- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
I don't particularly support nor oppose the 'special' legislation.
For me, a supportive reason is that this legislation corrects a bureaucratic error. As many others have pointed out, Tanith would have had her citizenship by now if she had waited another a couple of months before filing. The only reason that it's obtained media attention is because Tanith is involved - if this were a non-Olympic year, I don't think this would have gotten as much attention.
Also, I have many friends and acquaintances who have struggled with the INS. One of my friends went without seeing her parents for 2 1/2 years because she wanted them to get tourist visas from China to see her home in the US. The INS considered her parents to be high risk to stay in the US; so, they were denied visitation twice - even when only her mother applied. She also started her citizenship process in the hopes that it might be easier as a US citizen to get things done. Right now, my friend finally just went to visit her parents in China, instead. My sister-in-law was also trying to bring one of her brother's and his family to the US - she and my brother hired a lawyer and provided all supporting documents - papers were lost and had to be re-filed - now, 6 1/2 years later, they are still not here and have decided to try to pursue life in Singapore, which is easier to enter than the US.
The reason for my indifference is that there are so many other more urgent matters that require legislation, but how much money gets spent picking out state mottos, too?
I agree that the 'Mitchell's' problem isn't with B&A, but with their competition for the 3rd spot. Tanith is just a bigger target in the media. It certainly their right as citizens to write this letter - just as it was Senator Clinton's right to not follow through on the letter (well, I'm not sure if she voted against, but I doubt this was her sole concern.)
For me, a supportive reason is that this legislation corrects a bureaucratic error. As many others have pointed out, Tanith would have had her citizenship by now if she had waited another a couple of months before filing. The only reason that it's obtained media attention is because Tanith is involved - if this were a non-Olympic year, I don't think this would have gotten as much attention.
Also, I have many friends and acquaintances who have struggled with the INS. One of my friends went without seeing her parents for 2 1/2 years because she wanted them to get tourist visas from China to see her home in the US. The INS considered her parents to be high risk to stay in the US; so, they were denied visitation twice - even when only her mother applied. She also started her citizenship process in the hopes that it might be easier as a US citizen to get things done. Right now, my friend finally just went to visit her parents in China, instead. My sister-in-law was also trying to bring one of her brother's and his family to the US - she and my brother hired a lawyer and provided all supporting documents - papers were lost and had to be re-filed - now, 6 1/2 years later, they are still not here and have decided to try to pursue life in Singapore, which is easier to enter than the US.
The reason for my indifference is that there are so many other more urgent matters that require legislation, but how much money gets spent picking out state mottos, too?
I agree that the 'Mitchell's' problem isn't with B&A, but with their competition for the 3rd spot. Tanith is just a bigger target in the media. It certainly their right as citizens to write this letter - just as it was Senator Clinton's right to not follow through on the letter (well, I'm not sure if she voted against, but I doubt this was her sole concern.)