Posted on 11/07/2009 12:24:45 PM PST by NewMediaJournal
I don’t claim to be knowledgeable about US Immigration law, but I do know the process, the legal one that is. I met my wife while she was attending a medical convention on Down syndrome in New York. She is from Brasil and was here on a visitor visa. As they say, the rest is history. What I know about the legal immigration process came from personal experience that eventually saw my wife become a naturalized American citizen after nearly nine years of filing forms and jumping through hoops. One form in particular caught my attention.
I don’t recall the number of the form (they all have numbers) but it asked a short series of questions about her past and future intentions. The only question my wife did not understand was the one that asked her about affiliations with the Nazi Party. She didn’t know what the Nazi Party was or why she was being asked this question. I explained who the Nazis were and asked if she were active in any political parties in Brasil, or in Belgium where she had worked for nearly 10 years. When I saw that particular question, I looked over the form to see what other political affiliations were on the undesirable list, but there were none. Why had the Nazi Party been singled out for special consideration and not others?
(Excerpt) Read more at newmediajournal.us ...
Regards,
...and in Brasil it is spelled Brasil...now, on with the content of the piece...(gesh!)
“Why had the Nazi Party been singled out for special consideration and not others?”
There are people who truly don’t understand why the Nazi party was singled out?
We are doomed to repeat history.
The question is probably a hold over from the fleeing Nazis who were trying to avoid war crime trials. Given she was from South America (where a lot of them supposedly fled to), it makes sense that the question was asked.
I have pretty much the same conclusion as the author. It’s probably because the Nazis didn’t have a friend at immigration after Hitler’s attack on Russia, while the Communists still do.
I would add the question is probably still on the questionnaire because it’s an artifact the bureaucracy never bothered to remove. It wouldn’t surprise me if there were something on there about the Whigs.
*sigh* Yeah. We're repeating it right now!
“Probably a more appropriate question is why weren’t Communist organizations or Anarchist organizations or Islamic Organizations included in the list and this might be the gist of the original posters questions.”
“might be...” Did anyone else actually read the article? If not, why bother commenting about it?
And then some.
According to Nanny 'state' Pelosi that is code word for conservatives. But see now when the German socialist accused George W. Bush of being 'nazi-like or Hitler-like' it really is not a big deal any longer to be accused of supposed mindset and have that they call 'gravitas'.
Well duh! Where did they find Eichmann - New Jersey?
The only question my wife did not understand was the one that asked her about affiliations with the Nazi Party.
C) Have you ever been or are you now involved in espionage or sabotage; or in terrorist activities; or genocide; or between 1933 and 1945 were you involved , in any way, in persecutions associated with Nazi Germany or its allies?
YES/NO
http://www.esta-gov.org/en/ESTA-Application.html
I think the time honored answer to unwelcome questions is ...
next question?
The form you are talking about is form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or adjust Status.
Among other things, it asks:
Have you ever been a member of, or in any way affiliated with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party?
Were you associated with the Nazi Goverment between March 23, 1933 and May 8, 1945.
Have you ever engaged in genocide, or otherwise ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the killing of any person because of race, religion, natioality,ethnic origin, or political opinion.
The communists and the muzzies seem to be covered.
She had worked in Belgium for a decade, and had no clue who the Nazi’s were. Can I assume her job wasn’t one that required a high degree of intelligence?
She had worked in Belgium for a decade, and had no clue who the Nazi’s were. Can I assume her job wasn’t one that required a high degree of intelligence?
If you are so stupid as to answer YES to this question You are TOO stupid to be allowed to even visit the US temporarily.
so you don´t think that a terrorist would be honest enought to admit that he want to visit the US because he is involved in terror activities? ;-)
Yes, Bush did a good job in the war on terror, but he fell flat on his face in two big areas: One, the nature of our enemies and two, the national security interests in securing our borders.
The fact that 8 years after 9/11, we still don't have this question about Islamo-Fascism and still have a question about German fascism 60+ years after it's defeat tells you what you need to know.
I ordinarily do not participate or interject comments in threads on articles I wrote that have been posted by the editor of New Media Journal, but I will make exception because of your insinuation.
My wife has PhD is psychology, had her own consulting firm with one of her sisters, and worked as a clinical psychologist treating children with Down syndrome. Beside Portuguese and English, she speaks conversational Spanish, French, Flemish and Italian, and in those languages the acronym for Nazi is not the same as it is in English. She has authored one book in French and had her own television and program in Brasil.
Whether my wife understood the meaning of an acronym in a language she was learning is irrelevant. Your insinuation contributes nothing to the conversation other than to lower my opinion of some participants when discussing the serious issue of what constitutes an undesirable immigrant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.