Carl Switzer Personal life what was special about his personal life? Switzer and Collingwood got along well and married in Las Vegas three months later. In 1956, with his money running out and Diantha pregnant, what was his child name? Carl Switzer
did they have any other children?
did Carl Switzer and Collingwood have any other children other than Carl Switzer?
In early 1954, Switzer went on a blind date with Diantha (Dian) Collingwood, heiress of grain elevator empire Collingwood Grain. Collingwood had moved with her mother and sister to California in 1953 because her sister wanted to become an actress. Switzer and Collingwood got along well and married in Las Vegas three months later. In 1956, with his money running out and Diantha pregnant, his mother-in-law offered them a farm near Pretty Prairie, Kansas, west of Wichita. Their son, Justin Lance Collingwood Switzer (now Eldridge), was born that year. They divorced in 1957.  In 1987, former Our Gang co-star George "Spanky" McFarland recalled a meeting with Switzer when they spoke about the farm:  The last time I saw Carl was 1957. It was a tough time for me--and him. I was starting a tour of theme parks and county fairs in the Midwest. Carl had married this girl whose father owned a pretty good size farm near Wichita. When I came through town, he heard about it and called. He told me he was helping to run the farm, but he finally had to put a radio on the tractor while he was out there plowing. Knowing Carl, I knew that wasn't going to last. He may have come from Paris, Illinois, but he wasn't a farmer! We hadn't seen each other since we left the 'Gang.' So we had lunch. We talked about all the things you'd expect. And then I never saw him again. He looked pretty much the same. He was just Carl Switzer--kind of cocky, a little antsy--and I thought to myself he hadn't changed that much. He still talked big. He just grew up.  In January 1958 Switzer was getting into his car in front of a bar in Studio City, when a bullet smashed through the window and struck him in the upper right arm. The gunman was never caught. That December he was arrested in Sequoia National Forest for cutting down 15 pine trees; he was sentenced to a year's probation and ordered to pay a $225 fine. CANNOTANSWER
Their son, Justin Lance Collingwood Switzer
Else Hansen (Cathrine Marie Mahs Hansen) also called de Hansen (1720 – 4 September 1784), was the royal mistress of king Frederick V of Denmark.  She is his most famous mistress and known in history as Madam Hansen, and was, alongside Charlotte Amalie Winge, one of only two women known to have been long term lovers of the king.

Life

The background of Else Hansen does not appear to be known.  Tradition claims her to be the sister of Frederick's chamber servant Henrik Vilhelm Tillisch, who in 1743 reportedly smuggled in his sister to the king at night, but modern research does not support them to be the same person.

Royal mistress
It is not known exactly when and how Hansen became the lover of the king.  Frederick V was known for his debauched life style.   According to Dorothea Biehl, the king was known to participate in orgies or 'Bacchus parties', in which he drank alcohol with his male friends while watching female prostitutes stripped naked and danced, after which the king would sometime beat them with his stick and whip them after having been intoxicated by alcohol. These women where economically compensated, but none of them seem to have had any status of a long term mistress, nor did any of the noblewomen and maids-of-honors, which according to rumors where offered to the king by their families in hope of advantages but simply married of as soon as they became pregnant without any potential relationship having been anything but a secret. The relationship between the king and Else Hansen was therefore uncommon.

Else Hansen gave birth to five children with the king between 1746 and 1751, which is why the affair is presumed to have started in 1746 at the latest and ended in 1751 at the earliest.   At least her three younger children where all born at the manor Ulriksholm on Funen, a manor owned by Ulrik Frederik von Heinen, brother-in-law of the de facto ruler of Denmark, the kings favorite Adam Gottlob Moltke, who likely arranged the matter.  The manor was named after the royal Ulrik Christian Gyldenlove, illegitimate son of a previous king.   The king's children with Hansen where baptized in the local parish church near the manor, where they were officially listed as the legitimate children of the wife of a non existent man called "Frederick Hansen, ship writer from Gothenburg to China". The frequent trips to Ulriksholm by Hansen as soon as her pregnancies with the king became evident was publicly noted.   Neither Else Hansen nor any other of the king's mistresses where ever any official mistress introduced at the royal court, nor did they have any influence upon state affairs whatever, as politics where entrusted by the king to his favorite Moltke.

In 1752, the relationship between the king and Hansen may have ended – in any case, it was not mentioned more or resulted in any more children.  She settled in the property Kejrup near Ulriksholm with her children, officially with the status of "widow of the late sea captain de Hansen".

Later life
After the death of Frederick in 1766, she acquired the estate Klarskov on Funen. She sold Klarskov and moved to Odense in 1768.  In 1771, however, she bought Klarskov a second time and continued to live there until her death.

Her children were not officially recognized, but unofficially they were taken care of by the royal court: her daughters were given a dowry and married to royal officials and the sons careers where protected, and her grandchildren where also provided with an allowance from the royal house.

After Hansen, the king did not have any long term mistress until Charlotte Amalie Winge (1762–66).

Legacy
At Frederiksborgmuseet, there are three paintings of Hansen by Jens Thrane the younger from 1764. Hansen is known by Dorothea Biehl's depiction of the decadent court life of Frederick V.

Issue 
Her children were officially listed with the father "Frederick Hansen, sea captain".
Frederikke Margarethe de Hansen (1747–1802)
Frederikke Catherine de Hansen (1748–1822)
Anna Marie de Hansen (1749–1812)
Sophie Charlotte de Hansen (1750–1779)
Ulrik Frederik de Hansen (1751–1752)

Sources
 Charlotte Dorothea Biehl, Interiører fra Frederik V's Hof, udgivet af Louis Bobé.
 Aage Christens, Slægten de Hansen, 1968.

References

1720 births
1784 deaths
Mistresses of Danish royalty
18th-century Danish people
18th-century Danish women landowners
18th-century Danish landowners The American Homecoming Act or Amerasian Homecoming Act, was an Act of Congress giving preferential immigration status to children in Vietnam  born of U.S. fathers. The American Homecoming Act was written in 1987, passed in 1988, and implemented in 1989. The act increased Vietnamese Amerasian immigration to the U.S. because it allowed applicants to establish a mixed race identity by appearance alone. Additionally, the American Homecoming Act allowed the Amerasian children and their immediate relatives to receive refugee benefits. About 23,000 Amerasians and 67,000 of their relatives entered the United States under this act. While the American Homecoming Act was the most successful program in moving Vietnamese Amerasian children to the United States, the act was not the first attempt by the U.S. government. Additionally the act experienced flaws and controversies over the refugees it did and did not include since the act only allowed Vietnamese Amerasian children, as opposed to other South East Asian nations in which the United States also had forces in the war.

Background

In April 1975, the U.S.-backed government of South Vietnam fell to North Vietnamese forces. Refugees from Vietnam started to arrive in the United States under U.S. government programs. In 1982, the U.S. Congress passed the Amerasian Immigration Act (PL 97-359). The law prioritized U.S. immigration to children fathered by U.S. citizens including from Korea, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Thailand. However, the law did not provide immigration to mothers or half-siblings, only to Amerasian children. Amerasians would generally have to coordinate with their American fathers in order to obtain a visa. This provided a challenge for many since some fathers did not know they had children or the fathers may not have wanted to claim the children. If the Amerasian children did not have documentation from the American father, then they could be examined for “American” physical features by a group of doctors. Additionally, since the U.S. and Vietnam's governments did not have diplomatic relations, the law could not be applied to Vietnamese Amerasian children. Essentially the Amerasian Immigration Act did little for Amerasian children and even less for Vietnamese Amerasian children.

As a way to address Vietnamese Amerasian children, the U.S. government permitted another route for Vietnamese-born children of American soldiers to the United States. The children would be classified as immigrants, but would also be eligible to receive refugee benefits. The U.S. and Vietnam governments established the Orderly Departure Program (ODP). The program is housed in the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR). The ODP created a system where South Vietnamese soldiers and others connected to the U.S. war effort could emigrate from Vietnam to the United States. Initially the Amerasian children had to have documentation from their American fathers to be issued a visa, however the program eventually expanded to individuals that did not have firm documentation. The Orderly Departure Program moved around 6,000 Amerasians and 11,000 relatives to the United States.

Enactment

On August 6, 1987, Rep. Robert J. Mrazek [D-NY-3] introduced the Amerasian Homecoming Bill (H.R. 3171). The bill was co-sponsored by 204 U.S. representatives (154 Democrats, 49 Republicans, and 1 Independent). In 1988, the U.S. Congress passed the Amerasian Homecoming Act (PL 100-200). The law took effect on March 21, 1988, and allowed Vietnamese Amerasians born January 1, 1962, through January 1, 1976, to apply for immigrant visas until March 21, 1990. Additionally the legislation removed immigration quotas and reduced legal barriers for Vietnamese Amerasians’ immigration. As a result of the act around 20,000 Amerasian children left Vietnam. Prior to the Amerasian Homecoming Act, many Amerasian children faced prejudice in Vietnam sometimes referred to as bui doi (“the dust of life” or “trash”). However, after the act many of these children would be called “golden children” since not only could the Amerasian children move to the United States, but so could their families. The act allowed the spouse, child, mother, or the next of kin of the Amerasian child to emigrate. The act was significant, because it allowed applicants to establish a mixed race identity by appearance alone.

Immigration process

The American Homecoming Act operated through the Orderly Departure Program in the respective U.S. embassies. U.S. Embassy officials would conduct interviews for Amerasians children and their families. The interviews were intended to prove whether or not the child's father was a U.S. military personnel. Under the American Homecoming Act, Vietnamese Amerasian children did not have to have documentation from their American fathers; however if they did, their case would be processed quicker. The approval rating for Amerasian applicants was approximately 95 percent.

The approved applicants and their families would go through a medical exam. The medical exam was less extensive than other immigration medical exams. If they passed, the U.S. would notify Vietnamese authorities and would process them for departure. The Amerasians would then be sent to the Philippines for a 6-month English language (ESL) and cultural orientation (CO) program. Once the Amerasians arrived in the United States they would be resettled by private voluntary agencies contracted with the U.S. State Department. Some Amerasians gave accounts that some “fake families” approached them as a way to immigrate to the United States. The U.S. Attorney General in conversation with the U.S. Secretary of State submitted program reports to the U.S. Congress every three years.

Controversies

While the American Homecoming Act was the most successful measure by the United States to encourage Amerasian immigration, the act faced controversies. A primary issue was the act only applied to Amerasian children born in Vietnam. The American Homecoming Act excluded Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand. While Amerasian children from outside Vietnam could immigrate to the United States, they could do so only if their fathers claimed them. Most fathers did not recognize their children, especially if they were born to sex workers.

In 1993, a class action lawsuit was filed in the International Court of Complaints to establish Filipino Amerasian children's rights to assistance. The court ruled against the children, stating they were the products of sexual services provided to U.S. service personnel. Since prostitution is illegal, there could be no legal claim for the Filipino Amerasian children. Amerasian advocacy groups are actively attempting to gain recognition for Amerasian children through legal and legislative measures.

There were other concerns facing the American Homecoming Act by the Vietnamese immigrants. Some accounts include a Vietnamese woman who attempted to claim American citizenship for her Amerasian son, but the father denied the relationship and responsibility by calling her a prostitute. Since sex workers were largely excluded, many children were unable to participate in the program. In the 1970s, the U.S. cut refugee cash assistance and medical aid to only eight months. Many Amerasian children account for their struggles in public school and very few attended higher education. Amerasian children who stayed in their respective countries found difficulties. Many of the children faced prejudice since their fair skin or very dark skin, blue eyes, or curly black hair would quickly identify them as Amerasian. Additionally the children faced judgment from the new socialist Vietnamese officials and other neighbors since their features positioned them as reminders of the “old enemy.”

References

United States federal immigration and nationality legislation This page lists all association football national teams which managed to remain undefeated in either a FIFA World Cup main tournament, the qualifying process for that tournament, or both.

Fixtures decided by a penalty shoot-out are counted as draws and not as defeats. The tables only include teams which played at least one match in the particular final or qualifying tournament. They do not include teams which qualified automatically or by walkover, or teams which withdrew or were disqualified without playing any matches.

All but four World Cup winning teams were unbeaten in the finals. The four teams that won the World Cup despite losing a game in the finals were: West Germany in 1954 and again in 1974; Argentina in 1978; and Spain in 2010.

Another part of the teams listed below were eliminated despite not losing any games in the finals, or failed to qualify despite not losing any qualifying games. They exited the competition by various means: withdrawal; inferior points total or goal difference within a group; drawing of lots, away goals, or penalty shoot-out.

General statistics 

Brazil have remained unbeaten in a total of seven World Cup final tournaments, more than any other team, including all five tournaments where they triumphed as world champions. Italy are a close second with six, and England and France are third with three each. No other nation has achieved this more than twice.

Germany (including West Germany) have had a record twelve unbeaten World Cup qualifying campaigns. In fact the German national team has lost only three World Cup qualifying games in its history: against Portugal in 1985, against England in 2001 and against North Macedonia in 2021.

A number of teams have managed not to record any losses during an entire FIFA World Cup cycle (qualifying and final tournaments):
 Italy (1934 and 1998), Brazil (1958, 1970, 1978 and 1986), West Germany/Germany (1990 and 2014), Spain (2002 and 2018), France (2006) and Netherlands (2014) all remained unbeaten during both the qualification and the finals (in 1970 Brazil actually did not record any draws either, managing to win every single match en route to the title).
 Uruguay (1930), Italy (1938 and 1990), Brazil (1962), England (1966), Mexico (1986) and France (1998) all did not have to go through qualifying tournaments, and did not lose any games in the finals (Uruguay in 1930 and Italy in 1938 did not draw any games either).
 Uruguay in 1950 qualified without playing any matches due to the withdrawal of their opponents, and did not lose any games in the finals.
 Several teams remained undefeated during a qualifying campaign but nevertheless did not appear in the subsequent final tournament. Each of Cuba, Lesotho, Morocco and Tunisia have had this fate twice. For others, see the tables below.

Legend to the tables 

 The Result column indicates what stage the team reached in the particular final tournament: , , , , , , , , .
Other columns: , , , , , .
 The Lost to column indicates what opponent progressed at the expense of the team in question.

By tournament

1930

1934

1938

1950

1954

1958

1962

1966

1970

1974

1978

1982

1986

1990

1994

1998

2002

2006

2010

2014

2018

2022

References

External links 
 Previous FIFA World Cups, FIFA
 World Cup 1930-2006, Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation

FIFA World Cup records and statistics