From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May  1 00:00:47 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA05887); Sun, 1 May 94 00:00:47 CDT
Date: Sun, 1 May 94 00:00:46 CDT
Message-Id: <9405010500.AA26230@lucerne.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: snow@lucerne.rice.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jun Wu <snow@lucerne.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Weekly post on how to use LADS-L
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


This message is automatically sent out every week, in an attempt to reduce
the signoff requests posted on LADnet. Please read it and understand the
basic functions of this listserv. Please do not post signoff messages
to a public discussion list. Thank you.

Jun Wu -- listowner, LADS-L

=========================================================================
Dear friend,

	Welcome to the Late-Arrival-DependentS-List (LADS-L).

	LADS-L is a list dedicated to solve problems related to LADs of
Chinese-Students-Protection-Act (CSPA) principals. The list is maintained
by a group of voluntary Chinese Students, just like you. Netters who want
to express concerns or ask questions or provide answers to questions
should send mail to lads-l@spike.rice.edu.

	To sign off LADS-L, please send an email to "listserv@spike.rice.edu",
with mailbody as   "signoff LADS-L", from the account where you subscribed
to the list. If you have real problem signoff after the above attempt, please
drop a note to snow@spike.rice.edu.

	All backup issues for LADS-L can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from
spike.rice.edu (128.42.4.157), directory /pub/lads

	This is an automatically generated message, please do not reply.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May  1 10:35:51 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06113); Sun, 1 May 94 10:35:51 CDT
Date: Sun, 1 May 94 10:35:51 CDT
Message-Id: <9405011534.AA06103@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: FSTJRC1@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: FSTJRC1@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject:      INS cable
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

       INS cable said "An applicant with derivative
nonimmigrant status (such as F-2 or J-2 status) will not be considered to have
failed to maintain lawful immigration status for the purposes of section
245 (c) of the Act solely because the principal alien properly
filed a CSPA adjustment of status application".

I enclose here the INS cable with Dr. Zhao's letter in last August.

Good luck !

H. Wang


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


     MEETING WITH INS CONCERNING LATE ARRIVING DEPENDENT
          ADJUSTMENT APPLICATION AND OTHER ISSUES


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


          DATE:     July 31, 1993

          TO:       Chinese Nationals Nationwide

          FROM:     Dr. Haiching Zhao





     The National Council on Chinese Affairs met with Congresswoman
Pelosi and all senior INS officials in charge of CSPA implementing
policy on Friday, July 30, 1993.  The major topic at the meeting
was the issue of late arriving dependent adjustment applications
and other issues.  In attendance at the meeting were:

     (1)  Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi
     (2)  Carolyn Bartholomew, Legislative Director
     (2)  James A. Puleo, INS Associate Commissioner Examinations
     (3)  Michael L. Aytes, Director, INS Service Center Operations
     (4)  Paul Virtue, INS Acting General Counsel
     (5)  Rita Boie, Senior INS Examiner
     (6)  Frances A. Mooney, INS Congressional Liaison Specialist
     (7)  Dr. Haiching Zhao, President, National Council on Chinese
          Affairs
     (8)  Elaine Budd, Senior Legislative Advisor
     (9)  Laura Foote Reiff, Esq. Baker & McKenzie

     Recently, we have received many inquiries concerning the
status of the late-arriving dependents.  Many people are worried
and some are in despair facing different problems regarding the
CSPA implementation.  We requested the meeting because of
widespread confusion over the procedures applicable to late
arriving dependents applying for adjustment of status pursuant to
the CSPA and to once again voice our concerns over other issues
pertaining to the CSPA.  We asked at the beginning of the meeting
how many CSPA applications had been filed to date and were told
that almost 46,000 had been received in the four INS regional
offices.  This means that CSPA principals will most likely use the
entire surplus for this year in the employment based worldwide
quota.

1.   Maintenance of Lawful Status for Late Arriving Dependents

     During the month of August 1993, applications for adjustment
of status from late arriving dependents here in the U.S will be
accepted by the INS.  The question has arisen as to whether the
dependent whose status is derived from the principal (for example
F-2, J-2, H-4) would be allowed to file adjustment or would be
deemed to have fallen out of status.  If they are deemed as out of
status, they would not be able to adjust their status in the U.S.

     This is the first issue we raised at the meeting.  The INS
officials maintain that those principals with J-1, F-1 or H-1 filed
their CSPA applications after July 1 and therefore give up their
nonimmigrant status on the date of the filing.  Consequently, their
late-arriving dependents with derivative visa J-2, F-2 or H-4 would
have to be deemed as out of status according to current law.  INS
would have no jurisdiction to correct that.

     We disagreed and argued that (1) there is precedence of
President Bush's Executive Order to maintain legal status in the
DED program for those principals who came here before April 11,
1990; and (2) according to INA Section 245(c), the maintenance of
status requirement is not applicable to those individuals who
"through no fault of his own or for technical reasons" failed to
maintain his status.  We believe that both of these exceptions
apply to individuals who are derivative beneficiaries of CSPA
principal applicants.

     After a lengthy discussion, THE INS AGREED WITH OUR ARGUMENT
AND WILL BE ISSUING A CABLE TO THE LOCAL INS OFFICES TO INCLUDE
THIS POINT NEXT WEEK, namely to deem those late-arriving dependents
who would have legal status problem because of their principals
filed CSPA application as have maintained legal status for the
purposes of adjustment of status.

     However, the INS refused to extend this blanket interpretation
to those dependents who lost their derivative status because the
principal entered the Deferred Enforced Departure Program prior to
July 1, 1993.  This means for those principals with F-1, J-1 or H-1
visa but HAVE ENTERED THE DED PROGRAM PRIOR TO JULY 1 (and
therefore have lost their F-1, J-1 or H-1 status long ago), their
late-arriving dependents with F-2, J-2 or H-4 would still be deemed
as have fallen out of status and consequently not be able to adjust
their status.  We do not agree with this interpretation, and will
continue to work on it.

2.   When to File Late Arriving Dependent Applications

     As of August 1, 1993, the employment based 3rd preference
category for China where late arriving dependents have been
classified will be current.  For the entire month of August late
arriving dependents are eligible to file.

     However, this is different from the adjustment applications
made by principals who were filing early in order to establish a
priority date.  Dependents already have a priority date same as
their principal's.  It will have no difference if you file on
August 2 or late August.  The issuance of visas is not related to
the date of the dependent's filing, but is determined by the
priority date of the principal.  How early a dependent can obtain
an immigrant visa solely depends on whether her/his principal has
an early priority date.  As long as the application is filed in
August, the dependent will be a pending adjustment applicant.

     In addition, there are many people in the Chinese community
with earlier priority dates than CSPA principals and will receive
visa numbers first.  Anyone who has a priority date from October
1991 up to June 30, 1993 will also file for their adjustment
application and will be issued a visa before the CSPA dependent.
In this preference category there are approximately 2,500 visas per
year.  Therefore, chances are a dependent will not receive their
visa for many years.  Dependents will be pending adjustment
applicants and will be given employment authorization and limited
advance parole while their applications are pending.

     In addition, given the limited number of visas, it is highly
likely that the visa numbers will retrogress in September.  If this
occurs, dependents will not be able to file in September. (You can
only file adjustment application when your visa number is current).

     As stated above, we conclude the following now:

     (1) Late arriving dependents should file their adjustment
application in the month of August and to obtain the benefit as a
pending applicant.

     (2) The actual filing date of your application in August is
not as important as the filing date of the principal.  The
principal's priority date is the determining factor for the
dependent.

     (3) It is much more important to file correctly than to file
early in the month of August.  It is critical that your application
be filed correctly at the local INS office.  If not, it could be
rejected after the visa numbers are no longer current, and you will
miss the filing time window and not be able to correct the mistakes
and refile.

     (4) Soon INS will issue a cable to local offices nationwide
providing instructions for local officers and detailing the
requirements of the applications.  We strongly recommend that
dependents file their adjustment application after the INS cable
has issued.  This is especially true for those dependents who were
out of status prior to July 1 because their principal entered the
DED program.  Their cases would be more complicated and may not
have a simple way out yet.

3.   Dependents Should be Re-classified Outside of the Employment
     Based China Quota

     Many in the Chinese community have voiced concern about late-
arriving dependents taking visa numbers in the employment based
third preference category to the detriment of those Chinese
nationals who came after April 11, 1990.  This is exactly why we
worked so hard before the interim rule was issued before July 1 to
include these dependents under the worldwide quota.

     I have put this issue as an priority and took the lead to push
the Administration to include late-arriving dependents under the
worldwide quota before the interim rule was published.  Considering
the current political dynamics in the U.S., that was almost the
only chance for us to win on this issue.

     Unfortunately, our effort at the time encountered tremendous
amount of opposition within our own community.  Many principals
were anxious to file their application and could not be calm and
reasonable; some were selfish and only care about if they could be
in front of the line.  Among the opposition was also notably the
last term of IFCSS Headquarters.

     As a consequence of the split among our community at that
time, our concerns were not addressed in the interim rule.  Now I
am saddened to see that late-arriving dependents, students who came
here after April 11, 1990, and other Chinese nationals are forced
to compete with each other under this zero-sum game and fight among
ourselves for the very limited visa number under China quota.

     In spite of the fact that we missed the golden opportunity on
July 1 and the chance of winning on this issue now is very slim, we
still raised the issue at the meeting once again because we believe
it to be the best solution for all concerned.

     We argued from the legislative intent to cover the late-
arriving dependents under the worldwide quota.  We also argued that
because the principal beneficiaries are classified in the
employment based third preference category, and under normal
immigration circumstances, spouses and minor children of such
dependents would also be immediately eligible for immigrant visas,
at the same time the principal applicant receives his/her visa.
The INA at Section 203(d) provides authority for spouses and minor
children both in the U.S. and outside of the U.S. to obtain
permanent residents at the same time as the principal applicant.

     The INS did not give positive response but only indicated a
willingness to revisit this issue.


4.   Additional Dependent Issues

     We believe that those dependents who are under 21 at the date
the principal approval should be eligible to receive a visa even if
they are over 21 at the time a dependent visa is available.  INS
said they have no discretion on this issue under the statute.  As
a result, they encourage principals to file family based second
preference petitions as soon as their visa is approved.

     We also raised the issue of birth records for the dependents.
Under the CSPA the principals are allowed to use secondary evidence
of birth.  Under normal immigration procedures individuals are
required to have birth certificates.  If they can not obtain a
birth certificate they must show an official letter indicating that
the birth record is not obtainable.  CSPA interim rule has allowed
principles to use secondary evidence but that does not
automatically applicable to dependents.  We asked that this
requirement be waived for dependents as well.  The INS said they
would consider this.

     We asked about a waiver for dependents who have J-1 two year
foreign residence requirements.  The INS said that a blanket waiver
is not an option and that a J-1 visa holder would need to go
through normal waiver procedures through the U.S. Information
Agency.

5.   Voluntary Departure Program

     The INS has proposed a voluntary departure program for
dependents who are unable to maintain lawful status.  This program
would be implemented on a case by case basis at the discretion of
the local INS officials.  It is not a blanket program.  If
voluntary departure is not granted, the individual will be subject
to deportation proceedings.  If it is granted the individual will
be required to return to China to obtain an immigrant visa when the
visa number is current because, they will have failed to maintain
their status as required by INA section 245.  This is clearly
contrary to the underlying rationale of the CSPA, which seeks to
avoid sending Chinese nationals in the U.S. back to China.  Even if
an arrangement can be made to have applicants seeking for consular
processing in Canada or Mexico, the applicant would still be
subject to tremendous amount of hassle and high risk of not being
able to come back in.

     We have been opposed to the voluntary departure program from
the beginning, because it deems dependents as falling out of legal
status and requires dependents to leave the U.S. to obtain their
immigrant visas.  We still believe that a blanket family unity
program is in the best interest of the Chinese community, and, more
correctly would reflect the intent of the legislation.  We raised
this issue at the meeting and will continue to work on this issue
because the voluntary departure program is not acceptable.

     We also recommend dependents try to avoid entering the
voluntary departure program for the time being.

6.   90 Day Rule

     Much to our disappointment, the INS said the Attorney General
has no statutory discretion to waive the 90 day rule.  We do not
agree.  In fact, the statute is silent with respect to the
discretion of the INS to waive the 90 day restriction for just
cause.  Certainly, where returning students and scholars were
detained in China by the PRC government or otherwise precluded from
leaving China by, for example, the denial of an exit visa, the
granting of a waiver would be completely in line with the spirit of
the CSPA.  Moreover, waivers for individuals whose departures from
China were delayed by family or medical emergencies would be
justified on humanitarian grounds.  We will continue to push the
administration to recognize that the Attorney General can waive the
90 day rule.


     As to the implementation of CSPA, we have accomplished a great
deal.  However, there are still a lot of concerns and problems
remain to be resolved.  Whoever saying the results are final and
what we get is what we get is not being responsible.  We will
continue to work on improving the implementation policies for CSPA,
such as 90 day rule, dependent status, family unity program.  We
will also push on the quota issue of late-arriving dependents,
particularly to have them covered under the worldwide quota so that
they can adjust status quickly and at the same time not to
jeopardize the opportunities for other Chinese nationals.

     There are many people who have expressed their concerns and
suggestions on a variety of issues related to CSPA implementation.
We would like to hear those concerns.  There are also many people
who have asked how they can contribute financially to our effort to
lobby on CSPA related issues.  For suggestions, concerns, or
contributions, please send to:

     National Council on Chinese Affairs
     P.O. Box 77418
     Washington, D.C. 20013-7418

     For further information concerning late-arriving dependents,
you may call (202) 835-1880

/end





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


          SOME DERIVATIVE NONIMMIGRANT STATUS ISSUE SOLVED


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


          DATE:     August 2, 1993

          TO:       Chinese Nationals Nationwide

          FROM:     Dr. Haiching Zhao



     As a result of our meeting with INS officials last Friday, the
INS has today released a cable to local INS offices saying that
late arriving dependents who lost status because their principal
filed on or after July 1 for the CSPA will be considered to have
maintained lawful status for the purpose of filing adjustment
applications.

     This means that those people who get their status as a result
of their spouse or parent (such as F-2, J-2 or H-4) will be able to
file for adjustment at local INS offices during the month of
August.

     Specifically, the INS cable says:

     Family members must be in lawful immigration status at
     the time of filing, may not have been employed without
     authorization, must have continuously maintained lawful
     immigration status, and meet all other applicable
     requirements.  An applicant with derivative nonimmigrant
     status (such as F-2 or J-2) will not be considered to
     have failed to maintain lawful immigration status for the
     purposes of Section 245(c) of the Act solely because the
     principal alien properly filed a CSPA adjustment of
     status application.

     As a result, derivative spouses and children who lost lawful
status only because their principal filed for adjustment can now
apply for adjustment.  However, you should check with your local
INS office to determine is you need a statement with regard to this
issue to be included with your application.

     It is important to know that how early you get your green card
depends on how early your priority date is.  Dependents priority
date is established as the date your principal filed their CSPA
application not the date that you file.  There is therefore no rush
to file your application as soon as possible.  However, you must
file during the month of August.  In September, it is expected that
the "window" for dependents to file will close.  The reason is that
anyone with a priority date after October 1991 will be filing.
This will cause the employment based category to once again backlog
and retrogress back to earlier dates.


     While it is not important when you file in August, it is
important to make sure your application is done accurately.  You do
not want to do anything that will cause your applications to be
rejected.  If it is rejected after the August window closes, you
will not be able to file it again until your priority date once
again becomes current and that may be many years from now.

     In addition, it is important for dependents to file during
August if eligible because you will have a pending adjustment
application and will therefore be eligible for work authorization
and advance parole.  You also will not have to enter voluntary
departure.

     There are still problems which we are continuing to work on.
The most important issue is that CSPA beneficiaries have been
denied access to normal immigration practice which allows spouses
and minor children to become immediately eligible for immigrant
visas at the same time the principal applicant receives her or her
visa under the worldwide quota.  This is called "accompanying" or
"following to join" or the 203(d) problem.  The Administration has
failed to follow the dictate of the law in regard to this issue and
we are continuing to provide, through our lawyers, legal analysis
of this situation.  This is the key of all the problems.  If this
is solved, it will solve the dependent issue as well as not to hurt
students who came here after April 11, 1990.

     There is also the problem of the dependents of those CSPA
principals that previously entered the DED program.  The INS states
that this is not a "technical or no fault of their own problem" and
insists that those derivative dependents have not maintained lawful
status.  This is still a serious problem and we are doing
everything we can to solve it.

     Finally, the INS has said that they will not provide any
waiver of the 90 day rule.  This is unfair and some review of
exceptional cases relating to medical emergencies and involuntary
detention should be allowed.  We will continue to work on
correcting this problem.

________________________________________________________________

     There are many people who have expressed their concerns and
suggestions on a variety of issues related to CSPA implementation.
We would like to hear those concerns.  There are also many people
who have asked how they can contribute financially to our effort to
lobby on CSPA related issues.  For suggestions, concerns, or
contributions, please send to:

     National Council on Chinese Affairs
     P.O. Box 77418
     Washington, D.C. 20013-7418

     For further information concerning late-arriving dependents,
you may call (202) 835-1880

/end




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


               THE CONTENT OF INS CABLE


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


          DATE:     August 2, 1993

          TO:       Chinese Nationals Nationwide

          FROM:     Dr. Haiching Zhao


     The following is the INS cable sent out today by INS central
to local offices nationwide.  We enclosed it here for your
reference.


_________________________________________________________________

USINS

AUG 2, 1993



Re:  Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 (CSPA)

This is CSPA Wire #4.  (CSPA Wire #3 has been delayed and may be
received after CSPA Wire #4.)

1.  Clarification of interview criteria contained in memorandum of
July 14, 1993, HQ 739. 3-C:

In a memorandum dated July 14, 1993, from the office of
examinations with service-wide dissemination, it was stated that
all CSPA adjustment of status applications filed by persons who had
not applied for deferred enforced departure (DED) should be
referred by the service centers to the local offices for interview.
This statement was not (repeat not) correct.  CSPA adjustment of
status applications will not (repeat not) be deferred for interview
solely because the Applicant has not applied for DED.

The correct statement is:  CSPA adjustment of status applications
filed by persons who clearly failed to maintain lawful immigration
status prior to October 9, 1992 (Enactment of CSPA), and who have
not established that they applied for deferred enforced departure
(DED) or other Executive Order 12711 benefits should be referred by
the service centers to the local offices for interview.

2.  Spouses and children filing for adjustment of status as
accompanying of following to join derivative family members:

The Chinese Student Protection Act (CSPA) provides no direct
benefits for spouses and children of principal applicants, if the
family member is unable to meet this requirements of the CSPA.
However, Section 203 (d) of the INA provides that a spouse or child
as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of Section
101 (b) (1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status
and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or
(c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of
consideration provided in the respective subsection, if
accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent CSPA
beneficiaries adjust status under the third employment-based
skilled worker category.  Therefore, derivative spouses and
children who do not meet the CSPA requirements may apply for
adjustment of status or immigrant visa issuance under the third
employment-based skilled worker category as accompanying or
following to join derivative family members when the CSPA
principal's priority is reached and a visa number becomes
immediately available for the family member.

Immigrant visa numbers will be current or immediately available
during August 1993 for all persons under the third employment-based
skilled worker classification, except those who must be charged to
the philippine per-country quota.  Therefore, all eligible spouses
and children of CSPA applicants may apply for derivative adjustment
of status during August 1993.

Note that the special waivers and benefits provided under the CSPA
have not (repeat not) been made available to derivative spouses and
children who are applying for adjustment of status under the
derivative third employment-based skilled worker classification.
This means that these family members must meet all the usual
adjustment of status requirements applicable to derivative
employment-based preference aliens, including the provisions of
Section 245(c) of the Act.  These family members must be in lawful
immigration status at the time of filing, may not have been
employed without authorization, must have continuously maintained
lawful immigration status, and meet all other applicable
requirements.  An applicant with derivative nonimmigrant status
(such as F-2 or J-2 status) will not be considered to have failed
to maintain lawful immigration status for the purposes of section
245 (c) of the Act solely because the principal alien properly
filed a CSPA adjustment of status application.

Eligible derivative family members may apply for adjustment of
status by filing the usual form I-485 and related forms at the
local service office having jurisdiction over the applicant's place
of residence.  (These applications are not to be accepted at the
service centers.)  They must also present a copy of the service
center issued receipt (Form I-797) showing that the CSPA
principal's application for CSPA adjustment of status has been
accepted for processing at the service center and evidence of the
relationship to the CSPA principal.  Eligible derivative family
members may apply for adjustment of status even though the CSPA
principal's adjustment application has not been approved.  The
local office may, if it appears necessary, verify the validity of
the receipt by accessing claims, fares, CIS, and/or the service
center's tiers system.  Required evidence of relationship would be
the same as that required of any other derivative adjustment
application, i.e. documentation of birth, marriage, divorce, death,
adoption, etc.

     The class of adjustment codes for these family members are E3-
9 for spouses and E3-0 for children.  The priority data is the
principal's CSPA priority date.

     Note: although derivative adjustment applications may be
accepted based upon a showing that the principal has a pending CSPA
adjustment application, adjustment applications filed by derivative
spouses and children may not be approved until after the CSPA
principal's status has been adjusted.


     Signed

     JAMES A. PULEO

     ACTING EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR OPERATIONS, INS

_________________________________________________________________



     There are many people who have expressed their concerns and
suggestions on a variety of issues related to CSPA implementation.
We would like to hear those concerns.  There are also many people
who have asked how they can contribute financially to our effort to
lobby on CSPA related issues.  For suggestions, concerns, or
contributions, please send to:

     National Council on Chinese Affairs
     P.O. Box 77418
     Washington, D.C. 20013-7418

     For further information concerning late-arriving dependents,
you may call (202) 835-1880

/end

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May  1 21:56:35 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06459); Sun, 1 May 94 21:56:35 CDT
Date: Sun, 1 May 94 21:56:35 CDT
Message-Id: <199405020256.UAA10579@spot.Colorado.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xiao@spot.colorado.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: XIAO YANG <xiao@spot.colorado.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: questions
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

As a "late-comer" of this net, I would like to get some help from
knowledgable persons. Here are questions:

1) if a CSPA'er gets married back in China, which waiting-list his spouse
will be in, 2A or EB3 (can his spouse be considered lads?). 

2) if his spouse comes here with F-1 visa and gets married here, again
can his spouse be considered as lads?

3) the same as 2), but comes here with a B1 visa, gets married and 
files for GC as lads before the B1 visa expires. Is this feasible?

Thanks.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May  1 22:23:48 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06545); Sun, 1 May 94 22:23:48 CDT
Date: Sun, 1 May 94 22:23:48 CDT
Message-Id: <Ehl76ce00iUvA8Glw4@andrew.cmu.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: zs05+@andrew.cmu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Zhen-Yu Sun <zs05+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Fwd: A Home-Visiting Chinese Student Died in Shanghai Hospital
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, this may not be the appropriate group to post this message. My
appology first.
Since this kind of incidence may happen to any of us, we should let
people, as many as possible, be informed, and be concerned. Thank you.

--------------------- Forwarded message starts here ---------------------
Title: A Home-Visiting Chinese Student Died in Shanghai Hospital

ZHAO Hua, a fellow Chinese student studying at University of Wisconsin
at Madison, flew home with his wife excited to visit his in-laws in
Beijing and his parents in Shanghai on Dec. 26, 1993. But he never made
the trip back to continue his Ph.D study. He passed away suddenly on
Jan. 20 in Shanghai due to the flagrant negligence of some medical
doctors in Huashan Hospital. The following is a summary of events that
led up to Hua's death.

During his first week of stay in Beijing, Hua was prescribed some
medicine for a dental ailment. He noticed that after a few days the
medicine caused his gums to bleed but was not alarmed since he was in
good spirits and felt fine. After traveling to Shanghai he noticed
that he had blood in his urine and possible internal bleeding. He was
sent to Huashan hospital on Jan. 13 to have the symptoms examined and
was diagnosed as being allergic to the medicine he was prescribed. He
was advised to come back to the hospital for a blood test on Jan. 18.
Again, the prognosis was that he was having an allergic reaction to
the prescription medicine. He was assured not to worry.

On Jan. 19, his condition deteriorated significantly. When taken to the
hospital, he was found to have an extremely low blood platelet count.
At this critical moment, he was denied to stay in the hospital's
emergency care room for the night even though there were still two
beds open in the room. Under the sympathy of a nurse, his mother
fetched a bed from home and set it up in a corner of the emergency
room.  Next morning around 8:30AM, Hua started to have severe
headaches.  Until 11:00AM, the hospital finally allocated a bed for
Hua, but no one was sure which bed it was and Hua ended on the ground
for some time until the bed situation was resolved. From 8:30AM to
12:30PM, his mother sent for doctors eight times, but they responded
only three times.  In one instance, a doctor came and looked at Hua
briefly. Then he asked if Hua could see clearly and left. In another
occasion, a doctor told Hua to relax and take it easy. One doctor even
criticized Hua's mother being too paranoid and said that panic would
affect the Hua's spirit outside of the patient's room.

At 10:45AM, Hua couldn't speak any more. It was around 12:30PM that
the doctors began to start their job. But before administrating the
medical procedures, the doctors insisted on full payment, no matter
how hard Hua's mother tried to convince them that money was on the
way. Valuable time was lost.

At a critical time, Hua needed an infusion of blood platelets. The
doctors said that they were out in storage in hospital. Hua's family
was asked to find them on its own. When Hua's mother finally arranged
to get the platelets from another hospital, the doctors didn't even
make a phone call to complete the requesting procedure. Actually Hua's
mother was told later by staffs in the blood storage center in Huashan
that they were ready to make blood platelets at that time.  In all the
chaos, when finally Hua's parents-in-law brought four boxes of blood
platelets and flew in from Beijing, Hua had already passed away at
4:50PM. The hospital claimed the official cause of death was M2a acute
leukemia. However, the family found on Jan. 19, a doctor made changes
on Hua's Jan. 18 medical records.

In the aftermath, Huashan held two meetings concerning this incident.
In the first meeting, they admitted in making some small mistakes in
treating the patient. But in the second meeting, they disavowed any
wrongdoing and responsibility.

Until now, Hua's family still cannot go back to its normal life. Hua's
80-year-old grandmother, who was so glad to see her grandson coming
back from far away, could not take in this tragedy and got sick in
bed.  Hua's wife, also a student at University of Wisconsin, has to
delay her study and stay at home taking care of family matters.  Hua's
mother, a strong woman who hasn't recovered from the great pains of
losing her son, was fighting an up-hill battle to see the justice
served.  But Shanghai Medical School, the management party of Huashan
Hospital, is delaying an overdue investigation. Hua's former working
unit refused to represent Hua because he was an overseas student. The
help-me phone calls the mother made to a local radio station were
disconnected every time without a reply.

This incident really shocked us who know Hua well from college. He was
known to be in very good health and was the sports minister in his
department student organization. He is survived by his wife, his
parents and two 80-year-old grandmothers. His college classmates are
all very upset by this unfortunate incident and intend to help his
family to fight for his justice.

This tragedy is not only a tragedy of Hua and his family, but also is
a tragedy of all overseas Chinese students as a whole. Not crying out
loud now, we will see this happen again and again.  We don't think
that an overseas student should be treated like this in his/her
homeland. We don't think a patient in need should be delayed medical
treatment because of money.  We believe the doctors and administrators
of Huashan hospital should take their responsibilities for any
wrongdoing.

We drafted a letter to be sent to the Chinese media, proper ministries
and People's Representatives to ask for a thorough and fair
investigation and to identify the responsible parties. We included the
appeal letter at the end of this report. WE ASK WHOEVER IS CONCERNED
TO CO-SIGN THIS LETTER WITH US. YOU CAN SEND YOUR NAME TO
peterx@zabriskie.eecs.berkeley.edu

For more information, refer to
"ftp://swordfish.berkeley.edu/pub/fudan85.html" in your mosaic tool.

We have set up a memorial fund to raise money for Hua's family and to
prepare for a legal action if necessary. Any caring individual can
send check to

Qing Ke (Coordinator of Zhao Hua's memorial fund)
Dept. of Electrical Engineering 
Hopeman Hall 
University of Rochester 
Rochester, NY 14627
email qike@ee.rochester.edu

Thank you for your attention and support. Let's make a difference and
prevent such an unfortunate incident from occurring again.

In memory of Zhao,Hua

--a group of friends of Zhao,Hua
fudan85@swordfish.eecs.berkeley.edu
April 12, 1994

====================A Short Resume of Hua Zhao======================


Hua was born in Shanghai on July 19, 1967. After he graduated from
Fudan Affiliated Middle School in 1985, he went on to study at the
physics department in Fudan University. He graduated in 1989 and went
to East China Institute of Theoretical Physics as a research
assistant. (The Institute is affiliated to East China University of
Chemical Engineering.) Then, one year later in 1990, he came to
America and went to Montana State University in Bozeman, Montana as a
graduate student in Physics. In 1992, he started his Ph.D study and
research in the Biophysics Department at University of Wisconsin at
Madison.


====================Start of the petition letter======================

To whom it may concern,

We are writing to you concerning the death of Hua Zhao during his home
visiting trip in January 1994.

Hua Zhao was a Chinese student studying at the University of Wisconsin
at Madison. He went back to China visiting his parents at the end of
December, 1993. He passed away on January 20, 1994 in Huashan Hospital
in Shanghai.

This news shocked many of us who knew Hua well before and could hardly
believe a young and fulfilling life could end so suddenly.  More to
our surprise, sorrow and anger, we learned later from Hua's family
that some doctors in Huashan Hospital were totally irresponsible at
their job and they were the direct cause of this tragedy. They made
one mistake after another in the rescue process. Hua was denied to
stay in the emergency care room for observation the night before his
death when he was in critical condition already.  The next morning,
valuable time was lost when some doctors insisted on full payment
before they could start their medical procedures, even though Hua's
mother repeatedly promised them that money was on its way. At another
crucial moment, when Hua needed an infusion of blood platelets, the
doctors said that the platelets were out in storage and the family was
asked to find them by its own. When Hua's mother eventually found the
platelets in another hospital, the doctors didn't even make a phone
call to complete the requesting procedure. Actually Hua's mother was
told later by staffs in the blood storage center in Huashan that they
were ready to make blood platelets at that time.  When finally Hua's
parents-in-law brought four boxes of blood platelets and flew in from
Beijing, Hua had already passed away ...

A doctor was even seen to be changing Hua's medical records on Jan. 19.

After this tragedy, Huashan first admitted making a few small
mistakes. But later it completely denied any wrongdoing and
irresponsibility in the whole procedure.

Until now, Hua's family still cannot go back to its normal life. Hua's
80-year-old grandmother, who was so glad to see her grandson coming
back to visit from far away, could not take in this tragedy and got
sick in bed. hua's wife, also a student of University of Wisconsin,
went back with Hua. She lost her husband and now has to delay her
study and stay at home for a semester to take care of family matters.
Hua's mother, a strong woman, who still hasn't recovered from the
great pains of losing his son, has been fighting an up-hill battle to
see the justice served. But she has encountered enormous difficulties.
Shanghai Medical School, the management party of Huashan Hospital is
delaying a overdue investigation. Hua's former working unit refused to
represent Hua because he was an overseas student. The help-me phone
calls the mother made to a local radio station were disconnected every
time without a reply.

We think what happened to Hua and his family is completely
contradictory to the government policy of encouraging overseas
students coming back to visit, stay and work. It is also inconsistent
with the policy of respecting knowledge and intellectuals. In order to
prevent incidents like this from occurring again and to save all the
patients who can be saved, we firmly urge you start a thorough and
comprehensive investigation immediately and draw a clear and fair
conclusion for Hua's family.  Your prompt action will show the
sincerity to welcome overseas students back to China.

Hua's death is a great loss to his family, his friends and his
country. His tragedy is not only of his own, but is of all.

He is always going to be remembered by us.


Signed by 

Guanlong Chen 	U. of Purdue		guanlong@ecn.purdue.edu
Fei Deng 	UC San Diego		fdeng@ucsd.edu
Fang Dong 	U. of Ohio		fdong@helios.phy.ohiou.edu
Yitong Gu  	U. of Dartmouth		Yitong.Gu@dartmouth.edu
Qing Ke 	U. of Rochester		qike@ee.rochester.edu
Zhen Hu		Caltech			huz@punisher.caltech.edu
Jianfeng Ma				JIANMA%UMAB.BITNET@cmsa.Berkeley.EDU
Jun Mao 	U. of Leicester		oam@leicester.ac.uk
Youbin Mao 				youbin@hotwater.stmi.com
Yuan Ren 	U. of Mass.		yren@deimos.ucs.umass.edu
Bing D. Su 	U. of Virginia		bs7m@virginia.edu
Ye Sun		USC			ysun@physics.usc.edu
Zhen-Yu Sun 	CMU			zs05+@andrew.cmu.edu
Jane Wang 	U. of Chicago		jw@control.uchicago.edu
Peter Xiao 	UC Berkeley		peterx@zabriskie.berkeley.edu
Lixin Yan 	U. of Michigan		yan@server.physics.lsa.umich.edu
Jihui Yang 	Wayne U.		jihuiy@rocdec.roc.wayne.edu 
Kun Yang 	U. of Indiana		kyang@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
Weidong Yang 	U. of Oregon		wdyang@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu
Hong Yu 	Montana	State U.	uphglhy@gemini.oscs.montana.edu	
Jun Zang 	CUNY			jzang@scisun.sci.ccny.cuny.edu
Donghui Zhang 	NYU			zhangd@acf2.nyu.edu
Yuanhan Zhang 	U. of Missourri		syzhang@slvaxa.umsl.edu
Jiangwen Zhu	U. of Wisconsin		jwzhu@biochem.wisc.edu


April 12, 1994



From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May  2 08:32:26 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06859); Mon, 2 May 94 08:32:26 CDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 94 08:32:26 CDT
Message-Id: <01HBUVBJRQM299DJ2K@WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: HXYUE@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: HXYUE@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: lad interview and the transcript
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi there!

My lad is going to take the interview tomorrow.  The interview notice said
that I should prove my continous lawful status.  One of the decumentations
I should take with me is my transcript.  But, when I came to the US, almost
one third of the first semester has passed, so the forging student advisor
agreed to let me register only one class (3 credit). I don't have any 
evidence that shows the advisor's agreement.  My question is if the INS 
officer will concern about this. If so, how I should handle it properly.
Your info, expierence or sugestion will be highly appreciated.
Thank you.

Lee

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May  2 10:08:44 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07071); Mon, 2 May 94 10:08:44 CDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 94 10:08:44 CDT
Message-Id: <9405021508.AA07061@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: CAXHC@cunyvm.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: cao <CAXHC@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject:      change address
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

A PROBLEM  I HAVE FACED NOW IS THAT I AM GOING TO MOVE, BUT I HAVE LADS WITH ME
.
I HAVE FILED I-485 LAST AUG. FOR MY LAD BUT NOT GET ANY RESPONSE YET. DOES ANY
ONE HAPPEN TO KNOW HOW TO INFORM NY CITY INS OFFICE?
IS THERE AN OFFICIAL FORM  FOR THIS KIND SITUATION? OR JUST WRITE A LETTER TO I
NS OFFICE? IF SO WHICH DEPARTMENT(OFFICE)?
ANY ANSWER WILL BE HIGHLY APPRICIATED.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May  2 15:04:15 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07356); Mon, 2 May 94 15:04:15 CDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 94 15:04:15 CDT
Message-Id: <01HBV95V2ZUQ99DLFL@WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: HXYUE@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: HXYUE@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: INS cable #4:lads' status
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi there!

I found the INS wire #4, which is about the J-2, F-2's status
after their CSPA principles filed the PR applications with INS.
Let's share it.


LX


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


          DATE:     August 2, 1993

          TO:       Chinese Nationals Nationwide

          FROM:     Dr. Haiching Zhao


     The following is the INS cable sent out today by INS central
to local offices nationwide.  We enclosed it here for your
reference.


_________________________________________________________________

USINS

AUG 2, 1993



Re:  Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992 (CSPA)

This is CSPA Wire #4.  (CSPA Wire #3 has been delayed and may be
received after CSPA Wire #4.)

1.  Clarification of interview criteria contained in memorandum of
July 14, 1993, HQ 739. 3-C:

In a memorandum dated July 14, 1993, from the office of
examinations with service-wide dissemination, it was stated that
all CSPA adjustment of status applications filed by persons who had
not applied for deferred enforced departure (DED) should be
referred by the service centers to the local offices for interview.
This statement was not (repeat not) correct.  CSPA adjustment of
status applications will not (repeat not) be deferred for interview
solely because the Applicant has not applied for DED.

The correct statement is:  CSPA adjustment of status applications
filed by persons who clearly failed to maintain lawful immigration
status prior to October 9, 1992 (Enactment of CSPA), and who have
not established that they applied for deferred enforced departure
(DED) or other Executive Order 12711 benefits should be referred by
the service centers to the local offices for interview.

2.  Spouses and children filing for adjustment of status as
accompanying of following to join derivative family members:

The Chinese Student Protection Act (CSPA) provides no direct
benefits for spouses and children of principal applicants, if the
family member is unable to meet this requirements of the CSPA.
However, Section 203 (d) of the INA provides that a spouse or child
as defined in subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D), or (E) of Section
101 (b) (1) shall, if not otherwise entitled to an immigrant status
and the immediate issuance of a visa under subsection (a), (b), or
(c), be entitled to the same status, and the same order of
consideration provided in the respective subsection, if
accompanying or following to join, the spouse or parent CSPA
beneficiaries adjust status under the third employment-based
skilled worker category.  Therefore, derivative spouses and
children who do not meet the CSPA requirements may apply for
adjustment of status or immigrant visa issuance under the third
employment-based skilled worker category as accompanying or
following to join derivative family members when the CSPA
principal's priority is reached and a visa number becomes
immediately available for the family member.

Immigrant visa numbers will be current or immediately available
during August 1993 for all persons under the third employment-based
skilled worker classification, except those who must be charged to
the philippine per-country quota.  Therefore, all eligible spouses
and children of CSPA applicants may apply for derivative adjustment
of status during August 1993.

Note that the special waivers and benefits provided under the CSPA
have not (repeat not) been made available to derivative spouses and
children who are applying for adjustment of status under the
derivative third employment-based skilled worker classification.
This means that these family members must meet all the usual
adjustment of status requirements applicable to derivative
employment-based preference aliens, including the provisions of
Section 245(c) of the Act.  These family members must be in lawful
immigration status at the time of filing, may not have been
employed without authorization, must have continuously maintained
lawful immigration status, and meet all other applicable
requirements.  An applicant with derivative nonimmigrant status       <<<<
(such as F-2 or J-2 status) will not be considered to have failed     <<<<
to maintain lawful immigration status for the purposes of section     <<<<
245 (c) of the Act solely because the principal alien properly        <<<<
filed a CSPA adjustment of status application.                        <<<<

Eligible derivative family members may apply for adjustment of
status by filing the usual form I-485 and related forms at the
local service office having jurisdiction over the applicant's place
of residence.  (These applications are not to be accepted at the
service centers.)  They must also present a copy of the service
center issued receipt (Form I-797) showing that the CSPA
principal's application for CSPA adjustment of status has been
accepted for processing at the service center and evidence of the
relationship to the CSPA principal.  Eligible derivative family
members may apply for adjustment of status even though the CSPA
principal's adjustment application has not been approved.  The
local office may, if it appears necessary, verify the validity of
the receipt by accessing claims, fares, CIS, and/or the service
center's tiers system.  Required evidence of relationship would be
the same as that required of any other derivative adjustment
application, i.e. documentation of birth, marriage, divorce, death,
adoption, etc.

     The class of adjustment codes for these family members are E3-
9 for spouses and E3-0 for children.  The priority data is the
principal's CSPA priority date.

     Note: although derivative adjustment applications may be
accepted based upon a showing that the principal has a pending CSPA
adjustment application, adjustment applications filed by derivative
spouses and children may not be approved until after the CSPA
principal's status has been adjusted.


     Signed

     JAMES A. PULEO

     ACTING EXECUTIVE ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR OPERATIONS, INS






From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May  2 15:16:49 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07401); Mon, 2 May 94 15:16:49 CDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 94 15:16:49 CDT
Message-Id: <9405021959.AA15244@jaguar.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: renjian@tiger
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: renjian@tiger (Renjian Lu)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: help
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi there,

A freind of mine asked me to forward this message to seek for advice.
Please reply to the net or to my account.

He got his GC in 2/92 in EC-3.  He managed to have his girl friend to 
come to U.S. in 3/93 with an F-1 status, which was lost later due to the
birth of a baby.  Now he is thinking of marrying and applying for PR for 
her, how would he be able to do that?  Specifically, the following 
questions may arise:

Does it matter when the marriage is estiblished?
If they marry now, can she derive the same priority date of 2/92?
Should she go by EC-3 or Family-based catagory?
....?

Thankx for your time.

RL


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May  2 16:09:54 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07555); Mon, 2 May 94 16:09:54 CDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 94 16:09:54 CDT
Message-Id: <01HBVBAYTY2E8WZD6K@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: PHILL MAHH <PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 21 yr-older's
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

	I saw a message concerning lads who are 21 yr or older, and have
been denied for status adjustment. Unfortunately, I didn't save it. Now I 
am desperately needing some info becasue my sister has just been denied for
the same reason. 
	I remmembered that the same happenned to some people like her, but
were they ordered to leave US, or were they granted DED(deffered departure)?
I thank the netters whoever can provide any info., in advance. Any advise 
will be appreciated.					
						FM.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May  2 23:38:58 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07802); Mon, 2 May 94 23:38:58 CDT
Date: Mon, 2 May 94 23:38:58 CDT
Message-Id: <9405030438.AA07792@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: C492347@mizzou1.missouri.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "b" <C492347@mizzou1.missouri.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LAD's interview
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Dear Netters: I am writing to ask your kind help about a problem in LADs
  interview. I am a CSPA principal with a F-1 visa before I file my PR.  I have
  two LADs with J-1 (My husband) and J-2 (my daughter) visas. My hushand's PR
  application was rejected due to no 2-year waiver letter. But my daughter's PR
  application was accepted in Aug. 1993. Now my daughter got her interview
  notice. One of the items she has to bring to the interview is the 2-year
  waiver letter. Although my husband's 2-year waiver is processing, they have
 not got it yet. We were told the processing will take time. My question is:
  1) Should my daughter go to interview ever short of the 2-year waiver letter?
  2) Or should she ask for postponing the interview and give the real reason of
    short of the 2-year waiver letter at present, and tell INS the waiver is
    processing?
  3) Will her status adjustment be denied due to short the 2-year waiver letter
   at the interview or due to ask for postponing her interview?
  4) What she can do to avoid any denials?
    Any advise, experience, suggestion, comments about this matter will be
 appreciated.         5/2/94 11:40pm

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Wed May  4 08:11:12 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA08364); Wed, 4 May 94 08:11:12 CDT
Date: Wed, 4 May 94 08:11:12 CDT
Message-Id: <9405041310.AA08975@med2s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@med2s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@med2s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (Mi Mi)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: [FEI@bnldag.ags.bnl.gov: Please support PSR activities, read p2-talk for news.]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 




Hi, dear lads-l netters:

This is Mi Mi Sr. from his retirement life. I just got an e-mail concerning
the family reunion program. For you guys who might be interested in this
program and its progress, please read the message below. 

Best wishes, and thank you all very much for your appreciation messages.
I wish I could reply to you individually, and I wish I could have done more
for our lads. My heart always goes with you!

I will keep you informed whenever there is a chance.

Best wishes for all the lads  under sun, and wish all of you get GC superfast!

Love,

Mi Mi Sr.

=================message followed=================================
Date: Tue, 03 May 1994 17:37:21 -0400 (EDT)
>From: FEI@bnldag.ags.bnl.gov
Subject: Please support PSR activities, read p2-talk for news.
To: FEI@bnldag.ags.bnl.gov, XIOSHAA%YALEVM.BITNET@bnldag.ags.bnl.gov,
        G_WU%YALPH2.BITNET@bnldag.ags.bnl.gov,
        ZHANG%CLIMAT@biomed.med.yale.edu, HUA7291@xld2c2.engr.ccny.cuny.edu,
        wliu@lampf.lanl.gov, WANG@pluto.ee.cua.edu,
        PA137608%UTKVM1.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu, YFANG@uccs.edu,
        Hli@ssnet.weber.edu, gy5@unix.cie.rpi.edu, LYAO@gems.vcu.edu,
        LINALA@rdxsun64.aud.alcatel.com, MURU.PALANIAPPAN@aldus.com,
        A5QQC@qcunix.acc.qc.edu, WLU@aris.ss.uci.edu, GFENG@isis.ps.uci.edu,
        PRASAD@icpsrv.enet.dec.com, SLU@asl.dl.nec.com, KMAO@ac5.aceng.com,
        EDDY.SUMARDY@eng.sun.com, BEAN@cs.hamptonu.edu, SONNY@fcca.csi.com,
        ZHANG@cel.cummins.com, XIANGJS@lldmpc.dnet.dupont.com,
        JHLIU@pcocd2.intel.com, QKONG@eagle.wesleyan.edu, YIT@ccsmtp.ccf.org,
        ZYIN@geohub.gcn.uoknor.edu, KRZYS@cims.nyu.edu, SHI@cs.odu.edu,
        FFZM@aurora.alaska.edu, KAI@argon.eecs.berkeley.edu,
        REN@math.berkeley.edu, NCUBE@netcom.com, JFENG@cco.caltech.edu,
        huz@cco.caltech.edu, tang@stanclinpharm.stanford.edu,
        EZ031806@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu, wen@riscy.ucsb.edu, ccPOE@cisco.com,
        SONG@seismo.gps.caltech.edu, YUCAO@thor.srl.caltech.edu,
        YHZHANG@cs.ucsb.edu, LIN@brivs2.bartol.udel.edu, JOE.ZHOU@mvs.udel.edu,
        BINLI@chaos.ocean.fsu.edu, SFENG@cc.gatech.edu,
        YLIU%UHUNIX.BITNET@bnldag.ags.bnl.gov, XDG8661@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu,
        YZG2636@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu, BZOU@fnalv.fnal.gov, ZHOU@math.uiowa.edu,
        WHAN@math.uiowa.edu, WANG@math.ukans.edu, FAN@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu,
        renzhi@ksu.ksu.edu, GY@ksu.ksu.edu, JXL43@po.cwru.edu,
        G1414@vmcms.csuohio.edu, JLI@cps.udayton.edu,
        liawang@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu, leanne@skinner.cs.uoregon.edu,
        RJIN@vms.cis.pitt.edu, MIAO@eng.umd.edu, SHANKAO@src.umd.edu,
        WLIN@glue.umd.edu, JINWU@cmt.harvard.edu, HXU1@husc.harvard.edu,
        TAN%AURORA@gte.com, LIU_Y@rapier.tch.harvard.edu,
        PENGLIU@vx.cis.umn.edu, GONG@welby.dartmouth.edu,
        CHS%SUMMIT.DNET@pharma.ussu.ciba.com, YCHEN@math.princeton.edu,
        SGO@cornella.cit.cornell.edu, SASNANI@libserv1.ic.sunysb.edu,
        WHZ@med.unc.edu, ST403071@brownvm.brown.edu, JINDANIS@gvsu.edu,
        FRANK@awi.knox.tn.us, qyang@stein2.u.washington.edu, ZHU@chem.wisc.edu,
        LU@uwast.astro.wisc.edu
X-Vms-To: @FAMILY.MAIL
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT


Dear friends,

>From now on, please read p2-talk for news concerning family reunion issues
and act/help accordingly. Please send the following simple request to
	p2-new@dopey.msd.anl.gov :
	Subscribe p2-talk Firstname Lastname

You will be getting news automatically. Even though many of you read
p2 talk regularly, I attach a sample of news (p2-talk digest 29) for others
who have not subscribed it. Please do whatever you can to support/help
PSR activities.

This e-mail address will not be served for PSR issues in the future since
we have another efficient place to hear and voice our concerns. There are
85 names in my list, mainly Chinese nationals. Thank you very much for your
support.

Fei

May 3, 1994


******************************************************************************
			    P2-TALK Digest 29

Topics covered in this issue include:

  1) 
	by krishna@ramanujan.chem.nyu.edu (M. V. Ramakrishna)
  2) no short term relief
	by Vimal Solanki <vimal@ans.net>
  3) BE AWARE! People going on H1 from GC!
	by dnl@infinite.Corp.Sun.COM (Dinesh Dnl)
  4) Draft of letter to India Abroad, comments invited
	by "VISH RAMAMURTHY, DTN : 297-3390" <vish@iceflo.enet.dec.com>
  5) Re: BE AWARE! People going on H1 from GC!
	by SDAS@SC9.intel.com
  6) Anyone in DC with computer running Unix ?
	by Vimal Solanki <vimal@ans.net>
  7) Re: Need some info.
	by Satish Karra <skarra@cosmos.gmu.edu>

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Topic No. 1

Date: Sun, 1 May 1994 23:05:59 -0400
>From: krishna@ramanujan.chem.nyu.edu (M. V. Ramakrishna)
To: p2-talk@dopey.msd.anl.gov
Message-ID: <9405020305.AA19741@ramanujan.chem.nyu.edu>

Dear PSR:

1) Is there a shortcut to waiting 3-8 years: Suppose one gives up a
green card and goes back to H1 visa and then gets the spouse here on H4
and after a while reapplies for Green Card.  This is expensive but
could conceivably shorten the wait to months.  I consulted two lawyers
on this issue.  One lawyer said "yes possible, Michael Phulwani told me
he tried this once."  The other lawyer (after thinking over it for more
than a week) said this could result in the charges of Visa fraud if
caught.  

It would be nice if somebody consulted other lawyers and passed the
relevant advice around.

2) I talked with a lawyer on saturday and here are some of his advices.

   a) you can apply for citizenship when you are at 4.5 years
      after PR.  So one day after five year waiting period you could
      become a citizen if you so want.  Then it takes a month to bring
      the spouse.

   b) The citizenship waiting period for the spouses of citizens is three
      years.  If the law is amended to make it three years for everybody
      then the waiting period for spousal unification will decrease too.

   c) Eliminating F4 may not help much, but it does help a little.

3) So I started thinking the following.  Since simpson does not like
S618, perhaps we could suggest it to him, a) eliminate F4 (brothers and
sisters of citizens) category as he suggested, b) make it three year
waiting period for citizenship for everybody, c) Eliminate F2A and
treat them same as IR class of citizens.  d) Support the Pilot program
Riegle is suggesting, e) Eliminate K visa (fiance's of Citizens), f)
reduce the overall immigration level.

(Of course, we should continue to press for S618 meanwhile because it
does not contradict the above).

  Of course, Simpson may pick a few of the above suggested but he may
like it.  This plan may also gain a large support from congress,
because it can be billed as the immigration reform, which will reduce
the immigration level overall.  It does not mention anything about the
suffering faced by the immigrant spouses.  In the American Psyche there
is no sympathy for the suffering.  People here mostly say tough luck
face it or go back home.  Mind you, you are an alien and hence have no
right to complain.  You also look unpatriotic, by asking too much.

This plan does not create a new visa category, something feared by the
congress.  Instead it eliminates some visa categories and thus reduces
immigration.  It also has the virtue of being simple in the Family
based category, something congress will like.

There is some truth in the fear congressmen have when you ask for new
Visa categories to satisfy your needs.  Others may ask for other favors
also, to satisfy their own needs, and there is no end to it.
Furthermore, congress may like Indian professionals and want to help
them.  But they fear the same provision may be used by other immigrants
(Arabs, Haitians, dominicans, etc.) So there is a fear psychosis of
immigrant hordes landing at JFK without any control.

4) In summary, Simpson support may be important and he is apparently
considering legislation to reduce the immigration level, so this may be
right time to engage him and influence him.  (We should pursue S618
too).  Basically, we should drop focus on spouses and instead focus on
reducing waiting period for citizenship and treating F2A same IR
class.  Reducing immigration level is not bad; Look the sentiment in
congress is in that direction anyway, so why oppose it and look like
unpatriotic.

          Ram

------------------------------

Topic No. 2

Date: Sun, 1 May 94 23:27:46 EDT
>From: Vimal Solanki <vimal@ans.net>
To: p2-talk@dopey.msd.anl.gov
Subject: no short term relief
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.2.767849266.vimal@foo.ans.net>

>    a) you can apply for citizenship when you are at 4.5 years
>       after PR.  So one day after five year waiting period you could
>       become a citizen if you so want.  Then it takes a month to bring
>       the spouse.

	One can apply upto 90 days prior to finishing 5 yrs.  However,
	depending upon your state, it may take upto 2 yrs to obtain
	citizneship interview so this really may not offer short term relief.
	Also very few people in PSR are close to citizneship and we are
	looking for some solution by which ideally all PSR members would
	benefit.

> 3) So I started thinking the following.  Since simpson does not like
> S618, perhaps we could suggest it to him, a) eliminate F4 (brothers and
> sisters of citizens) category as he suggested, b) make it three year
> waiting period for citizenship for everybody, c) Eliminate F2A and
> treat them same as IR class of citizens.  d) Support the Pilot program
> Riegle is suggesting, e) Eliminate K visa (fiance's of Citizens), f)
> reduce the overall immigration level.

	First of all I am not sure how many of these would really gain
	support from large number of Senators/Congressmen.  Secondly, most
	of these may require legislative change and it may take years before
	these changes are implemented.  By that time most PSR members would
	be citiznens :)	What we are looking for here is a short term relief
	along with long	term changes.

>   Of course, Simpson may pick a few of the above suggested but he may
> like it.  This plan may also gain a large support from congress,
> because it can be billed as the immigration reform, which will reduce
> the immigration level overall.  It does not mention anything about the
> suffering faced by the immigrant spouses.  In the American Psyche there
> is no sympathy for the suffering.  People here mostly say tough luck
> face it or go back home.  Mind you, you are an alien and hence have no
> right to complain.  You also look unpatriotic, by asking too much.
> 
> This plan does not create a new visa category, something feared by the
> congress.  Instead it eliminates some visa categories and thus reduces
> immigration.  It also has the virtue of being simple in the Family
> based category, something congress will like.
> 
> There is some truth in the fear congressmen have when you ask for new
> Visa categories to satisfy your needs.  Others may ask for other favors
> also, to satisfy their own needs, and there is no end to it.
> Furthermore, congress may like Indian professionals and want to help
> them.  But they fear the same provision may be used by other immigrants
> (Arabs, Haitians, dominicans, etc.) So there is a fear psychosis of
> immigrant hordes landing at JFK without any control.
> 
> 4) In summary, Simpson support may be important and he is apparently
> considering legislation to reduce the immigration level, so this may be
> right time to engage him and influence him.  (We should pursue S618
> too).  Basically, we should drop focus on spouses and instead focus on
> reducing waiting period for citizenship and treating F2A same IR
> class.  Reducing immigration level is not bad; Look the sentiment in
> congress is in that direction anyway, so why oppose it and look like
> unpatriotic.
> 
>           Ram



------------------------------

Topic No. 3

Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 17:44:15 +0800
>From: dnl@infinite.Corp.Sun.COM (Dinesh Dnl)
To: p2-talk@dopey.msd.anl.gov
Subject: BE AWARE! People going on H1 from GC!
Message-ID: <9405030044.AA02402@dnlsun.Corp.Sun.COM>


One of our company lawyer who spoke with the official in the Dept of
labor informed that the department of labor (especially in CA) will
not approve labor certification petition for the PRs who have  surrendered
PR status or from those who will surrender it.
Apparently a large number of PRs opted for this alternative which
alarmed Dept of Labor in CA (not sure about INS). Incase you are considering
this option, please check with your lawyer first, consider all risks factors
and then act! 
dinesh

------------------------------

Topic No. 4

Date: Mon, 2 May 94 17:41:55 PDT
>From: "VISH RAMAMURTHY, DTN : 297-3390" <vish@iceflo.enet.dec.com>
To: p2-talk@dopey.msd.anl.gov
Subject: Draft of letter to India Abroad, comments invited
Message-ID: <9405030041.AA20300@us3rmc.bb.dec.com>


Hi,

Below find a rough draft (courtesy M.Angur) of the letter to be sent to IA
Comments invited. Last day is Thursday, May 5th.

We will have a White House call-in on Wed/Thurs, this week. Your support
is solicited. I encourage more members to take on the responsibility
of contacting senators/reps. offices, to educate and obtain cosponsorship.
If we ALL work together on this, we can make it happen.

Regards,

Vish
**************************************************************************
The Editor,
India Abroad,
New York, NY.


Dear Editor:

This refers to the news item "Reunification Bill Boosted" (April 29, 1994)
This article was very timely and has relevance to a large number of readers 
who are directly affected by spousal separation, or know of someone who is a 
sufferer. 

As indicated by your reporter, Aziz Haniffa, a number of key Democrats and 
Republicans have been in favor of the spouse reunification bill. We 
specifically would like to thank Senators' Riegle, Simon, Kennedy, and 
Reps. Pallone, Schumer, and all other senators, congressmen, and their 
immigration aides for all their understanding and help in pursuing this 
issue of spousal reunification. 

We are, however, very concerned about the pace of progress of the 
Spouse Reunification Bill. The current status of the bills (H.R. 3182 
and S 618) is rather disheartening. Sen Kennedy, who is one of the 
original cosponsors of the bill, had promised, on the senate floor, to 
take up this bill on priority last year. However, we are very 
disappointed about the lack of progress on this issue. Further, 
President Clinton's position on this issue, described in "Putting 
People First", mentions specifically that "..the present 2 year wait 
for a visa is intolerable.." As you know, the current wait is close to 
3 years and is expected to reach over 5 years in the near future. This 
grave injustice, in terms of being forcibly separated from their spouse 
and minor children, needs immediate attention.

We urge all influential members of the Indian community to help us in 
expediting the passing of the Spouse Reunification Bills. We request 
all members of the Indian community to contact their local 
Senators and Congressmen and impress upon them the gravity of the 
situation with a request to cosponsor the bills (Bill nos..). We also 
request all those readers who are interested to help in this cause to 
contact the Professional for Spouse Reunification at the following 
address:  PSR Address  and Phone number here

We wish to thank India Abroad for highlighting an important issue 
such as this, and support your continued efforts toward the betterment
of the Indians in the U.S.

Sincerely yours,


PSR President
--------------------

------------------------------

Topic No. 5

Date: Mon, 2 May 94 18:23:37 PDT
>From: SDAS@SC9.intel.com
To: dnl@infinite.Corp.Sun.COM, p2-talk@dopey.msd.anl.gov
Subject: Re: BE AWARE! People going on H1 from GC!
Message-ID: <9405030123.utk9322@SC9.intel.com>

>One of our company lawyer who spoke with the official in the Dept of
>labor informed that the department of labor (especially in CA) will
>not approve labor certification petition for the PRs who have  surrendered
>PR status or from those who will surrender it.
>Apparently a large number of PRs opted for this alternative which
>alarmed Dept of Labor in CA (not sure about INS). Incase you are considering
>this option, please check with your lawyer first, consider all risks factors
>and then act! 
>dinesh

 INS and State Department have had no problems with people surrendering PR
 and switching to H-1 status, even when folks have officially declared their
 intent to reapply for permanent residency status. This has been validated
 by the number of folks who have successfully taken this route. Regarding
 labor certification, the number of rejections have certainly been higher
 than in the past, due to closer scrutiny of applications triggered by
 high rate of unemployment nation-wide. However, I see no reason why Dept.
 of Labor should pick on those folks who are reapplying for PR, since they
 are using up visa numbers which would have otherwise gone to first-time
 applicants. So the number of new entrants to the labor pool is actually
 decreasing due to folks reapplying. 
 Some PSR folks may be also be eligible for first-preference in the employ-
 ment based category. This category bypasses labor certification, and the
 application goes directly to INS. The requirements for first-preference
 are not that stringent, and it may be worth your while to investigate
 whether you are eligible. A recent NCG hire at Intel is applying thru'
 the first preference category. 
 
 - siddhartha



------------------------------

Topic No. 6

Date: Mon, 2 May 94 22:59:00 EDT
>From: Vimal Solanki <vimal@ans.net>
To: <p2-talk@dopey.msd.anl.gov>
Subject: Anyone in DC with computer running Unix ?
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.2.767933940.vimal@foo.ans.net>

Hi,

	Is there anyone in DC area who has a computer running Unix OS
with some kind if Internet connectivity (preferrably a full-time
Internet connection but UUCP may just be fine) ?  

	We might be use it to send faxes to various Senators and
Congressmen incurring just local charges (which PSR can probably
reimburse).  I am interested in using a public domain software which
be used to fax incoming emails (to this machine) to various fax
numbers.  If this computer can run this software, we can provide a
email-to-fax gateway which PSR members can use to bombard various
offices with faxes.

							- Vimal


------------------------------

Topic No. 7

Date: Mon, 2 May 1994 23:58:14 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Satish Karra <skarra@cosmos.gmu.edu>
To: p2-talk@dopey.msd.anl.gov
Subject: Re: Need some info.
Message-ID: <9405030354.AA11859@dopey.msd.anl.gov>


	Hi 
	
	I am also one of those unfortunate who knowingly slipped into 
	this green card -  spouse mess knowingly.  I had no email address
	and acquired one just a couple of weeks ago.  I missed a whole lot
	of activity going on with PSR group, but I have been trying my share
	by contacting senators and congressmen in my area (Fairfax, VA).
	I work for a Patent Law Firm and have strong support of about 40 
	lawyers working for our firm.
	
	Lately, I am thinking of giving up greencard to get around this
	horrible situation but I have no idea of the consequences (labor
	department view) and I do not anybody who has done something like
	this.
	
	If anybody has any additional information, will they be kind enough
	to post it on the net or send an email to me at skarra@cosmos.gmu.edu
	
	Thanks
	Satish.e
	  > 


------------------------------

End of P2-TALK Digest 29
************************


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu May  5 00:22:53 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA08828); Thu, 5 May 94 00:22:53 CDT
Date: Thu, 5 May 94 00:22:53 CDT
Message-Id: <9405050522.AA02474@lucerne.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: snow@lucerne.rice.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jun Wu <snow@lucerne.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Seek help and advice
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

I post this for a friend, please send reply back to me and I will forward
to him. Thanks you all in advance.


Jun


      Mr. Yang entered the United States on May 19, 1992 in J-2 status.  His
      mother was J-1.  When Yang arrived in the US he was 19 years old.

      Yang's mother was the CSPA principal in the family and she filed her
      application for PR in late June (I do not know her priority date) of
      1993, and has now adjusted status.

      Of course, the day she filed her I-485, her son, technically, lost his
      J-2 status.

      Yang discussed this with INS/OMA who told him to file as an LAD and not
      to worry about his immigration status.  He did that.  He was 20 years
      old when he filed.  He tells me that he asked an Information Officer in
      Omaha what would happen if they didn't approve his application before
      he turned 21 years old, and he says that the IO said it would be ok,
      that the age that mattered was his age on the date he filed.

      On December 25, 1993, Yang turned 21 years old.  He is a full-time
      student at The University of Iowa and, as a nonimmigrant, could be an
      F-1 student -- that is, he is eligible for an I-20.

      On April 20, 1994, INS/OMA returned his entire application to him with
      a note saying "You turned 21 years of age on December 25, 1993.  You do
      not qualify for benefits as a dependent of a CSPA principal.  You must
      meet all the usual adjustment of status requirements applicable to
      derivative employment-based preference aliens.  Because you are over
      21, your parents will have to file a Petition for Alien Relative (Form
      I-130) in your behalf as the unmarried son/daughter of a Lawful
      Permanent Resident.

      Form I-130 attached.  SIncerely, Omaha Examinations"

      OK -- that's fine, but the son now has NO immigration status.  He wants
      F-1.  Is there any way to obtain relief for him?  It seems to me that
      the CSPA is an unusual immigration event.  Families have reunited in
      the US because of it, but by following the letter of the law as
      written, families are being torn apart -- Yang will sit here for years
      with no immigration status before a visa becomes available to him in
      the family category.

      Is there any movement for legislation to help dependents like Yang?
      Does anyone have any ideas on how he can fix his situation?

      Thank you for your attention to this case.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu May  5 22:10:54 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09238); Thu, 5 May 94 22:10:54 CDT
Date: Thu, 5 May 94 22:10:54 CDT
Message-Id: <199405060310.XAA15469@brahms.udel.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: zhaojing@brahms.udel.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jing Zhao <zhaojing@brahms.udel.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: LADS-question.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Dear friends:

I am a Lads. I have not received any response from INS since I applied 
for PR in August, 1993. Since I came U.S.A. in July, 1991, I have been 
a student at a university(it means that I hold F-1 status until now). 
Next month, I will finish my study, and start working. It means that 
I will lose student status. I would like to get some help from
knowledgable persons. Is it will affect my PR-application? 

Thank you in advance!

Jing  

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri May  6 12:36:29 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09759); Fri, 6 May 94 12:36:29 CDT
Date: Fri, 6 May 94 12:36:29 CDT
Message-Id: <01HC0P62IWR68WVZ8V@vuhep.phy.Vanderbilt.Edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: CAO@vuhep.phy.vanderbilt.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: CAO@vuhep.phy.vanderbilt.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: new-commer to LADnet
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Dear Lads committee members:

I am glad to know that there is a LADnet. I just sign-on this net. As a new-
commer, I'd like to say good luck and thanks to everybody who concerns about
Lads. Following is about my situation and questions. I would very appreciate if
someone could take a time to look at it and give me some advice or suggestion. 

I belongs to CSPA principals. I send my application for green-card in early
Setember 1993, a few days before my wife arrived in the U.S.A..  I got the
Green-card in January 1994.

My wife belongs to out-of-status lads. She arrived in USA as F-2 in mid Sept.
1993. But she was late to catch up the Sept.30's "open window". The local INS
(at Memphis,Tennessee) received her application for green-card at Oct.5.  So
they refused and returned her applications and told us that she is not 
eligible to file an adjustment of status applications. But they also send us a
Form I-130, Pettion for Alien Relative, along with the returned applications. 
I filed this form and send it with $75 check to the INS at Irving, Texas as 
they required. I first received a "Receipt notice". Then, I received an 
"Approval notice" in late January this year. The Approval notice says that the 
petition has been approved, but my wife is still not eligible to file the
application for Green-card; accordingly, they completes all INS action on my 
petition and send my approved petition to the Department of State Immigrant 
Visa Processing Center (TIVPC), and the TIVPC will communicate with my wife 
shortly. But by this time, I have not received any letter or call from the
Immigrant Visa Center. 

Above is my situation. I'd like to present following questions to you or any
other interested LAD netters: 
1) Are there any people with the simmilar case to mine?   
2) What can I do next?
3) Is my wife eligible to apply for working permit or enrole in school? And how
to apply?
4) How long will she wait for the available Visa number? 
5) Does IFCSS reach any new results with INS that are favarable to both the
out-of-status and in-status Lads?

I has asked the above questions to the International student adviser of our
university. She said that my wife can do nothing except waiting. I certainly
do not saticefy with this answser. I plan to find a knowledgeble lawer and
ask those questions to him. But at the same time, I also welcome the advices or
suggestions from you and other LAD netters. If I have good news or useful
experience, I like to post them on this LADnet and share those with all other
LAD netters.

Thank you very much for your time and concerns! I am looking forward to hearing
from you soon! 

Jianwei Cao 

PS: My E-mail address: CAO@VUHEP.PHY.VANDERBILT.EDU              




From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri May  6 14:02:30 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09928); Fri, 6 May 94 14:02:30 CDT
Date: Fri, 6 May 94 14:02:30 CDT
Message-Id: <9405061901.AA11508@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xzwang@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: xzwang@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Xiaozhong Wang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: new-commer to LADnet
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

> 
> My wife belongs to out-of-status lads. She arrived in USA as F-2 in mid Sept.
> 1993. But she was late to catch up the Sept.30's "open window". The local INS
> (at Memphis,Tennessee) received her application for green-card at Oct.5.  So
> they refused and returned her applications and told us that she is not 
> eligible to file an adjustment of status applications. But they also send us a
> Form I-130, Pettion for Alien Relative, along with the returned applications. 
> I filed this form and send it with $75 check to the INS at Irving, Texas as 
> they required. I first received a "Receipt notice". Then, I received an 
> "Approval notice" in late January this year. The Approval notice says that the 
> petition has been approved, but my wife is still not eligible to file the
> application for Green-card; accordingly, they completes all INS action on my 
> petition and send my approved petition to the Department of State Immigrant 
> Visa Processing Center (TIVPC), and the TIVPC will communicate with my wife 
> shortly. But by this time, I have not received any letter or call from the
> Immigrant Visa Center. 
> 
> Above is my situation. I'd like to present following questions to you or any
> other interested LAD netters: 
> 1) Are there any people with the simmilar case to mine?   
> 2) What can I do next?
> 3) Is my wife eligible to apply for working permit or enrole in school? And how
> to apply?
> 4) How long will she wait for the available Visa number? 
> 5) Does IFCSS reach any new results with INS that are favarable to both the
> out-of-status and in-status Lads?
> 

I could only hope that you had hired a lawyer earlier.  Case like this is
really not unusual.  As long as you were married before you filed your
application, your wife automatically qualify for filing "Following to join,
whether she is in Us or not".  Thus in addition to I-130, form I-824 should
be filed as well.  I am not sure if she is a "out of status case, since
there was the INS cable stating that *-2 visa holders did not lose his or
her valid status just because the principal filed I-485.  If some INS would
buy the arguement, your wife could have filed for PR during the March/April
time where the priority date had progressed to July 2nd.  At this time she
would be waiting for the greencard just like most of the netters here.

At this time, the only suggestion I have is to file I-824 for your wife. 
When the priority date of EB-3 progresses to your date, also file I-485 for
her.  Once you file I-485, she automatically fell into the status of
"pending permanent resident", that qualifies her for work permit, and in
most cases, attending school.
   
The waiting period for FB-2 (by filing I-130) has alway been long, typically
3-5 years.  If you file I-824, the waiting period should be around 1-3
years, depending on your priority date.  

> I has asked the above questions to the International student adviser of our
> university. She said that my wife can do nothing except waiting. I certainly
> do not saticefy with this answser. I plan to find a knowledgeble lawer and
> ask those questions to him. But at the same time, I also welcome the advices or
> suggestions from you and other LAD netters. If I have good news or useful
> experience, I like to post them on this LADnet and share those with all other
> LAD netters.
> 
> Thank you very much for your time and concerns! I am looking forward to hearing
> from you soon! 
> 
> Jianwei Cao 
> 
> PS: My E-mail address: CAO@VUHEP.PHY.VANDERBILT.EDU              
> 
> 
> 
> 


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May  8 00:00:39 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA10561); Sun, 8 May 94 00:00:39 CDT
Date: Sun, 8 May 94 00:00:39 CDT
Message-Id: <9405080500.AA06381@lucerne.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: snow@lucerne.rice.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jun Wu <snow@lucerne.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Weekly post on how to use LADS-L
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


This message is automatically sent out every week, in an attempt to reduce
the signoff requests posted on LADnet. Please read it and understand the
basic functions of this listserv. Please do not post signoff messages
to a public discussion list. Thank you.

Jun Wu -- listowner, LADS-L

=========================================================================
Dear friend,

	Welcome to the Late-Arrival-DependentS-List (LADS-L).

	LADS-L is a list dedicated to solve problems related to LADs of
Chinese-Students-Protection-Act (CSPA) principals. The list is maintained
by a group of voluntary Chinese Students, just like you. Netters who want
to express concerns or ask questions or provide answers to questions
should send mail to lads-l@spike.rice.edu.

	To sign off LADS-L, please send an email to "listserv@spike.rice.edu",
with mailbody as   "signoff LADS-L", from the account where you subscribed
to the list. If you have real problem signoff after the above attempt, please
drop a note to snow@spike.rice.edu.

	All backup issues for LADS-L can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from
spike.rice.edu (128.42.4.157), directory /pub/lads

	This is an automatically generated message, please do not reply.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May  9 13:44:09 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA11160); Mon, 9 May 94 13:44:09 CDT
Date: Mon, 9 May 94 13:44:09 CDT
Message-Id: <9405091843.AA11150@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: FSTJRC1@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: FSTJRC1@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Mr. Cao,
Here are my opinions to you wife's case.
To my best knowledge, your wife is a out-status LAD.  Except
filing FB2 (I-130), she can also file under EB3.  I-130 (FB2)
has no time window.  However, EB3 (I-485 and I-824) have time
window.   I guess you already know that the current cutoff date
for EB3 is July 1, 1993.
     Your wife has been out-status since the approval of your
own CSPA application.  If you want your wife to stay in USA
legally, she should try to apply DED (deferring enforced
departure) in local INS.  If granted, she can apply for working
permit.    I do not know the case of DED enrolled in school.  I
think DED LADs should be allowed to enroll school.  I hope you can
get the information from other netters.
     DED LADs are allowed to file under EB3 using I-824 when the
visa is current, without leaving USA.  However, they must get GC
from US consulate in Mexico or China.
     Another problem is when EB3 is current. It is quite possible
that the window of EB3 will reopen in September or October this
year for the LADs whose principal's priority date is early July,
1993.  The cutoff date may be July 2, because most of LADs with
priority date of July 1 and the quota for 1995 will be only 2500.
If the estimation that total number of LADs was 8000 and most of
them had the priority date in July was right,  you may not have
chance to file application under EB3 in 1994 because you submitted
your CSPA application in September, 1993 and your wife should take
your priority date.  You probably would have chance to file
application under EB3 in October 1995 or later.  However, this is
only based on the estimations and no one knows what the real
situation will be. Anyway, you should look at the visa number
closely which was usually published every month in CND or other
net.
     Right now, the date of FB2 advances about one month every
two month.  In January this year, it is June 1, 1991. Now it is
August 1, 1991.  When this date advances and covers the date
you filed I-130, Your wife will get GC.
     To my best knowledge, IFCSS stopped lobbying for LADs
since last fall.  Dr. Zhao, Haiqing put some energy on this
problem, but had no very big progress.

This is just for your reference.

H. Wang


































     This is just for your reference.

H. Wang

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 10 19:34:36 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA00318); Tue, 10 May 94 19:34:36 CDT
Date: Tue, 10 May 94 19:34:36 CDT
Message-Id: <9405110033.AA00308@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: FSTJRC1@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: FSTJRC1@vtvm1.cc.vt.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, everyone,
I have received several messages related to the information I
posted yesterday to Mr. Cao.  Here I want to clarify two points.

I wrote:
"To my best knowledge, your wife is a out-status LAD.  Except
filing FB2 (I-130), she can also file under EB3.  I-130 (FB2)
has no time window.  However, EB3 (I-485 and I-824) have time
window.   I guess you already know that the current cutoff date
for EB3 is July 1, 1993".
.......
    "DED LADs are allowed to file under EB3 using I-824 when the
visa is current, without leaving USA.  However, they must get GC
from US consulate in Mexico or China".
......

The words "EB3 (I-485 and I-824)" in first paragraph was to
indicate that both I-485 and I-824 are under EB3.  It was not saying
both forms should be filed at the same times by DED LADs.  However,
these words have caused some confusion.  Now I realize that it
would be better if I wrote "I-485 or I-824".  I am very sorry for
this unclearness.


I wrote:
.....
    " To my best knowledge, IFCSS stopped lobbying for LADs
since last fall.  Dr. Zhao, Haiqing put some energy on this
problem, but had no very big progress".
.....

Actually, IFCSS stopped lobbying for LADs before July 1, 1993.  Thanks
to the netter who corrected me.


H. Wang

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu May 12 19:16:52 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA01092); Thu, 12 May 94 19:16:52 CDT
Date: Thu, 12 May 94 19:16:52 CDT
Message-Id: <9405130016.AA24556@titanic.nynexst.com>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hjl@nynexst.com
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hjl@nynexst.com (H.J. Lu)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: [Q]: Interview with INS under CSPA in NYC
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, Folks,

I just received a letter from the INS today. I will be interviewed
for PR under CPSA in NYC next month. I was told to bring the I-693
medical form to the interview. But I have mailed in the I-693 form in
a sealed envelope with all the other materials. I was wondering if
anyone under CPSA received the interview letter from the INS. I'd like
to know how you dealed with the I-693 form? My physical was done last
June. Is that too old? Do I need to take another one?

Thanks a lot.

-- 
H.J. Lu
NYNEX Science and Technology, Inc.			hjl@nynexst.com

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri May 13 17:50:50 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA02132); Fri, 13 May 94 17:50:50 CDT
Date: Fri, 13 May 94 17:50:49 CDT
Message-Id: <9405132249.AA17540@ame2.math.arizona.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: wong@math.arizona.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Tityik Wong" <wong@math.arizona.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: No GC new development
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hello, everyone,

I posted the following message about two weeks ago,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello all wonderful netters. I have a serious question that needs
answer. I am a CSPA principal and was approved on Sep 30, 1993 by the
Western center. However I have not received my green card yet. I
called the factory in Texas, a recog message said that they have
received copy 2 of form I-181, but need copy 3 of form I-81 and a form
I-89 in order to produce my green card. Has anyone ever encountered
the same kind of situation? Or does any one know what is going on or
what to do? All answers are highly appreciated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Later I wrote a letter to the Western Center asking them about the
situation. Today I got a shocking reply, they tell me that my
application is still pending. ?????! I feel angry and funny. What are
they doing? They gave me the approval notice and now are telling me
that was a just joke? Anyway, I will write to them again. And of
course, if anyone knows what else to do, please help. Thank you guys.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat May 14 15:40:59 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA02433); Sat, 14 May 94 15:40:59 CDT
Date: Sat, 14 May 94 15:40:58 CDT
Message-Id: <9405142039.AA24729@picard.tamu.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: cheng@picard.tamu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: cheng@picard.tamu.edu (Cheng Cheng)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Dear Fellow Chinese:

I received something over the Internet. The material is self-explanatory. 
To my knowledge, not only Asian Indian permanent residents, but also many
fellow Chinese suffer the same. The two Bills benefit them a great deal.
Please help, by signing the two petition letters and distributing them 
to your friends, neighbors, etc. Thanks a bunch!

Best wishes,

Cheng
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

>From root Fri May 13 21:06:58 1994
Received: from dopey.msd.anl.gov by intnet.upj.com (5.67/2.25)
	with SMTP id AA18174; Fri, 13 May 94 21:06:52 GMT
Received: from  (localhost) by dopey.msd.anl.gov (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA01051; Fri, 13 May 1994 16:03:11 +0600
Date: Fri, 13 May 1994 16:03:11 +0600
Message-Id: <9405132103.AA24239@ramanujan.chem.nyu.edu>
Reply-To: p2-talk@dopey.msd.anl.gov
Originator: p2-talk@dopey.msd.anl.gov
Sender: p2-talk@dopey.msd.anl.gov
Precedence: bulk
>From: krishna@ramanujan.chem.nyu.edu (M. V. Ramakrishna)
To: ccheng0@intnet.upj.com
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Errors-To: mohan@dopey.msd.anl.gov
X-Comment:  Mail server related to Visas for Spouses of Immigrants
Content-Length: 8943
Status: R

Action-India: Call For Action (20)
==================================

   It now takes almost three years for permanent residents to bring their
spouses and children over to the United States; a bill has been
introduced in the Congress to partially alleviate this suffering, by
allowing temporary visits by spouses and children. This bill, if passed,
would benefit the entire Indian community for generations; please act
immediately and help muster huge support for this move.

   Action-India is sending the letters attached below to several United
States Representatives and Senators, requesting them to support the
Spousal and Children Immigration Bill of 1993.

   Action-India welcomes you and your relatives, friends and neighbors
in the United States to be signatories to this letter.

**********

To be a signatory to the 2 letters attached below:

   Please send e-mail to lalit@ri.cmu.edu

   Mention the subject as "Immigration"

   Send your e-mail on or before Tuesday, the 24th May 1994.

   The e-mail message should have the particulars of each signatory in
the following 3-line format:

Full Name, E-Mail Address (if any), Home Telephone Number
Street Address, Apt.#, City, State ZipCode
Occupation, Name of Organization/Institution

   Please get as many signatories from your family/neighborhood as
you can; arrange one three-line response after another, with one blank
line in between.

   The body of your e-mail should not have anything besides these 3 lines
per signatory.

-- Lalitesh Katragadda
   Region 1 Coordinator, Action India
   lalit@ri.cmu.edu, (412)681-5149

****** Text of Action-India's Immigration letter to Representatives *****

Dear Honorable Representative .....,

   Action-India is a worldwide, non-profit, voluntary organization of
people of Indian origin residing outside India, that conveys the views
of the Indian community to lawmakers and leaders of representative
governments.

   A void that exists in the current immigration policy, has resulted in
permanent resident aliens -- those who have come into this country
legally and are gainfully employed -- being separated from their spouses
and children, often for several years. We request you to co-sponsor the
Spousal and Children Immigration Bill (H.R.3182) introduced by Rep. Frank
Pallone, which would help alleviate this situation.

   This legislation would permit the spouses and children of permanent
residents to enter the United States on temporary visits, while they are
waiting to reach priority list for immigration in the family preference
category (the current waiting period is nearly three years). Presently,
with few exceptions, the families are denied even routine visitor visas.

   This country has been exemplary in her concern for the immigrant who
enters legally, obeys the law, works hard, and pursues the American
Dream. The United States immigration policy has consistently prioritized
family unification; the present Administration unequivocally supports it
(President Clinton's speech on Immigration Policy, 27 July 1993). This
bill would only reinforce that policy. It provides a temporary reprieve,
without increasing the number of immigrants admitted annually. Also, it
would not have any impact on the work-force, since visitors are not
eligible to work, and students will continue to be issued non-immigrant
visas according to the existing rules. Moreover, since the permanent
residents already have a stable source of income, the visiting families
would not increase the burden on Social Welfare Programs.

   This bill is designed to correct an inequity, by permitting the
permanent resident's family to visit the United States, a privilege
granted to 20 million foreigners each year. It establishes a "dual
intent" provision similar to that existing for "H" and "L" visa holders
-- namely, the fact that an immigrant visa petition may have been filed
on behalf of an alien spouse or child of a permanent resident, does not
constitute evidence of intent to immigrate to the United States.

   Permanent residents comprise a vital part of the work-force in key
sectors of the economy. Individually, and as a group, they contribute
significantly to the vitality, prosperity and well-being of the nation.
This bill would help develop a more motivated, committed and happier
work-force, without any extra cost whatsoever. By removing the stresses
which long family separation entails, this move would result in
significant economic gains to the nation, by way of increased
productivity. Major hi-tech corporations have expressed support for this
move as it impacts many of their key employees. This bill would not tax
the economy in any way, as it has foolproof provisions to prevent
potential abuse; if a person overstays the authorized period, he or she
would be ineligible for an immigrant visa for a period of upto one year,
after his or her priority date has been reached.

   We therefore urge you to co-sponsor this humanitarian legislation and
support the unification of families of permanent resident aliens. You may
kindly contact Ted Loud or Kapil Sharma at Rep. Frank Pallone's office at
225-4671. Thank you.

   We welcome any communication with Action-India, which may kindly be
directed to its Region 1 Coordinator, Lalitesh Katragadda

Sincerely,

for Action-India

********* Text of Action-India's Immigration letter to Senators *********

Dear Honorable Senator .....,

   Action-India is a worldwide, non-profit, voluntary organization of
people of Indian origin residing outside India, that conveys the views
of the Indian community to lawmakers and leaders of representative
governments.

   A void that exists in the current immigration policy, has resulted in
permanent resident aliens -- those who have come into this country
legally and are gainfully employed -- being separated from their spouses
and children, often for several years. We request you to co-sponsor the
Spousal and Children Immigration Bill (S.618) introduced by Sen. Donald
Riegle Jr., which would help alleviate this situation.

   This legislation would permit the spouses and children of permanent
residents to enter the United States on temporary visits, while they are
waiting to reach priority list for immigration in the family preference
category (the current waiting period is nearly three years). Presently,
with few exceptions, the families are denied even routine visitor visas.

   This country has been exemplary in her concern for the immigrant who
enters legally, obeys the law, works hard, and pursues the American
Dream. The United States immigration policy has consistently prioritized
family unification; the present Administration unequivocally supports it
(President Clinton's speech on Immigration Policy, 27 July 1993). This
bill would only reinforce that policy. It provides a temporary reprieve,
without increasing the number of immigrants admitted annually. Also, it
would not have any impact on the work-force, since visitors are not
eligible to work, and students will continue to be issued non-immigrant
visas according to the existing rules. Moreover, since the permanent
residents already have a stable source of income, the visiting families
would not increase the burden on Social Welfare Programs.

   This bill is designed to correct an inequity, by permitting the
permanent resident's family to visit the United States, a privilege
granted to 20 million foreigners each year. It establishes a "dual
intent" provision similar to that existing for "H" and "L" visa holders
-- namely, the fact that an immigrant visa petition may have been filed
on behalf of an alien spouse or child of a permanent resident, does not
constitute evidence of intent to immigrate to the United States.

   Permanent residents comprise a vital part of the work-force in key
sectors of the economy. Individually, and as a group, they contribute
significantly to the vitality, prosperity and well-being of the nation.
This bill would help develop a more motivated, committed and happier
work-force, without any extra cost whatsoever. By removing the stresses
which long family separation entails, this move would result in
significant economic gains to the nation, by way of increased
productivity. Major hi-tech corporations have expressed support for this
move as it impacts many of their key employees. This bill would not tax
the economy in any way, as it has foolproof provisions to prevent
potential abuse; if a person overstays the authorized period, he or she
would be ineligible for an immigrant visa for a period of upto one year,
after his or her priority date has been reached.

   We therefore urge you to co-sponsor this humanitarian legislation and
support the unification of families of permanent resident aliens.
Thank you.

   We welcome any communication with Action-India, which may kindly be
directed to its Region 1 Coordinator, Lalitesh Katragadda

Sincerely,

for ACTION-INDIA




From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May 15 00:00:51 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA02613); Sun, 15 May 94 00:00:51 CDT
Date: Sun, 15 May 94 00:00:51 CDT
Message-Id: <9405150500.AA16925@lucerne.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: snow@lucerne.rice.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jun Wu <snow@lucerne.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Weekly post on how to use LADS-L
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


This message is automatically sent out every week, in an attempt to reduce
the signoff requests posted on LADnet. Please read it and understand the
basic functions of this listserv. Please do not post signoff messages
to a public discussion list. Thank you.

Jun Wu -- listowner, LADS-L

=========================================================================
Dear friend,

	Welcome to the Late-Arrival-DependentS-List (LADS-L).

	LADS-L is a list dedicated to solve problems related to LADs of
Chinese-Students-Protection-Act (CSPA) principals. The list is maintained
by a group of voluntary Chinese Students, just like you. Netters who want
to express concerns or ask questions or provide answers to questions
should send mail to lads-l@spike.rice.edu.

	To sign off LADS-L, please send an email to "listserv@spike.rice.edu",
with mailbody as   "signoff LADS-L", from the account where you subscribed
to the list. If you have real problem signoff after the above attempt, please
drop a note to snow@spike.rice.edu.

	All backup issues for LADS-L can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from
spike.rice.edu (128.42.4.157), directory /pub/lads

	This is an automatically generated message, please do not reply.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May 16 13:51:19 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA03744); Mon, 16 May 94 13:51:19 CDT
Date: Mon, 16 May 94 13:51:19 CDT
Message-Id: <9405161850.AA17914@his.ssec.wisc.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: mxl@his.ssec.wisc.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: mxl@his.ssec.wisc.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 



Dear Dr. Hai ching Zhao,
        I tried to call you many times (202-835-1880), but no one anwersd on
the telephone, so I send the following E-mail to you. You may give me some
advises. 
	My wife & son came to U.S. last June with H4 visa. I sent
I-485 form for adjustment to U.S. Permanent Resident under Chinese Student
Protection Act (CSPA).  The application was approved on Sept. 28 last year.
As late-arrivel depedents, They also filed I-485 forms last August. Since
then, they have'not got any response from the local INS.
	Recently, The INS at Wisconsin state is starting to interview the
LADs of CSPA beneficiaries. My son's petition was rejected due to over 21
years old at interview on May 5.
	Apparently the INS policy used in dealing with over-age LADs is flexibleand case-dependent. During other case interviews, the over-age LADS were fingerprinted and told that their petition may be approved if there is a sufficient  
quota available. 
	Since the priority date is the only difference between my son's case
(July 2) and these other cases (July 1st). I am puzzeled. Also I am aware that
other state, the LAD interview was started in last Nov. or even earlier.
There the older LAD children got covered, or got much less trouble than in
Wisconsin. It seems to be unfair to the same situations. Are you still going to
keep helping the over-age LADs? What's the issue of 21 year old childrens in the
final CSPA regurations. Do you think whether or not it is a good idea to hire
a layer to deal with my son's case? In order to maintain his legal status,
if my son applies for nonimmigrant F-1 visa (He is full-time student at Univ.
of Wisconsin, but with H4 visa, expired Jan. 96), is there any nagative effects
on his I-130 application processing? (I filed form I-130 for him in April)
I am looking forward to hearing from you soon. Thank you very much. 



                                               Ma, Xia Lin        

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 17 14:57:11 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA04320); Tue, 17 May 94 14:57:11 CDT
Date: Tue, 17 May 94 14:57:11 CDT
Message-Id: <9405171956.AA16973@terrenate.math.arizona.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: wong@math.arizona.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: wong@math.arizona.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: No GC new stories
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hello, friends,

This is the guy who posted the "No GC ..." stories a couple of days
ago. Here is what happened after that:

I went to the local INS office (Tucson, Arizona). Last time I went
there, they refused to do anything for me, just told me to contact
Western Center. This time I showed them the reply from Western Center,
they said what happened was that when Western Center approved my case,
they didn't realize there was no enough visa numbers, they were in a
hurry. And now they find that out. Since my priority date is late
(7/19), I'll have to line up in the queue and wait for visa numbers. I
think that explanation is o.k. acceptable. They told me to hold the
approval notice and wait. But there is an unpleasant side effect, they
also said that I need a work permit in order to work.

Thanks to all the people who reply to my posting. Some one asked the
factory's #, here it is: (214)655-1500.

Tityik Wong
Univ of Ariz


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 17 15:51:33 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA04417); Tue, 17 May 94 15:51:33 CDT
Date: Tue, 17 May 94 15:51:33 CDT
Message-Id:  <9405171550.aa25361@cs.ukans.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: s3c100ue@cs.ukans.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: s3c100ue@cs.ukans.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 21-year old lad
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, I have seen several posts about the 21-year-old lad problem, which also
bothers me because my lad is going to be 21 very soon and there's little
chance to get a visa number due to the late priority date.

So, it seems to me that the way to go is to file under Family category in
order to keep a legal status.  Could someone tell me how to do that?
What form should we use? (I-130?)  If you have any better ideas, please
discuss them in this net.  Thank you.

J.W.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Wed May 18 23:27:15 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA04970); Wed, 18 May 94 23:27:15 CDT
Date: Wed, 18 May 94 23:27:15 CDT
Message-Id: <9405190426.AA159767@chedccf0.ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: lshen@chem.ucsd.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: lshen@chem.ucsd.edu (Lei Shen)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Lads need help
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

  since my husband is a CSPA principal. My son and I automatically become the lads. We submitted our applacation forms of GC to INS of western centre by Aug.1
1993. Meanwhile, Westen INS informed only my son, not me that the forms had been trandfored to local INS at San Diego where we live.

>From net, We have learned a lot of lads have got their GCs, but we even haven't 
set the interview date yet. We don't know what's going on here. The answer from 
INS at San Diego is "wait" and "no visa number". 

In our case, are there any things we can work on ? Besides I wounder how many
lads have already got their GCs, how many haven't yet, specifically at San DiegoI am appriciate if somebody can help me. Thank you very much.


                                                    Lei 


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu May 19 07:53:08 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA05145); Thu, 19 May 94 07:53:08 CDT
Date: Thu, 19 May 94 07:53:08 CDT
Message-Id: <01HCIMX3GPBQ9BY59O@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: YLI4@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: YLI4@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Need help
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

        Hi.  Anyone knows the phone number of GC factory, Please list here
or E-mail me.  I have seen it here before, but I fogot to write down. Thank
you so much.
                                 
L.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu May 19 22:17:26 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA05510); Thu, 19 May 94 22:17:26 CDT
Date: Thu, 19 May 94 22:17:26 CDT
Message-Id: <01HCJGVJXK8I9BYB6X@VAXC.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: YLI4@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: YLI4@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: RE: Need help
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

         Hi, unbelievable! I received 18 replies from different netter.
Thank you so much. I think you are so kindly to help others. Good luck
to you.

L.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat May 21 21:12:57 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06229); Sat, 21 May 94 21:12:57 CDT
Date: Sat, 21 May 94 21:12:57 CDT
Message-Id: <9405220211.AA20936@vader.egr.uri.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: yangr@ecl1.uri.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: yangr@ecl1.uri.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: CBS Evening News!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

=========================================================================
Date:      Thu, 19 May 1994 19:41:58 EDT
>From:      HFENG@SUVM
To:        CSSFU@SUVM

Hello, everyone,

I wonder if you have seen today's (May 19, 1994, Thursday)
CBS evening news with Dan Rather and Connie Chung. I saw it.
Connie Chung reported the situation of Chinese espionage in
the United States. To me, it is extremely upseting.

Basically what she said was, of all the ORIDINARY people
from China, EVERYBODY can be a spy. The person may look
like a oridinary neibour, living a quiet life. That
Chinese may not do anything for many years. But when the
Chinese government summons him, he will be a spy. This
is called a "Chen(2) Di(3) Yu(1)". The government may
send him over as a spy, or may force him to become a
spy after he enters USA. They steal information. They
steal the secrets of the government and companies. She
said while many countries are spying on US, no other
country is doing on such a scale. However, she only shaw
two persons as spies from China. One is accused, one is
just confessing. I was not even sure if the second person
was caught for something or he just turned himself in.
She did not gave any specific number of how many spies
from China who look like oridinary student and scholars and
any Chinese are actually caught as spies in the US. It also
shaw Connie Chung standing in a place which is apparently
in Beijing, telling how easy it is for the Chinese government
to force any oridinary Chinese to become a spy, and how
the government is indeed doing it.

I am not exagerating. The message from her report is INDEED
every Chinese is a potential spy, no matter how oridinary
or quiet he looks.

It remains me of an article I read some time ago about how
the Chinese were treated in the fourties and fifties.
The slogan in the newspapers was: Every Chinese Is a
Potential Spy! Every little store in Chinatown would
have to hang a KouMingTang flag. Otherwise people would
go into the stores and loot and destroy things. That
deprived many Chinese of their livelihood.

But that was fourty, fifty years ago! Nowadays, which
ethnic or national group is subject to this kind of
defamation? It is against the law! CBS evening news is
one of the most popular news programs in the country.
Probably a third of the US population watch it. It has
great general credibility. Think about this: if you are
a Chinese job seeker, and your potential employer watched
this lovely Connie Chung's report, is this employer
more likely to hire you? Who is going to hire a potential
spy?! If you are an ORIDINARY engineering student from
China, and your professor has a project and he has watched
this lovely Connie Chung's report, is your professor
more likely to let you involved in the project? Who would
want a potential spy to he his student and research
assistant?! Let me tell you, this report will affect
hundreds of thousands ORIDINARY Chinese's lives.

Connie Chung has a long history of alienating the Asian
community. She is a Chinese herself, and she is ashamed
of that fact. That is known to everyone. But tonight's
blatant defamation is the most appalling. The message
is: Every Oridinary Chinse Is a Potential Spy. (She
used the word ORIDINARY many times.) I believe she has
violated the law. Or CBS has violated the law.

We Chinese students and scholars as a group can be
seriously damaged in many ways. I can quickly think
of one promblem that may have great financial significance:
The Lost Employment and Business Opportunities. It is
simple - no one wants to be associated with a potential
spy! Think about how much the Chinese people have suffered
throughout the past century. Think about how much the
Chinses in this country had suffered from blatant
discrimination. Now we are getting a little bit better,
the lovely Connie Chung stirs up this kind of garbage
again. CAN WE AFFORD TO IGNORE IT?

I think we should take some collective actions. CBS and
Connie Chung should compensate for our potential employment
and business loss of us, as a group. They should also
be punished for violating the non-discrimination law.
I am willing to coordinate the effort if nobody else wants
to do it. The first thing we should do, I think, is to
contact IFCSS national office so that the we can the
strength on a national scale. I think CSSFU should also
do something as an organization.

Let us discuss, and take actions.

Cheers
Feng Hui
=========================================================================



From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat May 21 22:23:03 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06341); Sat, 21 May 94 22:23:03 CDT
Date: Sat, 21 May 94 22:23:03 CDT
Message-Id: <Pine.3.07.9405212330.C18095-d100000@mbisgi.umd.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xiao@mbisgi.umd.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jinsong Xiao <xiao@mbisgi.umd.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: CBS Evening News!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

On Sat, 21 May 1994 yangr@ecl1.uri.edu wrote:

> =========================================================================
> Date:      Thu, 19 May 1994 19:41:58 EDT
> From:      HFENG@SUVM
> To:        CSSFU@SUVM
> 
> Hello, everyone,
> 
> I wonder if you have seen today's (May 19, 1994, Thursday)
> CBS evening news with Dan Rather and Connie Chung. I saw it.
> Connie Chung reported the situation of Chinese espionage in
> the United States. To me, it is extremely upseting.
> 
> Basically what she said was, of all the ORIDINARY people
> from China, EVERYBODY can be a spy. The person may look
> like a oridinary neibour, living a quiet life. That
> Chinese may not do anything for many years. But when the
> Chinese government summons him, he will be a spy. This
> is called a "Chen(2) Di(3) Yu(1)". The government may
> send him over as a spy, or may force him to become a
> spy after he enters USA. They steal information. They
> steal the secrets of the government and companies. She
> said while many countries are spying on US, no other
> country is doing on such a scale. However, she only shaw
> two persons as spies from China. One is accused, one is
> just confessing. I was not even sure if the second person
> was caught for something or he just turned himself in.
> She did not gave any specific number of how many spies
> from China who look like oridinary student and scholars and
> any Chinese are actually caught as spies in the US. It also
> shaw Connie Chung standing in a place which is apparently
> in Beijing, telling how easy it is for the Chinese government
> to force any oridinary Chinese to become a spy, and how
> the government is indeed doing it.
> 
> I am not exagerating. The message from her report is INDEED
> every Chinese is a potential spy, no matter how oridinary
> or quiet he looks.
> 
> It remains me of an article I read some time ago about how
> the Chinese were treated in the fourties and fifties.
> The slogan in the newspapers was: Every Chinese Is a
> Potential Spy! Every little store in Chinatown would
> have to hang a KouMingTang flag. Otherwise people would
> go into the stores and loot and destroy things. That
> deprived many Chinese of their livelihood.
> 
> But that was fourty, fifty years ago! Nowadays, which
> ethnic or national group is subject to this kind of
> defamation? It is against the law! CBS evening news is
> one of the most popular news programs in the country.
> Probably a third of the US population watch it. It has
> great general credibility. Think about this: if you are
> a Chinese job seeker, and your potential employer watched
> this lovely Connie Chung's report, is this employer
> more likely to hire you? Who is going to hire a potential
> spy?! If you are an ORIDINARY engineering student from
> China, and your professor has a project and he has watched
> this lovely Connie Chung's report, is your professor
> more likely to let you involved in the project? Who would
> want a potential spy to he his student and research
> assistant?! Let me tell you, this report will affect
> hundreds of thousands ORIDINARY Chinese's lives.
> 
> Connie Chung has a long history of alienating the Asian
> community. She is a Chinese herself, and she is ashamed
> of that fact. That is known to everyone. But tonight's
> blatant defamation is the most appalling. The message
> is: Every Oridinary Chinse Is a Potential Spy. (She
> used the word ORIDINARY many times.) I believe she has
> violated the law. Or CBS has violated the law.
> 
> We Chinese students and scholars as a group can be
> seriously damaged in many ways. I can quickly think
> of one promblem that may have great financial significance:
> The Lost Employment and Business Opportunities. It is
> simple - no one wants to be associated with a potential
> spy! Think about how much the Chinese people have suffered
> throughout the past century. Think about how much the
> Chinses in this country had suffered from blatant
> discrimination. Now we are getting a little bit better,
> the lovely Connie Chung stirs up this kind of garbage
> again. CAN WE AFFORD TO IGNORE IT?
> 
> I think we should take some collective actions. CBS and
> Connie Chung should compensate for our potential employment
> and business loss of us, as a group. They should also
> be punished for violating the non-discrimination law.
> I am willing to coordinate the effort if nobody else wants
> to do it. The first thing we should do, I think, is to
> contact IFCSS national office so that the we can the
> strength on a national scale. I think CSSFU should also
> do something as an organization.
> 
> Let us discuss, and take actions.
> 
> Cheers
> Feng Hui
> =========================================================================
> 

I am very glad that you have posted a message like that.  Just like you, I
am an ordinary Chinese students who are angered by the CBS news.  I
totally agree with you that we need to act together to fight the injustice
we are experiencing.  I donot know why "lovely Connie" and CBS news
singled out Chinese as their defamation target, maybe because China is
still a communist country.  But that will not justify their acusation of
every Chinese being a potential spy.  As you mentioned, they do not show
solid evidence to back up their accusation, which makes me very upset and
angry.  We do not deserve this kind of treatment.  Let us united and fight
back.  WE CANNOT AFFORD TO IGNORE IT!


Jinsong



From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sat May 21 22:36:18 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06441); Sat, 21 May 94 22:36:18 CDT
Date: Sat, 21 May 94 22:36:18 CDT
Message-Id: <9405220335.AA28240@oddjob.uchicago.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: shi6@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Xiangdong "Sheldon" Shi" <shi6@oddjob.uchicago.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: CBS e-mail conncection
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Send complaints by e-mail to 

remote-printer.Connie.Chune/cbs@9.1.5.1.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int

They will receive it as a fax.

Xiangdong

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May 22 00:00:44 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06545); Sun, 22 May 94 00:00:44 CDT
Date: Sun, 22 May 94 00:00:44 CDT
Message-Id: <9405220500.AA09508@lucerne.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: snow@lucerne.rice.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jun Wu <snow@lucerne.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Weekly post on how to use LADS-L
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


This message is automatically sent out every week, in an attempt to reduce
the signoff requests posted on LADnet. Please read it and understand the
basic functions of this listserv. Please do not post signoff messages
to a public discussion list. Thank you.

Jun Wu -- listowner, LADS-L

=========================================================================
Dear friend,

	Welcome to the Late-Arrival-DependentS-List (LADS-L).

	LADS-L is a list dedicated to solve problems related to LADs of
Chinese-Students-Protection-Act (CSPA) principals. The list is maintained
by a group of voluntary Chinese Students, just like you. Netters who want
to express concerns or ask questions or provide answers to questions
should send mail to lads-l@spike.rice.edu.

	To sign off LADS-L, please send an email to "listserv@spike.rice.edu",
with mailbody as   "signoff LADS-L", from the account where you subscribed
to the list. If you have real problem signoff after the above attempt, please
drop a note to snow@spike.rice.edu.

	All backup issues for LADS-L can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from
spike.rice.edu (128.42.4.157), directory /pub/lads

	This is an automatically generated message, please do not reply.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May 22 12:09:33 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06822); Sun, 22 May 94 12:09:33 CDT
Date: Sun, 22 May 94 12:09:33 CDT
Message-Id: <9405221708.AA06812@spike.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: BSEN055@unlvm.unl.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Heng <BSEN055@unlvm.unl.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject:      sign off
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Dear firends:

     I have sent you e-mail to ask to drop my e-mail from your lads-net
for several times. Please drop it. Many thanks !

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May 22 12:29:29 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA06918); Sun, 22 May 94 12:29:29 CDT
Date: Sun, 22 May 94 12:29:28 CDT
Message-Id: <199405221728.KAA29885@weber.ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: zding@weber.ucsd.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Zhuanxin Ding <zding@weber.ucsd.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: CBS Evening News!
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

> 
> =========================================================================
> Date:      Thu, 19 May 1994 19:41:58 EDT
> From:      HFENG@SUVM
> To:        CSSFU@SUVM
> 
> Hello, everyone,
> 
> I wonder if you have seen today's (May 19, 1994, Thursday)
> CBS evening news with Dan Rather and Connie Chung. I saw it.
> Connie Chung reported the situation of Chinese espionage in
> the United States. To me, it is extremely upseting.
> 
> Basically what she said was, of all the ORIDINARY people
> from China, EVERYBODY can be a spy. The person may look
> like a oridinary neibour, living a quiet life. That
> Chinese may not do anything for many years. But when the
> Chinese government summons him, he will be a spy. This
> is called a "Chen(2) Di(3) Yu(1)". The government may
> send him over as a spy, or may force him to become a
> spy after he enters USA. They steal information. They
> steal the secrets of the government and companies. She
> said while many countries are spying on US, no other
> country is doing on such a scale. However, she only shaw
> two persons as spies from China. One is accused, one is
> just confessing. I was not even sure if the second person
> was caught for something or he just turned himself in.
> She did not gave any specific number of how many spies
> from China who look like oridinary student and scholars and
> any Chinese are actually caught as spies in the US. It also
> shaw Connie Chung standing in a place which is apparently
> in Beijing, telling how easy it is for the Chinese government
> to force any oridinary Chinese to become a spy, and how
> the government is indeed doing it.
> 
> I am not exagerating. The message from her report is INDEED
> every Chinese is a potential spy, no matter how oridinary
> or quiet he looks.
> 
> It remains me of an article I read some time ago about how
> the Chinese were treated in the fourties and fifties.
> The slogan in the newspapers was: Every Chinese Is a
> Potential Spy! Every little store in Chinatown would
> have to hang a KouMingTang flag. Otherwise people would
> go into the stores and loot and destroy things. That
> deprived many Chinese of their livelihood.
> 
> But that was fourty, fifty years ago! Nowadays, which
> ethnic or national group is subject to this kind of
> defamation? It is against the law! CBS evening news is
> one of the most popular news programs in the country.
> Probably a third of the US population watch it. It has
> great general credibility. Think about this: if you are
> a Chinese job seeker, and your potential employer watched
> this lovely Connie Chung's report, is this employer
> more likely to hire you? Who is going to hire a potential
> spy?! If you are an ORIDINARY engineering student from
> China, and your professor has a project and he has watched
> this lovely Connie Chung's report, is your professor
> more likely to let you involved in the project? Who would
> want a potential spy to he his student and research
> assistant?! Let me tell you, this report will affect
> hundreds of thousands ORIDINARY Chinese's lives.
> 
> Connie Chung has a long history of alienating the Asian
> community. She is a Chinese herself, and she is ashamed
> of that fact. That is known to everyone. But tonight's
> blatant defamation is the most appalling. The message
> is: Every Oridinary Chinse Is a Potential Spy. (She
> used the word ORIDINARY many times.) I believe she has
> violated the law. Or CBS has violated the law.
> 
> We Chinese students and scholars as a group can be
> seriously damaged in many ways. I can quickly think
> of one promblem that may have great financial significance:
> The Lost Employment and Business Opportunities. It is
> simple - no one wants to be associated with a potential
> spy! Think about how much the Chinese people have suffered
> throughout the past century. Think about how much the
> Chinses in this country had suffered from blatant
> discrimination. Now we are getting a little bit better,
> the lovely Connie Chung stirs up this kind of garbage
> again. CAN WE AFFORD TO IGNORE IT?
> 
> I think we should take some collective actions. CBS and
> Connie Chung should compensate for our potential employment
> and business loss of us, as a group. They should also
> be punished for violating the non-discrimination law.
> I am willing to coordinate the effort if nobody else wants
> to do it. The first thing we should do, I think, is to
> contact IFCSS national office so that the we can the
> strength on a national scale. I think CSSFU should also
> do something as an organization.
> 
> Let us discuss, and take actions.
> 
> Cheers
> Feng Hui
> =========================================================================
> 
> 

Hi, Everybody,

I watched that CBS evening news by Connie Chung because the day before the
CBS evening news told people that there will be a Chinese spy report the 
next day. I was, as Feng Hui, very angry with that report. I think the
Chinese community should, as suggested by Feng Hui, unite together and
protest this. That news is totally in every ORDINNARY Chinese people's
disadvantage.

I think, every ORDINARY Chinese people should realize that there are some
Americans (not all!) who want to do everything against China and Chinese 
people. Many of them do it under the name of human right. I think they 
are unwilling to see that China is becoming economically stronger and
stronger. The MFN is one best example. The continuation of MFN is certainly
good in every aspect to China and Chinese people. It makes China have
more connections with outside world and change  the current human right
situation gradually. It is impractical and impossible, in my view, to
change everything in China as in American over night. The most important
thing is that the Chinese government should do their best under China's
current condition. 
 
I am happy to see that Feng Hui is willing to be a coordinate for this. 
I can also do something if you need help.

Thank you.

Ding, Zhuanxin

UC, San Diego,  Economics Department  

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May 22 12:46:34 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07019); Sun, 22 May 94 12:46:34 CDT
Date: Sun, 22 May 94 12:46:34 CDT
Message-Id:  <9405221245.aa09367@cs.ukans.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: s3c100ue@cs.ukans.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: s3c100ue@cs.ukans.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Ques.
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, a netter suggested going back to F-1 status after the application for PR
becomes invalid for children(lads) older than 21.  Could someone tell me
how to do that?  (What form should I use?)  Is it true that the child will
lose legal status if he doesn't change to F-1 in time?

Thanks a lot for your kind suggestions.

JW

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May 22 13:24:08 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07115); Sun, 22 May 94 13:24:08 CDT
Date: Sun, 22 May 94 13:24:08 CDT
Message-Id: <01HCN3D8HFW28X8QP1@ISUVAX.IASTATE.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: TBC05@isuvax.iastate.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: TBC05@isuvax.iastate.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: CBS news
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi;
People there. CBS news last week stirred me very much. I was puzzled by 
"lovely" Connie Chune's report that "every ordinary Chinese" could be potential
spy. My question is everyday from television screen when see the oriential 
"lovely" face of Connie Chune, do you have any cocept of "a potential spy"
there? 

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May 23 14:44:41 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07747); Mon, 23 May 94 14:44:41 CDT
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 14:44:41 CDT
Message-Id: <199405231943.MAA05694@golden.Berkeley.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xli@nature.berkeley.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Xiaohong Li <xli@nature.berkeley.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Am I out of status for using work permit issued by INS
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Forwarded message:
> From lads-l@spike.rice.edu Mon May 23 12:14:08 1994
> From: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
> Date: Mon, 23 May 94 14:13:52 CDT
> Message-Id: <199405231913.MAA02442@biocon.Berkeley.EDU>
> Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
> Reply-To: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
> Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
> Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> To: xli@nature.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject: Error Condition Re: Am I out of status because of using work permit issued byINS
> X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 
> 
> xli@nature.berkeley.edu: You are not subscribed to lads-l@spike.rice.edu.
> Your message is returned to you unprocessed. If you want to subscribe,
> send mail to listserv@spike.rice.edu with the following request:
> > 		subscribe LADS-L Your Name
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I would greatly thank you for your comments and help.
> 
> My CSPA greencard was approved in August 1993.  My wife is a LAD.  I
> graduated in November 1993.  I kept my F-1 status befor I graduated.  In
> 1991 I applied and obtained work permit based on CSPA.  During my wife's
> interview in INS San Francisco, the officer told us that because I used
> work permit in summer 1992, I have out of F-1 status since then. 
> Therefore, we have to file I-824 and my wife has to goto a third country
> to get her greencard.  I am quite confused that in other INS office such
> as in Portland Oregon there is no such theory to file I-824 and go to a
> third country.  Does my wife have to file I-824 and goto a third
> vountry?
>    Your comments are greatly appreciated.  Thanks!
> 
> Xiaohong Li
> 
The above is my oringinal message.  Since I did not sign on LADS first,
it was sent back to me. I here send it again. Sorry for this. X. Li


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May 23 16:31:42 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA07959); Mon, 23 May 94 16:31:42 CDT
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 16:31:42 CDT
Message-Id: <9405232131.AA02517@oddjob.uchicago.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: shi6@oddjob.uchicago.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Xiangdong "Sheldon" Shi" <shi6@oddjob.uchicago.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Questions about e-mail to CBS
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Some netters have problems sending e-mail to CBS. On Sat. and Sun. I sent
complaints to the following:

remote.printer.Connie.Chune/cbs@9.1.5.1.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int
remote.printer.Connie.Chung/cbs@9.1.5.1.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int
remote.printer.Eric.Ober/cbs@7.9.1.9.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int (some
                  one said he is in charge of the news division)
News@cbs.com

All went through. 

But this afternoon when I sent message to the first two
addresses I got no response. I didn't try the last two. Maybe
those suckers were not so stupid and changed their connections.

Keep on your efforts,

Xiangdong

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May 23 17:05:31 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA08062); Mon, 23 May 94 17:05:31 CDT
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 17:05:31 CDT
Message-Id: <9405232207.AA29849@athena.ess.ucla.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: sgao@athena.ess.ucla.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: sgao@athena.ess.ucla.edu (Shangxing Gao)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Email to CBS
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

I sent my complain about the CBS news to
remote-printer.Connie.Chune/cbs@9.1.5.1.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int
this afternoon (PST) and it went through. Part of the reply
message is

----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From Mailer-Daemon Mon May 23 14:17:19 1994
Return-Path: <Mailer-Daemon>
Received: from tink.com by zeus.ess.ucla.edu (4.1/SMI-4.1)
        id AA18778; Mon, 23 May 94 14:17:04 PDT
Received: from g3-to-fax-rp.ny.tink.com by tink.com (PMDF V4.3-8 #5880)
 id <01HCOOWQA0008WYITG@tink.com>; 23 May 94 17:13:25 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 17:13:24 -0400 (EDT)
>From: PMDF-FAX transmission acknowledgement <postmaster@tink.com>
Subject: FAX successfully sent to to Connie.Chune
In-Reply-To: Your message dated "Mon, 23 May 1994 12:49:09 -0700 (PDT)"
To: sgao@zeus.ess.ucla.edu
Message-Id: <01HCOPUN3LKQ8WYITG@tink.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Status: RO

Transmission of your FAX message to Connie.Chune at 12129751519 has been completed.
Subject: For Connie Chune
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Shi Xiangdong pointed out that they might have changed their
connections. I would say that the response takes longer this
afternoon because of heavy traffic caused by we angry CSS.

Gao 


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May 23 17:33:56 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA08166); Mon, 23 May 94 17:33:56 CDT
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 17:33:56 CDT
Message-Id: <01HCOSHT8JAQ9366TL@neu.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: HUA@neu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "HUA JIANG (508)339-0278" <HUA@neu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re Email to CBS
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Five protest messages on behalf six people and from five different email
accounts were sent to the address Mi MI Sr. given, all of them got through.
It woks!
Hua

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May 23 18:42:18 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA08282); Mon, 23 May 94 18:42:18 CDT
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 18:42:18 CDT
Message-Id: <9405232344.AA59206@orion.it.luc.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xqin@orion.it.luc.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: xqin@orion.it.luc.edu (Xi Qin)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: two years vaiver
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi everyone,
    I have a relative who was a J-1 holder from 1985 - 1991.  He got his two
year resident vaiver letter based on CSPA and changed his status from J-1
to F-1 in 1991.  He later went to Canada to do his post doctor.  Now, he
found job in the U.S. and the university applied H-1 for him.  But when
he went to the consulate in Toronto, the U.S. consul there refused to give
him visa by saying that the vaiver letter has been expired since 1/1/94.
We all think that the officer made mistake.  
    Does anyone or any of your friends with the similar case but got the 
visa and got back to this country again this year?  Your reply is highly
appreciate!!!!
    My email address is:
    xqin@orion.it.luc.edu
    
Xi Qin

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May 23 19:51:34 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA08411); Mon, 23 May 94 19:51:34 CDT
Date: Mon, 23 May 94 19:51:34 CDT
Message-Id: <9405240050.AA34650@a.nersc.gov>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: u9627@a.nersc.gov
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Zhihong Lin <u9627@a.nersc.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Hi! As a LADs, I have a problem with the application 
for advanced parole.

I came to USA with F-1 visa in 1991. My husband has got GC 
under CSPA with priority date July 1, 1993. My Form-130 has
been approved with priority date Feb. 3, 1994. 

I am planning a trip to China this summer. The foreign student 
advisor tells me that I need an advanced parole otherwise I may
have trouble to get re-entry visa due to intention of imigration.
But the local INS officer tells me that I can't and don't need
to apply advanced porale since I have to wait for more than two year 
for green card with family based 2nd category. This officer says
that I can apply re-entry student visa in Beijing because I am still
a full time student.
 
My questions are: Do I have trouble to get re-entry student visa
in Beijing if I go back to China? If so, what can I do now?

Thanks a lots for any comment.



From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 08:23:27 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA08740); Tue, 24 May 94 08:23:27 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 08:23:27 CDT
Message-Id: <01HCPLPQZ9UQAAU36Q@WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: HXYUE@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: HXYUE@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: CBS Boss' E-mail address
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

CBS boss' E-mail address:
Mr. Eric Ober is in charge of CBS.
	remote.printer.Eric.Ober/CBS@7.9.1.9.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int


Ms. Connie Chunne's E-mail address is:
	remote.printer.Connie.Chune/CBS@9.1.5.1.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int


You send a E-mail, they will receive it as a normal fax.
I just sent two E-mails to them, it works.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 10:11:14 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA08860); Tue, 24 May 94 10:11:14 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 10:11:14 CDT
Message-Id: <01HCPPHBLN5EAAU0FQ@WSUHUB.UC.TWSU.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: HXYUE@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: HXYUE@wsuhub.uc.twsu.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Two protection letters to CBS
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 03:26:36 GMT
>From: Xiao Hong Wang <0005678497@mcimail.com>
Subject: A Protesting Letter to Connie Chung
Message-ID: <30940524032403/0005678497NA5EM@mcimail.com>

In addition to IFCSS's collective action against CBS, I think everyone
should do something individually in the meanwhile. Since we have got the
fax # and email address of Connie Chung and the address of CBS president,
we should all send a complain letter to them, just to let them know that
not only IFCSS's president has a "deep concern", but everybody who has
a chinese origin are angry.

So I just did that. Here is the letter I sent to them:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Ms. Connie Chune:

I watched your CBS news report on a chinese spy on May 19th and I was very
upset about your comments in the report.  Your comments are sending a
misleading message to the America that every people who has a chinese origin
is a potential spy. It is totally untrue and irresponsible.

Can you say that every American in China is a potential spy because a CIA
agent has been found in Beijing? Can you say every anglo-Amercan is a
potential racist because one white man was found painting anti-Semitic
graffiti in public place? Can you say that everyone African-American is a
potential rapist because one black man was found guilty of raping?  No! Any
sound-minded person would not think so and would not say, or even suggest
such viciously irresponsible, racial-hatred provoking comments.

All the people with a chinese origin whom I know have a deep love and sincere
respect for this country. They treasure human rights this country entitle
them to have, which they were deprived of in many other parts of the world.
Many of them have even become an US citizen or a permanent resident, just as
you and your parents did before. Now your comments in that CBS news report
has put me and all other people who has a chinese origin in a trial stand
and made all of us look guilty of spying without a chance of defending
ourselves. We feel that we have been alienated from American society and we
have been terribly violated of all of our rights by your allusive comments.
The image of the hard-working and law-abiding model minority community has
suddenly been distorted as a "potential spy" community.

The damage your comments has done is serious and beyond estimate. How many
jobs will be affected because of the "spying" suspecion? How many people
will be rejected of employment because of this rediculus allegation? How many
children will grow up in a hostile shadow of this "spying" hallucination? How
much racial hatred and distrust will grow due to this irresponsible allusion?
How many families have been beried in grief since May 19th? ...

I am sad, Ms Connie Chune! I am sad and indignant. I demand an apology for
what you said in May 19th CBS news report. I believe that I and all people
who believe in human rights deserve an apology from you and CBS.

Sincerely,

Xiaohong Wang
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 23 May 1994 21:08:48 -0500 (CDT)
>From: Muguang Wu <wuxx0015@gold.tc.umn.edu>
To: remote-printer.Connie.Chune/cbs@9.1.5.1.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int
Subject: Gross Generalization in Your May 19 Report on Chiniese Spies

Ms. Constance Chune/CBS:

I strongly protest your gross generalization in your report on May 19
CBS evening news. It is a utterly irresposible act by CBS News. Surely
there are some Chinese spies in this country and even one of the closest
allies of the U.S. spied in this country. However your gross generalization
that every ordinary Chinese who residents in this countries could be a spy
is utterly unfair.

Indeed, in theory no one knows one hundred percent if his next door
immigrant neighbor or co-worker is a spy for a foreign government, but
even to imply that hundreds of thousands of Chinese here are protential
spies for the Chinese government is outrageous. Do you dare to say that
every non-U.S. citizen Jew in this country is a protential spy for the
Israeli goverment? Do you think every Cuban in Florida is a potential spy
for the Cuban government? How about a Russian? A Chinese is a potential spy
just because he is from China? Yes, how do we know Ms. Chune or one of her
family members is not a spy for the Chinese goverment since the Chune
family was originally from China (just because they were Nationalist)? I
strongly hope that CBS will not again resort to sensationalism in its news
report as it did on May 19. CBS News owes the Chinese community here an
apology.

Sincerely,


Muguang Wu







From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 10:56:13 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA08972); Tue, 24 May 94 10:56:13 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 10:56:13 CDT
Message-Id: <01HCPSZ8O82Q08QPPO@UMAECS>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: YAN@ecs.umass.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: YAN@ecs.umass.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: ifcss' e-mail address?
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Does anyone know what  ifcss' e-mail address is? I appreciate anyone send
me one. I am just wondering why we still can not hear anything about their
organized action on the disgusting Connie Chune report.

Many thanks.

Anlu

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 11:17:40 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09074); Tue, 24 May 94 11:17:40 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 11:17:40 CDT
Message-Id: <9405241617.AA09067@us0.mayo.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xlx@us0.mayo.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: xlx@us0.mayo.edu (Xiao-Liang Xu)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Re: Two protection letters to CBS
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


It is Connie Chung, not Connie Chune!

Some people must have never watched CBS.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 11:27:15 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09153); Tue, 24 May 94 11:27:15 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 11:27:15 CDT
Message-Id: <9405241615.AA19212@mac.hwr.arizona.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: jin@mac.hwr.arizona.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: jin@mac.hwr.arizona.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: CBS Evening News -- May 19
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


Dear Netters:

Like many of you, I am upset by the gross generalization of the CBS Evening News report
on May 19. I would like to add a few words to the net.     
First, be rational when you write letters or send emails. Second, please spell the lady's name
correctly, Connie Chung, not Connie Chune (if I am not mistaken). Any irrational behavior won't
achieve anything. 

Thank you for your attention.

M. Jin

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 14:39:26 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09455); Tue, 24 May 94 14:39:26 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 14:39:26 CDT
Message-Id: <01HCQ0SVOU8IEWWXA0@vms.cis.pitt.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: SHAST1@vms.cis.pitt.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: SHAST1@vms.cis.pitt.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: address
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Does anybody know Conne Chung's address?

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 16:02:30 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09596); Tue, 24 May 94 16:02:30 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 16:02:30 CDT
Message-Id: <199405242101.QAA24586@tofu.cs.utexas.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: yanghh@cs.utexas.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: yanghh@cs.utexas.edu (Honghua Yang)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: my protest letter to CBS
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

>From: yanghh@cs.utexas.edu (Honghua Yang)
>Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 15:54:14 -0500
>X-Mailer: Mail User's Shell (7.2.5 10/14/92)
>To: remote.printer.Eric.Ober/CBS@7.9.1.9.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int
>Subject: Protest on May 19 CBS evening News
>Cc: remote.printer.Connie.Chune/CBS@9.1.5.1.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int,
>        yanghh@cs.utexas.edu
>
>Dear CBS president,
>
>  I am deeply angered by CBS evening News anchor Connie Chung's
>irresponsible and racially discriminated comment on every Chinese
>in the states being a potential spy. This is the same sensationalism
>approach at the expense of the Chinese community I found disgusting 
>as the second interview Ms. Chung conducted with Tonya Harding.
>There is no excuse to the stupid comments made on May 19, 1994. 
>I bet you dare not make the same comment on the whole
>Jewish, Russian, Black communities just because one (or two) member
>of their group is caught a spy (or rapist or terrorist).
>
>  The Chinese community here are generally fond of CBS News program
>since the "lovely" oriental Chung's image makes us proud of our
>Chinese origin. This incident has greatly tarnished CBS's image
>among us Chinese. I believe that the Chinese community deserves a 
>public apology from CBS and Ms. Chung, and I myself demand a personal
>apology from CBS and Ms. Chung since I feel very angered and disturbed
>after seeing the May 19 news segment. If CBS continues to make
>irresponsible comments and be insensitive to its vast viewers with
>Chinese origin, CBS will lose those viewers. This is not something
>CBS can afford given that the leaving of NFL has already prompt
>the switching of local affiliates and the exodus of viewers from CBS.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Honghua Yang and Jin Yang
>
>Computer Science Department
>University of Texas at Austin
>Austin, Texas 78712
>
>CC. Ms. Connie Chung

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 17:21:31 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09745); Tue, 24 May 94 17:21:31 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 17:21:31 CDT
Message-Id: <Pine.3.07.9405241851.C19896-b100000@mbisgi.umd.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: xiao@mbisgi.umd.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jinsong Xiao <xiao@mbisgi.umd.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Potential spy? No Way! (fwd)
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

My protest letter



---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 24 May 1994 18:08:07 -0400 (EDT)
>From: Jinsong Xiao <xiao@mbisgi.umd.edu>
To: remote.printer.Eric.Ober/CBS@7.9.1.9.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int
Cc: remote.printer.Connie.Chune/CBS@9.1.5.1.5.7.9.2.1.2.1.tpc.int
Subject: Potential spy? No Way!

=09=09=09Jinsong Xiao=09=09=094743D Westland Blvd.
=09=09=09Baltimore, MD 21227=09=09=09



Dear Mr. Eric Ober and CBS News staff:
=09
=09I am a faithful CBS News viewer for a long time and I always
admire CBS=D5s long history of truthfulness and promptness on news report.=
=20
But on May 19, 1994, one piece of news report rocked my admiration.  That
night Ms. Connie Chung=D5s report about Chinese spy appalled me and my whol=
e
family.   In that news report Ms. Connie Chung claimed that every Chinese
is a potential spy.  Chinese students and immigrants in U.S.A are like
fish at the bottom of the sea, she claimed, once the Chinese government
calls upon them, they will surface and become a spy.   I, my family and my
friends think these statements made by Ms. Connie Chung are untrue,
irresponsible, and biased.  Ms. Connie Chung lacked enough evidence to
back up that kind of statements, she was also illogical and irresponsible.
  No one will say every white American is racist because of the existence
of Ku Klux Klan.  This report hurts the feeling of many hard-working
Chinese American.  It misguides the judgement of ordinary American people
and ruins the image of American Chinese.  It  also shows us the narrow,
untruthful, and arrogant side of CBS news.   I, my family and my friends
feel that CBS news should apologize.  And we hope that you can do a better
job in the future.


Regards

Jinsong Xiao



From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 20:17:06 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA09894); Tue, 24 May 94 20:17:06 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 20:17:06 CDT
Message-Id: <9405250111.AA01064@mace.Princeton.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: yudezhao@math.princeton.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Yude Zhao" <yudezhao@math.princeton.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Subject: CBS Evening News upsetted me

I agree with what Feng Hui (HFENG@SUVM) said.
I watched CBS evening news on May 19, 1994, Thursday partially, and 
apparently the message that CBS wanted to convey to everyone was:

Every Chinese is a a potential spy, no matter how ORIDINARY 
he/she looks and how quiet his/her life is in USA.

I even worry that my American friends may have suspicious eyes on me 
after watching such a news, because I am exactly an ordinary Chinese
and have a quiet life here. 
I am really upsetted by such a distortion news.
We should do something and take actions. 

Yude Zhao

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 22:07:01 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA10019); Tue, 24 May 94 22:07:01 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 22:07:01 CDT
Message-Id: <01HCQE8J76SI91WG1T@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: PHILL MAHH <PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Chung's case: we need an objective
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Every action must have an objective. Now Ms Chung has bullshitted on us
fellow Chinese student. We need to take some action on her. Just like the
way people responded the stupid Japanese' recent bullshit on Nanjing Massacre.
We should do the same. Our objective is clear: Ms Chung make public appology
to all ORDINARY Chinese students in the United States, and take back her shits.

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Tue May 24 22:28:23 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA10154); Tue, 24 May 94 22:28:23 CDT
Date: Tue, 24 May 94 22:28:22 CDT
Message-Id: <01HCQEUR207291WG1T@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: PHILL MAHH <PHILKU@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Older Than 21 Lads
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Some people asked about what to do if a lad is older than 21. To my knowledge
INS should automatically reverse the applicant to F-1 status if s/he was on
F-1 prior to his filing of I-485. However, if s/he was F-2, J-2, etc., since
the pricipals have already adjusted their status(not F-1, J-1, respectively)
the lads will lose their status. In those cases they will be granted voluntary
departure within certain period(have to leave the country). Of course you 
don't want that to happen. So if your lads are those cases, take action now until it is too late. I know for sure that their application will be denied, so
don't take chance at all. Change their status, for ex. F-1 is the best to do 
because you can stay as long as you go to school(usually takes several years). 

However, the drawback is you have to pay for outstate tuition. 

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Thu May 26 12:14:54 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA10927); Thu, 26 May 94 12:14:54 CDT
Date: Thu, 26 May 94 12:14:54 CDT
Message-Id: <9405261713.AA20162@ame2.math.arizona.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: wong@math.arizona.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: "Tityik Wong" <wong@math.arizona.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Sign the protest to CBS
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
>From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Need Help To Process Co-signers on CBS Letter.
Message-ID: <Cq86Jr.DB4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN
Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 22:31:03 GMT
Lines: 7

After I posted the draft letter to CBS protesting its allusion
of Chinese spies, the emails of co-signers are flooding in. I need
some helping hand because I also have my job to be done. Anyone
who is interested in processing the co-signere's names please
send me an email. Thanks.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.china
>From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Third Draft to CBS.
Message-ID: <Cq7u4M.D58@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN
Date: Sun, 22 May 1994 18:02:46 GMT
Lines: 85
I have received numerous emails who asked to co-sign the letter
protesting CBS's biased report. I have made little change. Many
people demanded stronger wording of the last paragraph, but I
think before we can substantiate a concret case that CBS's report
has induced hatred crime and discrimination, the protest should
be still at the level of demanding apology.

I have ordered the transcript of the CBS May 19 Evening News, however
it will take another two weeks to receive it. I will post the
transcript when I receive it. Anyone who had tape of the May 19
CBS Evening News, please let me know.

You are still invited to comment and co-sign the letter.

Thank you for your support.

Xiaolin Li

--------------------------------------------------------------------


Dear CBS President,

We are very disappointed with the CBS Evening News on Thursday, May 19.
In this news program, Connie Chung made a report about the Chinese
spies in the United States. Besides a brief report about a restaurant
onwer who stole millitary secret for China, Ms. Chung claimed that
every day there are people entering the United States from
China legally and many of them could be spies. She used the words such as
"fish at the bottom sea" and "it could be your next door neighbor"
to imply that any ordinary person with Chinese national origin
could be a spy for China. Such language will create serious distrust,
even hostility between the majority of American people and people
with Chinese national origin.

Most importantly, the report hinted that any Chinese who is hired by
an American Company might steal national secret for China.
We are concerned that such an irresponsible statement may produce an
even stronger discrimination against people with Chinese national origin
who have already suffered some disadvantage in their career, job
and livelihood.

It is our belief that most people with Chinese national origin
are law abiding citizens. Many of them have their love to both
the United States and China. They love the United States as a country
which privides them with freedom and hospitality. They love China
because the country is their motherland, a place where they have
their childhood memory. It is understandable that most of
them have good wishes to the Chinese nation. It is for this purpose
that they care about the economic development, the political
reform and human rights condition in China.

However, none of these should prompt the imagination that
they are spies trained to steal the American national secrets.
Many people have worked hard to enhance the understanding between
the people of China and America. They are working to bring China to the
international family. They are working on trade and academic communication
between the two countries. Many of them who enjoyed the hospitality
in the United States, returned the same good will to their
American friends when they went back to their home country.


As a generation of Chinese who witnessed the radical Chinese
Cultural Revolution in 1960-1970's during which many innocent
people were suspected as "KMT agent" and "American spy",
we are particularly sensitive to the allusion made in
the CBS report. We are concerned that such allusion
will contribute to a very damaging steorotype image of the people
with Chinese national origin. Although, we agree and even
admire the First Amendment of the American Constitution and
we believe Connie Chung and CBS should have the right for free speech,
we are seriously worried about the implication and impact of the CBS
report on the daily life of many innocent people.

We believe the American principle that a person is innocent
unless he/she is proven guilty. We love America for its democracy and
freedom. It is our belief that the potential
discrimination against people with Chinese national origin
as a result of the CBS report by Connie Chung is against the spirit of
human rights.

We demand a CBS apology for Connie Chung's irresponsible statement
and allusion. Otherwise we will stop watching the CBS Evening
News Program in order to protest its biased report.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri May 27 15:43:55 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA11475); Fri, 27 May 94 15:43:55 CDT
Date: Fri, 27 May 94 15:43:55 CDT
Message-Id: <940527164408.1636@meteor.biotech.cdc.gov>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: KE@meteor.biotech.cdc.gov
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: I AM WORKING ON MOSQUITOES <KE@meteor.biotech.cdc.gov>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: 
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 



From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri May 27 16:27:35 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA11642); Fri, 27 May 94 16:27:35 CDT
Date: Fri, 27 May 94 16:27:35 CDT
Message-Id: <Pine.3.87.9405271627.A471-0100000@post.its.mcw.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hzhang@post.its.mcw.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Hailing Zhang <hzhang@post.its.mcw.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Taxation on Lads
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Hi, netters: I have a question which may have significant impact on many 
lads who will file tax return for the year 1994. So any disscusion would be 
very useful. Case as followes:
	Lads filed PR in Aug. 1993 AS AN F-1 STUDENT...got interviewed 
but without GC aproval (may have to wait months or years to get 
it)...graduated this May...got a job in a company. Should he or she start 
to pay tax? Or by citing treaty and avoid taxation?


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Fri May 27 16:50:21 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA11782); Fri, 27 May 94 16:50:21 CDT
Date: Fri, 27 May 94 16:50:21 CDT
Message-Id: <199405272149.RAA11468@bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: rqi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Rugang Qi <rqi@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Phone # for GC printing facility
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 



I am looking for the phone # for the Green card printing facility, because my 
wife got her LAD GC last week , but with a spell error in her name.

Thanks for your information

From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Sun May 29 00:00:53 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA00332); Sun, 29 May 94 00:00:53 CDT
Date: Sun, 29 May 94 00:00:53 CDT
Message-Id: <9405290500.AA21483@lucerne.rice.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: snow@lucerne.rice.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Jun Wu <snow@lucerne.rice.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: Weekly post on how to use LADS-L
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 


This message is automatically sent out every week, in an attempt to reduce
the signoff requests posted on LADnet. Please read it and understand the
basic functions of this listserv. Please do not post signoff messages
to a public discussion list. Thank you.

Jun Wu -- listowner, LADS-L

=========================================================================
Dear friend,

	Welcome to the Late-Arrival-DependentS-List (LADS-L).

	LADS-L is a list dedicated to solve problems related to LADs of
Chinese-Students-Protection-Act (CSPA) principals. The list is maintained
by a group of voluntary Chinese Students, just like you. Netters who want
to express concerns or ask questions or provide answers to questions
should send mail to lads-l@spike.rice.edu.

	To sign off LADS-L, please send an email to "listserv@spike.rice.edu",
with mailbody as   "signoff LADS-L", from the account where you subscribed
to the list. If you have real problem signoff after the above attempt, please
drop a note to snow@spike.rice.edu.

	All backup issues for LADS-L can be retrieved via anonymous ftp from
spike.rice.edu (128.42.4.157), directory /pub/lads

	This is an automatically generated message, please do not reply.


From lads-l@spike.rice.edu  Mon May 30 20:40:15 1994
Received: from  (LOCALHOST.rice.edu) by spike.rice.edu (AA01280); Mon, 30 May 94 20:40:15 CDT
Date: Mon, 30 May 94 20:40:15 CDT
Message-Id: <9405310139.AA23798@med2s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu>
Errors-To: lads-request@spike.rice.edu
Reply-To: hua7291@med2s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu
Originator: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Sender: lads-l@spike.rice.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: hua7291@med2s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu (Mi Mi)
To: Multiple recipients of list <lads-l@spike.rice.edu>
Subject: [hua7291@med2s0.engr.ccny.cuny.edu: CBS Incident Committee has been established]
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0a -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Late-Arrival-DependentS-List 

Subject:      CBS Incident Committee has been established


Welcome to the fcbs-l. This listserv is dedicated to serve the general
CSS community who are angered by biased CBS evening news, "Eye on
America", aired on May 19 1994. As a more or less silent minority in
this land, we Chinese have long been the best target of injustice,
wrongfully stereotype and racial discrimination. Last year, when Golden
Venture went aground, the exposure was pushed to its maximum. No one
asked how many Chinese actually had illegally entered U.S.A. compared to
the other nationalities. The fact is, although New York City has the
highest concentration of illegal Chinese population in the country,
however, its illegal Chinese population ranks barely tenth in the City.
The leading illegal immigrant group, however, is from a European
country, and no body wants to mention it at all. Further more, the
media, intended or not, has portrayed Chinese communities as filled with
gangs, kidnappings, people smuggling and slave labors. While we admit
there are crimes in our community just as in any other communities,
however, most Chinese are law abiding people and more often than not are
victims of various criminal groups.

Now came the CBS report. While the previous hot topic was focused on
illegal Chinese, it seemed that we legal Chinese were exempted from the
biased attack. No way! Legally entered? You are potential spies for the
Chinese government! Are these claims made by Connie Chung the truth? Not
likely.

Now, the CBS made a blatant allegation that any ordinary Chinese could
be a potential spy. It is said that Beijing is the starting point. When
"A Chinese student or scientist or businessperson applies for a visa to
go to the US. Then the Ministry of State Security starts asking
questions: What can you learn in the States? Will you be working with
computers? Will you be loyal to China? And most importantly, can you be
patient?" What is the fact? Such a spy was caught when stealing American
secrets for China. He was portrayed as "Chen di yu", or, "sleeper
agents". His name is Kao Yen Men, who came to the US "twenty-three years
ago". Twenty-three years ago? It was then 1971, when there was no
diplomatic relation between China and US. Chinese students, scientists
and businessmen began arriving in US in 1978, more than seven years
later than Mr. Kao Yen Men ever did. This Mr Kao, even might not be a
Chinese national. Even so, most of the Chinese students and scientists
were J-1 visa holders, or exchange visitors, who were subject to the
vigorously imposed "two-year-home-residency" requirement by US
Intelligence Agency and Immigration And Naturalization Service. There
was no way for these potential "fish" even to think of the "bottom". By
deliberately putting Mr. Kao's isolated case together with ordinary Chinese
people, CBS was implying that the later could be all potential spies.
How to control this army of spies? "Ministry of State Security  will be
watching their family members in China". So, no one can refuse to work
as a spy. They wait to be contacted even it is against their wills. So,
CBS is inspiring a wild imagination. Any Chinese, no matter how innocent
he/she looks or is, could be a potential spy. How come? they have family
members in China, and patient to wait. They have to.

Can we tolerate this kind of allegation? Can you? Please join our fcbs-l
network. Please join our CBS Incident Committee, and fight any
discrimination against we Chinese people. Justice must be served and our
names must be cleared. We will resort to any actions appropriate to the
last ditch. Legal actions, protestings, demonstrations!

United, we stand.
United, we can fight discrimination.
United, we must make a difference!

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Mr. Mi Mi, Sr., Coordinator of CBS Incident Committee %
% Sign on/off at listserv@ifcss.org, with mailbody as:  %
%    sub fcbs-l Firstname Lastname, or signoff fcbs-l   %
% Post at fcbs-l@ifcss.org                              %
% Anonymous ftp: to be arranged at ifcss.org            %
% United, We can fight discrimination!                  %
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%


