DREAM on: The interesting and informative article "Army of Uno" [June 20], written by Mary Spicuzza, discusses the ways in which the U.S. military promises U.S. citizenship to recruit young green-card-holders. While it mentions that there are paths to citizenship other than enlistment, none of these paths are outlined.
Green-card holders who are 18 and who have their green card for five years can apply for U.S. citizenship, whether or not they have served in the military. Military service merely allows their applications to be filed earlier. The article said Sgt. Rey Bagorio's citizenship application was approved within nine months. This is not unusual. Many citizenship applications are approved in much less time, without the applicant having ever served in the military.
When both parents of a green-card-holding child become U.S. citizens, the child under age 18 automatically becomes a U.S. citizen as well. Many people do not realize this, and so assume that they need to apply for naturalization, when in fact they are already U.S. citizens and only need to apply for evidence of their citizenship, such as a U.S. passport or a certificate of citizenship.
The article makes many good points about the U.S. military's manipulation of young green-card holders however, it fails to make the important point that military service is only one of many paths to U.S. citizenship and only one of three ways to qualify under the proposed DREAM Act, which died in the Senate. The DREAM Act would have given young people a choice between joining the military, going to college, or performing community service. If the U.S. military were really serious about getting new recruits, they would attach the DREAM Act to a "must pass" military spending bill, instead of just giving it lip service.
Susanna I. Bogue
The non-horror, the non-horror: I'm writing to address your repertory film listings [Reps, Etc; June 27] this week. Gregg Rickman has apparently mistaken my film, American Cannibal, for a horror mockumentary. I suppose he guessed on that one from the title (?), since it doesn't come close to describing the film with any accuracy. As a writer disseminating truth to the masses, Mr. Rickman might find particular meaning in the film sort of makes it a double shame that he didn't watch it before he misled his readers about it. It's a tiny complaint really, hardly worth noting, but I raise it because the hard part of indie film exhibition should be capturing the attention of a discriminating public, not relying on a well-read publication to do basic fact-checking. The state of American media is already sorry enough as my fact-based, non-horror film points out without a groundbreaking paper like SF Weekly contributing to it with sloppy journalism.
New York City
Gregg Rickman replies: While American Cannibal's publicity presents the film as "documentary," a little research reveals that it is not. "The New York Times reported that many of the events in the film are created by the directors," according to the Internet Movie Database; "Too bad [this] mock-doc equivalent of The Producers isn't funnier," Rob Nelson, LA Weekly. I stand by my description.