我不到两年。。。我觉得先不要恐慌吧。。。 http://lawandborder.com/communist-party-members-ineligible-gree 看这几个。。是不是statement里需要有强调的侧重点? First, a person is admissible if the membership or affiliation terminated at least five years before the date of application. INA § 212(a)(3)(D)(iii) ( or 2 years in the case of a country where the Communist Party doesn’t control the government). Notably, inactivity can lead to termination of membership. A Party member who fails to take part in regular Party activities, pay membership dues or do work assigned by the Party for six successive months without good reason may be regarded as having given up membership. CCP Const., art. 9. Second, a person is admissible if membership or affiliation is involuntary, including “for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such purposes.” INA § 212(a )(3)(D)(ii). In China, it may be difficult to prove that CCP membership is “necessary” to obtain the essentials of life because alternatives to CCP membership are clearly better today than they were in the 1970s. In particular, private entrepreneurship has become an increasingly viable alternative to party membership. In China, many non-CCP members succeed in business, have security of person, benefit from the country’s economic growth, and so on. Third, a person is admissible if his or her membership is “not meaningful, ” meaning that he or she lacks “commitment to the political and ideological convictions of communism.” 9 FAM 40.34 N5.1. This is a judicially-created rule, and it is difficult to neatly synthesize the cases. The leading case, Rowoldt v. Perfetto, was about a man who for about a year paid dues to the U.S. Communist Party, attended meetings, petitioned the government related to unemployment laws and the government budget, worked at a Party bookstore, and stated that his purpose in joining the party was to get jobs, food, clothes, and shelter for the people. 355 U.S. 115 (1957). He denied opposing democratic principles. He denied any commitment to violence and denied that violence was discussed at any meetings he attended. His Party membership ended only when he was arrested and charged with being deportable due to his membership. The Supreme Court held that he qualified for the non-meaningful association exception because his understanding of party’s principles as “unilluminating” and the “dominating impulse” of his affiliation with the party was “wholly devoid” of any “political implications.”
我不到两年。。。我觉得先不要恐慌吧。。。 http://lawandborder.com/communist-party-members-ineligible-gree 看这几个。。是不是statement里需要有强调的侧重点? First, a person is admissible if the membership or affiliation terminated at least five years before the date of application. INA § 212(a)(3)(D)(iii) ( or 2 years in the case of a country where the Communist Party doesn’t control the government). Notably, inactivity can lead to termination of membership. A Party member who fails to take part in regular Party activities, pay membership dues or do work assigned by the Party for six successive months without good reason may be regarded as having given up membership. CCP Const., art. 9. Second, a person is admissible if membership or affiliation is involuntary, including “for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such purposes.” INA § 212(a )(3)(D)(ii). In China, it may be difficult to prove that CCP membership is “necessary” to obtain the essentials of life because alternatives to CCP membership are clearly better today than they were in the 1970s. In particular, private entrepreneurship has become an increasingly viable alternative to party membership. In China, many non-CCP members succeed in business, have security of person, benefit from the country’s economic growth, and so on. Third, a person is admissible if his or her membership is “not meaningful, ” meaning that he or she lacks “commitment to the political and ideological convictions of communism.” 9 FAM 40.34 N5.1. This is a judicially-created rule, and it is difficult to neatly synthesize the cases. The leading case, Rowoldt v. Perfetto, was about a man who for about a year paid dues to the U.S. Communist Party, attended meetings, petitioned the government related to unemployment laws and the government budget, worked at a Party bookstore, and stated that his purpose in joining the party was to get jobs, food, clothes, and shelter for the people. 355 U.S. 115 (1957). He denied opposing democratic principles. He denied any commitment to violence and denied that violence was discussed at any meetings he attended. His Party membership ended only when he was arrested and charged with being deportable due to his membership. The Supreme Court held that he qualified for the non-meaningful association exception because his understanding of party’s principles as “unilluminating” and the “dominating impulse” of his affiliation with the party was “wholly devoid” of any “political implications.”