May 29, 2003

 

Mr. Jeffrey Rush, Jr.

Office of Inspector General

1500 Pennsylvania Ave Room 4436

Washington, DC 20220

 

Dear Mr. Rush:

 

A new Roper poll shows that 75 percent of Americans believe it should be necessary to prove citizenship or legal status in the United States to open a bank account.  Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE) therefore was shocked to learn that the Treasury Department has recently issued significant regulations (April 30, 2003; 31 CFR Part 103) that allow U.S. financial corporations to accept foreign-issued identification cards, like the matricula consular, from illegal aliens as acceptable ID to open a bank account.

 

The matricula consular card is useful only to those who are not legally in the United States in the first place, since all legal residents have access to U.S.-issued ID.  Like the overwhelming majority of Americans, we oppose the use of this card to open bank accounts, because it encourages illegal immigration, provides a "stealth amnesty" for illegal aliens, undermines national security and the rule of law, and places corporate profit above the common good.

 

In a nation where illegal immigration is now estimated to exceed one million new illegal aliens per year, acceptance of the matricula consular by U.S. institutions is an outrage that undermines American principles of security, justice and the rule of law.  Furthermore, acceptance of the Mexican illegal alien ID card will open the floodgates for other nations to issue similar consular cards, exacerbating our already serious problems with international illegal immigration.

 

Financial institutions that accept the matricula consular are subverting national security and undermining the Immigration and Nationality Act simply to increase profit margins.  The ID itself can be easily acquired using a forged Mexican birth certificate, encouraging rampant corruption and widespread criminal activity, and facilitating the goals of terrorists.

 

By allowing banks to recognize the Mexican ID card, the Treasury Department is turning a blind eye to the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to defend America from future terrorist threats.  In the recently concluded inter-agency working group on acceptance of the matricula consular, the Department of Homeland Security strongly opposed the card's acceptance on precisely security grounds.

 

The Joint Final Regulations of April 30, 2003 could easily be interpreted in a manner that would put banks in direct violation of U.S. law.  Federal law strictly prohibits encouraging or inducing illegal aliens to enter or reside in the United States.  (8 U.S.C.S. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)).  The Immigration and Nationality Act also prohibits the aiding and abetting or conspiracy to commit any such act.  (8 U.S.C.S. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)).  By allowing commercial banks and narrow business interests the option of accepting the matricula consular, the Treasury Department may be giving these business interests the green light to violate federal law.

 

Those pushing acceptance of the matricula consular sometimes argue that banks may accept the card because illegal aliens who use it are already in the country, and, therefore, the statute doesn't apply.  However, the Fourth Circuit has held that because the word "'is' connotes the present status of the illegal alien's residence within the United States, it can only be understood to apply to actions directly towards illegal aliens already in this country"  (United States v. Oloyede). Thus, if the Treasury Department attempts to argue that the statute applies only to entering illegal aliens, such an argument would be invalid. 

 

Second, banks accept the consular card for pecuniary motives.  The Seventh Circuit has held that "a pecuniary motive sufficiently establishes that one acted for the purposes of private financial gain for inducing aliens to illegally enter the United States under 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)" (United States v. Fujii).   In this era of Enron, with an American public tired of corporations and their "regulators" in Washington putting corporate profit above the public good, we implore the Inspector General to investigate the Treasury's regulations regarding the matricula consular.

 

Finally, this issue of identification is relevant to illegal immigration and 8 U.S.C.S. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv).  The Ninth Circuit has held that "acts of inducing aliens to enter the United States or of counterfeiting registration receipt cards have no purpose unless they are intended to facilitate the unlawful entry of an alien or his continued residence in the United States" (United States v. Castillo-Felix).  Based on the foregoing case law, it is highly likely that the Joint Final Regulations of April 30, 2003 allow banks to be in violation of U.S. law. 

 

Per the foregoing, we believe that the Treasury is in error when it states that these new regulations do not constitute "significant regulatory action."  Pursuant to Executive Order 12866(3)(F)(2), "'significant regulatory action' means any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency."

 

The Treasury's new regulations directly and significantly conflict with the mandates of the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement:  clearly if one agency is charged with deporting illegal aliens, another agency cannot, without significant conflict, allow those same illegal aliens to open bank accounts in the United States.  By executive order, these regulations must come under much closer scrutiny, with much greater public participation in their drafting, than they were given. 

---

Jason Wyrick
jgwyrick@yahoo.com
May 29, 2003