Since the Presidents administrative directive provides even broader protection than H.R. 2712. I can interpret the opposition to the veto in only one way: H.R. 2712 is being used to criticize the Presidents policy toward China. This discussion of change in our immigration policy has developed into a vehicle to "bash Bush." The Chinese students remain protected under the Presidents June 6 protection. waiting another few months so as to allow the administrative directive to work would not affect the protection already promised and given to the Chinese students. If we want to discuss our differences In the matter of United States foreign policy with China. let us do so in an appropriate manner. Using unnecessary immigration legislation as a tool to express discontent or disagreement in foreign policy affairs is inappropriate. We. as Members of Congress. must not use this issue to promote our own foreign policy objectives. By so doing. we needlessly gamble with the future of the Chinese students. If we enact H.R. 2712. we will Jeopardize the opportunities of future Chinese students. The Chinese Government has informed our Ambassador to China that. if H.R. 2712 is enacted. the cultural exchange programs between the United States and China will be terminated. Over 7.000 Chinese students have received visas to study in our country since the violence in Tiananmen Square last June. I believe that it is because of these important cultural exchange programs that the prodemocracy movement was and is possible. Chinese students who have studied in the United States. learned the value of democracy. and carded it back across the waters to China are the future of China.
Keywords matched
immigration visas