Some Immigrants Denied Marriage Licenses

From a AP-wire story posted earlier today via CBS News, datelined Nashville, Tennessee: Link to article

"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."

Sure enough, here's Tennessee Code Annotated, sec. 36-3-104(a): "No county clerk nor deputy shall issue a license until the applicants make an application in writing, stating the names, ages, addresses, and social security numbers of both . . . parties." I'm cited to an attorney general opinion from 1998 (OAG 98-065) which may clarify the issue, but I can't get to it online.

One problem immediately arises as to the use of Social Security numbers, and it is this: Social Security numbers may not be immediately available for legitimate non-immigrant visa holders coming to the United States. For example, persons arriving on a K-1 visa (that's the fiancee visa) arrive expressly to be married to their U.S. citizen sponsors. They may not even be seeking employment (that's the usual reason for applying for a number in the first place). In fact, the Social Security Administration, on its website, states they will not issue numbers where the sole purpose is to obtain identification (for example, a driver's license) and not to procure employment.

But there's an even more serious issue. Marriage is a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. [...] Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival..." Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) (citing Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)). Being a fundamental right, if the Tennessee statute is being construed and enforced to prohibit marriages in the absence of a Social Security number, this is a matter that needs to be examined very, very closely. It's certainly something that I want to research more after the bar exam.

But for now, let me say this. It is not immediately clear that the enforced use of Social Security numbers in this instance was originally meant to uphold the immigration laws of the U.S. But even if it were, and ignoring for the moment the constitutionality issue, it is simply a poor policy choice. There are many ways to uphold and enforce immigration laws besides preventing people from entering into marriage. Let's therefore hope that saner minds in this matter will ultimately prevail. --SJR

At the Intersection of Immigration, Islam, and Intolerance

Listen, I'm not a big fan of maintaining political correctness, but I still must wonder about the following--

FOXNews.com - Congressman Criticized for Muslim Letter - Politics See also: Actual Letter (via thesmokinggun.com).

Two points: First. The letter demonstrates an extraordinarily poor way of discussing immigration policy. For it is legitimate to ask whether an intending immigrant will subscribe to the collective and enduring values of the United States. I would also suppose it may even be legitimate to ask whether the United States has the resources to handle an increased immigration population--legal or otherwise--or whether there are economic or social impacts to be concerned about. But to suggest, as Rep. Goode (R-VA) does, that only persons who subscribe to Christianity or Judaism can be entrusted to sustain American values or uphold the Constitution seems not only to cross the line, but does so by an astonishing margin.

Second. Significant opposition has been raised, by commentators purporting to be conservative, regarding the use of the Islamic scriptures in an oath ceremony. Let me say this: While I cannot subscribe to Islam, and I consider myself to be very conservative as a Christian, the fact remains that it is holy scripture as to this faith. Our country stands, among the most important of things, for freedom of religion and thought. All members of Congress, all members of the Executive Branch, and all members of the Judiciary each swear to uphold the Constitution. In view of these facts, frankly, I don't see the issue here.

Seeing that this post appears immediately above the one from last August, I must make one other comment, lest this post be viewed as a contradiction. To the extent that one upholds terror in the name of religion--that absolutely needs to be addressed. But that issue is not confined to any specific faith, let alone Islam: One only look to the likes of Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph and know that there are other relevant examples. Moreover, it is entirely separate from the question of whether one is free to practice the religion of his or her own choice, to the extent that such a choice does not abridge the rights or freedoms of others.

Analysis of Religious Rhetoric Requires Balance

"JURIST Contributing Editor Ali Khan of Washburn University School of Law says that politicians' increasing use of abusive language to describe Islam in the context of the war on terror is symptomatic of multiple problems in Anglo-American democracy and culture."

Fighting Words: The Abuse of Islam in Political Rhetoric

RESPONSE: I agree with Mr. Khan to the limited extent that we should be cautious in rhetoric that paints entire religious belief systems with a broad brush. But I would submit such an agreement, in turn, needs to be broad enough to cover not only statements attributed to Western countries or officials, but also antisemitic or anti-Christian remarks attributed to predominantly Islamic countries, Iran being the most notable example. An analysis that criticises one but ignores the other is suspect in my mind.

I would also respectfully ask Mr. Khan to consider that much of the terrorism that has come to pass, both prior to and since 2001, have been ostensibly been done to support or maintain the faith, to please deity, or both. The term "jihad" comes to mind in this regard. The religious decrees issued by the likes of Osama Bin-Laden also come to mind. Even if we assume that the term "Islamic fascism" is inappropriate to describe such acts or behaviour, how does one avoid the fact that religion is unavoidably intertwined therein?