
they could be easily turned into Chinese spies despite their long stay in this country.
Therefore, nobody should expect immunity.
A final message that could be derived from the report was that when a restauranteur
like Mr. Kao could even aspire for American military and technological secrets, what
about those people of Chinese connection working right in the military and technological
departments? Following some fantastic imagination everyone was capable of would flow
certain conclusions and precautions about the Chinese community.
Because of the high levels of the three independent variables, this public of
Chinese Americans and long time permanent residents became a generally aware public,
and thanks to the nationwide organization OCA and its energetic leaders such as Ms.
Ginny Gong, a considerable degree of activeness could be discerned in its activities
as a public.
C. A Conservatively Active Public
1) Problem Recognition
Because of the historical limitations as encountered by the Chinese
(American) community, the number of people that had emerged from this
community into the American mainstream society had been traditionally
minuscule. Few as they were, they nevertheless tried to organize
themselves into some form of an elite group. The Committee of 100 was
just such a loosely constructed association comprising prominent and
successful people of Chinese origin. Its membership included famous
scientists, educators, artists, athletes, businessmen, and public
officials. The number " 100 " should not be interpreted literally.
Instead, the committee ought to be viewed as the representation of a
collection of mostly famous and successful people of Chinese ancestry
as a public. They generally enjoyed a relatively high social status in
the mainstream society and had various connections with the elite class
of this country.
In theory, this public should not anticipate any problem whatsoever
with a spies report. Supposedly, they were beyond suspicion,
necessarily immune from any distrustful scrutiny typically associated
with being of Chinese origin. They did not have to worry about their
jobs and any related discriminations, because many of them were in fact
employers, or at least their outstanding mastery of certain skills and
/ or their exceptional expertise could almost always land them an
excellent job. As a matter of fact, most, if not all, of them were
fairly established in their fields and already pretty rich. They
commanded respect from both the Chinese community and the mainstream
society.
Yet they had their unique concerns. As " models " of the minority
group, they assumed a dual responsibility. On one hand, they were the
people frequently turned to for help and support, material or symbolic,
when the Chinese community perceived any threat from outside to the
community as a whole. They had a moral obligation, voluntary or
otherwise, to their fellow community people, or they could no longer
enjoy the kind of respect they had. On the other hand, they were held
accountable for the general performance of the community to the
mainstream society. They were supposed to " guide " the minority
towards the common well being of the larger society. Their reputation
in the mainstream society was closely tied to the overall reputation
and image of the minority they represented. In a sense, they served the
role of liaison between the Chinese community and the mainstream
society.
It was precisely in this role that they detected problems. They
knew the community was threatened and was suffering damage it did not
deserve at all. They also understood the prospect that the mainstream
could mistakenly view the community with a strange eye as a result of
the spies report. They had to stood up and both redress the grievances
of their fellow community people and reassure the mainstream society of
the innocent and harmless nature of the community they symbolized.
There might be some remote, " special " links between them and China,
at least in the back of some people's minds, but on the whole they did
not have to worry a bit about such unspoken mistrust. They were usually
much more experienced and sophisticated about the American society than
the other two publics, and presumably they knew what to do, how to do
it and when.
2) Constraint Recognition
As representatives of the Chinese community on a higher level, this
public certainly knew the constraints faced by the community as a
whole, some of which applied them too. In addition to the small number,
a generally more profound understanding of the American political and
legal systems tended to obstruct them from taking even moderate
actions. If done inappropriately, their dual responsibility could turn
into dual blame, putting them in a terrible dilemma. The worst result
could be that they lost the respect and support from the Chinese
community and at the same time their reputation and image in the
mainstream society were tarnished to irreparable extent.
Another factor that contributed to their high perception of
constraint had to do with their average age: most of them were in their
50s or older. Together with relative old ages came the greater impact
of history on their mind and perception of reality. Understandably,
they had undergone a harder time when they were young compared with
people in their 40s and younger. As a logical necessity, they tended to
be more cautious, almost nearing conservativeness, in the face of high
constraints.
3) Level of Involvement
As was shown in the analyses of the first two independent
variables, this public was involuntarily (or maybe voluntarily) drawn
into the incident because of their dual responsibility and liaison
role. While such a relatively high level of involvement was essentially
altruistic, it could also benefit the public itself. It was true that
they generally did not suffer the usual discriminations as witnessed by
their community folks. But their place in the mainstream society was
not an entirely happy experience either. They also talked about " glass
ceilings " encountered in their efforts to move further upwards. One
handy instance was that there had never been a single U.S. congressman
or congresswoman of Chinese descent, whereas by the percentage of the
Chinese population there ought to be several of them. By the same
token, the Chinese community as an ethnic minority had also been
consistently underrepresented in federal, state, and local governments
and their gigantic bureaucracies.
A review of the whole incident proved that this public did engage
itself in the overall fight for justice with the other two publics. Its
contributions might have been subtle and imperceptible to the other
publics; they might also have been quite limited, just as the small
amount of activities on its part ostensibly suggested.
D. Results
So far, the patterns have indisputably emerged out of the evidence.
During the five-month strong campaign for justice for the Chinese
community, three distinct publics had made their appearances and
behaved in a way peculiar to the individual publics. Although a certain
form of coalition could be claimed during the second half of the
initially separate endeavors, the differences were substantial and
significant, and heuristic as well.
First of all, the problems recognized were considerably different
in nature for the three publics, though the degree was high in each
case. The problems were most urgent, even malignant, for the 350,000
Chinese students and scholars and recent immigrants. In a sense, they
were cornered and had to fight for sheer survival , or else they could
only give up any hope of realizing their American dream, whatever that
dream might be. For the 2,000,000 Chinese Americans and long time
permanent residents, the problems were less urgent, but still pressing
enough so that if they did not act on them immediately, they could face
direct and real consequences in light of the current economic and
racial situations. They had every right to their citizenship and
deserved no discrimination of any nature from either the mainstream
society or other minorities. As for the prominent Chinese Americans,
their problems were symbolic in essence and mostly altruistic in
nature. They were not emergent, but could produce some long term
undesirable effects if left untended, and therefore had to be dealt
with early.
In terms of constraints, again the differences in nature among the
three publics far outweighed the similarities, though the respective
magnitudes were more or less comparable. The public of students and
scholars and recent immigrants confronted the most obstacles, some of
them almost insurmountable. Yet ironically, it was this public that
became most active and adamant in their pursuit of justice. This,
according to Mr. Lin Huang, had a lot to do with their relatively
insignificant social status: they could not possibly lose much even if
they failed completely, and the worst result would be to go back to
China with due dignity. Besides, the relatively high level of education
and above-average personal qualities common among the public were also
two important factors. Whereas the public of citizens and legal
residents faced constraints associated more with history and self
perception, which were also formidable, sometimes to the extent of
fatalism, they nonetheless persisted in their fighting, if only
occasionally half-heartedly due to the understandable reasons. The
constraints as perceived by the public of prominent Chinese Americans
were more age-based and bore some semblance to conservativeness.
Finally, in so far as level of involvement is concerned, again the
differences were more seen in nature than in degree, The public of
students was immediately and explicitly involved, the public of
citizens less directly but definitely implicated, and the public of
elite was morally and symbolically engaged.
==============================================================================
More info about HR 1915: ftp at superprism.net:/pub/acca
www at http://superprism.net:/~acca/
gopher://cnd.cnd.org/11/English-Menu/InfoBase/HR1915
or, write to acca@superprism.net, with "help" in the "Subject:" field.
Further inquiries or inputs send to hr1915@math.luc.edu
******************************************************************************
To sub/unsub acca-l@superprism.net send to: acca-l-request@superprism.net
with "sub" or "unsub" in the "Subject:" field.
ACCA is formerly CBS-IC, to know more: ftp superprism.net:/pub/cbs-ic
or http://superprism.net:/~cbs-ic/
******************************************************************************
Editor of this issue: Anne Frank
******************************************************************************
============================================================================
To (un)subscribe acca-l list, please write to acca-l-request@superprism.net
with "sub" or "unsub" in the "Subject:" field, from your individual or local
network redistribution account. You may also send your local redistribution
address to hr1915@math.luc.edu. Committee on Immigration needs everyone of
your support to protect our community and rights.
ACCA's HR1915 infor-center through anonymous ftp at superprism.net:/pub/acca
or www at http://www.superprism.net:/~acca. For auto-retrieval via e-mail,
please write to acca@superprism.net, with "help" in the "Subject:" field.
Also, please visit our CBS-IC infor-center, ftp superprism.net:/pub/cbs-ic
or http://www.superprism.net:/~cbs-ic.
National Chair of ACCA, Mr. Lin Huang (A.K.A. Mi Mi Sr.)
============================================================================
In Germany, they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because
I wasn't a Communist; then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew; then they came for the Trade-Unionists and I didn't
speak up because I wasn't a Trade-Unionist; then they came for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up because I am a Protestant; then they came for me, and
by that time no-one was left to speak up. --- Martin Niemoller ---
============================================================================