Posted on 02/17/2007 9:49:54 AM PST by Sybeck1
WASHINGTON -- U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., has called for the House Financial Services Committee to investigate Bank of America's practice of extending credit through secured credit cards sometimes used by undocumented workers.
"As a member of the Financial Services committee, I believe that thorough Congressional oversight is necessary to address this legal loophole, which allows banks to issue credit cards to those who are in this country illegally," Blackburn said in a statement Friday.
"We must protect our country and financial institutions from the security, financial, and terrorist risks this poses," Blackburn said.
The call for an investigation followed Wall Street Journal and other newspaper accounts of a pilot program for Spanish-speaking people in Los Angeles County that does not require Social Security numbers. Other banking institutions have similar programs for clients with no credit histories.
Bank of America responded Friday by saying that the secured, or collateralized, credit cards are issued only after a customer has established a deposit account.
"In order to have a deposit account at Bank of America, we require a Social Security number, proof of U.S. government federal taxpayer status, or other documents in compliance with the USA PATRIOT Act," said spokesman Betsy Weinberger.
"The USA PATRIOT Act customer identification requirements are fulfilled for all Bank of America customers," she noted. "This particular credit card program requires an existing deposit account in order to qualify. This initiative lets customers build a solid credit history with a leading bank."
Said a second Bank of America spokesman, Alex Liftman: "The program was not specifically designed for nor marketed to illegal immigrants. The program was designed to educate our existing customers and help our existing customers build a solid credit history."
Blackburn and U.S. Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., suggested the Bank of America program "could have the unintended consequences of encouraging illegal immigration and, more alarming, could possibly lead to the unsuspecting financing of terrorists.
"Banks should not see the flood of illegal immigrants as a new market, nor should they have to enforce our immigration laws. This is bad financial policy in the wake of bad immigration policy," Blackburn said.
But Tim Amos, senior vice president and general counsel of the Tennessee Bankers Association, said he didn't think Bank of America "or any other bank has provided service to anyone without following current and fairly extensive federal requirements for adequate identification."
Amos added that he suspected that whatever transactions are taking place are with legal immigrants.
"Are banks providing services to immigrants? Absolutely. Are we providing money transfer services to immigrants? Absolutely," he added.
"The U.S. Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve have a cooperative agreement with the Central Bank of Mexico to encourage citizens to use the banking system to transfer money, as opposed to using truly illegal money transfer systems that go unregulated and unreported and facilitate other illegal activity like transfers of money to drug dealers and terrorists."
Memphis immigration lawyer Greg Siskind said it was "interesting that certain Congressmen that complain about government interfering in business have no problem when it comes to the issue of immigration. All their general feelings about government involvement in business seem to go out the window."
In a followup e-mail, he added: "The fact that we are devoting time to debating this issue is really diverting us from the bigger question of what we intend to do to finally fix our broken immigration system. If Congress did its job and created an immigration system where employers could legally hire needed workers, this whole question would be moot."
Steve Adamske, a spokesman for Financial Service Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., said Frank had asked the committee staff to look into Blackburn's concerns.
-- Bartholomew Sullivan: (202) 408-2726
Copyright 2007, commercialappeal.com - Memphis, TN. All Rights Reserved.
One private party wants to extend credit to another private party. I just don't see the problem.
Are you against letting American banks loan money to foreigners living in other countries too?
You aren't looking very hard. Is it ok for BOA to lend money to members of al quada? They are private parties. ILLEGAL ALIENS, shouldn't be here, let alone have access to credit cards. That's the problem that you don't see.
The comparison is totally ridiculous. The feds track or block money that goes to known terrorists in order to stop terrorism. They don't try to stop money from going to anyone who commits (or may commit) a crime.
Do you habitually speed on the highway? Should BOA be allowed to lend to you?
Dear Senores y Senoras,
I had been a Bank of America customer since 1984. It says so on my card currently printed in English. Up to today I assure you that my account(s) have been very profitable for your large impersonal corporation.
Alas, your recent marketing efforts to position yourself as the illegal immigrant banking institution, have metastasized and materialized to such an in insulting state that , today, I am closing all my banking relationships with Bank of Mexico..er..America.
Between all the family accounts that I manage, the mortgages, car loans, etc, I estimate that to be well over 1 Million in customer assets and obligations. Not a lot in the nameless faceless spreadsheet aggregate but I’m sure equivalent to hundreds of profitable “latino friendly” accounts that you so desperately crave.
Surely you know the pattern. Subject your customers to begin each transaction on your paid customer service line to a Spanish dialogue. Then follow that with the requirement that at the Versatel, the customer must press YES ENGLISH twice, to begin the transaction. That enough is maddening and insulting…but yes…you topped it.
The new “no social security number required credit cards and mortgages”!. All with the stringent requirement that individuals must already have a banking relationship with Bank of The Greater America. Gee, I wonder what large pot of customers this targets? Que lastima!!!
I know your business model contains customer turnover metrics that take into account the amount of assets you will lose to individuals like myself that do not value the dollar to the extent of your MBAs. Surely your customers will continue to bank with you at the expense of national security or the in your face cultural disrespect. Right? I do believe that you have misunderestimated the reaction from your customer base and have misjudged the widespread discontent this marketing model has produced.
This is a very important letter in that it represents the first time that I have written such to an entity that I have done lifelong business with. File it under “Circular” if you will. Or Circulara should that be the new database file name.
Regards
samadams2000
Next we need to ban bars from selling beer for less than $3, because such a practice encourages illegal aliens to come here and have a good time.
Posted by Kimberly GG On News/Activism 02/14/2007 12:17:25 AM PST · 38 of 63
I disagree T.L....from what I've read it is NOT legal.
"In 1996, Congress expanded the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to include violations of federal immigration law.1 While this expansion may not have received much publicity, it could potentially change the face of U.S. immigration law enforcement. Under the new RICO provisions, a violation of certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) meets the definition of racketeering activity, also known as a "predicate offense,"2 and an entity that engages in a pattern of racketeering ACTIVITY FOR FINANCIAL GAIN can be held both criminally and civilly liable.3 Among other things, the INA makes it UNLWAFUL TO ENCOURAGE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION or employ illegal aliens,4 which violations were included as predicate offenses under RICO."........
"The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has specifically interpreted this provision to apply to actions that encourage illegal aliens already in the United States to remain or that induce further illegal immigration.17 The Fourth Circuit held that "‘encouraging’ is not limited to bringing in, transporting or concealing illegal aliens. Rather, ‘encouraging’ relates to actions taken to convince the illegal alien to come to this country or to stay in this country."......
"Some large U.S. financial corporations currently accept the matricula as primary or secondary ID for the purpose of opening bank accounts in the United States for illegal aliens. An illegal alien with a U.S. bank account, in which he or she may deposit illegally acquired funds, and out of which he or she may pay local rent, local utility bills, and send money abroad, is more likely to remain illegally in the United States. In other words, he or she is encouraged to remain illegally in the United States — such encouragement being a violation of Federal law.
When such a violation is done for the purpose of financial gain, as in the case of the financial corporations engaged in the practice, it is more than simply a violation of immigration law — it is racketeering. Also, those contemplating entering the United States illegally will be further encouraged to do so because of the added benefits they can obtain once they enter. Thus, it is reasonable to say that acceptance of the matricula is a violation of the INA and a predicate offense under RICO."..........
http://www.cis.org/articles/2003/back1103.html
Well....now that just wouldn't be fair.
Part of the cost of borrowing money from any financial institution is the cost of bad debt. So if lending to illegals increases bad debt, you and I will pay a higher percent when borrowing money. If you lend money to illegals, in theory, they could just head back to Mexico and there is no way to track them down. Legal citizens, with mortgages, legal employment etc. are easier to find and recover costs.
As hypocrite Blackburn and everyone else knows, the feds provide money to educate the illegal/potential terrorist
BOA is not only regulated by federal and state laws, it is also governed by the FDIC. It would seem to me that this program puts customer deposits in an unreasonable amount of risk. Did we not learn anything from the S&L crisis?
no
I wouldn't either, except the government doesn't seem to take a 'hands-off' approach to MY banking Have you tried to open a savings account lately? You need an amazing amount of evidence of who you are, where you live, how long you've been there, etc to get the bank to agree to hold your money. I'm into 3 1/2 weeks now getting a savings account set up with an out-of-town bank, as they keep asking for more and more documents and answers (and of course, they forget abut us for days at a time). I seem to recall needing a fair amount of documentation to set up my checking account too a couple years ago.
I fail to see how illegal aliens are getting bank accounts, which qualify them for credit cards, when it's so hard for citizens to get them any more.
One private party wants to extend credit to another private party. I just don't see the problem. ""
Bank of America can hardly be called a "private party".
They have stockholders. I am a private party. You are a private party. Neither of us has stockholders.
I don't think that is an accurate analogy. First off, there are federal laws in existence right now that [should] prevent cards/accounts from going to illegals. That a lot of illegals are in fact getting credit [from federally regulated institutions] makes the bank's claims that they are following the law very suspect.
Based on the digital exams I undergo in the financial system when I want to undertake transactions, logic tells me that it *ought* to be damn difficult for illegals to be getting credit cards, mortgages, etc.. Logic also tells me that, with the number of illegals getting these things, some (probably many in certain areas) banks are not even paying lip service to the law.
Advertising practices that attract illegals shouldn't even matter because they shouldn't be able to get anything anyway. But they do. How they do is the big question that ought to be answered.
I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is the special treatment of illegal aliens by banks in order to win their business. Would you or I be able to walk into a bank and open a $100,000 savings account or buy that much in CD's without giving a Social Security number?
The Fourteenth Amendment, one for which I'm sure liberals would take credit even thought it was passed in the 1870's guarantees equal treatment under the law. Illegals are treated more equally than the rest of us who are law-abiding.
Since it is happening, and in some areas a lot, it is no leap of logic to assume that the laws you and I are being subjected to are not being applied with the same vigor to illegals. How much is probably difficult to say, but far too much is for certain.
bump
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.