OK - thanks to everyone for their advice. I applied for the Citi AA silver and was declined (via mail). I sent a letter via PF asking them to reconsider, since I would use the card to do 3 BTs - to close two cards, and to take some $ from my Cap 1 gold card. Thus, I would remove two cards from my credit reports and continue my history with Citi. Well, I was turned down due to # of inquiries and too close to my credit limits. Well, the cl ratio is due to the two cards I want to BT and close! Also, I am disputing the inquiries because over half of them I never authorized and you know how sticky they can be at removal. It was either Equifax or Experian (having brain freeze now) they pulled. Does anyone have any advice on how to proceed from here? I really want the silver and then upgrade to plat in order to take advantage of the good BT % rates. I'm holding off on sending them a follow up letter until I hear from y'all. Thanks, kate
The only thing that I would suggest would be to dispute the unauthorized inquiries and pay down the balance. Then after they have been remove(inquiries) I would send another follow-up letter via PFB stating, "that you were denied for the above listed reasons, and you have corrected those reasons, and want a reconsideration". Good Luck
http://www.citibank.com/us/cards/cardserv/worldcard/aasilver.htm you'd be surprised how easy it is to get this card... -Roman
The worst bigots in America are non-citizens, many of whom came here illegally. And America doesn't need them.
That's interesting, RG and I have to disagree; the biggest bigots I have encountered are citizens. And I live in an area with a rather large population of "illegal immigrants."
Just to clarify: Our country has immigration laws. There is such a thing as an illegal immigrant. Many of the terrorists associated with the Sept. 11 attack were violating immigration laws and were detained on immigration charges. Immigration laws, if enforced, can protect America from terrorism. If changed to restrict immigration, they can protect us even more. Why did I mention non-citizens in particular as bigots? Because my definition of "bigot" includes anyone who hates American women and calls them "*****s" because they don't cover their faces, ankles, or whatever body part particularly excites the old man at the local mosque. Expressions of hatred often lead to violence. Violent attacks on women are becoming a big problem in Belgium and the Netherlands, because gangs of Muslim immigrants can get away with almost anything there. And while there are American-born bigots, they tend not to engage in mass slaughter, unlike Muslim extremists in Indonesia, Uganda, Nigeria, Sudan, Lebanon, the Philippines, Chad, Algeria, Egypt, Afghanistan, and other countries. There is a level of bigotry and hatred boiling over in much of the world, and simmering in this country, that most of us can barely conceive. We notice it only when 5000 people get killed at once. We may notice it more often in the future. Is it bigotry to want to keep any more hatred from entering America? Or is it patriotism? Is my position self-contradictory? Or is it self-contradictory to allow tolerance to destroy tolerance?
