Chinese Refugees in the United States

In June of 1993, three hundred Chinese people fleeing the one-child policy and its forced abortion and forced sterilization escaped from China by boat and landed in the New York Harbor. President Clinton, unlike previous administrations, denied them asylum and immediately imprisoned them in various U.S. prisons. During their three years of imprisonment, few have received asylum through their attempts in U.S. courts. Many have given up and returned to China. Punishments of severe beatings, imprisonments, and heavy fines equivalent of 20 to 30 years salary have been reported following their return.

The process to obtain legislation in the U.S. qualifying forced abortion and forced sterilization as grounds for asylum was attempted during this three year plight of these most desperate people. Four of the refugees gave their testimonies before the U.S. House Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights for the benefit of this legislation. This occurred after many failed arrangements with the U.S. government to allow them to speak. Stories of a six-month old baby in the womb forcibly removed, hiding in caves to escape the family planning workers pursuing them for forced sterilization, retrieving an abandoned baby girl on the roadside while walking home from a clinic after receiving medical attention for an infection from a forced abortion, and many other details of struggle and hardship were heard and recorded relating to these atrocities.

The legislation passed in both Houses of the Congress, was sent to the White House for the President’s signature, but was vetoed by President Clinton. Most of the women on the boat were initially imprisoned in one of the worst prison’s in America known for abuse of its prison population. When the process of their repatriation to China began, they were taken to the Bakersfield prison in California. Through the efforts of Life Coalition International, nine of the women have received asylum in Ecuador and recently, additional nations have come forward to offer third country asylum.

President Clinton threatened trade sanctions with China over problems with copyrighting, but within days reported his intent to renew Most-Favored-Nation trade status with China for the “best interest of America.” Three of the nine women in the Bakersfield Prison were deported back to China as President Clinton made these decisions. Harry Wu visited the York County Prison in York, Pennsylvania where one-hundred and forty of the men were held. They did not meet with Harry Wu for fear of even heavier penalties when they return to China. Of the fifty-nine men remaining in the York Prison over half of them will return to China. An International agreement with the United States and nations surrounding China is occurring to prevent any ships from leaving China with those trying to escape.

As of now LCI has been able to arrange asylum in Ecuador for the women who were imprisoned in Bakersfield. They are presently living and working in Ecuador.

Abortion and Politics – Republicans May Suffer Same Fate as Whigs

By Robert Fitzgerald


Most politicians today would scoff at the mention of the latter question, call it reactionary and write it off as uninformed. The thought that the Grand Old Party could possibly fall out of its prominent role in the United States political system seems absurd! But is this question really absurd?

Stop a moment and consider history. Between 1854 and 1856, Abraham Lincoln began to realize that the Whig Party, to which he was loyal, was nearing extinction. Whig leadership was wavering on the slavery issue, unable to come out decisively as the anti-slavery, anti-expansionist party. Those with strong moral convictions against slavery were forced to search for someone and/or some group to represent their cause for the nation. The Democratic Party had already aligned itself with the South, not only favoring slavery in the states where it already existed but also backing its expansion to the new territories of the nation. Because the Whigs and the Democrats would not represent anti-slavery, anti-expansionist sentiments, two fledgling parties emerged.

One, the American Party, or Know Nothings, failed to survive because they did not adopt a platform against the expansion of slavery. The second, the Republican Party, did adopt this platform. As the Whig Party continued to hold to ambivalent opinions, members began to gravitate toward the Republican Party. The Party proved stable enough to represent the anti-slavery, anti-expansionist movement and won the trust of leaders such as Lincoln. The Whigs came unglued as a result of the strong sentiments surrounding slavery while the Republican Party flourished and brought a hero to the White House in their second attempt.

Today, the Republican Party is failing to recognize the similarities between the issues of slavery and abortion both morally and politically. In doing so, they neglect to understand the very circumstances that brought them into the position of power and influence which they enjoy today. This negligence may prove disastrous. Current Republican leaders do not seem to realize that their party exists because of its bold stand on a vitally important moral issue. In Lincoln’s day, the issue was slavery; today, that vitally important moral issue is abortion.

Currently, within the ranks of the Republican Party there is growing strife and a lack of cohesiveness which is the result of a failure to make a firm stand on abortion. Late Republican Party Chairman, Lee Atwater, on a national news broadcast stated: “There are no litmus tests on any issues which would be grounds for repudiating a Republican who believes in our overall philosophy.” In so many words, Atwater’s comment indicates that there is room in the Republican Party for candidates who support abortion. The Whigs may have said the same thing about their party in relation to slavery. They had no litmus test for their party either, but a large segment of the American people did and the Whigs failed the test. World magazine (Jan. 22, 1990) quotes Vice President Daniel Quayle expressing an idea shared by many fence straddling leaders in the Grand Old Party. Quayle says that as a whole, the Republicans “are a party of inclusion … the tent is big enough to include pro-life as well as pro-abortion.”

If one looks to history again, it becomes clear that this stance will not survive the test of time. Abraham Lincoln found himself faced with a similar dilemma on the slavery issue. Stephen B. Oates, in his highly acclaimed biography of Lincoln, With Malice Toward None, comments on and even quotes Lincoln’s beliefs on such an all inclusive party position. What was involved, Lincoln said, was a struggle for human liberty. In Lincoln’s view, slavery embodied the selfishness of man’s nature and opposition to it embodied man’s love of justice. These two principles are eternally antagonistic and when brought together, they would lead inevitably to a demise of shocks, throes, and convulsions. In the same vein, pro-life and pro-abortion stances are eternally antagonistic and will cause Shscks, throes, and convulsions within the Republican Party.

If this philosophy persists, the Republicans, like the Whigs, will find their tent torn asunder. Will the Republican Party learn from history or will they tragically repeat it? Will they take the fire of compromise to their bosom and suppose that they will not be burned?

Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address: “These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All know that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.” If there is no drastic turn around; if there is no change of heart and mind on this issue, Republicans in the future may be saying that their demise was because of philosophical and economic issues.

History may record: “These UNBORN constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All know that this interest was somehow the cause of …” … as well as the demise of an entire political party.” We pray that God would turn them from their folly or raise up a purer representative of the American people. This article was reprinted from The Forerunner, a Christian newspaper distributed nationally and on college campuses.