 |
|
Wolfgang and Josephine von Eitzen
|
The recent
expose by former Chicago prosecutor David Schippers that the Clinton White House deployed the
Immigration and
Naturalization Service for political purposes during the 1996 election campaign came as no surprise to Wolfgang von Eitzen.
The 55-year-old German national and long-time resident of Billings, Mont., has for four years been fighting deportation efforts to Germany — efforts he maintains are motivated because of his opposition to the education agendas of presidents Bush and Clinton.
According to Schippers, the INS received marching orders from the White House to fast track citizenship applications for tens of thousands of applicants, many with criminal records, in order to gain additional voters for Democratic candidates.
“… thousands of criminals are now citizens of the United States because it was assumed they would vote for Bill Clinton and Al Gore,” Schippers writes in his book
“Sellout,” a chapter of which was excerpted recently in WorldNetDaily.
Schippers told WorldNetDaily he never actually found evidence that the INS targeted administration critics for deportation, but then he was focusing on “Citizenship USA,” as the project was called, and was looking for denial or postponement of citizenship to people who indicated they might register Republican.
“We had a suspicion that the INS employees in their interviews with immigrants would ask how they planned to vote, and if someone planned to vote Republican, that person’s application would be put aside,” Schippers said. “But we never found one.”
Von Eitzen figures he might be just the kind of person Schippers was looking for.
“This proves what I’ve been saying all along,” von Eitzen exclaimed, upon learning of the attorney’s comments. “I’m the opposite of the kind of person Clinton and Gore want here. I’m a political conservative and an activist, so while the INS is making citizens out of criminals they think will be Democrats, they make me into an illegal alien, a criminal, to get rid of me. At the same time, they are insulting and destroying my wife who is an American citizen.”
Von Eitzen has strong, albeit circumstantial, evidence that he is a political target.
The INS flatly denies the allegation.
Arrested without warning
On May 2, 1996, agents of the INS Border Patrol and local sheriff’s office swooped down without warning on von Eitzen’s home and hauled him off to Seattle, Wash., to begin deportation proceedings.
“I was taken out of my studio in handcuffs by the INS with the explanation I am an illegal alien,” von Eitzen recalled. “I showed them my German passport with the visa — which was good until 1997 — and my I-94 which shows I am legal, but they were not interested.”
The I-94 is a residency permit granted by the INS that must be renewed annually or on return to this country following a leave. Von Eitzen’s I-94 was good until December 27, 1996.
After three weeks in federal prison in Seattle, Wash., he was released on bail and a hearing was held in October. As a reason, the Order to Show Cause charges: “You failed to maintain status or to comply with the conditions of your change of status in that you failed to show evidence you are directing and developing a business in which you have invested a substantial amount of capital.”
The INS official admitted von Eitzen’s status had been predetermined in advance of a hearing, but insisted he was “out of status.” The case has been mired in legal technicalities ever since, each round lending credibility to the allegation that he was targeted for his political views and activities.
Denver-based immigration attorney Brandon Marinoff, who represents von Eitzen, is inclined to agree, but admits he can’t prove it.
“I know my client feels that’s the case, but I have no way of knowing if it’s true, as I wasn’t involved at the beginning,” he said. “However, I can say there is no sensible reason for deportation. I know that Mr. von Eitzen isn’t given to hallucinations, and I can’t find any real reason why the INS is doing what they’re doing to him. It makes no sense.”
Marinoff, who has handled hundreds of cases, describes von Eitzen’s not only as “highly unusual” but “absurd, bizarre, and bordering on the surreal.”
To Marinoff, “there is no reason why this man should not be allowed to stay. He is not a criminal, he is in a bona fide marriage with a U.S. citizen; they have been married four years and live together as man and wife. She has developed medical problems and depends on him. And he has a teenage son who is American-born with whom he is very close. For him to go back to Germany would be a real hardship for the three of them. It is really a mind-boggling situation and most frustrating.”
It wasn’t always this way. What is now a Kafkaesque nightmare began as one more immigrant’s fulfillment of the American dream.
“I’ve had a lifelong interest in American history and your institutions,” says von Eitzen. “As a child, I wanted to live here, and when I finally visited [on a business trip] and saw Montana, this vast country, I knew this is where we should live.”
With his former wife, who was also a German national, von Eitzen entered the country on an E-2 Treaty Investment visa from the U.S. State Department, an arrangement for people who want to set up a business here and have money to invest. For several years he built up a profitable video-production business, Video-World, and counted Exxon, Conoco and the Chamber of Commerce among his clients.
In 1985, the couple had a son, who is now 16. When the boy entered public school, von Eitzen took a special interest in his education, and earned the praises of teachers when he and his wife shared their video equipment and expertise at sessions in the classrooms.
But when President Bush’s “Outcome Based Education” agenda made its way to Montana in the early 1990s, von Eitzen saw strong similarities between it and the educational methods used in East Germany and the Nazi regime which had ended in 1945, the year he was born, and became an outspoken critic.
“I had come to this country because of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but suddenly I’m seeing parallels,” he said. “I could see what was happening in the schools. I wanted to warn people about what was happening — that children would be brainwashed to fit into a totally controlled society.”
In 1992, he sued the school district for not permitting public participation in deciding whether to adopt “Outcome Based Education,” but agreed to dismiss the lawsuit when the school board appeared willing to accept his criticisms and make meaningful changes.
Von Eitzen’s efforts weren’t without effect. He gained local and nationwide notoriety among parents and educators who were battling “Outcome Based Education” and his opposition to this key item of the Clinton agenda (called “Goals 2000”) influenced the state legislature to reject the proposal and the federal monies offered for implementation — making Montana the first state to turn the funding down.
Unfortunately, his political activities took a toll on his relationship with his family, and in June 1994 Mrs. von Eitzen left with their son and filed for divorce. Efforts on his part to salvage the marriage were unsuccessful, and it was dissolved June 2, 1995.
Judge Maurice Colberg, who presided over von Eitzen’s lawsuit against the school district three years before, also presided over the divorce and custody proceedings, awarding most of the family assets to Mrs. Von Eitzen, as well as full custody of their child. He cited the “obsessive campaign carried on by Wolfgang against that school system,” as a factor in his decision.
Said Colberg: “Wolfgang’s behaviors are obsessive. … [as] demonstrated by the campaign carried on by Wolfgang against the Billings public school system, by his work habits, starting work projects, working all night, etc. …”
It was a sad ending to a story begun with such optimism. His political activity had cost von Eitzen nearly everything: his wife, his child and much of what he owned. He was left with a stack of debts and a determination to pick up the pieces and start over.
At this point, the INS at the office in Helena, Mont., took a sudden interest in von Eitzen, which culminated in his arrest and imprisonment in 1996.
INS officials deny a political motivation for their actions.
“I was here at the time, and the only information we ever received about Mr. von Eitzen’s political involvement in the community or political interests was from Mr. von Eitzen himself after he was already in proceedings with us,” said Alan Puckett, deputy district director at the INS office in Helena. “We took no notice of his involvement in the community because he was entitled to do that as a resident of the community.”
Puckett said this is a normal routine matter, “on our side; though Mr. von Eitzen isn’t acting in a routine way.” Still, Puckett said, “he’s entitled to pursue whatever avenues he can. But when a non-immigrant is no longer entitled to his status, they’re expected to leave. If they don’t leave on their own, then we have to help them.”
Friends across the country, upon learning of von Eitzen’s plight, rallied to his support.
“He’s being persecuted for what’s he’s been doing politically, period, no other reason,” says Charlotte Iserbyte, a former senior policy adviser in the U.S. Department of Education during the early Reagan administration.
In her words: “He’s a gutsy guy; he took on the school board there in Billings, and now he’s showing all these pro-America, pro-constitution videos on public access television and they are furious at him for that.”
Author of “The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America,” Iserbyte had known von Eitzen since the early 1990s when he became involved in education issues. She understood the problem and set about to rectify it. If von Eitzen were to marry, he could stay in this country. That’s virtually automatic. The American spouse must file an I-130 petition, and if the marriage is bona fide a “green card” is issued to the foreign spouse granting permanent residency and the right to work and earn an income. It’s done all the time.
Iserbyte figured that a bit of match making would do the trick. She knew a widow in Texas — a vivacious, pretty woman named Josephine, who shared von Eitzen’s political “obsession,” and like him had been active in the campaign against OBE in her state. Maybe, just maybe the relationship would click.
“I gave her Wolfgang’s phone number and she phoned him,” Iserbyte recalled. “They got to know each other through long conversations, and she thought he sounded just great. They chatted on the phone for a few weeks, then she went to visit him in Billings and they really hit it off. They got married just before Christmas [1996] and the INS is furious. They won’t even process Jo’s marriage petition, which they processed for his ex-wife immediately.”
Indeed, the speed with which a marriage petition was approved and a green card granted for the former Mrs. von Eitzen — who normally would have faced deportation proceedings herself — is one of the more questionable aspects of the case. In a letter written before the divorce was final, she directed her attorney to “withdraw the request for supervised visitation [in the custody case], so that I can get a final divorce decree, get married, and stay in this country.”
Within six weeks of obtaining a final decree, she married a prominent lawyer in a neighboring county and relocated with her son to his home. He filed an I-130 application for his new wife, which was approved within a month; a few months later she received her green card. They are no longer living in Montana.
I-130 petition denied
On the other hand, Jo von Eitzen’s I-130 petition, which she filed in April 1997, was denied in October 1998. Her appeal, too, has been ignored.
In a written statement, the INS counsel presented district director Harry Thomas with reasons for why the I-130 petition should be denied: In essence, INS employees at the Helena office regarded it as a “fraudulent,” non-bona fide marriage — one that was entered into for convenience or to circumvent immigration statutes and regulations. If this were true it would be a violation of the law. The statement admits that the INS was aware of the couple’s political persuasions.
“Mr. and Ms. von Eitzen shared a common goal to fight perceived inequities and intrusion of the educational system by the government of the United States,” the counsel wrote. “Mrs. von Eitzen has, in testimony before the Immigration Judge, indicated financial gain from her arrangement with Wolfgang. Ms. von Eitzen became aware of Wolfgang’s problems with the INS, met him in Billings, Montana, and five (5) weeks later they were married, allowing Mr. von Eitzen the opportunity of becoming a permanent resident: How convenient.”
In her opinion, “it would appear from the chronology of events and testimony provided that this is a marriage of convenience; solely to provide Mr. von Eitzen with the opportunity to become a permanent resident of the United States.”
Director Thomas agreed and summarily denied the I-130 petition.
Josephine von Eitzen regards this as insulting, but has managed to keep a sense of humor.
“A marriage of convenience? Heavens no,” she laughs. “Had I gone into this for money or convenience I’d have been long gone two months later. They’d be looking for me in Louisiana. But I’m totally committed to Wolf, and that’s why I don’t understand what’s with these people at the INS.”
“We’ve done nothing but INS stuff all this summer, for three or four months,” she says, referring to the agency’s stepped-up actions to deport her husband. “How can they decide whether or not we have a real marriage? What do they do? Come in here and watch us when we make love? Do they say, no, that never happens?
“I’ve been here for this man every step of the way, and he’s been here for me,” she says, but admits, “Sure, we have our problems, but why wouldn’t we under the strain and stress the INS has put us through. I try to be positive, but it gets overwhelming.”
What is extraordinary is that the von Eitzens were never interviewed
regarding the I-130 — something that is virtually routine whenever there’s
a question about the validity of a marriage.
WorldNetDaily asked Schippers — someone outside the case, but very familiar with INS procedures — if this were usual.
“Absolutely not,” he exclaimed. “It’s highly unusual not to interview them, especially when they suspect it might be a marriage of convenience or illegal type of marriage. They interview each of the people separately and have certain questions they always ask. The interview is to help the decision as to whether or not it appears these people are telling the truth. Usually the situation is that the guy’s visa is expiring, so he runs out and gets someone to marry him for a couple of weeks. If that’s the case, they’ve got him and will deport him at once.
“But, my lord, they’ve been married four years? Four years? This is nuts.”
Judge Kenneth Josephson, the immigration appeals judge to whom the counsel referred, acknowledged in no uncertain terms that he regarded the von Eitzen’s marriage as genuine.
In July 1997, as a backup in the event the I-130 petition was denied, von Eitzen petitioned for suspension of deportation for a hardship reasons, a situation in which a judge looks at a case and decides whether deportation would wreak undue “extreme hardship” on the applicant and his or her family. However, Congress in 1996, in the new
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, set a cap of 4,000 for such cases and judges are reluctant to grant them if other options — such as an I-130 petition — exist.
The von Eitzens had an impressive lineup of witnesses who attended the hearing in Helena in person or sent written testimony: the municipal judge who had married them, two members of the military, a state legislator, to name a few.
After considering his options and hearing testimony, Judge Josephson declared, “the respondent does have a warm, loving and bona fide relationship with Josephine. But … that cannot be the end point of my consideration, in view that the I-130 is still pending before the District Director.”
In other words, Judge Josephson considered the I-130 to be an obvious route for permanent residency and a work permit, though under the new law he has no power to adjudicate it. He denied the request to suspend deportation proceedings.
So, too, did district director Thomas, who ignored Josephson’s ruling that the marriage is bona fide and went along with the counsel’s insistence upon fraud.
This summer, the INS increased its pressure on the von Eitzens. Lawyer Brandon Marinoff was able to stay deportation by filing a motion in federal court. The question will be whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals even has jurisdiction. The INS argues that under IIRIRA, it does not.
According to Marinoff, IIRIRA has made it more difficult for people like von Eitzen to access the courts, and he says he cannot even speculate what the Ninth Circuit will decide. “They may say ‘We’re interested in this and we want you — the lawyers — to brief the issues,’ or they may render an opinion in our favor and allow Wolfgang to remain, or they could reject it as being outside their jurisdiction, in which case we’re in trouble.”
Marinoff deplores what he sees as “an unscrupulous factor” in this case. “There are some people that have the power that are abusing their discretion and acting unscrupulously. It’s not the way they’re supposed to be. They’re supposed to be seeking justice. When you work for the government, you’re supposed to be seeking justice. That sometimes means you help a foreigner gain his status, and sometimes it means that you have to be working against them. But they have to use their discretion in a reasonable manner, and in this case, they’ve used it improperly.”
Related story:
Schippers: Gore pressured INS to win in ’96
