With the second anniversary of the tragedy of September 11thjust passed, and the PATRIOT Act seemingly touching lives in onceunheard of ways, security remains a high priority in this country.There seems now to be universal agreement that it has never beenmore important to have reliable positive identification that anindividual is who he or she claims to be. There is far lessagreement over what constitutes an acceptable form ofidentification, especially for non-U.S. citizens. This isparticularly an issue for certain individuals, lawmakers, cities,various government bodies, and credit unions located in statesbordering Mexico. Here's where something called a matriculaconsular card comes into the picture. Many if not most creditunions and CU leaders in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texasare willing to accept a matricula form of ID and have said soloudly. Many of their counterparts in other states are still notconvinced and oppose them with as many decibels. What is amatricula consular card? Simply put, it is a form of individualidentification issued by the Mexican consulate. Supporters say itshould be accepted because it is issued by a formal governmentbody. In this case that means the Mexican government. They add thatit fulfills the PATRIOT Act requirement spelled out in Section 326that financial institutions be allowed the discretion, with dueconsideration of appropriate risk factors, to accept identificationdocuments issued by foreign governments. The “risk factors” is thesource of much of the debate. As everyone knows, financialinstitutions cannot provide service to any individual unless theycan show proper identification such as a driver's license, birthcertificate, Social Security card, passport, green card, etc. It isargued that the matricula consular card can and should be includedin the definition of proper identification. But there is less thantotal agreement on that argument. On the other side of the debate,the concern is that these cards are too easy to obtain and do notmeet basic security considerations. Stories are told that someindividuals have turned up with multiple cards, each under adifferent name. Just because the Mexican government issues themdoes not make them foolproof, they say. Then there's thecontroversy of issuing them to individuals who are here illegally.Adding to the controversy is the discussion over a proposalcurrently in California that illegal aliens would be issueddriver's licenses. Among other things that could give them twoforms of identification, one issued by the Mexican government andone by the state of California. The U.S. is not nearly as hard onits own citizens when it comes to identification. A state-issueddriver's license (over 250 different formats) will get a person onan airplane going anywhere in the country. A certified birthcertificate (issued by over 5,000 entities) will allow passage outof the country to Mexico and Canada. Are these government issueddocuments, which are used to get a passport, more reliable than amatricula card? Another argument advanced by the backers ofwidespread acceptance of the matricular cards is that we are reallyonly talking about ordinary individuals. Many of them are seekingto be able to join a credit union and begin the long process ofimproving their station in life. Certainly, they say, theseindividuals pose no threat of money laundering or to our security.But, say those opposed, how do you know that? How hard would it be,once the cards are widely accepted, for our enemies to recruitHispanics who could roam freely in this country with identificationas a Mexican citizen when in fact they might be working for aterrorist organization? For what it's worth, initially I wasstrongly against accepting matricular consular cards for IDpurposes. I weighed the same pros and cons that are still beingadvanced. But mostly it seemed to me it would be too easy tofalsify them. I was concerned about security issues. I wondered whythey couldn't just get a passport. To be fair, I read everything Icould find on the subject to see if there were more good reasonsfor supporting this ID concept than opposing it. I have now joinedthe ranks of those who support it. Here's why: some identificationis better than no identification even if that identification can beunder certain circumstances compromised. Millions of Hispanicsroaming freely in this country with absolutely no identity makes nosense. I also am sympathetic to the fact that an unidentifiedperson cannot join a credit union without some form of officialidentification. It also occurred to me that even with the stringentrequirements of passports, the number of phony ones is more thananyone could imagine. Just look at how freely terrorists havecrossed our borders with a pocketful of passports issued byofficial government agencies. Should we have any more faith in apassport issued by a rogue nation than a matricular consular cardissued by our non-threatening neighbor to the south? Right inMadison, Wisconsin, a man and woman were recently arrested fordoing a thriving business in producing counterfeit Social Securityand resident alien cards and selling them to undocumented aliens.And then there is the out-of-control identity theft involvingtraditional ID documents. What really convinced me to change mymind has to do with long-held credit union principles. Millions ofindividuals who realistically pose no serious threat to thiscountry need the help credit unions can provide. I realize myopinion is no more or no less important that that of every readerof Credit Union Times. Should credit unions accept them foridentification? Should every credit union set its own policy ratherthan have the federal government do so as CUNA recommends? I'dreally like to hear views from as many readers as possible on thisimportant and controversial topic. Comments? Call 1-800-345-9936,Ext. 15, or Fax 561-683-8514, or E-mail [email protected].