I just read a story by Michelle Mittelstadt in the Dallas Morning News that the the House appropriations subcommittee blocked a Treasury rule that permits banks to accept the matricula consular as a valid ID document. When these cards first came out, many banks jumped on board accepting them as valid ID's. Has anyone backed away from that? It looks as if they will not longer be acceptable under the law?

This is the last I read on this:

"The House Appropriations’ Transportation, Treasury and Independent Agencies Subcommittee yesterday approved an amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Treasury-Transportation appropriations bill – offered by Rep. John Culberson (R-Texas) – that would prohibit the Treasury Department from implementing regulations to permit financial institutions to accept the matricula consular card as a valid form of identification. The Mexican government issues the card to its citizens living in other countries, and it is accepted as a legitimate form of identification by some banks, police departments and other agencies and organizations. The full Appropriations Committee is expected to consider the legislation next week." This was from Friday the 16th.

I believe a lot of banks were apprehensive in the first place. This won't throw any support behind it and it was touted in Austin and Dallas as a good thing by the police and minority groups. I don't know if any fraud believed to be associated with use of this card as an ID has been documented and is factual or just possible.

As I understand it, Rep. John Culberson, R-Texas said "would be terrorists could use the cards to get driver's licenses in 13 states" and "presents a national security threat". He claims that every federal law enforcement agency has identified the matricula as a serious security problem because there is no way to verify the actual identity of the person holding it. In Nevada, the state legislators in 2003 approved the use of the Mexican matricula as a valid form of identification for a range of activities including opening bank accounts. It's a problem in this state for sure.

From the 7/16 ABA Money Laundering Update:
House Appropriations Subcommittee Bans Use of Matricula and Cuts FinCEN Funding

In a 9-7 vote, the House Appropriations Subcommittee voted to eliminate the use of the matricula card as a valid form of identification for financial institutions. In fact the Committee characterizes its vote as much broader than that calling it a prohibition from even "implementing regulations that permit financial institutions to accept the matricula consular identification card as a valid form of identification."

The subcommittee also cut the President's request for funding for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN).

According to the amendment's sponsor to ban the use of the matricula card, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX):

"The Department of Homeland Security tells us that there is a 100 per cent chance that terrorists will try to attack our country before the November election. Texas law enforcement officials have told me that they have identified a number of special interest aliens of Middle Eastern decent who have used Hispanic surnames to enter the United States undetected."

Culberson added, "My amendment is aimed to protect our national security by stopping the use of this totally unreliable form of identification because it can be used by criminals to obtain driver’s licenses, bank accounts, and other services. The Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation all agree that the Matricula Consular card is unreliable and in a time of war, Congress’s highest obligation is to protect the country from another terrorist attack."

The House Financial Services Committee reacted quickly. In a strongly worded letter to the Appropriations Committee, Chairman Michael Oxley (R-OH) and Barney Frank (D-MA) said:

Treasury's regulations implementing section 326 were finalized only after a lengthy period for public comment - which included extensive input from the financial services
industry, law enforcement agencies, and a host of other interested parties - and after careful analysis and study by the Treasury Department and other regulators. The regulations became effective on October 1, 2003, and are currently being enforced by Treasury and the Federal banking agencies, and implemented by financial institutions across the country. The amendment adopted by the subcommittee throws into question the obligation of financial institutions to adhere to the customer identification and verification procedures outlined in the regulations, and ties Treasury’s hands in enforcing one of the centerpieces of the post-September 11 congressional response to the terrorist financing threat.

Second, we believe it is imperative that the full Appropriations Committee restore the funding level for the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN) to that requested in the President’s budget: $64.5 million.

For a copy of the letter, visit ABA's Compliance page at:
http://www.aba.com/Compliance/default.htm

As noted, this is a proposed amendment to an appropriations bill. The actual wording is:

None of the funds made available in this Act to the Secretary of the Treasury may be used to publish, implement, administer, or enforce regulations that permit financial institutions to accept the matricula consular identification card as a form of identification.

It's an inartful move which would affect enforcement of the entire CIP regulation. Moreover, if a prohibition following this language was incorporated into the CIP regulation, all a foreign country would have to do to side step it would be to call their ID something other than a "matricula consular."

A more reflective maneuver in the form of proposed legislation (status unknown) was proposed by a New Jersey congressman last year. It would prohibit a financial institution's acceptance of any identification issued by a foreign country other than a passport. (Frankly, I agree with the idea.)

Given the fact that many illegal aliens have already been given drivers licenses using the matricula as a breeder document, it seems a bit late to attempt to shut the door.

From today's Newsbytes:

The House Appropriations Committee yesterday defeated by a 26-25 vote an ABA-backed amendment to delete a provision in the fiscal year 2005 Treasury-Transportation appropriations bill that would prohibit the Treasury Department from using funds to put into effect regulations permitting financial institutions to accept the Mexican government's matricula consular card as a valid form of identification. Rep. Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.) offered the amendment. The debate on this issue is likely to continue when the full House considers the bill in September.

I remember reading thread last year about this subject, saying that the matricula card was not a valid form of ID. But the other day, I caught part of a news item on TV with a woman, speaking Spanish with an interpreter voice over, saying how happy she was that she could now use the matricula card as her form of ID to open accounts and do business. It seemed to me, from that newsbyte, that there has been an about face on this issue?

What if our CIP policy states that the Matricula card will not be an acceptable form of ID? We can require/not accept any form of ID we choose, correct?

Nanwa & Sundawg,
There's a single answer to both of your questions: You are not required to accept any type of identification you do not want to accept. Your policy should say what you will accept. If it does not mention the matricula, then you cannot accept it, there is no need to say that you will not.

There is no direction from federal law saying that you must accept the Matricula. "Acceptance" has ironically evolved into a state or local issue. My understanding is that it can be used as the breeder document to get a drivers license in California, Tennessee and (according to Representative Culberson) 11 other states. If you are in one of those states, you probably won't be asked to accept the matricula, the illegal alien will just give you a drivers license like everyone else. It's the other 37 states where things are a bit vague.

The acknowledged political tactic used by the Mexican government has been to get the matricula accepted in the U.S. by "eating the elephant one bite at a time." They have lobbied at many levels of government for acceptance; e.g. a representative of the Mexican Embassy called on the Mayor of Louisville to issue a proclamation saying the matricula was acceptable ID. Who cares what the mayor of any town thinks about identification? Again, they are waging this as a war of attrition, if they approach the federal government for an official approval of the matricula, there is no chance they will get it. However, if they approach state and local governments and they comply one at a time, the small battles will add up to a complete victory. Back to Rep. Culberson's initiative, so what if the federal government says you cannot accept the matricula: "This guy's got a California drivers license!"

Remittances from Mexican nationals living in the U.S. to relatives in Mexico are a major part of the Mexican economy. Helping their citizens to live in the U.S. and have access to the U.S. economy has the same effect as creating a major export. In this case, they are just exporting people.

It is interesting that we need to determine if a person is a U.S. Person. It seems like the law should have been written where one of the items of information that we obtain is where they were born. If they were not born in the U.S. then it would require us to dig a bit deeper as to whether or not the person is a U.S. Person or not and if they are obtain the proper documentation. I am curious, if anyone has written this into their CIP identification procedures?

You have to determine whether an individual is a U.S. person before you know what type of ID to obtain and what type of documents must be signed (such as W-8BEN vs. W-9). This has been a necessity for more years than I can recall.

Under our CIP program, one of the first questions asked is whether you are a citizen of the U.S. If not, you must provide identifying documents that we use to verify you and your country of origin (I believe this is a requirement under USA PATRIOT Act). Our policy includes a list of the types of documents I can use for this purpose.

Brenda...I understand that...but I looked at an account and it just had red flags that said to me that this person may not be a U.S. Person. I inquired of the new accounts person as to how she determined this...she said she asked and he said he was...but...it would seem that a better way would be to ask a person where they were born as well as if they are a U.S. Person or not.

I worry about the matricula consular from another perspective - voting. How many states/localities permit people to register to vote based on their drivers licenses, and don't check any further? Has anyone speculated how that might affect the November election?