But it was never intended to eliminate or to disregard those other issues that come forward. And so to suggest somehow that by the adoption of JacksonVanik we have then forever excluded the possibility of raising these other issues in terms of whether or not we wish to underwrite or subsidize or economically support a country. I think does a disservice to JacksonVanik. I may be wrong on that. My colleague has worked on these trade issues. But JacksonVanik was never meant to restrict our human rights concerns. It was merely to emphasize the issue of emigration. Is the Senator from Connecticut wrong in that?
Keywords matched
emigration