The following is collected and archived by CND-US. If you have any questions regarding the following information/message, please contact the original sender(s) listed below. Thank You. China News Digest - US Regional Services (Bo Xiong) --------------- Date: Sat, 12 Aug 1995 02:10:18 -0400 Reply-To: acca-l@SUPERPRISM.NET Sender: Newsletter on Chinese Community Comments: Resent-From: acca-l@superprism.net Comments: Originally-From: "Sen Hu" From: acca-l@SUPERPRISM.NET Subject: Unidentified subject! To: Multiple recipients of list CCNL Status: RO Association for Chinese Community Affairs (ACCA), formerly CBSIC Public Broadcasting System News Release of National Committee on Immigration >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> National * Committee * on * Immigration <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< News Release #9507 Friday, August 11, 1995 ============================================================================== +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= The National Committee on Immigration is a coalition of Chinese Students, Scholars & Professionals who work against the anti-immigration legislation HR1915. For info or want to contribute please send to hr1915@math.luc.edu +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= ============================================================================== ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. Wake up, the honeymoon is over!......................................52 2. UB Coordination Committee on Immigration Founded.....................76 3. Coordinating Committee in Chicago Established........................34 4. Letter from UF International Student Council about lobbying strategy.............................................................48 5. Chronology: Restrictions on Immigration and Naturalization (I).......90 ============================================================================== 1. Wake up, the honeymoon is over!......................................52 By Luo Ning Although many Chinese student and professional (CSP) organizations and individuals have got involved in the effort to counter the current anti-immigration tide in the US, the majority of the CSP community has not been put on alert about the seriousness of this crisis. It is not because they don't believe that "things could not become THAT bad", it is rather because most CSP from mainland China could not IMAGINE HOW BAD IT COULD BECOME. Our generation of CSP come to the US after 1978. In terms of the general attitude of American public toward Chinese people, this 17 years is the best period since Chinese started to immigration to the US in mid-19th century. From the brief chronology of the US immigration policy attached in the following we can see that the Asian Pacific Islanders (API) have been excluded or discriminated against LEGALLY in immigration and work for the MOST PART of the last 100 years. Chinese, the largest ethnic group among API, was the first fell under the attack (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882). The reason for the API to be singled out consistently is because this group is racially distinct. Many of us might have thought that it is hard enough to get a waiver for J-1's two-year home country residence requirement, or to get a H-1 or labor certificate. Many also feel the economy is now much less generous toward the people with advanced education than 10 years ago. However, if you compare our situation with what our forerunners had to face, we are still in the paradise. It may be hard to find a job which can fit your education or desire now, but in the most time of the last 100 years, a Chinese could not even find ANY decent labor job in this "land of opportunity". The problem is that this honeymoon is over. We must wake up from our hypnotized sweetened version of "American Dream", and face up the reality. It is imperative for us to educate ourselves, to learn about the past history, and to understand working of the forces brought these changes. More importantly, we must stand up and speak for ourselves. We can no longer "hind behind the crowd", for the whole crowd is under attack now. Luo Ning August 5, 1995 New York =========================================================================== 2. UB Coordination Committee on Immigration Founded......................76 From now on we have a coordination committee on immigration in UB to coordinate the action against the anti-immagration wave. The committee currently have ten people, and their names and responsibilities are as follows: Mr. XIANG Shunan (Vice President of CSSC): general coordinator. Ms. CHANG Lee-Ching, Mr. LING Chen, and CSSC Council member Mr. MEI Yousong: reach-out; to study the possibilities and organize activities in Buffalo area outside of UB to win support from the mainstream society. Mr. CHEN Xi, regional-coordinator to nationwide organizations: to function as a channel between the local committee and national organizations. Mr. LIN Guoqing: promoter to UB organizations; to win support in UB from students and administratives. Mr. Song, Jieyuan: information information center; to establish a home page to store all the about our activities for public access. Mr. Hu Hai, WU Reggie (Yingli), and ZHANG Dongbin: communications; to collect and process information from within and outside of UB and report to the local society. In the meeting we discussed about various actions towards Bill S269 and HR 1915 as well as histories such as the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act. The following are some of the points raised and discussed. 1. What's the significance to fight against the anti-immigration wave? The core content of the anti-immigration wave is, to blame immigrants as the scapegoat of the deterioration of the American environment including the economic recession, which is unfair. The emergence of the wave had been signaled when Califonia passed the Bill 187 last year to deprive the rights including education and medicare from even legal immigrants . If we do not fight, the bills will definitely pass, and the anti-immigrant wave will become higher and higher, and eventually all of us--no matter non- immigrants, immigrants, or even naturalized citizens--will be hit by the wave. 2. Should we fight against the whole bills or just part of the bill? The final agreement reached was, we should fight against the unreasonableparts of the bills, such as the Title V of the bill HR1915, but not the whole bills. 3. Should we manage to win support from the mainstream society with vigorous actions like parade or driving for general signature? Should we gather money to do advertisement in the media? There were two aspects in these actions. One was, we could raise the issue and so that the society would be aware of the issue and some people would jump in to support us; but the concern was, some anti-immigration people would be irritated and jump out to reach the congressmen to bring negative effect on the campaign. The final conclusion was, the issue had to be studied, and if decided to carried out, cautious measures had to be taken. 4. Strategically, how should we act? This is an issue of the American Society, and what the politicians concern most is the voice from their voters. So, the voice from we Chinese alone is not loud enough. We should first educate ourselves, then act as nuclii to educate our friends, then let our friends to act as nuclii to educate their friends,... The circle should be dynamically expanding. In one pathway, in UB, the work should be done from Chinese students/scholars society to other international student societies to ISSS, and from students to departmental faculty to school administratives; outside UB, we should contact our landlords, our neighbors, our American friends and other friends. It is feasible. In general, more educated people are more easy to see the point that restricting high-technique immigrants will be greatly harmful to the American society. Some professors have been mobilized to write to the congress. 5. Tactically, how should we act? We may call, fax, snail mail, and e-mail the congressmen. The directory of the congress is been prepared and will soon be released to the local net. There is a WWW home page containing the phone/fax/emails of congressmen of the both House and Senate, http://www/fairus.org. When we convey our concern, the message should be clear, such as I am against Title V of the bill HR1915. Personal information such as full name, home address, phone numbers should be furnished. Proper title, if it would help, should also be furnished. UB Coordination Committee on Immigration (State University of New York at Buffalo) ============================================================================== 3. Activities in Chicago/Illinois.......................................34 1: On Aug 7, 1995, Chicago-CSS established a temp. Coordinating committee on Immigration based on the Union of Chicagoland CSS; Univ. of Chicago, Northwestern Univ., Univ. of Illinois at Chicago, Illinois Inst. of Technology are the members. General Coordinators are: John Lin, Debbie Wang, Elaine Jin and Qi Bin. They will ask their fellow CSS to send letters to IL politicians. 2: 5-7 Chinese Newspapers at Chicago/100,000 Chinese population will publish an OPEN Letter to IL congressmen/women/senators, will awake Chinese here. The letter was co-supported by 5 CSS org. and 2 Chinese Professional Org. Next steps: 1, work with other minorities at Chicago/IL in Aug 24, 1995 Townhall meeting with Senator Carol Mosylin; 2, Write English articles to Chicago Tribune/Sun Times; 3, Consider contacting key politicians/or rally in the CITY; 4, Make more CSS fax/write/call politicians/consider signature movement; My feeling is: it is not TOO easy to INITIATE and GAIN support from all groups! But keep working is better than nothing. Also, have more close-CSS supporters to help you, the LEADER is critical, since many CSS don't know how to act and are very busy. The LEADER should show his or her courage and intelligence. Anyway, pressure is building progressively in Chicago/IL and this will make SOME difference! From John Jianhong Lin (U32898@UICVM.BitNet) Status: RO Illinois Coordinator, National Committee on Immigration ========================================================================== 4. Letter from UF International Student Council about lobbying strategy....48 Mr. Wuhong Li President, UFCSS University of Florida. Dear Wuhong, Thank you for forwarding the email from from Mr. Haipei Xue ( 28-JUL-1995 05:12 ). Most of his suggestions are excellent and he deserves our appreciation. However, point number 3, with regards to mounting a public relations campaign, requires careful thought. Better results may be obtained if lobbying is done QUIETLY and DISCREETELY without making a lot of media circus. First: why is Immigration an issue right now? Because there is a widespread anti-immigrant sentiment among the general US population. It is important to realize that the public sentiment is AGAINST foreigners. We cannot change this. We should try to make our case to the Senators and Congressman in private. The same goes for University officals. They may sincerely support us in their hearts and minds, but they will be very reluctant to say anything in public. Second: there is a tremendous feeling against affirmative action rigth now. If we make a big fuss in public, we will sound like many other groups. The common person will not realize the distinction. They will not even want to hear our case. Third: It is important to realize that events are being driven by irrational fears of the general population. No amount of logic or information will convince them to change their minds. It is in the national interest of the US to get the best minds in the world to work for them. Why would any American want to change/oppose this policy ? Fourth: Our own experience with the media has not always been positive. Sometimes they oversimplify/distort our positions. So there is no guarantee that in going public, the media will cover our case sympathetically. The August 9, 1993 issue of Newsweek did a cover story on immigration: they suggested a cutback. To summarize: It may be better to do everything that Mr. Haipei Xue suggests--email congressman, talk to University officials, make our case to people in authority--but do it quietly. Sincerely, Ejaz Ahmad International Student Council University of Florida. ========================================================================== 5. Chronology: Restrictions on Immigration and Naturalization (I).......90 So strongly did Americans believe in the "asylum principle" that immigration remained virtually unrestricted for our first century of national existence. Naturalization-in particular, the residency requirement for foreigners seeking citizenship-proved more contentious, as nativists sought to exclude newcomers from the political process. A chronological account shows the ebb and flow of anti-immigrant sentiment. CHRONOLOGY TOTAL U.S. # OF NEW % OF U.S. DECADE POPULATION IMMIGRANTS POPULATION ______ __________ __________ __________ 1790s 7.2 mil N/A N/A 1790 - Naturalization is authorized for "free white persons" who have resided in the United States for at least two years and swear loyalty to the U.S. Constitution. The racial requirement would remain on the federal books until 1952, although naturalization was opened to certain Asian nationalities in the 1940s. 1798 - The Alien and Sedition Acts authorize the President to deport any foreigner deemed to be dangerous and make it a crime to speak, write, or publish anything "of a false, scandalous and malicious nature" about the President or Congress. An amended Naturalization Act imposes a 14-year residency requirement for prospective citizens; in 1802, Congress would reduce the waiting period to five years, a provision that remains in effect today. TOTAL U.S. # OF NEW % OF U.S. DECADE POPULATION IMMIGRANTS POPULATION ______ __________ __________ __________ 1880s 62.9 mil 5.2 mil 8.3% 1882 - The Chinese Exclusion Act suspends immigration by Chinese laborers for ten years; the measure would be extended and tightened in 1892 and a permanent ban enacted in 1902. This marks the first time the United States has restricted immigration on the basis of race or national origin. TOTAL U.S. # OF NEW % OF U.S. DECADE POPULATION IMMIGRANTS POPULATION ______ __________ __________ __________ 1890s 75.9 mil 3.7 mil 4.9% 1891 - To the list of undesirables ineligible for immigration, Congress adds polygamists, "persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious diseases," and those convicted of "a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude." TOTAL U.S. # OF NEW % OF U.S. DECADE POPULATION IMMIGRANTS POPULATION ______ __________ __________ __________ 1900s 91.9 mil 8.8 mil 9.6% 1906 - The first language requirement is adopted for naturalization: ability to speak and understand English. 1907-8 - Under a so-called "Gentlemen's Agreement," the United States promises not to ban Japanese immigration in exchange for Japan's pledge not to issue passports to Japanese labors for travel to the continental United States (although they remain welcome to become agricultural workers in Hawaii). By a separate executive order, President Theodore Roosevelt prohibits secondary migration by Japanese from Hawaii to the mainland. TOTAL U.S. # OF NEW % OF U.S. DECADE POPULATION IMMIGRANTS POPULATION ______ __________ __________ __________ 1910s 105.7 mil 5.7 mil 5.4% 1917 - Over President Wilson's veto, Congress enacts a literacy requirement for all new immigrants: ability to read 40 words in some language. Most significant in limiting the flow of newcomers, it designates Asia as a "barred zone" (excepting Japan and the Philippines) from which immigration will be prohibited. TOTAL U.S. # OF NEW % OF U.S. DECADE POPULATION IMMIGRANTS POPULATION ______ __________ __________ __________ 1920s 122.7 mil 4.1 mil 3.3% (prepared by National Immigration Forum, to be continued) Posted by Luo Ning, August 5, 1995 ==================================================================== Editor of this issue: Hu Houhong ================================================================================ ============================================================================ Martin Niemoller, a German clergyman at the end of WWII had this to say: 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. ============================================================================