樓上的發貼，對INA原文條款的編排不便於閱讀，重新貼了在此

Immigrant membership in totalitarian party.-


(i) In general.-Any immigrant who is or has been a member of or affiliated with the Communist or any other totalitarian party (or subdivision or affiliate thereof), domestic or foreign, is inadmissible.


(ii) Exception for involuntary membership.- Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that the membership or affiliation is or was involuntary, or is or was solely when under 16 years of age, by operation of law, or for purposes of obtaining employment, food rations, or other essentials of living and whether necessary for such purposes.


(iii) Exception for past membership.-Clause (i) shall not apply to an alien because of membership or affiliation if the alien establishes to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa (or to the satisfaction of the Attorney General when applying for admission) that-



(I) the membership or affiliation terminated at least-



(a) 2 years before the date of such application, or



(b) 5 years before the date of such application, in the case of an alien whose membership or affiliation was with the party controlling the government of a foreign state that is a totalitarian dictatorship as of such date, and



(II) the alien is not a threat to the security of the United States.



(iv) Exception for close family members.-The Attorney General may, in the Attorney General's discretion, waive the application of clause (i) in the case of an immigrant who is the parent, spouse, son, daughter, brother, or sister of a citizen of the United States or a spouse, son, or daughter of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence for humanitarian purposes, to assure family unity, or when it is otherwise in the public interest if the immigrant is not a threat to the security of the United States.
原文已經闡述了不適用於脫離五年以上的CP member,以及由於家庭成員是公民或永久居民的情況，請問這裏有何誤導？說了必須要有利美國利益了嗎？
引用別人的話，不同時show上下文的因果關係，隻能被理解為是蓄意割裂和曲解，更不是幫助別人的態度

所有跟帖： 

• 本來我回貼的目的，是為了回複“沉默是金”網友，如果你有其它 -xiaobaitu- ♀ (166 bytes) () 05/27/2007 postreply 15:21:51

• 讚一句小白兔, 很professional -toosad- ♀ (0 bytes) () 05/27/2007 postreply 15:24:24

• 很professional? LMAO! -myturnnow- ♂ (0 bytes) () 05/27/2007 postreply 21:33:35

• 最起碼比你更PROFESSIONAL,更厚道,查查你倆的發言就一清二楚 -灌水專用名- ♂ (87 bytes) () 05/27/2007 postreply 22:56:00

• 回複：樓上的發貼，對INA原文條款的編排不便於閱讀，重新貼了在此 -myturnnow- ♂ (111 bytes) () 05/27/2007 postreply 21:32:57