The business of doing business in Green Bay is changing this weekend because of a new ordinance that would let the city yank the operating licenses of employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers.
Proving that immigration reform is not simply a matter of congressional gridlock and talk radio shouting, Wisconsin's unofficial football capital, fueled by frustration, added its name this week to the growing number of local communities trying to address the issue that has Congress tied in political knots.
'Look, had Congress done their job we wouldn't have this [ordinance] in Green Bay,' Mayor Jim Schmitt said Friday. 'I think at this time it's the right thing to do, given what's not happening at the federal level.'
The new law, which is due to take effect Saturday, comes on the heels of similar local efforts around the country, such as in Waukegan, where the city council on Monday authorized giving the chief of police permission to apply to Washington for authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
Many of these efforts have spawned lawsuits or questions about enforceability. A common byproduct of nearly all of these laws is friction with rapidly growing Hispanic communities, such as the one in Green Bay.
Luis Bello, the CEO of La Uni-k Radio whose station targets Hispanic listeners, said most people in the Hispanic community 'are pretty upset about it. They feel like they're being taken advantage of, doing jobs that most Americans aren't willing to do.'
Bello added: 'And now they feel targeted and afraid.'
The local movement aimed at regulating immigration has generally occurred in smaller towns and cities. Hazelton, Pa., population 22,000, last year approved a law that prohibited hiring or renting to illegal immigrants. That law was challenged and is currently before a federal district court; a similar proposal in the Chicago suburb of Carpentersville has been delayed pending the outcome of the Hazelton case. The mayor of the western Wisconsin town of Arcadia last year proposed an 'illegal alien task force,' which was designed to prevent renting to undocumented immigrants. He backed down after a public outcry.
Green Bay, with 102,000 people, is a larger entrant into the debate. Hispanics represent a rapidly growing segment of Green Bay's population, about 71 2 percent, according to the Census Bureau. As Congress wrestled with immigration reform in Washington, support for the just-enacted law in Green Bay grew.
Matt Hollenbeck, who chairs the mayor's Hispanic Advisory Council, said the law giving the city authority to penalizes businesses is little more than a 'political statement . . . People are frustrated.'
'There are people who believe some city official is going to be patrolling the streets to pick up undocumented workers. This doesn't do that,' Hollenbeck said. 'And there are a lot of folks who believe this will take care of the illegal immigration problem in Green Bay - or the impression of a problem. And it won't do that, either.'
Schmitt, who is attending the U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting in Los Angeles, said he regrets the ill feelings that the debate has aroused.
'If there's any harassment, we'll shut it down right away. We won't allow that,' Schmitt said. 'We understand the city will be built on diversity, we've all got to work together. That's what this is all about.'
The demographics of northeast Wisconsin, which for generations has been overwhelmingly white, have changed in the past two decades. The city of Wausau, 90 miles to the west, opened its doors to Hmong refugees from Laos more than 25 years ago. The rapid growth of the Hmong community in Wausau spurred a backlash as the public school system struggled with an influx of students who had no familiarity with English.
Hollenbeck, whose council severed its ties to the mayor's office after the ordinance was approved Tuesday, said the city passed an ordinance it can't enforce to deal with a problem that doesn't exist.
'The schools are not overburdened with illegal immigrants . . . There's not a crime problem with the immigrant community. I just think it's a perception and a lot of ignorance and people [city council members] not doing their homework,' he said.
City Council members said they were responding to what their constituents want. Supporters of the law say the October 2005 arrest by federal customs and immigration officers of seven Hispanic gang members helps build the case for the new law.
At the Green Bay Area Chamber of Commerce, President Paul Jadin said there is a problem with illegal immigration. Jadin, who served for 8 years as Green Bay's mayor, estimates that as many as half of the area's immigrants are undocumented.
'Given the demographics, we are certainly in need of that workforce,' Jadin said.
But this is a matter for Washington -not local governments - to address, he added. 'Without the cooperation with the federal government, this ordinance has no teeth.
'I think it makes a certain element of the community feel good that their local government is doing something while the federal government is not, but in the meantime this could expose some people to needless harassment,' Jadin said.
GREEN BAY — The Mayor's Hispanic Advisory Council says it is severing ties to the mayor's office in the wake of the adoption of an ordinance that would allow taking away licenses, contracts and other grants from the city to any business that hires illegal immigrants.
``Needless to say, we are extremely disappointed by the (city) council's vote, and so we are divorcing ourselves from the mayor's office as an organization,'' advisory council chairman Matt Hollenbeck said Wednesday.
The advisory council was one of a number of Hispanic and religious organizations that opposed the ordinance.
The advisory council, consisting of nine members, was formed about 10 years ago by former Mayor Paul Jadin to try to bridge the gap between the city and its growing Hispanic community, but Hollenbeck said there's been little support from the current administration under Mayor Jim Schmitt.
The advisory council will change its name to the Hispanic Community Council of Northeastern Wisconsin and expand to become more regional in scope, he said.
Schmitt said the city acted out of frustration with President Bush and Congress over their failure to deal with illegal immigration.
``Had the federal government done its job, we wouldn't have this issue and we wouldn't have to go have good people disagreeing,'' he said.
Schmitt said that the issue is an emotional one on which he has heard opinions both for and against wherever he went.
Schmitt said he thinks it's ``healthy'' for the advisory council to grow and become more regional.
But the mayor also called the ordinance ``the right thing to do for our city.''
Telling true love from immigrant scam Officials are after fraudulent marriages. But how do you tell it's a fraud?
By SAUNDRA AMRHEIN Published July 14, 2007
Nelly and Jeff Boyette, shown at her sister's home in Tampa, met and married seven years ago. Their interview with immigration did not go well, and Nelly faces deportation. [Kathleen Flynn | Times]
TAMPA - Nelly Boyette nudged her husband awake.
"Jeff, it's time to go."
"Give me one more minute," he replied.
The couple was tired from a long weekend of selling their wares at the flea market. It's where the unlikely pair met eight years ago. He was a native Floridian with stickers on his boombox telling foreigners to speak English. She was an immigrant from Peru with a mind for business.
They married in 2001.
But that morning last August, Jeff rose from bed, flicked on the light and walked into the bathroom - not realizing his recollection of those steps was about to become far more important.
The couple drove to the Tampa office of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to secure Nelly's permanent residency. Nelly, 32, left their photos in the van. Jeff, 42, didn't think to bring his wallet.
Both considered the appointment routine.
Two years ago, driven by a campaign to strengthen the immigration system amid national security concerns, every immigration district in the nation set up a new unit called the Office of Fraud Detection and National Security.
In the six-county Tampa Bay area, marriage fraud accounts for 95 percent of fraud cases, said Timothy Shavers, head of the unit.
It's an old scam, he said. Marrying an American remains the fastest route to a green card.
In the two years since the unit's inception, Tampa immigration officials have turned in about 200 immigrants for deportation. Sixty cases have been referred for criminal prosecution. One case can include dozens of people.
If officers suspect that a citizen married an immigrant as a friend or favor, they typically let the citizen go in exchange for a signed confession, Shavers said. The immigrant spouse faces deportation.
In some cases, especially if investigators find that money changed hands, criminal charges can be brought against the immigrants before deportation. Citizens who cooperate receive immunity, Shavers said, though sometimes they too are charged.
Mainly, the government wants to catch immigrants. "We don't know these people," he said.
Americans caught in false marriages almost always crack, said Shavers, who threatens them with a 15- to 30-year prison sentence on charges ranging from visa fraud, conspiracy, falsifying documents, making false statements and marriage fraud.
The going rate for marrying an immigrant is between $10,000 and $35,000, Shavers said.
Officials have seen it all: spouses who live together but sleep in separate bedrooms; Americans married to immigrants who still live with an original spouse from their country.
Tell-tale signs: no joint checking accounts or utility bills; new bank accounts; a recent divorce and marriage just before meeting with immigration officials.
It's not unusual for investigators to follow a couple or make 4 a.m. visits to verify that they live together, Shavers said.
But it almost always comes down to the interview: that last step to get a green card.
When Jeff and Nelly Boyette walked into the immigration office, they were separated.
An agent bore down on Jeff:
Where is your bedroom in the house? Where is the bedroom light switch? How many knobs are in the shower? What did Nelly eat for breakfast? Was your last Christmas tree real or fake? What is your home address? Your telephone number? When did she return from her last visit to Peru?
Jeff flubbed several answers. He said the tree was real. Nelly said it was fake. The tree wasn't theirs, they explained later. It belonged to someone who shared the house where they lived.
Jeff also didn't know the couple's address, phone number or the date Nelly returned from a visit to Peru two weeks before, officials said.
Jeff said he did know the address. But he keeps their telephone number written down in his wallet, which was in the van.
"We're always together," he said. "I never call the house."
And the only thing he says he remembers about Nelly's return from Peru was his relief to have her home. The more the agent pushed, the more irritated Jeff said he became.
"You think I'm playing? You can do 15 years," Jeff remembers the agent telling him as he displayed his badge.
The agent told Jeff if he came clean, he could leave without being arrested - just confess that his marriage was a sham. Jeff insisted he was telling the truth. The agent didn't believe him.
Nelly's application was denied. Instead of a green card, she was ordered to court this February for deportation.
Jeff left the office shaking and crying, Nelly said.
"Let's go, Papi," Nelly told him, shaken from her own interview but more worried for Jeff. "I don't want anything to happen to you."
The official denial letter cited Jeff's inability to answer basic questions and the couple's failure "to provide any utility bills, automobile or health insurance."
The couple doesn't have health insurance, Nelly said. They lived with his mother for several years before moving in with her sister in Tampa, so they don't have a lease. They're saving for a house of their own.
She tried to show the agent utility bills that day, she said, but he refused to look at them. She showed the Times two electric bills from 2004 in both their names. They've also filed income taxes together since 2002.
Nelly's scrapbooks show pictures of the couple with family and friends dating back years.
The couple complement each other, said Gregory ****ow, 33, who is married to Nelly's sister and shares the home with them.
Nelly is boisterous and outgoing; Jeff is timid but hardworking, he said.
Jeff prefers to let Nelly do the talking. When asked a question, he answers slowly with few words, one reason why Nelly thinks the agent didn't believe him.
Nelly handles their finances, because Jeff, who has a grade-school education, is bad with math, she said.
She drives because Jeff doesn't have a license, so the van insurance is in her name, she said. Nelly appreciates the fact that Jeff lets her make the decisions, because she found the men back in Peru too controlling.
Despite his attitude about foreign languages, Jeff shows patience with her, Nelly said.
"If I don't speak English very well, he takes time to understand me," she said.
She had been in the country illegally for four years before Jeff bought a banana from her at the flea market and asked for her phone number.
She was granted conditional residency after the two married in March 2001. If her appeal fails, she will be deported.
"I'm not doing anything wrong. I love this man," she said. "We have problems, like any married couple. I don't understand the reason for this."
Tampa immigration lawyer John Ovink said he turns down couples seeking representation who admit they married for a green card.
He believes the Boyettes married for love. Their paperwork is typical for a struggling, working class couple moving between relatives' homes, he said.
Also, he thought Jeff's experience during the interview reflected the couple's ignorance of what the appointment entailed, as well as Jeff's absent-minded and defensive character.
But it also revealed the new careful climate at immigration services, he said. "There is a culture of 'no' right now."
He has collected sworn statements from the couple's friends and relatives to bring to court in February.
On his witness list: Jeff's mother, the couple's former postman and Elizabeth Moore, a nun with the Franciscan Sisters of Alleghany order.
Moore said she met Nelly and Jeff more than six years ago when she stopped by their stall at the Swap Shop Flea Market on East Hillsborough to buy socks for the homeless.
When Moore found out that Nelly's green card application had been denied, she drove straight to the immigration office. "I was wild when I heard it," she said.
Agents told her their hands were tied because the case was in appeals, she said.
"I will stand by them to the end," she said.
Times researcher John Martin contributed to this report. Saundra Amrhein can be reached at amrhein@sptimes.com or 813 661-2441.
By the numbers
60 Cases Tampa immigration officers submitted for criminal prosecution in suspected sham marriages in the past two years.
200 Immigrants in the Tampa district recommended for deportation because of suspected sham marriages in the past two years.
4,838 Cases nationwide where immigrants were recommended for deportation because of suspected sham marriages in the past two years.
The big cases
The majority of immigrants here are Hispanic, so most of the Tampa fraud unit's cases involve Latin Americans paying Puerto Ricans or other Hispanic citizens to marry them. Yet, some of the bigger rings broken up by the unit involved Nigerians and Turkish immigrants.
Operation Body Double: Nigerian native Patrick Abayomi Thomas arranged false marriages and phony passports out of his Temple Terrace home for $3,000 to $6,000, according to his agreement. He found local residents to marry Nigerians living in New York and New Jersey, officials said. He paid between $500 to $1,000 each and arranged travel for Nigerians to Tampa for the marriage. The immigrants and their spouses parted ways until their interview at the Tampa immigration office. Forty immigrants were indicted, convicted and placed in deportation proceedings.
Operation Turkish Pizza: The office uncovered a ring of fraud marriages among immigrants from Turkey connected through a string of pizza parlors. Ten were convicted of fraud.
[Last modified July 13, 2007, 23:56:23]
This message has been edited. Last edited by: explora,
By MORTON KONDRAKE Newspaper Enterprise Association 7/10/2007
In evident pain and remorse, a Republican senator confessed to a Hispanic group from Maryland that his vote to kill immigration reform was "a profile in political cowardice."
It was exactly that -- and not only for him, but for many senators who were terrorized by the political firestorm set loose by mainly right-wing radio and television talk-show loudmouths.
The collapse of immigration reform casts deep doubt on whether America's current political leaders can solve any large problem, especially when demagogues can stir up passion against it.
The instant case is immigration, but, in 2005, President Bush tried to start a discussion about Social Security reform -- and it was torpedoed by reactionary liberal demagogues, who scared current seniors into thinking they'd lose benefits.
Bush certainly deserves a large measure of blame for the failure of bipartisan problem-solving. He has reached out to opponents only on rare occasions. Most of the time, he has inspired hyper-partisanship both on his side and within the Democratic opposition.
In the case of immigration reform, where his heart is in the right place, he should have used his influence years ago to win over the Republican base, including the talk-show claque.
He also should have made border enforcement a key priority of his administration far earlier in order to defuse criticism that promises to restrict illegal immigration were empty.
By the time the Bush administration put on a push for comprehensive immigration reform, the president's political capital was so depleted that he could persuade no one.
This year's heavy lifting on behalf of reform was done by a previous opponent -- Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., whose state is ground zero in the immigration struggle and who came to realize this was a problem to be solved, not left to fester.
Kyl worked out a compromise measure with liberal Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., that was considerably to the right of the one that passed the Senate in 2006 by a vote of 62-36.
The measure guaranteed extra money for building fencing between the United States and Canada, a requirement (onerous, in my mind) that guest workers return home for a year after two-year stints in the United States, plus fines and fees for illegal immigrants to be used to help communities bear the costs of the federal government's past failure to make the border secure.
These and other gains were not enough, however, for radio and TV shouters such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Pat Buchanan and Lou Dobbs, who convinced masses of citizens that the Kyl-Kennedy bill still amounted to "amnesty" for 12 million illegal immigrants.
Sometimes intentionally, sometimes not, the talkers have stirred up anti-Hispanic racism and certainly anti-immigrant nativism. They also have indulged in what I'd call "Javert-ism," after Jean Valjean's nemesis in "Les Miserables," the attitude that any leniency toward lawbreakers will upset all order in the universe.
In 2006, a much more liberal bill got 26 Republican votes. This time, only 12 Republicans voted to keep reform alive.
What can only be called the "cowardice caucus" -- those who voted "yes" in 2006 and "no" this year -- includes Republican Sens. Sam Brownback (Kansas), who actually voted "yes" and then changed his vote, Norm Coleman (Minnesota), Susan Collins (Maine), Pete Domenici (New Mexico), Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Kentucky), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Gordon Smith (Oregon), George Voinovich (Ohio) and John Warner (Virginia.).
It also includes Democratic Sens. Max Baucus (Montana), Evan Bayh (Indiana), Jeff Bingaman (New Mexico), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) and Mark Pryor (Arkansas). Those not scared off by restrictionists did the bidding of the AFL-CIO, which was hostile to the guest-worker program.
There was a "courage caucus" as well, led by Kyl and including GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham (South Carolina), John McCain (Arizona), Trent Lott (Mississippi), Bob Bennett (Utah), Larry Craig (Idaho) and Judd Gregg (New Hampshire), whose immediate political fortunes can't be helped by their support for reform.
The most lasting and deserved political fallout from the failure of reform surely will be the Republican Party's loss of support among Hispanic voters.
Bush won 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004, but Republican congressional candidates received only 29 percent in 2006, according to exit polls. A recent Gallup Poll showed that only 11 percent now identify as Republicans.
But there are other foul consequences. The Democratic Congress has failed to solve one of the country's biggest problems. There was a fair chance for bipartisan success, but it couldn't be brought to pass.
It was the result, in part, of public dissatisfaction with Congress and lack of trust in it. Polls consistently showed that the public supported the elements of comprehensive immigration reform -- including earned legalization -- but opposed the Senate bill.
The failure to solve this problem will only deepen dissatisfaction.
Meanwhile, the big winners in this fight are demagogues with microphones and their political allies. What they will demand next, presumably, is a campaign to drive illegal immigrants out of the country. You can expect to see some ugly scenes of families being torn apart and U.S. citizens of Hispanic origin being victimized. That's the price of cowardice.
By MORTON KONDRAKE Newspaper Enterprise Association
ROBERT S. CROSS / Tulsa World Wulfrano Portillo and his wife, Maria (back right), face deportation as illegal immigrants. Their children, Tania, 12, (back left); Kelsy, 6 (front left); and 7-year-old twins Adabeth (center) and Betsabe, are U.S. citizens.
By LEIGH BELL World Staff Writer 7/15/2007
With U.S.-born children, an area couple living here illegally may be deported.
The Portillo daughters have never been to Mexico, a country their parents fled some 15 years ago to live in the United States illegally.
The young girls were born in Tulsa. They go to Union schools and enjoy Laura Ingalls Wilder, author of "Little House on the Prairie."
Outside of their Spanish-speaking home, they are like all giddy American schoolgirls. Although their parents aren't, they are U.S. citizens -- anchor babies to people who demand tighter border controls and immigration reform.
And the girls, ages 6 to 12, may be headed to Mexico soon because their parents face possible deportation.
The Portillo family embodies the knots in a passionate argument over immigration and the 12 million or more undocumented people believed to be in the United States.
Wulfrano and Maria Portillo, illegal immigrants, were reported to federal immigration officials by an Oklahoma Highway Patrol trooper, who discovered the family tending a blown tire on a highway near Locust Grove early last month.
The couple was held for federal immigration officials. Maria was released with the children. Wulfrano was taken into federal custody and eventually released on bail.
Wulfrano and Maria Portillo, both 31 years old, separately crossed the American border illegally when they were teenagers and later married.
"Going back to Mexico isn't going to be easy, but it will be easier for me than for my girls," said Maria Portillo, sitting in the living room of the family's Broken Arrow home.
"They don't know anything from Mexico."
By the numbers: It's estimated that at least 3.1 million U.S.-born children have at least one illegal immigrant parent, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.
The numbers are an estimate, as the population isn't tracked by federal immigration officials or the U.S. Census Bureau.
The number of anchor babies in Oklahoma is unknown.
Last fiscal year, 2,778 out of 30,559 births covered by Oklahoma's Medicaid program were births to undocumented immigrants, according to the Oklahoma Health Care Authority.
The mothers might not have been U.S. citizens, but the children they were giving birth to were.
The state Medicaid program that year spent almost $9.7 million on health care for illegal immigrants, and about $6.5 million, or roughly 67 percent, was paid for labor and delivery, the OHCA reports.
Oklahoma statute allows emergency care for illegal immigrants in health-threatening situations, including labor and delivery.
Nervous family: The youngest Portillo daughter, 6-year-old Kelsy, senses something has happened in their family.
The almost-8-year-old twin daughters, Adabeth and Betsabe, partially understand the word "deportation," which is now common in the Portillo household.
The oldest, 12-year-old Tania, knows.
"I just don't want to go to Mexico," Tania said, staring at the living room floor.
The Portillo family is nervous.
"I think about it every minute," said Maria Portillo. "It's all you think about."
Wulfrano Portillo awaits a date for immigration court, and the status of Maria Portillo is still unknown, according to U.S. immigration officials.
The harshest punishment that Wulfrano Portillo, and possibly his wife, will face is deportation because illegal presence in the United States is a civil offense, not a criminal one.
They have hired an attorney to attempt to stop their deportation, a ruling that is hard-won.
In their favor, the Portillos can show they pay taxes and have no felony charges on record.
They know they may end up deported. The couple are in the process of getting U.S. passports for their children.
If they are ordered back to Mexico, they plan to go as a family.
Maria Portillo is worried about the possibilities in Mexico, where she said jobs and a quality education are scarce.
Her husband is afraid he won't be able to provide for his family there as he does now working as a roofer.
"I want to give the girls an American life because my girls are American," he said, crowded on the couch with all four daughters.
But raising their children south of the border is better than living without them.
Immigration debate: Children of illegal immigrants are tiny thorns in the immigration debate.
People who want a tighter border say they perpetuate chain migration and strain the economy.
Others argue anchor babies add brush strokes of color to the diverse canvas that is America.
"I don't know too many people who think that the founding fathers were thinking of the children of illegal aliens when the idea of citizenship (by birth) was conceived," said John Keeley, director of communications at the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization in support of stricter immigration enforcement.
A U.S. citizen at the age of 21 can apply for their parents to become legal permanent residents.
Maria Portillo hoped her oldest daughter would do that for them. That's no longer possible.
"It's not a simple issue," said Jane Burke, national manager of the Justice for Immigrants Campaign.
"It's a very complex issue, but we believe in families one way or the other. We believe each case should be judged on its own merit. It's impossible to make a sweeping statement about this is right or this wrong . . . and yet we always support families."
Leigh Bell 581-8465 leigh.bell@tulsaworld.com
Citizenship process
Federal law granting full citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants stems from the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, which says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.â€
A legislative movement to amend the Constitution hasn’t gained much momentum.
The Tulsa County Sheriff's Office is a step closer to becoming the first law-enforcement agency in the state to participate in a federal program that gives local officials the power to enforce U.S. immigration laws.
An agreement between the Sheriff's Office and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement approved Monday by the Board of County Commissioners provides training and computer equipment that will enable Sheriff's Office employees to place detainers -- or holds -- on suspected illegal immigrants.
"We're eliminating all those calls that we have (been making), and it gives us first-hand knowledge and information to make those decisions ourselves," Sheriff Stanley Glanz said Monday.
A detainer gives federal officials the chance to determine whether an individual has violated immigration law.
Currently, the Sheriff's Office must call federal immigration officials, relay the information it has on an individual, and wait for a call back.
Glanz estimated his department makes 10 to 15 calls each weekend.
Thirty Sheriff's Office employees -- 10 deputies and a total of 20 detention officers and other workers inside the jail -- will begin four to five weeks of training Aug. 20.
Federal officials will provide oversight of the program.
The training should be completed and the computer equipment in place by the end of September, Glanz said.
The federal government is covering the cost of the training and equipment, he said.
The program also will help Sheriff's Office investigators.
"We'll be looking for companies who might be aggressively recruiting illegal immigrants or other organizations who tend to create services for" illegal immigrants, Glanz said.
The Sheriff's Office began looking into such an agreement several years ago after deputies stopped a van jammed with illegal immigrants but could get no help from federal officials.
U.S. Rep. John Sullivan, R-Okla., applauded Monday's action.
"By training the sheriff's deputies and allowing them to enforce federal immigration laws, we can finally crack down on the criminal illegal alien population in Tulsa and begin to enforce our nation's interior immigration laws," Sullivan said.
"After more than a year of coordination with the Department of Homeland Security, I am pleased that the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office is one step closer to participation in this program."
Two months ago, Sullivan went to the House floor to accuse Democrats of trying to kill the federal program that allows for such agreements.
That accusation turned out to be false.
Sullivan's press aide blamed the mistake on "wrong information from another member's office."
Tulsa County Commissioner John Smaligo also praised the Sheriff's Office for taking the initiative on the issue.
"It's a source of pride, I think, that we're going to be able to lead the way on immigration reform for local government in the Tulsa area," he said.
Meanwhile, officials from the Tulsa Police Department and the Sheriff's Office confirmed Monday that they have worked out procedures to prevent the departments from duplicating work on immigration checks.
Interim Police Chief David Bostrom said officers continue to do preliminary immigration checks on individuals arrested for full-custody misdemeanors or felonies, but that all inquires to federal officials will be handled by the Sheriff's Office.
There have been a lot of letters on the illegal immigrant problem. Some are comical and others are blatantly hateful. That said, it is very ironic that Oklahoma is celebrating its statehood this year, because many of the people who helped establish this state were more illegal than any illegal now.
But, we have a less de-humanizing name for these people. We call them, with pride, Sooners. The Sooners were people who claimed their stake of land before the actual legal land runs started. They stole land (often from Indians) and they still live on this land today. They were and still are illegals.
I wonder if those in Tulsa who rail against Mexican immigrants are also railing against Sooners. Sifting through all the editorial letters, I see none of them doing that. I see people calling Mexican immigrants terrorists or illegals, and then telling them to go home. But why aren't those with ancestors who are Sooners deported and branded as illegals?
Of course, doing this would liquidate much of Oklahoma, but it would get rid of the ills of all illegal immigration. I cannot see how any anti-illegal immigrant Sooner could disagree.
But, such an outrageous idea as this only proves a big point: When hypocritical Sooners and their friends call Mexican people illegals with disdain and tell them to go home, it does not help anyone. In fact, it exacerbates the problem. It simplifies the issue and gets us nowhere.
By LEIGH BELL World Staff Writer 7/16/2007 Last Modified: 7/16/2007 9:27 AM
In issuing marriage licenses, the county doesn't require Social Security numbers.
Tulsa County -- along with a lot of other places -- doesn't follow a federal law that could indirectly keep illegal immigrants from getting a marriage license.
"This is a federal law?" asked Sally Howe Smith, Tulsa County Court clerk, the entity that issues marriage licenses. "I wasn't aware of it."
The 1996 law, which was passed to help improve child-support payments, requires Social Security numbers to be recorded on applications for marriage licenses.
It does the same for professional- and commercial-driver's licenses.
Social Security numbers are not issued to illegal immigrants.
The Associated Press reports that illegal immigrants are being denied marriage licenses in some states like Tennessee, where the federal law is strictly enforced.
That's not the case in Tulsa County.
A clerk in the office that issues marriage licenses in Tulsa County, said picture identification is preferred, but not required. She said a fishing license would do.
The half-page application for the betrothed in Tulsa County asks only for the name, age and place of residence.
"The laws that we follow here are enacted and passed by the state Legislature," Smith said.
For a marriage license, Oklahoma statute requires just a "certificate, license or document" from any state or nation, which is accepted as proof of identity and age.
Immigration status isn't a factor for getting a marriage license in Oklahoma, Smith said.
Same goes for Kansas, Arkansas and other nearby states that don't push the federal law.
Other states strictly enforce it, making anyone without a Social Security number tie the knot somewhere else.
"In the area of immigration, not only are there many laws that aren't followed, but there is an active movement to essentially defy or refuse to recognize federal law," said Mike Hethmon, general counsel for the Immigration Reform Law Institute.
The requirement of a Social Security number for marriage licenses is a "gray area," Hethmon said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.
Hethmon worked for years with Oklahoma lawmakers to craft the state's immigration-reform law taking effect Nov. 1.
It doesn't directly address marriage licenses. The law's author, state Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, said Friday that the issue is on his "radar."
The federal law wasn't written to address immigration. But it does.
Greg Suskind, an immigration attorney in Tennessee, said, a state law that requires Social Security numbers for marriage licenses drives local couples to wed in other states.
"People just think illegal immigrants are affected, but it comes up in other circumstances, as well," Suskind said. "It's a practical problem, and it has been for a long time."
He said the law stonewalled plans for a family whose American son wanted to marry his Mexican fiance in Tennessee and then to make a home in Mexico.
The federal law conflicts with the nationwide movement to protect Social Security numbers, which are common tools in identity theft.
Smith fears a potential breach of privacy if the law were applied in Tulsa County. Applications for marriage licenses are public record, she said, and that Social Security number would be too.
Some Immigrants Denied Marriage Licenses (Particularly Illegal Immigrants)
7/12/07 | Travis Loller - ap Posted on 07/12/2007 5:30:35 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NASHVILLE, Tenn. - A federal law that requires people to supply their Social Security number when applying for a marriage license has forced thousands of couples around the country, particularly illegal immigrants, to put their wedding plans on hold.
The law has been on the books for about a decade and was intended to make it easier to collect child support payments. But in some places it has prevented even legal immigrants and some American citizens from getting married.
Some couples are traveling to other states or other counties willing to issue them marriage licenses.
Jonadad Luque, a Honduran immigrant legally in the U.S., wants to marry his girlfriend, with whom he has two children, ages 1 and 5. But the county clerk in Nashville would not issue them a license because his girlfriend is in the country illegally and does not have a Social Security number.
"I have a Social Security number, a driver's license and permission to work," Luque said in Spanish. "We want to get married, but we'll have to wait until they change the law."
John Arriola, the county clerk in Nashville, said he would like to see the law changed, but for now he has to obey it.
Federal law requires states to record the Social Security numbers of all applicants for a professional license, driver's license, recreational license or marriage license. And Social Security numbers are not available to those who are in this country illegally or do not have permission to work.
But whether and how the law is enforced varies dramatically from state to state, and even from county to county, with some authorities interpreting the law as saying that only those people who already have Social Security numbers need to supply them.
Illegal immigrants are encountering less trouble getting married in places that have established immigrant communities. In Texas and New York City, for instance, officials ask for Social Security numbers but do not require them.
The Los Angeles County registrar's office says it does not require any proof of residency or citizenship status. And in North Carolina, people without Social Security numbers can present an affidavit stating they are ineligible for one.
The laws are often more strict in states where large immigrant populations are a recent phenomenon. In Tennessee and Alabama, for example, some county clerks are using the law to prevent illegal immigrants from getting marriage licenses.
Immigration attorneys say the law was not designed to keep people from getting married.
"There's a fundamental U.S. constitutional right to marry," said Charles Baesler, an immigration lawyer in Kentucky and chairman of the American Immigration Lawyers Association's Southeast chapter.
A federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled last month that a county official could not require a man to prove he was legally in the country before issuing a marriage license to him and his American fiancee.
The Rev. Joseph Breen of Nashville's St. Edward Catholic Church, which has a large Hispanic congregation, said he became concerned about the number of couples in his parish, some with children, who had been unable to marry legally.
So the church drove about 20 couples across the state line to Kentucky for licenses and a civil wedding ceremony before bringing them back to Nashville for a church wedding.
"We call ourselves a Christian country, but you've got to go to Georgia or Kentucky in order to get married," Breen said. "We're supposed to be pro-family."
The Rev. Neil Pezzulo, a Roman Catholic priest in rural Arkansas' Scott County, said immigrant couples keep coming in with marriage licenses issued in a neighboring county with a more liberal policy.
Scott County Clerk Sandy Staggs said state law requires a Social Security number, but for people who don't have one, her office also accepts a birth certificate, translated into English, and a photo ID.
As for how the policy could differ from one county to the next, Pezzulo said: "My suspicion is it has to do more with religious and political agendas than an understanding of the law."
Jonadad Luque reads to his daughter, Jarlin, 5, in their home in Nashville, Tenn., Tuesday, July 10, 2007. Luque is a Honduran immigrant legally in the U.S. under temporary protective status. He and his girlfriend have two children and want to get married, but the county clerk in Nashville would not give them a license because his girlfriend is in the country illegally and doesn't have a Social Security number. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)
Former vice presidential aide Scooter Libby is free from serving any part of a prison sentence on a conviction for lying about the Valerie Plame CIA case, while two U.S. Border Patrol agents remain in solitary for shooting at an escaping drug smuggler. And White House spokesman Tony Snow says that's the end of the conversation.
Snow was responding to a question from Les Kinsolving, WND's correspondent at the White House, about the issue. President Bush commuted Libby's prison term on his conviction for lying, meaning he will not serve a day of the sentence.
However, there has been no response from the White House to the protests, including a coalition of several hundred members of Congress, seeking a pardon for Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.
They were given terms of 11 and 12 years on their convictions for their encounter with a drug smuggler, who left behind hundreds of pounds of drugs and fled back into Mexico.
The smuggler later was given immunity and returned to the United States to testify against the agents.
"The president's fellow Republican and presidential candidate, Congressman Duncan Hunter of California, said if the president of the United States is going to commute the sentence of Scooter Libby, he should immediately accompany that with a pardon for Border Patrol Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos. And my question: Since there are hundreds of sponsors of a bill to this effect, these two agents are in solitary. Why won't the president show the same mercy to them that he showed to Libby," Kinsolving asked.
"We do not discuss any of those matters, whether they're under consideration or not, and you know it," a terse Snow said.
"I've heard you discuss them," Kinsolving said.
"No, you didn't."
Actually, Snow has defended the president's position, including during an interview with WND when he said that border agents must obey the law, too.
He suggested then that those who are seeking clemency for the agents should review the evidence in the case.
"They (agents Jose Alonso Compean, 28, and Ignacio Ramos, 37) eventually went before a … jury – and were convicted on 11 of 12 counts, by a U.S. attorney who has prosecuted any number of cases. But the facts of this case are such that I would invite everybody to take a full look at the documented record," Snow told WND.
"This is not the case of the United States saying, we are not going to support people who go after drug dealers. Of course we are. We think it's incumbent to go after drug dealers, and we also think that it's vitally important to make sure that we provide border security so our people are secure," Snow continued.
"We also believe that the people who are working to secure that border themselves obey the law. And in a court of law, these two agents were convicted on 11 of 12 counts by a jury of their peers after a lengthy trial at which they did have the opportunity to make their case," he said.
Add to del.icio.us