Mrraveltay

sunflwrgrl13 wrote:


    > Hear, hear, Andy. We pay high enough fees already. But I see no one
    > has mentioned military naturalizations being free. Just because they are
    > military does not mean they should get special treatment. What makes
    > them so different from anyone else who is trying to be reunited with
    > their loved one? They are Americans who fell in love with foreigners,
    > same as we have. I don't find that fair at all, but I reckon you have to
    > look at life as not being fair.

Get the facts straight... These are non US citizens in the military that
have been authorized naturalization. It has nothing to do with the fees
paid for military people to bring their spouses or fiances to the US.
In those cases, they pay the same fees as you do.

Mrraveltay

sunflwrgrl13 wrote:


    > If someone
    > else covered their fees, like the DoD or a general fund, I would agree
    > that they can keep their fee waiver. However I don't feel like we (as in
    > me & fiance) should have to pay higher fees to support their new family.
    > Just my honest opinion.
    >

You are not paying fees for the military families. This is about paying
the cost of naturalizing the military person himself.

Bluegrass Lass

You didn't have to say it twice, MrT. I get the point. If this is for foreigners joining our military that we are paying higher fees for, then I most definitely feel that we should not be paying higher fees to pay for them. If the gov't wants them, let them pay for them. This may sound harsh, but that's my honest opinion.

Mrraveltay

sunflwrgrl13 wrote:

    > of naturalizing the military person himself.
    >
    > You didn't have
    > to say it twice, MrT. I get the point. If this is for foreigners joining
    > our military that we are paying higher fees for, then I most
    > definitely feel that we should not be paying higher fees to pay for
    > them. If the gov't wants them, let them pay for them. This may sound
    > harsh, but that's my honest opinion.

The point is that I replied once to each of YOUR posts.
For the record, I am not only in favor of giving military people free
naturalization filing for themselves, but also for their wives and children.

Mattias Hembruch

In article <[email protected]>,
Folinskyinla <member4043@british_expats.com> wrote:
    >Originally posted by Hypertweeky
    >> Hey there Mr
    >Folinskyinla:
    >>
    >> I know you dont *usually* answer questions aiming
    >solely to you, But here I go.
    >> Do I need to apply for AP if I am a
    >K3?,I have been told yes and no, and I would like to hear your opinion
    >> Thanks a lot in advance
    >Hi:
    >Its in the regulations.
    >Some people might say "RTFM" but I prefer "UTSL"

UTSL?

Mattias

Steffi

That would make sense to me the way you put that. I just wish they would clarify that more in the application, because I didn't gather it from that.
Well at least I can be certain that I'll need my AP as a "former" K1.

Jo_B

Jeff,
No, I didn't go armed with any printouts to the Indy office when I picked up the AOS papers. I was actually there to get my temp EAD and thought *what the heck, I'm here, might as well grab the next step in the immigration process.*
We haven't been *home* since Oct of 2002 and now with my new job, we won't be going home now till December of this year. We have our AOS interview on Feb 19th, so hoping for the GC's so we won't have to worry about AP's at all.
Jo

Mrraveltay

Mattias Hembruch wrote:
    >>Some people might say "RTFM" but I prefer "UTSL"
    >
    >
    > UTSL?


Use The Source, Luke