Warm your heart

[Scott Smith]

Hi Walter,

I see your points but I think there should be a statute of limitations on such things. The longer a person is a resident of this country the more ties-that-bind and the more mischief that will be caused in technically "restoring" things to justice. In other words, at some point injustice is caused by attempting to fix what is really not broken. We don't have witchhunts for elderly illegal aliens unless there is political capital to be gained, it seems to me. And Demjanjuk, and probably this Schiffer guy would be examples of poltical correctness run amok, IMHO. Of course, I could be wrong but if they are really guilty of atrocities it seems to me that this should be demonstrable using American standards and not technicalities that permit kangaroo trials in foreign courts for maximum media overload.

[walterkaschner]

Hi Scott,

Well, I grant that there are serious issues concerning the Statute of Limitations aspects of this matter. As I see it, there are two basic arguments for imposing a time limit on adjudicating matters. One is that live testimony becomes more unreliable as the years pass by - and my own difficulties of memory at my age confirm the weight of this argument. The other is that some matters, depending upon their gravity, simply demand a repose after the passage of a certain amount of time. Now as to the first, there would seem to be no question as to the reliability of the evidence proving that both Demjanjuk and Schiffer lied on their visa and naturalization applications. This was based on documents and, at least in the case of Demjanjuk, conflicting accounts in his own sworn testimony. The eye witness testimony to the effect that Demjanjuk was the Ivan the Terrible who terrorized the inmates of Treblinka, was of course ultimately found to be erroneous by the Israeli prosecutors, which confirms the validity of the first argument for a statute of repose. But there is, at least in my mind, solid and unshakeable evidence proving that he was an SS guard at Sobibor, which still makes him a liar on his immigration application.

As to whether or not the crime of lying on one's visa and naturalization papers should be forgiven after a passage of a certain amount of time, that of course is a political question and subject to different points of view. Our Congress has determined that it is a serious enough offense to be actionable without limitations of time, and for the reasons I set forth in my previous post on this thread I tend to agree. I recognize the political force of the sentimental arguments that bygones should be bygones, that years of good behavior should trump youthful sins, and that old age should be left to find its end in peace and tranquility. Hey, I'm an old geezer myself and have a lot of sympathy for that latter point of view. But the crimes these fellows commited are not simply pecadillos. And they are certainly not victimless. Despite all the criticism that our country has become heir to, US residence and citizenship is clearly held to be a very precious thing, sought after by far, far many more than can ever obtain it. And one who illegally acquires it in most cases deprives another of its benefit, in effect steals it from him. The fact that we can't identify the specific victim is beside the point - there was one out there someplace, wishing with all the fervor of his or her heart and soul to be allowed entry to this country and forever denied that opportunity by people like those two who lied about their past to gain entry. So at the end of the day I remain unswayed by the sentamentalism that argues for their repose. They enjoyed a half-century of ill gotten benefits - to my mind that's enough!

Incidentally, the only "political capital" as you call it that I know of that was sought to be reaped from the Demjanjuk case was that of one James Traficant, Democratic congressman from Ohio, who made a huge up-front play to the substantial Ukranian population in his District in support of Demjanjuk. It probably helped earn him his re-election over the past several terms. Last month he happened to be convicted in Federal Court of ten counts of bribery and obstruction of justice, which could result in over 90 years in the slammer. Probably we will hear from the Demjanjuk supporters that this was in retribution from his support of their hero, but from what I've read in the papers the prosecutors clearly caught him red-handed with his hand in the bribery cookie jar.

Regards, Kaschner

[Scott Smith]

Hi Walter,

But this country is crawling with illegal aliens and those who entered the country illegally at one time or another. If someone is accused of crimes we even give them political asylum. If these people are really guilty of criminal acts, I don't see why they cannot face American courts of inquiry for THOSE things and not the silly technicality of lying to immigration about being in the the SS. We don't accept guilt-by-association or blanket criminality in this country. And yet we do when it comes to the WWII era. It seems to me that those who profit from such things as the Holtzmann amendment would be singing a much different tune if their own interests were at stake. Any gangster or spy can skip to Israel and evade extradition by evoking the law-of-return. Perhaps these are not equivalencies but it seems silly to me. We make an accusation and consider that a conviction.

[Victor]

Anyway, if this man chooses to stay here, I'll try to find and interview him.

As you already know he will not be allowed to stay in Romania if he is proved guilty, so you'll better hurry. Since he is already having problems finding a place to stay because of his past, maybe you can welcome him to your humble home?

Btw, I don't understand why didn't the US put him on trial themselves? Why did they sent him to us?

[Ovidius]

Btw, I don't understand why didn't the US put him on trial themselves? Why did they sent him to us?

Because, as you've already know, "someone up there" had passed some legal measures which incline too much to Political Correctness in the worst sense of the phrase , and "he" had done this in front of a media campaign that attempted to describe Romania of yesterday and today as a virulently Anti-Semitic country. And if you've read carefully the historical magazines(and other kinds of magazines) in the last 2-3 months, you've seen they suddenly changed their tone, all at once, claiming that "we were not with them, just fighting for our territories" in regard to Romania in WWII.

http://thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewt ... 7&start=25(scroll down)

If Schiffer did keep his Romanian citizenship, he can't be declared persona non grata, and he will stay. And exactly this do the media bastards want: an opportunity to claim that Romania "hosts warcriminals charged with crimes against humanity". Right?

~Ovidius

[walterkaschner]

Hey Guys,

I don't know how to make it any clearer: Schiffer and Demjanjuk were NOT subject to extradition because they were SS members or concentration camp guards. As far as I know there is no law in the U.S. which makes that a crime; it is not a punishable offense here. What they WERE guilty of was LYING about it in order to obtain US citizenship. They were not fined or sent to jail. They are simply being thrown out of the country for having lied to get in. This result is not restricted to lies about WWII activities; it applies to any knowing misstatement of a fact deemed material to one's qualifications for citizenship. For reasons I elaborated on above, I am unable to dismiss that as "a silly technicality." These men lied to obtain something precious, they deprived someone else of it, and now, after having enjoyed it for 50 years they are simply being forced to give it up. I see nothing silly or unfair about that, and am unable to squeeze out a tear for either one of them. I guess I just have a heart of stone.

Regards, Kaschner

[Scott Smith]

I guess it's a Catch-22. You tell the truth that you were in the SS (a "criminal organization") and don't get in, or you lie and nobody cares until the Holtzman Amendment is passed in 1978. For the record, I'm not in favor of harassing ex-Communists either except for actual crimes committed.

During the first session of the 95th Congress (I978), Representative Elizabeth Holtzman (NY), introduced two bills to exclude from admission into the United States aliens who have persecuted any person on the basis of race, religion, national origin, or political opinion, and deport such aliens who have been admitted into the United States.

After appropriate deliberation, the bills passed both the House and the Senate and finally became Section 212 (a) (3) (E) and Section 241 (a) (4) (D) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

Section 212 (a) (3) (E) provides that a person who has participated, under the direction of the Nazi government or any government which was an ally of the Nazi government, in the persecution of any person because of race, religion, national origin or political opinion is excludable.

Section 241 (a) (4) (D) stipulates that any alien described in the foregoing Section is deportable.

The legislative history of the Amendment shows that the language "persecution" was intended to designate the act, with government sanction, of inflicting suffering or harm upon persons who differ in a way (e.g. race, religion, political opinion, etc.) in a manner condemned by civilized governments. The harm or suffering need not be physical, but may take other forms, such as the deliberate imposition of severe economic disadvantage or the deprivation of liberty, food, housing, employment or other essentials of life. It is clear that the imposition of sexual slavery is an extreme form of harm and suffering contemplated in the legislation.

The Holtzman Amendment has not been challenged in the courts of the world, and, specifically, it has not been challenged in the courts of the United States.

[Xanthro]

There seems to be some confusion as to Dual Citizenship. Before 1990, the United States didn't recognize any dual citizenships, even now, it doesn't but instead of you automatically losing your citizenship, the US ignores the citizenship of the other country unless you specifically revoke citizenship.

The following describes how citizenship can be lost.

Section 349 of the INA [8 USC § 1481] specifies several conditions under which US citizenship may be lost. These include:

becoming a naturalized citizen of another country, or declaring allegiance to another country, after reaching age 18;

serving as an officer in a foreign country's military service, or serving in the armed forces of a country which is engaged in hostilities against the US;

working for a foreign government (e.g., in political office or as a civil servant);

formally renouncing one's US citizenship before duly authorized US officials; or

committing treason against, or attempting or conspiring to overthrow the government of, the US.
The primary effect of recent developments in the US regarding dual citizenship has been to add the requirement that loss of citizenship can only result when the person in question intended to give up his citizenship. At one time, the mere performance of the above (or certain other) acts was enough to cause loss of US citizenship; however, the Supreme Court overturned this concept in the Afroyim and Terrazas cases, and Congress amended the law in 1986 to require that loss of citizenship would result only when a potentially "expatriating" (citizenship-losing) action was performed voluntarily and "with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality".

On 16 April 1990, the State Department adopted a new policy on dual citizenship, under which US citizens who perform one of the potentially expatriating acts listed above are normally presumed not to have done so with intent to give up US citizenship. Thus, the overwhelming majority of loss-of-citizenship cases nowadays will involve people who have explicitly indicated to US consular officials that they want to give up their US citizenship.

The 1990 change is a major change, and it's why Lindh can be prosecuted for taking up arms against the United States. Previous to this, he would have lost citizenship automatically.

Xanthro

[Dan]

Good post. This was how it was described to me, and it's frankly nice to have two valid passports.

Dan

[michael mills]

Walter Kashner wrote:

In my view, yes we certainly should. The US Congress has for decades, rightly or wrongly, imposed strict quotas on the number of immigrants, country by country, it would permit entry to the US. The number of those desiring entry from most countries far exceeded the quotas imposed. Therefore a Romanian who lied on his visa application and was granted entry to the US in all likelihood supplanted another Romanian applicant who equally desired and would have otherwise been entitled to such entry, the liar thereby becoming entitled to the benefits of US residence which others eagerly sought and were denied. On the basis of his lies he has enjoyed those benefits for some 50 years. Is it your notion that the longer you enjoy the benefits you illegally obtained and in effect thereby stole from some other deserving person, the more lenient your treatment should be? I think not. In my view, people such as Schiffer and Demyanchuk, if it can be proved that they lied on their visa applications and thereby have enjoyed the fruits of their mendacity for half a century at the expense of others with more legitimate claims, deserve no compassion whatsoever. Old age is simply no excuse. To the contrary, they have enjoyed over half a lifetime of undeserved and illegally acquired benefits, at someone else's expense. I can muster no tears for them at their comeuppance, although I do have a great deal of sympathy for their innocent wives and children.

The above argument, particularly the point that the entry to the United States of Schiffer deprived another "more deserving" Romanian of the benefits of residence, is specious. Given that Mr Kashner is a "legal genius" (or so we are told by Mr Muehlenkamp, also a legal genius), he must have realised its specious nature, and we are entitled to question his motives in making it.

The fact is that once the Cold War began, there were no strict quotas for persons coming from Communist countries like Romania. All persons from such countries who could get away were regarded as refugees from Communism, and were granted admission to the United States (and to other countries like Australia) on that basis. Schiffer did not deprive another Romanian of entry to the United States; that other Romanian would also have been granted entry. Any Romanian who could get out of the country would have been granted entry.

Furthermore, there was a policy of granting entry to Displaced Persons originating in countries that had been Communist or which became Communist after the War.

People like Schiffer were beneficiaries of a policy of the United States Government that granted entry to refugees from Communist countries regardless of what they had done during the war. Romanians and Ukrainians who had fought against the Soviet Union as members of the German armed forces or those of countries allied with Germany were regarded as fighters against Communism rather than as fighters against allies of the United States.

Having been a beneficiary of a change in US Government policy that occurred after the War as a result of the start of the Cold War, people like Fischer have fallen victim to another change in US Government policy brought about by pressure from the Jewish Lobby. But to argue that they gained entry to the United States fraudulently, by deceiving the United States Government, is a legal quibble of the worst sort; they gained entry because the United States Government at that time wanted to give refuge to anyone coming from a Communist country.

If the United States Government later decided that persons admitted to the country in accordance with its anti-Communist policies should be investigated for their activities during the War and put on trial if there well-founded allegation against them of having committed crimes, it should have had the guts to put them on trial itself, under accepted Western rules of procedure, rather than take the cowardly course of deporting them to countries with dubious legal systems, such as the Soviet Union or the Jewish State, where they would face a kangaroo court.

[Roberto]

Given that Mr Kashner is a "legal genius" (or so we are told by Mr Muehlenkamp, also a legal genius),

I don't know what the argument is about, but the above gratuitous sneer, apart from splendidly illustrating Michael Mills' rather unpleasant character, betrays a lot of understandable frustration on the part of the dissident historian and expert from Australia.

[walterkaschner]

Hi Mr. Mills,

Well, Iv'e been called a lot of things in my life, some of them quite unpleasant, but you are the first one that has ever alluded to me, even in jest, as a "legal genius"! Although I think I detect a note of sarcasm in the appelation, I will take it as a compliment, albeit a totally undeserved one. I'm far from a genius, but I am (or rather was for over 40 years) a lawyer, which, as clearly appears from your post, you obviously are not.

You stated:

The fact is that once the Cold War began, there were no strict quotas for persons coming from Communist countries like Romania. All persons from such countries who could get away were regarded as refugees from Communism, and were granted admission to the United States (and to other countries like Australia) on that basis.Schiffer did not deprive another Romanian of entry to the United States; that other Romanian would also have been granted entry. Any Romanian who could get out of the country would have been granted entry.

I know nothing about Australian law, but your notion of the US immigration laws prevailing at the time John Demjanjuk and Nicolaus Schiffer immigrated to the US demonstrates that the state of your knowledge about the laws of this country is about the same as mine about the laws of Australia.

The fact is that at the end of WWII a system of immigration quotas based on country of origin was and had been in effect in the US since the early 1920s. In 1948, however, the US Congress passed the Displaced Persons Act of June 25, 1948, primarily to help relieve the problems facing Germany and Austria by the large numbers of refugees crowded into displaced persons' camps in those countries. This Act allowed entry into the US of 205,000 displaced persons over a 2 year period ending July 1, 1950, BUT they were CHARGEABLE against subsequent years' quotas for their nation of origin. This was followed by the Internal Security Act of September 22, 1950 (the McCarran Act) which, although primarily directed against Communists, in effect denied entry to former members of any totalitarian or related party (which included membership in the SS). (This Act was vetoed by President Truman, but Congress overrode his veto and it was thereby enacted into law.) In 1952 Congress passed the Immigration and Naturalization Act (the McCarran-Walter Act) which attempted to rationalize and modernize the US immigation laws, but which still retained national quotas. And thereafter Congress enacted the Refugee Relief Act of August 7, 1953, which allowed the entry of no more than 214,000 victims of war and disaster, which were not counted against individual national quotas.

There have been numerous changes to the US immigration laws subsequent to 1953, most (but not all) of which until very recent years preserved the basic notion of national quotas, but they are irrelevant for present purposes, as Demjanjuk entered the US in 1951 and Schiffer in 1953. When Demjanjuk entered in 1951 the old national quota system was still very much in effect and the relief granted by the Displaced Persons Act had expired. So by lying in connection with his application for entry he did, contrary to your assertion, use up one spot in a national quota that could have been available to another.

The same is true for Nicolaus Schiffer, although it is not clear whether he was admitted entry under the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act, which still imposed national quotas, or under the Refugee Relief Act, which imposed an overall quota. (The former seems much more likely, due to the relatively late date of enactment of the latter, but I don't know enough of the details to say for certain. In any event the point is moot and your notion that any Romanian could enter the US who wished to is just dead wrong.)

You are of course free to think the expulsion of these two gentlemen represents "a legal quibble of the worst sort" and a "change in government policy brought about by the Jewish Lobby". Although that may not speak too highly of your judgement of legalities, it says a lot about your prejudices.

As the final point in your post you said:

If the United States Government later decided that persons admitted to the country in accordance with its anti-Communist policies should be investigated for their activities during the War and put on trial if there well-founded allegation against them of having committed crimes, it should have had the guts to put them on trial itself, under accepted Western rules of procedure, rather than take the cowardly course of deporting them to countries with dubious legal systems, such as the Soviet Union or the Jewish State, where they would face a kangaroo court.

The simple answer to that is that, under US jurisprudence, there is no jurisdictional nexus for a US court to try crimes committed outside the US which have no direct effect on US persons or commerce. As to Demjanjuk, I don't know where he will be deported to as a result of his recent loss of appeal, but it surely will not be the Soviet Union, which has not existed now for several years. And contrary to your belief (but as further confirmation of your faaulty understanding of US law) he was not originally "deported" to Israel, he was extradited, an entirely different process. And the Israeli "dubious legal system", if I recall correctly, was the one that ultimately let him go free, because the prosecutors, on their own initiative, were finally able to induce the Russians to open up their files.

And as to Schiffer, I have read in the papers that Romania has agreed to allow him entry, but have not heard that he is to be tried there by any "dubious legal system" (if such it be in that country) nor by a "kangaroo court" (I've never known precisely what that means, is it an Australian specialty? Just Kidding!!!)

And BTW, who is the Fischer referred to in your post? I have a dear friend of that name, but I'm sure you didn't have her in mind as she has never been deported and I would be heart-broken if she were.

Regards, and motivated by nothing more than a passion for accuracy, Kaschner

[Ovidius]

And as to Schiffer, I have read in the papers that Romania has agreed to allow him entry, but have not heard that he is to be tried there by any "dubious legal system" (if such it be in that country) nor by a "kangaroo court" (I've never known precisely what that means, is it an Australian specialty? Just Kidding!!!)

Dear Mr. Kaschner,

If you knew more about the Romanian legal system(and, for your psychological safety, it's better you don't ), you would have known that it's rather unlikely someone will try him here. Unless the Uncle Sam had requested that from the Romanian Government, on some "dubious" diplomatic channels, which won't amaze myself.

~Best regards,

Ovidius

[MadJim]

The thing that makes Schiffer's deportation so awful is the fact that he was born in the US and NEVER gave up his US citizenship. If serving in a foreign army is an indication of giving up US citizenship , why didnt the Flying tigers and members of the Eagle Squadron give up THEIR citizenship?

Schiffer's plight was covered in some detail in Philadelphia Magazine some years ago. I have xeroxs of the article if someone is interested.

What makes the plight of many of these men so pathetic is that that were not enthusiastic volunteers of the thousand year reich - but volksdeutsche that were press ganged into the manpower hungry Waffen SS. For those of you that don't know - Himmler reached an agreement with Axis allied/occupied governments in 1943 where those identified as racial Germans could be involuntarilly taken into the SS. (Source - see George H Stein - Hitler's Elite Guard at War. I use Stein here because it is not considered an SS friendly source)

If failing to check off the correct box FIFTY years ago is now a deportable offense - I suggest that the INS get down to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California - as there are millions there that havent bothered to fill out any forms at all.

I find it distasteful that the US govt is willing to grandfather millions of illegals that came here less than 20 years ago - but old men that have been here as tax payers for 50 years are now seen as such an immenent threat that a whole Federal Agency costing millions of dollars a year needs to be set up to ferret them, their Rxs, and their orthopaedic shoes out of the country.

Even the way its done - through a law suit - is underhanded. While Mafia hit men, Serial killers, Spies, and King pin dope peddelers are entitled to free representation - including court appointed attorneys from some of the US' biggest law firms -these men are forced to provide their own lawyers. Needless to say these old guys are bankrupted quick - and so out they go. One guy I knew (personally) after being wiped out by an immigration lawyer - was represented pro bono by a Real estate lawyer he knew from a German Language singing group.

Finally anybody that doesnt see that a law attached as a "rider bill" to a Vietnamese immigration bill by two Jewish Congress people as anything other then raw revenge - your kidding yourself.

[Ovidius]

What makes the plight of many of these men so pathetic is that that were not enthusiastic volunteers of the thousand year reich - but volksdeutsche that were press ganged into the manpower Waffen SS. For those of you that don't know - Himmler reached an agreement with Axis allied/occupied governments in 1943 where those identified as racial germans could be involuntarilly taken into the SS. (Source - see George H Stein - Hitler's elite Guard at War. I use Stein here because it is not considered an SS friendly source)

The Romanian drafting laws of the 1930s and 1940s requested that any Romanian resident had to do his service in the Royal Romanian Army, regardless of his ethnicity. Refusal to the drafting meant desertion, subject to the harshest punishments during warfare. That's why the Volksdeutsche from Transylvania couldn't simply pass the border and join the SS - or if they did, it was still illegal.(This is also intended to be an answer for those who wonder why the number of Romanian SS volunteers was so low)

Even the way its done - through a law suit - is underhanded. While Mafia hit men, serial killers, spies, and King pin dope peddelers are entitled to free representation - including court appointed attorneys from some of the US' biggest law firms -these men are forced tp provide their own lawyers. Needless to say these old guys are bankrupted quick - and so out they go. One guy I knew personally after being wiped by an immigration lawyer - was represented pro bono by a Reale state lawyer he knew from a German Language singing group.

You forget that Mafia hitmen, serial killers and drug barons did not wear the uniform of the "monstrous Hitlerian regime". And if you wonder why those who did are considered worse than Mafia hitmen and drug lords, you haven't heard of some kind guys from a certain IMT in Nuremberg

~Regards,

Ovidius