Post by Rob Caprio on Sept 1, 2019 20:14:23 GMT -5
All portions are ©️ Robert Caprio 2006-2024
dailyentertainmentnews.com/wpgo/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/lee-harvey-oswald-marina-oswald-3.jpg
i0.wp.com/schoolhistory.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Marina-Oswald_1.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963, all by himself with no assistance from anyone. But if he or his wife had been refused entrance into the U.S this could NOT have happened if you believe and accept the WC’s conclusion.
We have looked at this issue from LHO’s perspective before in this series, but now we will look at it from Marina Oswald’s perspective.
*************************************
The granting of a visa to Marina Oswald depended on three questions being answered favorably according to the WC’s Report (WCR). They wrote the following regarding this issue.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0393a.gif
Marina Oswald’s ability to obtain a nonquota immigrant visa depended on the favorable resolution of three questions. First, it had to be determined she was the wife of an American citizen, which depended on whether her husband had expatriated himself. Second, it was necessary to determine that she was not and had not been affiliated with a Communist organization on other than an involuntary basis. Third, it had to be determined that she was not likely to become a public charge after she was admitted to the United States. Section 243 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act presented a fourth issue. This section of the act prohibits the issuance of immigration visas by American Consuls stationed in countries which have refused to accept or have unduly delayed accepting the return of persons sought to be deported from the United States. The Soviet Union has been designated such a country in 1953. (WCR, p. 761)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0393a.htm
Quote off
The first point shows why it is important to see if LHO did renounce his citizenship to the U.S. or not. He went to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with the intention to do so, but was prevented from doing such. It was his Constitutional right to do so, but he was blocked from doing so. Based on all the evidence it shows me this was a ruse by him and of course he was not allowed to follow through. It was ruled he did not expatriate himself, thus, point one was favorable for Marina Oswald.
The second point showed Marina Oswald had lied to John McVikar of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow as she had told him the following.
Quote on
[John] McVikar asked Marina whether she was a member of any Communist organization and she replied that she was a member of the Trade Union of Medial Workers but she denied she was or ever had had been a member of the Komsomol, the Communist youth organization, or any other Communist organization. Marina Oswald has since admitted to the Commission that at one time she was a member of The Komsomol, but was expelled, according to her testimony, when it was learned that she intended to accompany her husband to the United States. (Ibid.)
Quote off
She would admit in her WC testimony that she had been a MEMBER in the Komsomol though, thus, she lied to John McVikar.
Representative BOGGS. Were you a member of the Communist Party in Russia?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. I was a member of a Komsomol organization.
Representative BOGGS. What is that?
Mrs. OSWALD. It is an association of young Communist youth. It is not a party, sir. In order to become a member of the Communist Party, one has to be first a member of the Komsomol, but I didn’t even have a membership card in Komsomol Association.
Representative BOGGS. Would it be normal for one to graduate, so to speak, from the Komsomol to the membership in the Communist Party?
Mrs. OSWALD. It is a prerequisite for a prospective member of the Communist Party to be first a member of the Komsomol organization, but not every member of Komsomol becomes a Communist Party member.
Senator COOPER. She was expelled?
Senator RUSSELL. No; she testified she quit the Youth Movement.
Mrs. OSWALD. I was dismissed. I was expelled from Komsomol.
Senator RUSSELL. Why—for what reason?
Mrs. OSWALD. The reason given to me for being expelled from Komsomol was because I did not get my card, because I did not take out my Komsomol card for 1 year. That was the reason given to me, but I believe the true reason why they expelled me from Komsomol was because I was married to an American.
Why did the U.S. Embassy and State Department NOT check this out when it is obvious she had been a member of Komsomol? On this point alone she should have been denied a visa to the U.S., but these groups did not do the routine checks necessary it seems in this case. Why NOT?
In August 1961, the U.S. Embassy favorably recommended that she be granted a nonquota visa to the U.S. This was endorsed by the State Department despite the ruling in 1953 that the Soviet Union fell into the 243 (g) area of not accepting deported persons into their country (point three above). The State Department was then required to send this request to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for them to take the necessary action. The INS was required by law to make a waiver of sanctions for all Soviet Union citizens before they could enter the U.S. We see this in Virginia James’ WC testimony (she was stationed at the Statement Department’s Soviet desk).
Mr. COLEMAN. Could you explain for the record just what the sanction is under Section 243 (g)?
Miss JAMES. Yes; the sanction is that the United States will not issue an immigration visa to a citizen of a country which refuses to accept a deportee from the United States based on the reasoning that if you can't deport to that country, if a person turns out to be an unsatisfactory immigrant, you are stuck with that immigrant.
Mr. COLEMAN. Does that mean that the person cannot come into the United States?
Miss JAMES. No; it means that Mrs. Oswald could have gone to Belgium, France, England, any other country that accepts deportees, and applied for an immigration visa and have been admitted without any question on a Section 243 (g) waiver.
Mr. COLEMAN. I have marked as James Exhibit No. 2 a memorandum from Robert I. Owen to John E. Crump, under date of March 16, 1962, and the subject of the memorandum is: "Operation of sanctions imposed by Section 243(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in case of Mrs. Marina N. Oswald."…Did you prepare the original of that memorandum.
Miss JAMES. Yes; I prepared it under Mr. Owen's supervision.
If we look at this document we will see the following written regarding Marina Oswald’s application for a non-quota visa to the U.S.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0128b.jpg
It has come to the attention of SOV that in approving the petition of granting Marina N. Oswald non-quota status the San Antonio District Office of INS did NOT include a waiver of the sanction against the issuance of the visa imposed by Section 243 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It would, therefore, be NECESSARY for Mrs. Oswald to proceed to THIRD COUNTRY and there apply for a United States visa INSTEAD OF RECEIVING A VISA AT MOSCOW when her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald, is documented for a return to the US as an American citizen. (James Exhibit 2, p. 236) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0128b.htm
Quote off
This shows what the proper procedure should have been—Marina Oswald should have gone to a third country which accepted people who could NOT be deported back to their original country and then applied to the U.S. for a visa. Even the WCR said this.
Quote on
However, the sanctions of Section 243 (g) are often waived; and even if they WERE NOT WAIVED IN Marina’s case, she could obtain a visa at an American Embassy at SOME OTHER COUNTRY on her way from the Soviet Union to the United States, if she were otherwise entitled to the visa. (Ibid.) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
This shows NONE of the requirements for Marina Oswald to obtain a non-quota visa from the U.S. were ever followed. The INS did NOT waive Section 243 (g) even if they are “often waived”, Marina Oswald did NOT go to “some other country” to apply for a visa to the U.S., and she had violated one of the points by being a member of Komsomol. She should NOT have been given this visa in Moscow under the laws of INS in 1961/1962.
The INS did a field investigation in Dallas into this case and decided NOT to waive the sanctions in Marina Oswald’s case since they did NOT view LHO to be a “meritorious case” due to his defection to the Soviet Union. The INS had questions about his loyalty to the U.S. following his defection and actions in the Soviet Union. For some reason the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and the State Department had a different view and did NOT agree with this assessment by the INS (perhaps because they knew what LHO’s true role was?). They felt he was entitled to help and protection from the U.S. Government. Instead of accepting the decision of the INS which was following the rules of our country, the State Department set about to circumvent them and override their decision. Again, if NOT due to knowing LHO’s true role, why would they go to all this effort for LHO?
On January 31, 1962, the INS sent a letter to the State Department telling them of their decision NOT to waive the sanctions against Marina Oswald. The INS would also telegram the State Department the same information a few days later. On this telegram a handwritten note was added on February 12, 1964, by someone saying, “Political desk of opinion, we’re better off with subject in U.S. than Russia.” (WCR, p. 764)
WCR, p. 764: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0394b.gif
Who wrote this and why was the U.S. better off with Marina Oswald here than in the Soviet Union? On the same page we see that on March 9, 1962, the INS made it clear they would NOT waive the sanctions for Marina Oswald and suggested she go to a third country and apply from there for a non-quota visa to avoid the sanctions. We see on March 16, 1962, that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow contacted the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, Belgium, to see if Marina Oswald could get a visa from there. They were told yes, she could get one in “2 to 3 days of her arrival.” Based on this response the Moscow Embassy sent the Marina Oswald file to the Brussels Embassy.
This sounds good for Marina Oswald, but for some reason the State Department did NOT want this to happen. Why? We see this on the same page of the WCR.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0394b.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0395a.gif
The plan to obtain a visa in Belgium was rendered unnecessary, however, when the Immigration and Naturalization Service reversed its position regarding the waiver of section 243 (g). On March 16, the Soviet desk at the Department of State took initial action to secure SUCH A CHANGE by sending a memorandum to the Visa Office inside the Department, urging that the Immigration and Naturalization Service be asked to reconsider its decision. According to this memorandum:
SOV believes it is in the interest of the U.S. to get Lee Harvey Oswald and his family out of the Soviet Union and on their way to this country as soon as possible. An unstable character, whose actions are entirely unpredictable, Oswald may well refuse to leave the USSR or subsequently return there if we should make it impossible for him to be accompanied from Moscow by his wife and child.
Such action on our part also would permit the Soviet Government to argue that, although it had issued an exit visa to Mrs. Oswald to prevent the separation of the family, the United States Government had imposed a forced separation by refusing to issue her a visa. Obviously, this would weaken our Embassy’s position in encouraging positive Soviet action in other cases involving Soviet citizen relatives of U.S. citizens. (WCR, pp. 764-765)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0395a.htm
Quote off
After reading their description of LHO it makes the reader wonder why they wanted him back at all, doesn’t it? Also, the claim of separating the family is just untrue and silly as LHO could have gone to Belgium with Marina Oswald and their child while she applied for a visa from there, couldn’t he? So how would they have been “separated” then? Why all the concern for LHO and Marina by the State Department if he was truly a regular person who had defected just a few years before?
There was another stumbling block the Oswalds had to overcome too. To grant a visa to a person they have to prove they will not become a “public charge” of the U.S. IOWs, they will not become a person who is drawing government help of some kind. On page 762 of the WCR we see this written.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0393b.gif
The Department’s decision assumed that prior to obtaining her visa to enter the United States, Marina would provide some reasonable assurance that she was not likely to become a public charge after she had arrived there. The Department later encountered some difficulty in deciding that she had met this requirement. She knew of no one in the United States other than the members of her husband’s family, and they lacked the means to furnish any substantial financial guarantees. After considerable correspondence on the matter with Oswald and with the Department, the Embassy decided to accept Oswald’s own affidavit to his wife as sufficient assurance that she would not become a public charge. The Embassy’s reasons were set forth in a memorandum dated March 16, 1962:
It appears ***[Oswald] can find no one in the United States who is able and willing to execute an affidavit of support for his wife. Furthermore, Oswald has been able to obtain no concrete offer of employment in the United States. On the other hand, he is trained in a trade which should make him readily employable and he and his family will be able to live with his mother in Texas until he has found work and become otherwise settled. Taking into consideration the latter factors, Oswald’s legal obligation to support his wife, and the unusual circumstances of the case which make it difficult for Oswald to provide the usual financial evidence, the responsible consular officer *** [is] willing to accept Oswald’s UNSUBSTANTIATED affidavit as sufficient to overcome the public charge provisions of the law. (WCR, p. 762) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0393b.htm
Quote off
So the Embassy decided to take LHO’s word that he could support Marina Oswald and keep her from becoming a public charge when he could not show the following:
(1) He could NOT show he could secure any employment for some time upon his return (and indeed he was constantly unemployed),
(2) No one in his family had the means to furnish any substantial financial guarantees,
(3) He could NOT guarantee that he and Marina Oswald would become public charges.
What was the urgency to have these people in the U.S. anyway? Why was the officer who made this questionable decision blanked out? It even says this officer was willing to accept LHO’s “unsubstantiated affidavit” in making this decision. All of this should show the reader LHO was more than he was claimed to be by the WC and others.
On May 9, 1962, the INS formally stated in a letter that they had reversed their earlier decision and have waived the sanctions in section 243 (g). The letter stated that:
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0395b.gif
…the matter has been “carefully reviewed in this office” and that “in view of the strong representations” made in the letter of March 27, the sanctions imposed pursuant to section 243 (g) were thereby waived in behalf of Mrs. Oswald. (WCR, p. 766)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0395b.htm
Quote off
Who was making these “strong representations” we were not told, but it makes one wonder who was so interested in a defector who had threatened to give away Top Secret information to our mortal enemy so much? Why couldn’t the Oswalds go to Belgium first and spend up to three days there and then come to the U.S.? Why was this out of the question? My thought is due to LHO’s real assignment to the Soviet Union and NOT wanting others to know too much about it. What do you think?
The State Department said it was “in the interest of the United States” to have LHO return, but why? What value did a disaffected defector offer the U.S.? The ONLY thing that makes sense is that LHO was way more than we were told he was.
Even the WC wrote the following about Marina Oswald’s denial (i.e., lie) about being a member of the Komsomol organization.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0396a.gif
…had her membership in the Komsomol become known to the Department AFTER HER DENIAL of such membership, it is possible that she would have been EXCLUDED from the United States on the ground of having WILLFULLY misrepresented a material fact. (WCR, p. 767) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0396a.htm
Quote off
Wasn’t it up to the State Department to have run a check into this so she couldn’t have deceived them like this? Or did they NOT want to find this out? The WC said had it been known it is “possible that she would have been excluded from the United States”, but there shouldn’t have been any doubt about it as this was one of the points you had to pass to get a visa to the U.S. Marina Oswald would have been banned from the U.S. if her membership was known about (or acknowledged) so it was ignored instead.
This posts shows Marina Oswald should never have gotten access to the U.S. as she had been a member in a Communist organization and she could NOT show she would NOT become a public charge. It also shows the lengths the State Department and others went to on behalf of LHO and if he was the “unstable defector” we are led to believe by the WC, one had to wonder why they went to so much fuss?
A bigger question is this—did they jump through these hoops for LHO or was it really Marina Oswald that they wanted here? To me this is a key question.
Would LHO have come home without Marina? We will never know since the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and the State Department broke many of their own rules to make sure she was granted a visa to the U.S.
We see again the evidence in the twenty-six volumes does NOT support or agree with the conclusions found in the WCR, thus, they are sunk.
dailyentertainmentnews.com/wpgo/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/lee-harvey-oswald-marina-oswald-3.jpg
i0.wp.com/schoolhistory.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Marina-Oswald_1.jpg
The Warren Commission (WC) said that Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) shot and killed President John F. Kennedy (JFK) on November 22, 1963, all by himself with no assistance from anyone. But if he or his wife had been refused entrance into the U.S this could NOT have happened if you believe and accept the WC’s conclusion.
We have looked at this issue from LHO’s perspective before in this series, but now we will look at it from Marina Oswald’s perspective.
*************************************
The granting of a visa to Marina Oswald depended on three questions being answered favorably according to the WC’s Report (WCR). They wrote the following regarding this issue.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0393a.gif
Marina Oswald’s ability to obtain a nonquota immigrant visa depended on the favorable resolution of three questions. First, it had to be determined she was the wife of an American citizen, which depended on whether her husband had expatriated himself. Second, it was necessary to determine that she was not and had not been affiliated with a Communist organization on other than an involuntary basis. Third, it had to be determined that she was not likely to become a public charge after she was admitted to the United States. Section 243 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act presented a fourth issue. This section of the act prohibits the issuance of immigration visas by American Consuls stationed in countries which have refused to accept or have unduly delayed accepting the return of persons sought to be deported from the United States. The Soviet Union has been designated such a country in 1953. (WCR, p. 761)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0393a.htm
Quote off
The first point shows why it is important to see if LHO did renounce his citizenship to the U.S. or not. He went to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow with the intention to do so, but was prevented from doing such. It was his Constitutional right to do so, but he was blocked from doing so. Based on all the evidence it shows me this was a ruse by him and of course he was not allowed to follow through. It was ruled he did not expatriate himself, thus, point one was favorable for Marina Oswald.
The second point showed Marina Oswald had lied to John McVikar of the U.S. Embassy in Moscow as she had told him the following.
Quote on
[John] McVikar asked Marina whether she was a member of any Communist organization and she replied that she was a member of the Trade Union of Medial Workers but she denied she was or ever had had been a member of the Komsomol, the Communist youth organization, or any other Communist organization. Marina Oswald has since admitted to the Commission that at one time she was a member of The Komsomol, but was expelled, according to her testimony, when it was learned that she intended to accompany her husband to the United States. (Ibid.)
Quote off
She would admit in her WC testimony that she had been a MEMBER in the Komsomol though, thus, she lied to John McVikar.
Representative BOGGS. Were you a member of the Communist Party in Russia?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. I was a member of a Komsomol organization.
Representative BOGGS. What is that?
Mrs. OSWALD. It is an association of young Communist youth. It is not a party, sir. In order to become a member of the Communist Party, one has to be first a member of the Komsomol, but I didn’t even have a membership card in Komsomol Association.
Representative BOGGS. Would it be normal for one to graduate, so to speak, from the Komsomol to the membership in the Communist Party?
Mrs. OSWALD. It is a prerequisite for a prospective member of the Communist Party to be first a member of the Komsomol organization, but not every member of Komsomol becomes a Communist Party member.
Senator COOPER. She was expelled?
Senator RUSSELL. No; she testified she quit the Youth Movement.
Mrs. OSWALD. I was dismissed. I was expelled from Komsomol.
Senator RUSSELL. Why—for what reason?
Mrs. OSWALD. The reason given to me for being expelled from Komsomol was because I did not get my card, because I did not take out my Komsomol card for 1 year. That was the reason given to me, but I believe the true reason why they expelled me from Komsomol was because I was married to an American.
Why did the U.S. Embassy and State Department NOT check this out when it is obvious she had been a member of Komsomol? On this point alone she should have been denied a visa to the U.S., but these groups did not do the routine checks necessary it seems in this case. Why NOT?
In August 1961, the U.S. Embassy favorably recommended that she be granted a nonquota visa to the U.S. This was endorsed by the State Department despite the ruling in 1953 that the Soviet Union fell into the 243 (g) area of not accepting deported persons into their country (point three above). The State Department was then required to send this request to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) for them to take the necessary action. The INS was required by law to make a waiver of sanctions for all Soviet Union citizens before they could enter the U.S. We see this in Virginia James’ WC testimony (she was stationed at the Statement Department’s Soviet desk).
Mr. COLEMAN. Could you explain for the record just what the sanction is under Section 243 (g)?
Miss JAMES. Yes; the sanction is that the United States will not issue an immigration visa to a citizen of a country which refuses to accept a deportee from the United States based on the reasoning that if you can't deport to that country, if a person turns out to be an unsatisfactory immigrant, you are stuck with that immigrant.
Mr. COLEMAN. Does that mean that the person cannot come into the United States?
Miss JAMES. No; it means that Mrs. Oswald could have gone to Belgium, France, England, any other country that accepts deportees, and applied for an immigration visa and have been admitted without any question on a Section 243 (g) waiver.
Mr. COLEMAN. I have marked as James Exhibit No. 2 a memorandum from Robert I. Owen to John E. Crump, under date of March 16, 1962, and the subject of the memorandum is: "Operation of sanctions imposed by Section 243(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in case of Mrs. Marina N. Oswald."…Did you prepare the original of that memorandum.
Miss JAMES. Yes; I prepared it under Mr. Owen's supervision.
If we look at this document we will see the following written regarding Marina Oswald’s application for a non-quota visa to the U.S.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/pages/WH_Vol20_0128b.jpg
It has come to the attention of SOV that in approving the petition of granting Marina N. Oswald non-quota status the San Antonio District Office of INS did NOT include a waiver of the sanction against the issuance of the visa imposed by Section 243 (g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. It would, therefore, be NECESSARY for Mrs. Oswald to proceed to THIRD COUNTRY and there apply for a United States visa INSTEAD OF RECEIVING A VISA AT MOSCOW when her husband, Lee Harvey Oswald, is documented for a return to the US as an American citizen. (James Exhibit 2, p. 236) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0128b.htm
Quote off
This shows what the proper procedure should have been—Marina Oswald should have gone to a third country which accepted people who could NOT be deported back to their original country and then applied to the U.S. for a visa. Even the WCR said this.
Quote on
However, the sanctions of Section 243 (g) are often waived; and even if they WERE NOT WAIVED IN Marina’s case, she could obtain a visa at an American Embassy at SOME OTHER COUNTRY on her way from the Soviet Union to the United States, if she were otherwise entitled to the visa. (Ibid.) (Emphasis added)
Quote off
This shows NONE of the requirements for Marina Oswald to obtain a non-quota visa from the U.S. were ever followed. The INS did NOT waive Section 243 (g) even if they are “often waived”, Marina Oswald did NOT go to “some other country” to apply for a visa to the U.S., and she had violated one of the points by being a member of Komsomol. She should NOT have been given this visa in Moscow under the laws of INS in 1961/1962.
The INS did a field investigation in Dallas into this case and decided NOT to waive the sanctions in Marina Oswald’s case since they did NOT view LHO to be a “meritorious case” due to his defection to the Soviet Union. The INS had questions about his loyalty to the U.S. following his defection and actions in the Soviet Union. For some reason the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and the State Department had a different view and did NOT agree with this assessment by the INS (perhaps because they knew what LHO’s true role was?). They felt he was entitled to help and protection from the U.S. Government. Instead of accepting the decision of the INS which was following the rules of our country, the State Department set about to circumvent them and override their decision. Again, if NOT due to knowing LHO’s true role, why would they go to all this effort for LHO?
On January 31, 1962, the INS sent a letter to the State Department telling them of their decision NOT to waive the sanctions against Marina Oswald. The INS would also telegram the State Department the same information a few days later. On this telegram a handwritten note was added on February 12, 1964, by someone saying, “Political desk of opinion, we’re better off with subject in U.S. than Russia.” (WCR, p. 764)
WCR, p. 764: www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0394b.gif
Who wrote this and why was the U.S. better off with Marina Oswald here than in the Soviet Union? On the same page we see that on March 9, 1962, the INS made it clear they would NOT waive the sanctions for Marina Oswald and suggested she go to a third country and apply from there for a non-quota visa to avoid the sanctions. We see on March 16, 1962, that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow contacted the U.S. Embassy in Brussels, Belgium, to see if Marina Oswald could get a visa from there. They were told yes, she could get one in “2 to 3 days of her arrival.” Based on this response the Moscow Embassy sent the Marina Oswald file to the Brussels Embassy.
This sounds good for Marina Oswald, but for some reason the State Department did NOT want this to happen. Why? We see this on the same page of the WCR.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0394b.gif
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0395a.gif
The plan to obtain a visa in Belgium was rendered unnecessary, however, when the Immigration and Naturalization Service reversed its position regarding the waiver of section 243 (g). On March 16, the Soviet desk at the Department of State took initial action to secure SUCH A CHANGE by sending a memorandum to the Visa Office inside the Department, urging that the Immigration and Naturalization Service be asked to reconsider its decision. According to this memorandum:
SOV believes it is in the interest of the U.S. to get Lee Harvey Oswald and his family out of the Soviet Union and on their way to this country as soon as possible. An unstable character, whose actions are entirely unpredictable, Oswald may well refuse to leave the USSR or subsequently return there if we should make it impossible for him to be accompanied from Moscow by his wife and child.
Such action on our part also would permit the Soviet Government to argue that, although it had issued an exit visa to Mrs. Oswald to prevent the separation of the family, the United States Government had imposed a forced separation by refusing to issue her a visa. Obviously, this would weaken our Embassy’s position in encouraging positive Soviet action in other cases involving Soviet citizen relatives of U.S. citizens. (WCR, pp. 764-765)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0395a.htm
Quote off
After reading their description of LHO it makes the reader wonder why they wanted him back at all, doesn’t it? Also, the claim of separating the family is just untrue and silly as LHO could have gone to Belgium with Marina Oswald and their child while she applied for a visa from there, couldn’t he? So how would they have been “separated” then? Why all the concern for LHO and Marina by the State Department if he was truly a regular person who had defected just a few years before?
There was another stumbling block the Oswalds had to overcome too. To grant a visa to a person they have to prove they will not become a “public charge” of the U.S. IOWs, they will not become a person who is drawing government help of some kind. On page 762 of the WCR we see this written.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0393b.gif
The Department’s decision assumed that prior to obtaining her visa to enter the United States, Marina would provide some reasonable assurance that she was not likely to become a public charge after she had arrived there. The Department later encountered some difficulty in deciding that she had met this requirement. She knew of no one in the United States other than the members of her husband’s family, and they lacked the means to furnish any substantial financial guarantees. After considerable correspondence on the matter with Oswald and with the Department, the Embassy decided to accept Oswald’s own affidavit to his wife as sufficient assurance that she would not become a public charge. The Embassy’s reasons were set forth in a memorandum dated March 16, 1962:
It appears ***[Oswald] can find no one in the United States who is able and willing to execute an affidavit of support for his wife. Furthermore, Oswald has been able to obtain no concrete offer of employment in the United States. On the other hand, he is trained in a trade which should make him readily employable and he and his family will be able to live with his mother in Texas until he has found work and become otherwise settled. Taking into consideration the latter factors, Oswald’s legal obligation to support his wife, and the unusual circumstances of the case which make it difficult for Oswald to provide the usual financial evidence, the responsible consular officer *** [is] willing to accept Oswald’s UNSUBSTANTIATED affidavit as sufficient to overcome the public charge provisions of the law. (WCR, p. 762) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0393b.htm
Quote off
So the Embassy decided to take LHO’s word that he could support Marina Oswald and keep her from becoming a public charge when he could not show the following:
(1) He could NOT show he could secure any employment for some time upon his return (and indeed he was constantly unemployed),
(2) No one in his family had the means to furnish any substantial financial guarantees,
(3) He could NOT guarantee that he and Marina Oswald would become public charges.
What was the urgency to have these people in the U.S. anyway? Why was the officer who made this questionable decision blanked out? It even says this officer was willing to accept LHO’s “unsubstantiated affidavit” in making this decision. All of this should show the reader LHO was more than he was claimed to be by the WC and others.
On May 9, 1962, the INS formally stated in a letter that they had reversed their earlier decision and have waived the sanctions in section 243 (g). The letter stated that:
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0395b.gif
…the matter has been “carefully reviewed in this office” and that “in view of the strong representations” made in the letter of March 27, the sanctions imposed pursuant to section 243 (g) were thereby waived in behalf of Mrs. Oswald. (WCR, p. 766)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0395b.htm
Quote off
Who was making these “strong representations” we were not told, but it makes one wonder who was so interested in a defector who had threatened to give away Top Secret information to our mortal enemy so much? Why couldn’t the Oswalds go to Belgium first and spend up to three days there and then come to the U.S.? Why was this out of the question? My thought is due to LHO’s real assignment to the Soviet Union and NOT wanting others to know too much about it. What do you think?
The State Department said it was “in the interest of the United States” to have LHO return, but why? What value did a disaffected defector offer the U.S.? The ONLY thing that makes sense is that LHO was way more than we were told he was.
Even the WC wrote the following about Marina Oswald’s denial (i.e., lie) about being a member of the Komsomol organization.
Quote on
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/pages/WCReport_0396a.gif
…had her membership in the Komsomol become known to the Department AFTER HER DENIAL of such membership, it is possible that she would have been EXCLUDED from the United States on the ground of having WILLFULLY misrepresented a material fact. (WCR, p. 767) (Emphasis added)
www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0396a.htm
Quote off
Wasn’t it up to the State Department to have run a check into this so she couldn’t have deceived them like this? Or did they NOT want to find this out? The WC said had it been known it is “possible that she would have been excluded from the United States”, but there shouldn’t have been any doubt about it as this was one of the points you had to pass to get a visa to the U.S. Marina Oswald would have been banned from the U.S. if her membership was known about (or acknowledged) so it was ignored instead.
This posts shows Marina Oswald should never have gotten access to the U.S. as she had been a member in a Communist organization and she could NOT show she would NOT become a public charge. It also shows the lengths the State Department and others went to on behalf of LHO and if he was the “unstable defector” we are led to believe by the WC, one had to wonder why they went to so much fuss?
A bigger question is this—did they jump through these hoops for LHO or was it really Marina Oswald that they wanted here? To me this is a key question.
Would LHO have come home without Marina? We will never know since the U.S. Embassy in Moscow and the State Department broke many of their own rules to make sure she was granted a visa to the U.S.
We see again the evidence in the twenty-six volumes does NOT support or agree with the conclusions found in the WCR, thus, they are sunk.