Marriage license citizenship bill gets House OK

State representatives voted Wednesday to advance a bill aiming to curb deportations by prohibiting town registrars from inquiring about the citizenship of applicants for marriage.

State law requires that citizens provide their Social Security numbers when applying for marriage licenses, but typical practice is to accept other forms of identification. The bill would remove the requirement that couples present Social Security numbers when applying for a marriage license.

The bill was created in part as a response to controversy in New Haven last fall after a city records employee was accused of misusing her authority in the Office of Vital Records. Patricia Clark was accused of flagging 73 of 215 marriage licenses involving a noncitizen to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) between Aug. 23 and Nov. 20.

“Under current law, our statutes require that the Social Security number of both persons be recorded,” Rep. Steven Stafstrom, D-Bridgeport, and co-chair of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee said during debate on the bill. “However, regulations that have existed in this state for nearly 15 years have stated that a Social Security number or card is not required to be presented in order to maintain a marriage license. Our regulations are in conflict with state statute.”

Statewide regulations say other forms of identification, such as a driver’s license, automobile registration, copy of a utility bill, firearm permit or birth certificate, among other things, are permissible to obtain a marriage license.

Connecticut has four cities that are considered “sanctuary cities,” cities that limit, or deny, cooperation with the federal government in enforcing immigration law.

Proponents of the bill argued that is is not the job of someone issuing a marriage license to inquire about the citizenship status of individuals.

Critics of the bill argued that, in addition to being an unnecessary regulatory step, it could lead to an uptick in “green card marriages” or marriages with the purpose of preventing deportation.

“I do remain skeptical as to the need for this (bill),” said Rep. Craig Fishbein, R-Wallingford, ranking member on the Judiciary Committee. Fishbein also expressed concerns over the possibility that the bill could be opening a door to “bad activities.”

Rep. Francis Cooley, R-Plainville, echoed Fishbein’s concerns about marriages being used as a loophole for citizenship.

“I do have concerns that this change in statute could lead to more sham marriages for immigration purposes,” Cooley said.

Stafstorm pushed back on these criticisms, citing Connecticut regulatory requirements for marriage.

“Whether someone is a citizen or not does not matter for the purposes of obtaining a marriage license. As long as both individuals apply in person and present valid government photo identification, that is sufficient to achieve a marriage license,” Stafstrom said.

The bill passed the House on a 109-39 vote, falling mostly along party lines. It heads to the Senate next.