Posted on 02/20/2007 9:37:32 AM PST by NormsRevenge
Too bad this poor fellow doesn't become an American Citizen.........then he wouldn't have to worry about someone stealing his money..........the US Government would do it........mostly to finance all the G-d D-mn Mexican CRIMINALS in this country.
I would think that AP Giannini, as an immigrant himself, would be in favor of the general idea. Perhaps not all aspects but certainly the intent. After all, AP was one of the first bankers to offer banking services to working class people who, at the time, were considered uncreditworthy.
You work for BofA????
Giannini was born in San Jose, CA. He was not an immigrant.
You're right, I'm wrong, he was the "son of immigrants".
Ok.
I pinged you at post 16 also.
Perhaps not all aspects but certainly the intent.
You do remember the old saying about the road to hell and what it's saved with ? ;-)
He was there when the Big Quake hit and thousands weren't creditworthy then either.
I just find it a bit of stretch myself to seek new markets in such a way..
I agree. In my original post I said I disagreed with the the program. I think it does make things easier for illegals in the US which is the wrong thing to do. I was just posting the card's requirements and the fact that the requirements are in line with the Patriot Act. BofA sees a business opportunity here just as other companies who have similar products.
Damnfino, I only work there. I am at the worker bee level in technology & operations. A wee cog in the corporate machine. In fact, I am one of the few American IT types left.
I did see your initial statement, there used to be a difference between whether something was legal and ethical. Times seem to have changed. jmo.
I understand. But if the pilot card accepts the matricula instead of a SS#, that would be targeting an illegal alien since the embassey is the only one that can issue it.
The nation's history certainly took it into account; we just didn't believe it would happen. See what we must know but apparently don't believe. A word of advice, stay for the entire presentation for the words of wisdom America has ignored.
I attribute the beginning of the end of the constitutional experiment to the 16th and 17th amendment.
Agreed. Perhaps the problem is with the Patriot Act that permits the matricula as a valid form of government ID?
Now that I don't know.
I am wondering . . . how does the bank report earnings on the deposits to the IRS? Is there an alternative to an SSN for identifying the account owner? Or are these deposits only in the form of checking accounts that do not pay interest?
Are you sure it wasn't Walmart.
That's part of the problem. The banks were also involved with lobbying for the continued use of the Matricula cards as legitimate forms of identification.
Customer Identification Programs (CIPs) for Banks, Savings Associations, Credit Unions and Certain Non-Federally Regulated Banks
Federal Register, May 9, 2003
The Treasury department was mandated to issue the banking customer-identification regulations under the title of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act [P.L. 107-56] designed to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The Treasury Department was directed by Congress to establish minimum identification standards for customers opening accounts at any of the nation's financial institutions.
But, rather than making it more difficult to use the banking system to break the law and support terrorism, Treasury made it easier by too broadly defining acceptable documentation for opening an account. Among the identity documents that Treasury ordained as permissible are certain foreign-government-issued identification cards. And in a report to Congress, Treasury specifically identified as an acceptable document the matricula consular, a Mexican-government-issued card which the FBI and Department of Justice have concluded "is not a reliable form of identification" and which poses criminal and terrorist threats.
[snip]
Anti-matrícula proposal defeated; financial institutions can continue accepting consular ID's
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 18, No. 6
September 21, 2004
On July 22, 2004, the House's Committee on Appropriations voted in favor of an amendment to the Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (HR 5025) for 2005, which was introduced by Rep. John Culberson (R-TX). While the anti-matrícula consular provision introduced by Culberson passed by one vote in the Committee on Appropriations, it did not survive the floor debate on the Appropriations bill that took place on Sept. 14, 2004.
Culberson argued that his amendment would not have been necessary if the regulations adopted by the Treasury Dept. were sufficient to address the intention of the PATRIOT Act to accurately identify and track individuals opening bank accounts. The "Treasury rule says that any foreign government–issued document that evidences nationality, as long as it bears a photograph, is valid to open a bank account," Culberson said.
"That is in complete violation of the PATRIOT Act. So the regulation the Treasury Department adopted does not even meet the express letter of the law in the PATRIOT Act. So we had no other choice but to cut off the funding to this regulation."
Culberson and other opponents of the matrícula consular also raised national security concerns, stating that the FBI and Justice Dept. allege that "consular ID cards that foreign nationals would use to open bank accounts are widely known to be easily forged."
Moreover, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) argued that allowing financial institutions to accept the matrícula consular "would make it easier for these banks to do business with illegal immigrants, and they would make a profit from it; but our country would be far less safe, and our children will be less safe if we do this."
In countering Culberson's allegations that the FBI and the Justice Dept. were opposed to the bipartisan amendment to preserve the use of matrícula consular cards, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), a subcommittee chairperson of the Committee on Financial Services, presented a letter for the record written by Deputy Atty. Gen. James B. Comey and addressed to Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. The letter, dated Sept. 14, 2004, stated:
The Department of Justice fully supports the Administration's current policy under the USA PATRIOT Act that requires banks and other financial institutions to establish reasonable procedures for the identification and verification of new account holders, which is set forth in regulations of the Department of the Treasury. Therefore the [Justice] Department supports the Oxley-Frank-Kolbe amendment to H.R. 5025 that preserves these regulations [the regulations that allows banks to accept the Matricula Consular].
This legislative victory was a joint effort by financial institutions, immigrants' rights groups, consumer groups, and many others who worked in coalition to defeat, once again, efforts to limit the acceptance of consular ID cards by banks, credit unions, thrifts, and other financial entities.
If you want to help prevent articles like this in the future, write to readers.rep *at* latimes.com
He didnt say that.
He should just go to Bank of America...they are giving home loans to illegals now....a debit card should be "no problemo."
>>>Without a bank account, "somebody can steal it," said the 20-year-old, who came to the U.S. from Mexico three years ago. "That's it, my money is gone."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.