a visa to “any person who is or has been a member of, or participated in, any movement which is or has been hostile to the United States or the form of government of the United States.” (emphasis added). This language does not condition such participation or membership on whether the person was a volunteer or a conscript. Other courts that addressed the issue have reached the same conclusion. See United States v. Negele, No. 4:97CV01810, slip op. at 59 (E.D.Mo. July 20, 1999) (“The [DPA] made no distinction between voluntary or involuntary membership in a hostile movement. Any membership or participation in any such hostile movement was a cause for mandatory disqualification.”); United States v. Schiffer, 831 F.Supp. 1166, 1182 (E.D.Pa.1993), aff'd, 31 F.3d 1175 (3d Cir.1994) (table) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). State Department and DPC
holding that the defendant was precluded from asserting error where the defendant had used all of his peremptory challenges and did not ask for more holding that the plaintiffs acted on behalf of all union members and reimbursing the attorneys fees from the union treasury such that all union members in effect equally contributed to the costs of litigation holding that the plaintiff was precluded from raising the issue for the first time on appeal holding that prior to 1951 all members of the waffen ss were precluded from receiving visas holding defendants were precluded from challenging the validity of jury verdict forms for failure to have complained at trial