U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–813 PDF 2003

CONSULAR IDENTIFICATION CARDS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, 

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 19 AND JUNE 26, 2003

Serial No. 31

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/judiciary 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana, Chairman

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan

GEORGE FISHMAN, Chief Counsel 

LORA RIES, Counsel 

ART ARTHUR, Full Committee Counsel 

CINDY BLACKSTON, Professional Staff 

NOLAN RAPPAPORT, Minority Counsel 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

HEARING DATES 

Page 

June 19, 2003

ISSUANCE, ACCEPTANCE AND RELIABILITY .......................................................... 1

June 26, 2003

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE ISSUANCE AND ACCEPTANCE IN

THE UNITED STATES .......................................................................................... 99

OPENING STATEMENT 

JUNE 19, 2003

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 1

The Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims ..................................................................................... 4

The Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Utah .................................................................................................................. 7

The Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 9

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of California .......................................................................................................... 10

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 11

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 12

JUNE 26, 2003

The Honorable John N. Hostettler, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Indiana, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 

Security, and Claims ............................................................................................ 99

The Honorable Howard L. Berman, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 103

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Texas ................................................................................................................. 104

The Honorable Linda T. Sa ́nchez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California ................................................................................................ 105

The Honorable Jeff Flake, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Arizona .............................................................................................................. 106

The Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of California .......................................................................................................... 107

WITNESSES 

JUNE 19, 2003

The Honorable Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of Illinois 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 14

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 16

Page

IV

Senator John Andrews, President of the Colorado State Senate 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 18

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20

Mr. Marti Dinerstein, President, Immigration Matters 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 25

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 26

Mr. Craig Nelsen, Director, Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 44

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 45

JUNE 26, 2003

Mr. Steven McCraw, Assistant Director, Office of Intelligence, Federal Bureau 

of Investigation 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 109

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 110

Ms. Roberta S. Jacobson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for 

the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 112

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 114

Mr. C. Stewart Verdery, Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, Border 

and Transportation Security Directorate, Department of Homeland Security 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 116

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 117

Ms. Elizabeth Davison, Director, Department of Housing and Community 

Affairs, Montgomery County, Maryland 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 118

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 120

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

JUNE 19, 2003

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas ................................................................. 139

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in 

Congress From the State of California ............................................................... 140

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Steve King, a Representative in Congress From the State of Iowa .............................................................................. 141

Letter from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) .............. 142

Congressional Research Service Report Submitted by Rep. Jackson Lee ........... 144

Article from Rocky Mountain News Submitted by Rep. Jackson Lee ................. 147

Cable from State Department ................................................................................. 149

Article from Rocky Mountain News Submitted by Senator Andrews ................. 152

MALDEF Statement Submitted by Rep. Jackson Lee .......................................... 154

MALDEF Statement Submitted by Rep. Steve King as Rebuttal to Statement 

Submitted by Rep. Jackson Lee .......................................................................... 166

JUNE 26, 2003

Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress From the State of Texas ................................................................. 171

Response to Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Rep. Hostettler to Roberta 

S. Jacobson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau 

of Western Hemisphere Affairs ........................................................................... 172

(1)

ISSUANCE, ACCEPTANCE AND RELIABILITY 

THURSDAY, JUNE 19, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2 p.m., in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Hostettler (Chair 

of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

In the wake of the attacks of September 11, the Federal Government has reassessed almost every aspect of American life to ensure 

that our country and its people are protected against terrorist 

threats. This Subcommittee has played an active role in that effort. 

We have learned from those attacks and from other attacks carried 

out by aliens in the United States over the past decade that those 

who have come to our country to do us harm have identified and 

exploited weaknesses in our law enforcement efforts generally and 

in immigration enforcement specifically. 

In the past few months, increased attention has been directed to 

the law enforcement and national security implications of local acceptance of consular identification cards. By way of background, 

consular identification cards have been issued by foreign governments to their nationals living abroad for over a hundred years. 

Historically, foreign governments have issued these cards to enable their citizens abroad to seek consular assistance when they 

needed help. Since early, 2002, however, those cards have served 

a new purpose. This is when the Mexican Government redesigned 

their consular identification card known as the Matricula Consular 

and began promoting it for local acceptance in the United States. 

Those efforts have largely been successful. To date, more than 

402 localities, 32 counties, 122 financial institutions and 908 law 

enforcement agencies accept the Matricula for identification purposes. 

Those documents are accepted for several different transactions. 

They can be offered as identification at the police stops, to open 

bank accounts, to register for local services, to qualify for subsidized housing and even, reportedly, to board airplanes. 

Over the past 2 years, more than a million and a half Matriculas 

have been issued by Mexican Government agencies in the United 

States. Mexico’s success in promoting its consular identification 

document has prompted other countries to follow its lead. Guatemala has begun to issue consular identification cards to its citizens 

2

in our country, and several other countries are planning to do the 

same. 

As the issuance and acceptance of those documents has become 

more widespread, however, criticism of the documents and of domestic acceptance of the documents has increased. 

One of the main objections that has been raised against local acceptance of the cards is that such acceptance encourages illegal immigration to the United States. With limited exceptions, all aliens 

who are legally present in the United States possess either U.S. 

Government issued cards or passports, documents that are commonly accepted for many transactions. Critics have argued, therefore, that the only aliens in the U.S. Who need identification, additional identification documents, other than passports and U.S.-Government issued documents, are those who are illegally here. Many 

have therefore questioned why a country that expends so much energy and money to protect its borders would go to such effort to 

make it easier for aliens illegally in the United States to remain 

here. 

It has also been argued that domestic acceptance of consular 

identification cards in the U.S. Possess a law enforcement and national security risk because the documents themselves are not reliable or secure. These critics assert that the processes that foreign 

governments have instituted for issuing consular identification 

cards are susceptible to fraud and that the stated procedures for 

issuance of the documents are not uniformly followed. 

Critics have also argued that there are no safeguards in place to 

ensure that multiple cards are not issued to the same individual 

and that there is no centralized database of the cards that foreign 

government agents have issued in our country. 

The lack of such safeguards is an issue because reports indicate 

that counterfeit Mexican birth certificates are readily obtainable. 

For example, in September, 2002, the largest stash of counterfeit 

documents in Washington State history was seized. Police and Justice Department agents found specialty papers to print Mexican 

birth certificates along with other documents and $10,000 worth of 

computer equipment. 

Because the issuance process for consular identification cards are 

not always followed and because the absence of safeguards on those 

processes, critics have argued that cards have been issued to applicants who have few, if any, identifying documents. There appears 

to be some merit to these claim. This Subcommittee has received 

credible reports about aliens who have been arrested carrying multiple consular identification cards bearing their own pictures but 

different names. 

Of particular note is a memo sent by the Border Patrol agent in 

charge in Riverside, CA, to the sheriff of San Bernardino County, 

who was considering allowing his deputies to accept the Matricula. 

The patrol agent in charge explained that his office had arrested 

many Mexican aliens who had in their possession multiple valid 

Matriculas in different names. These arrestees included one known 

alien smuggler with an extensive criminal history found in a house 

with 25 of the smuggled. He had seven Matriculas in his possession, each bearing his picture and each in a different name. 

3

In addition to concerns about the reliability and security of consular identification cards, some observers have also argued that 

foreign government efforts to gain local acceptance of those cards 

violates our national sovereignty. They assert that foreign governments should not be allowed to lobby U.S. States and localities to 

accept the cards, because the purpose of that lobbying is to undermine our Federal immigration laws and our national immigration 

policies. 

They also argue that because States, localities and the Federal 

Government do not have access to consular information, the duty 

of verifying that a document is valid is improperly taken away from 

U.S. Authorities and given to agents of foreign powers who reside 

in the United States. This places U.S. Law enforcement at the 

mercy of those foreign governments, whose interests, particularly 

with respect to illegal aliens, may not be the same as ours. 

On a related note, many question whether it is proper for cities 

and towns in the United States to accept documents that are not 

regulated by the U.S. Government or the States. 

In this regard, I note the Supreme Court has held that, quote, 

for reasons long recognized as valid, the responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien 

visitors has been committed to the political branches of the Federal 

Government, end quote. 

Congress has plenary authority over substantive immigration decisions under the article 1, section 8 clause of the Constitution giving Congress the power, quote, to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, end quote. 

Given this grant of power, Congress plainly must have the ability 

and the opportunity to regulate any document that would allow an 

alien to reside in the United States. 

Because there is no method for regulating issuance of consular 

identification cards, critics of those cards assert that there is no 

way to ensure that issuance procedures for the cards are followed 

and that cards are not improperly issued in exchange for bribes. 

In light of the aforementioned concerns, a growing number of localities have opted not to accept consular identification card. In 

May, the State of Colorado restricted public acceptance of the documents; and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators issued a resolution stating that it was, quote, premature to 

recommend the use of any foreign consular ID, end quote, in 

issuing a driver’s license or State ID. 

Because of the serious nature of the concerns that have been 

raised about the security and reliability of consular identification 

cards and the sovereignty and national security implications posed 

by domestic acceptance of those cards, the Subcommittee has decided to open an investigation into both the issuance and acceptance of the cards. This hearing is a critical part of that investigation. 

In conclusion, I note that foreign governments have issued increasing numbers of consular identification cards in the U.S. At the 

same time, agents of foreign powers have expanded their attempts 

to seek local acceptance of those documents. Given these facts, it 

is incumbent upon this Subcommittee to fully explore the impact 

4

of these foreign governments’ efforts on U.S. Law enforcement and 

on our national security and sovereignty. 

I turn now to my colleague, the Ranking Member, Ms. Jackson 

Lee, for any opening statements she would like to make. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing, 

as well for some of the points that I believe I heard in the course 

of your testimony, terminology such as local uses, State uses, and 

domestic acceptance. So I thank you for the opportunity to explore 

this in the detailed way in which we should. 

I would ask at this time to be allowed to offer my opening statement and to be able to include it in its entirety in the record as 

I proceed. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me emphasize our purpose for being here 

in this Committee. As I understand it, this is a Committee that 

deals with the immigration policies of the Nation; and I am proud 

to serve on it. I am also proud to note that the 18th Congressional 

District in Houston, TX, is the host to the Mexican consulate office; 

and I have spent a lot of hours with the Consul General there, 

watching the proceedings and the services that are granted to 

those members of our community. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to also acknowledge and thank you publicly for the fact that we will, in the next week, hold a hearing on 

the smuggling of illegal immigrants into this Nation, obviously, 

with a look to the northern border as well as to the southern border. 

But I am likewise a member of the community that suffered a 

great loss with a number of individuals who died in the very tragic 

incident that occurred about 3 or 4 weeks ago. Many of the family 

members of those deceased were, of course, from the Houston area. 

We suffered greatly, enormous impact on families burying loved 

ones and memorials and also stories about those individuals who 

have come here simply for an opportunity. 

I use that as a backdrop; and might I use just another backdrop, 

anecdotal story? 

Mr. Chairman, I say this—we have not had a chance to discuss 

this—but I note a report that has just come out by Amnesty International discussing the treatment of children of immigrants who 

are detained. 

In our legislation last year, my colleague and myself, Congresswoman Lofgren, moved the handling of nonadult children who are 

in nonimmigrant status to be handled by HHS, Health and Human 

Services. I think it would be very helpful for this Committee, because of the very dire comments being made by this report, which 

I would be happy to share with you, that we would also like to explore how the children are being treated at this point, and maybe 

we can have a conversation; and I only say that because we have 

been working together. I think these hearings are instructive. 

With that as a backdrop, however, and knowing what our role is 

here, again I want to emphasize that I believe that the issue is 

whether or not these documents are used to equate or connote immigrant status, whether in fact they bestow upon anyone an adjusted immigrant status. I think that is the question; and as we 

proceed in our hearings I hope that these are the questions that 

5

will be answered. I don’t believe—and if I pronounce it correctly—

the Matricula Consular card has become or should become an immigrant issue. 

The Matricula is not issued as an immigration document, and it 

has no immigration purpose. The Government of Mexico has been 

issuing Matriculas at their consulates around the world for more 

than 130 years. They are getting prettier. The consulars do this to 

create an official record of its citizens in our countries. 

Matricula is legal proof of registration with the consulate so that 

you can be helped, your families can be helped. The consulate in 

Mexico was—in Houston, rather—was particularly helpful during 

this tragic time when families were able to come and send messages back home on the status of their loved ones. This registration 

facilitates access to protection and consular services, because a certificate is evidence of Mexican nationality. 

When we had tragic incidents with an unfortunate confrontation 

with the police, a tragedy of police brutality, the consular was able 

to reach the family because of the knowledge of the individual who 

died. Last year alone more than a million of these cards were 

issued to Mexican citizens living in the United States. It does not 

provide immigrant status of any kind. It cannot be used for travel, 

employment, or driving in the United States or in Mexico. The 

Matricula only attests that a Mexican consular has verified the individual’s identity. 

Now, we do know that there have been some State jurisdictions 

that are very kind—but that is a State issue—and they have their 

own guidelines in which to determine how they want to use those 

cards. Again, local uses, State uses, domestic acceptance have nothing to do with grant of immigration status. 

The Matricula, however, does have some nonconsular uses. For 

instance, because it is an identification card, it provides Mexican 

nationals in the United States with access to banking services. Is 

that not better, Mr. Chairman, than moneys that can be held in 

places where these individuals become victims because they know 

their money is under a mattress or somewhere else? Isn’t it better 

to have the banking institutions of America to be able to have 

these resources and, of course, to track whether or not any of these 

accounts are being used for illegal activities? 

That is an asset to us. That helps law enforcement. 

Without an acceptable identification card, many Mexican nationals in this country cannot open checking or savings accounts or use 

any other banking services. In 2002, Latino immigrants sent more 

than $30 billion to their families in Latin America. The cost of 

making such transfers is much higher if the person making it has 

to use a money-transmitting business such as Western Union or 

Moneygram instead of a regulated financial institution such as a 

bank or credit union. 

No insult to Western Union or Moneygram. Keep going. But I 

can’t imagine banks in America turning down $30 billion of interest that they can gain while having these accounts. 

Moreover, the banks and credit unions want the Latino banking 

business. United States banks plan to spend at least $8.5 billion 

through 2005 to attract Hispanic customers. 

6

The availability of banking service is a safety issue, too. Latinos 

are more likely to be victims of violent crime than any other racial 

or ethnic group. Much of this crime relates to the perception of 

criminals that because Latinos do not have bank accounts they 

carry large amounts of cash. As a result of this problem, police departments across the country support the use of the Matricula to 

enable Latinos to use mainstream financial institutions as a means 

of reducing crime and violence. 

As I look at the various witnesses, I am delighted to see Congressman Gutierrez. I know that he has long worked on these 

issues, particularly this card; and I would be very interested to 

hear his assessment of whether we go forward with this or we go 

backwards in our effort to either regulate or eliminate the opportunity. 

In an attempt to assist efforts to destroy the financial network 

that supports al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, I believe 

the Committee on Financial Services enacted legislation to reform 

money-laundering laws. The enacted provisions were incorporated 

into the USA PATRIOT Act, and clearly these bank accounts would 

be a great asset to distinguish the bad guys from the good guys. 

Customer identification provisions in this Act have a direct impact on the use of the Matricula as a legitimate form of identification to allow consumers to open bank accounts. Specifically, 326 of 

title III adds a new subsection that requires the Secretary to prescribe regulations setting forth minimum standards for financial 

institutions that relate to identification and verification of any person who applies to open an account. These regulations, Mr. Chairman, permit banks to accept identification cards issued by foreign 

governments. The regulations went into effect, but anti-immigrant 

groups and some State and Federal officials had expressed opposition, but they went into effect June 9, 2003. 

My good friend, Mr. Gallegly, has introduced a bill that would 

make it more difficult for these Mexican citizens of the United 

States to use these cards. In his bill, the Identification Integrity 

Act, H.R. 687, would prohibit the Federal Government from accepting identification documents issued by foreign governments. 

I believe frankly, that this is a State Department issue. The 

issue deals with the consular offices. Yes, we do deal with the State 

Department as it relates to visas, but I believe we need to be sure 

that these documents, as the legislation wants to do, as issued by 

a foreign government, are not to be utilized like they are, which is 

the right thing to do. We are suggesting—or he is suggesting that 

the passport should be the only purpose. 

I raise concerns over this and hope that, as we proceed, we will 

find out that we have many classes of aliens applying for relief who 

are not required to be in possession of a valid passport and typically will not have one in any event. So these aliens who have different statuses should not be precluded from having some sort of 

identification. I hope that, as we proceed with this, we will find 

that there is a better way to address any concerns that my good 

friend has. 

Therefore, we need to understand that many of those who have 

ID cards come from places who are Canadian nationals and have 

many other statuses. So I hope that as we move toward this hearVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:11 Jul 31, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061903\87813.000 HJUD1 PsN: 87813
7

ing we will be sincere in our intent to get information. We will find 

out that some cures are better than the illness and that we will 

hope and realize that bank accounts that can be traced are better 

than those who cannot be and that taking the documentation does 

not grant any sort of immigration status to anyone who does not 

have the status originally through the proper documentation. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for your indulgence and kindness. I look forward to this hearing. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank my colleague for her opening statement. 

Without objection, all opening statements can be entered into the 

record. But is there a Member that would like to make an oral 

statement at the opening? 

The gentleman from Utah. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate the opportunity to have this hearing today. For 130 

years, the Government of Mexico has issued consular ID cards to 

its nationals traveling and living abroad. In recent years, the Mexican Government has made an effort to issue identification cards, 

called the Matricula Consular, to many of its citizens who have immigrated from Mexico to the United States. 

The statistics indicate that more than 800 law enforcement agencies and 74 banks now accept the consular ID for identification 

purposes. I doubt that anyone would argue that Mexico has the 

right to issue identity cards to its citizens, just as I doubt that anyone would argue, I think, that Government agencies of the United 

States have the right to determine whether to accept these cards 

as proof of identification or not. 

The real issue before us today is whether the Federal Government should prohibit, restrict or encourage rules of these cards 

which are used by both legally documented and illegal immigrants. 

I believe we should start with the assumption that we should accept the consular ID cards as proof of identification under certain 

conditions. 

I would propose that we ask the Department of State to work 

with their counterparts in other governments that are now issuing 

consular ID cards under certain conditions. One condition can be 

that the foreign consulates share their registration lists with U.S. 

Government officials, and another condition can be that important 

information contained on the consular ID cards is shared with the 

United States Government. Another condition could be an agreement on the standards for issuing certain types of IDs and the 

records relied upon to issue them. I suggest that we work in a collaborative environment to share our security concerns and work together toward more secure borders. 

I am open to the debate whether this information is best shared 

with agencies within the Federal Government or with those in 

State and local governments. But I believe this is sound policy that 

will benefit our country as well as those individuals receiving those 

cards. 

I have taken time to visit with Government officials from Mexico 

about the security safeguards that they now implement in their 

identity cards. Since this panel of witnesses does not include any 

representatives from the countries now issuing consular ID cards 

8

or officials from the State Department who deal with the consular 

issues, I would encourage the Chairman and each Member of the 

Committee to check these things out personally. 

I have firsthand—or have seen firsthand that these identification 

cards contain modern security safeguards that are designed to prevent falsification and to ensure that law enforcement officials from 

both Mexico and the United States are able to determine their authenticity. In many cases, these identification cards have move security enhancements than official American documents. Each card 

bears a photo of the applicant, taken at the consulate, a legal address, signature and a serial number. This information can provide 

law enforcement officials with a readily recognizable and traceable 

ID. 

After the tragedy of September 11, the public attention on our 

Nation’s borders and national security has become even more focused. The more we can do to enhance the identification of immigrants and visitors traveling within our borders, the safer our society becomes. This is especially true in cases involving illegal immigrants, where law enforcement has little other information to help 

them in solving crimes and tracking illegal activities. 

In addition to enhancing our national security, consular ID cards 

can deliver substantial economic benefits to both the holder of the 

card and to U.S. Economy in general. The card can be especially 

important as a means to open a bank account. I propose you examine the convenience of a bank account, something most of us here 

take for granted. When you open a bank account, you can carry an 

ATM card and not large quantities of cash. You can save money 

safely for an emergency or a rainy day, in a place where it can gain 

interest. Establishing a bank account can allow an immigrant to 

qualify for a loan, enabling him to purchase a car or a home, or 

it can provide an immigrant with a chance to invest further in the 

community in which he lives. 

I don’t think anything would affect our economy more directly 

and more quickly than allowing people who are here as immigrants, legal and otherwise, to buy homes. That could literally double the new number of new homes we build a year in America. 

Banks eliminate the need for costly wire transfers or other cashbased systems that can charge incredibly high rates. In addition, 

unbanked cash is an open invitation to crimes. Rates of muggings 

and burglaries are higher in societies where cash is carried. Bank 

accounts can also reduce the worries and anxieties of migrant farm 

workers who move seasonally from State to State. 

The economic benefits to our own business and communities are 

obvious. Local banks gain more business. The savings rate in our 

country is improved, crime is reduced, and immigrants are more 

likely to make big-ticket purchases that bolster the local economy. 

Throughout our Nation’s history, we have succeeded in integrating immigrants into the economic fabric of our community. 

Some critics of the consular ID cards have objected that they grant 

amnesty to illegal immigrants at a time when we should be cracking down on them because of worries how they are connected to 

terrorism. But these cards pose no threat, no risk to our anti-terrorist efforts. Rather, the absence of identification poses a real 

threat. 

9

These cards can simplify the identification of immigrants and facilitate their contact with Americans and our institutions. They 

should be considered a benefit to public safety, not a liability. Indeed, it seems that many law enforcement officials and agencies, 

over 800 as of today, are among the most vocal proponents of the 

use and promulgation of these cards. 

Contrary to what critics argue, the consular ID card does not 

change this Nation’s laws relating to immigration or the amnesty 

of illegal aliens. This debate is not simply a domestic issue. The 

Mexican immigrant community in the United States is vital to the 

success of the Mexican economy, which in turn has a big impact 

on our own economic well-being. 

Mexico is our second largest trading partner that buys as many 

of our exports as China, Great Britain, Germany and Italy combined. Besides opening a great deal of economic activity which is 

currently being conducted in the shadows, the consular ID cards 

offer us the opportunity to work with Mexico on refining immigration policies in ways that advance our mutual interests. 

I would like to see the United States prohibit some uses of the 

Matricula card while encouraging others, but, to do so, we will 

have to engage the Mexican Government in a realistic dialogue on 

these subjects. As we continue to improve our border security, we 

must simultaneously seek to increase legitimate flow of investment 

and trade and new immigrants that are so essential to our economy and our standing in the world. 

September 11 has not changed that need. We should move beyond reforms that merely increase law enforcement’s power. We 

need to bring greater coherence and strategy to the patchwork of 

laws we call our immigration policies, so those who want to harm 

America will have fewer opportunities to do so but those who seek 

opportunity and freedom will have more ways to contribute to our 

society. 

I hope we can overcome this reluctance to reform, but in the 

meantime that we can take a realistic look at the practices of the 

Mexican Government in issuing consular IDs, which may actually 

make our communities safer and produce more positive economic 

results. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank the gentleman from Utah. 

The gentlelady from California, Ms. Sa ́nchez. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking 

Member Jackson Lee, for holding this important hearing. I want to 

thank the witnesses, too, for coming here today to share their insights on the consular identification cards. 

In recent months, concerns have been raised about the use of 

consular identification cards, and it is interesting to me that these 

concerns are surfacing now, since such cards have been used for 

many years. 

Mexico, for example, has issued consular identification cards 

since 1871. In fact, consular registration of Mexican nationals assists Mexican consulates in complying with the functions recognized by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In addition, 

as a sovereign nation, Mexico is entitled to issue such identification 

cards to foreign nationals. This was made clear by recent stateVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:11 Jul 31, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061903\87813.000 HJUD1 PsN: 87813
10

ments made by Asa Hutchinson, the Under Secretary of Border 

and Transportation Security. 

Consular identification cards are accepted by banks, financial institutions and police officers in order to prove the bearer’s identity. 

At least 80 banks in over 100 cities and hundreds of police departments accept the Mexican consular ID. In fact, the consular identification card is more fraud-proof than any passport or U.S.-Government-issued ID. 

Contrary to what has been said, these cards do not legalize the 

status of any immigrant; and they cannot be used to obtain any immigration or citizenship benefit, including work authorization or 

the right to vote. 

Mexican consulates explain this to every applicant. Despite these 

facts, some Members of Congress have begun arguing that these 

cards should not be accepted in the United States. This approach, 

if taken, may be more than just unnecessary, it could be detrimental to U.S. Interests and national security. 

As a party to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the 

United States is under an obligation to comply with the nondiscrimination provisions of that Convention. Those provisions call 

for parity and reciprocity among parties to the Convention. The 

Convention specifies that better or worse treatment will not be considered discriminatory as long as the same favorable or restrictive 

treatment is also applied to U.S. Citizens in the, quote, unquote 

sending state. In other words, whatever treatment we give Mexican 

consuls, the same treatment will be applied to U.S. Consuls in 

Mexico. 

So if we use high barriers to Mexican nationals who want to live, 

do business or travel in the U.S., then we can expect that those 

same high barriers will be used against U.S. Citizens in Mexico. 

This kind of practice unnecessarily creates difficulties for U.S. Citizens and businesses. 

At the same time, I do recognize that there are concerns related 

to the use of the Matricula Consular. Some people worry that these 

cards are not in fact sufficiently fraud-proof. Others worry that accepting these cards will make life easier and more enticing for immigrants who come here illegally. And a third concern is that accepting these cards from Mexico now will set a precedent we may 

not want to continue when other less friendly nations try to use 

similar cards. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I am hopeful 

that all of us will come to agree on the value of consular identification cards and the foolishness of banning their use in this country. 

I thank you and yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman. 

I would like to have unanimous consent to have a written opening statement placed into the record subsequent to the meeting. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I would just like to make a very brief opening 

statement. 

I was just handed a document that was placed on the table in 

violation of Committee rules by an organization that represents 

11

itself as the National Council of La Raza National Immigration 

Law Center. There may be—if there is someone here that has been 

putting this document out in violation of rules, I would ask that 

they please not do that if they do have any respect for the law. 

I did take the liberty, though, to read one sentence in the document that they passed out, saying how harmful this would be to 

legal immigrants. 

I have asked many people over recent months: Who has a need 

for this document other than an illegal immigrant? Not a legal immigrant, but illegal immigrants and international terrorists or a 

criminal seeking another form of identification? And to date I don’t 

have any explanation. 

If someone is a legal resident of the United States, they have any 

other number of forms of identification, and they don’t need this 

form of identification. 

I think in all of my years that I have been on this Committee—

and this is my ninth term in Washington, I have been on this Committee for 10 or 12 years—I don’t see any issue that is as potentially dangerous to the sovereignty, and it invites tremendous opportunity for terrorism in this country with this form of documentation. We have no control over the issuance. 

I would just like to say that if there is any form—anything that 

is positive about the issuance of this document that law enforcement would use, it would be an indication that anyone using this 

document as a sole source of identification is illegally in this country. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Berman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I understand you are having a hearing next week. If it would be 

permissible, with the exception of one sentence, I would like to 

have an opportunity to give or submit an opening statement at that 

hearing, rather than today. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Mr. BERMAN. I hope on this issue ideology does not triumph over 

common sense as we look at this question. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I have seldom seen an issue that we have considered as Members of Congress, I think, where there is such a fundamental difference on opinion on an agreed point. Because all of 

those who would argue in favor of the use of this consular identification card are basically arguing or saying that they are in favor 

of it because they want to make it easier for illegal immigrants to 

stay in America. 

Those of us who oppose the card are opposed to it for that exact 

same reason, because it does make it easier for those who have broken our immigration laws to remain in the country. 

So it is not very often do you get that clear-cut, fundamental difference of opinion, I don’t think. 

12

When I say it makes it easier for people to stay in the country, 

clearly that argues for common sense. Because when you make it 

easier for individuals to have bank accounts, when you make it 

easier for people to obtain driver’s licenses and so forth, not only 

are you making it easier for them to stay in the country, but you 

are actually encouraging illegal immigration. Because the message 

that is sent is, come into the country, even if it is illegally, and we 

are going to make life easier for you once you get here. I think that 

that is the exact opposite message that we as Members of Congress 

and that the Federal Government should be sending. 

The second point, Mr. Chairman, is that I just don’t think it is 

credible for anyone to argue that these are secure documents, these 

consular identification cards. There is no check made on their validity. There is no check made with any database in Mexico to 

make sure these individuals are the people that they say that they 

are. 

To say that they are tamperproof and that they can be duplicated, of course, ignores the real issue, which is either the use of 

underlying fraudulent documentation or the ability of individuals 

to get multiple consular identification cards. And the fact that they 

are tamperproof says nothing at all about how secure they are underneath that veneer of tamperproof. 

The other point to make, I think Mr. Chairman, is that—and one 

of our witnesses in a few minutes is going to make the point that 

the major banks in Mexico themselves do not use the consular 

identification card in any way, shape or form as a legitimate card 

for the bank accounts of Mexican citizens. What in the world does 

that say that the United States banks are now being told that it 

is okay to use this identification card when the banks in Mexico 

themselves don’t use this identification card? I mean, clearly this 

is the world turned upside down. 

I hope our Treasury Department, which initially had given an indication to the U.S. Banks that it is okay to use this card, will 

frankly listen to the White House concerns about homeland security. They may even want to call the White House, because to use 

this card does undermine our homeland security and, therefore, potentially in the future endangers the lives of American citizens. 

Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Berman, I will be happy to yield if I have some 

time, but I also recognize that the individual has his own time as 

well. 

Mr. BERMAN. I just gave it up, unfortunately. Can I reclaim my 

time? 

Mr. SMITH. I will be happy to yield. 

Mr. BERMAN. One specific point I just want to disagree or quibble 

with. It may be that many people support this card because they 

want to make it easier for otherwise undocumented people to function in this country, but it is not correct to say that the only reason 

people want this card is for that purpose. 

The Los Angeles Police Department believes that a card that 

shows the address of the individual, one, encourages people to report crime, secondly, makes it easier for them, particularly if there 

is a language barrier, to record the address of a complaining witVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:11 Jul 31, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061903\87813.000 HJUD1 PsN: 87813
13

ness or a witness to criminal events or a victim of crime than it 

otherwise would be. 

I could go on and on with respect to different agencies’ interests 

which has nothing to do with wanting to make it easier but allows 

them simply to perform their functions and their governmental 

functions more effectively as well as private. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Let me reclaim my time to respond. 

I am glad to hear the gentleman from California admit that a lot 

of individuals do use the argument that they are for the card because it makes it easier for people to stay in the country. Yes, there 

may be other reasons that the gentleman just gave, a couple of examples. 

By and large, we are still talking—I don’t know that the gentleman would want to correct this—that at least 90 percent of the 

people who are using these cards are more than likely in the country illegally, and therefore we are helping a mass of individuals 

stay in the country, making it easier for them to stay in the country, and also sending the message that encourages, I think, illegal 

immigration. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentleman yields back his time. 

At this point, I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses 

and thank you for your forbearance. This is a very important topic, 

and Members have varied opinions on the topic. 

First of all, Representative Luis Gutierrez is a five-term Member 

of the United States House of Representatives. He represents Illinois’ Fourth District. Representative Gutierrez is Chairman of the 

Congressional Hispanic Caucus’ Task Force on Immigration and 

before his election to Congress worked as a teacher, social worker 

and community activist. Representative Gutierrez also previously 

served as an alderman in the City of Chicago, a position to which 

he was elected in 1986. He is a graduate of Northeastern Illinois 

University. 

Senator John Andrews is the President of the Colorado Senate. 

He has represented Arapahoe County in the Colorado Senate since 

1998. Senator Andrews serves on the Education, Finance, Judiciary 

and Public Policy Committee in the Colorado Senate. In addition 

to his legislative work, Senator Andrews runs a communications 

company and teaches humanities at the Colorado School of Minds. 

He also provides daily commentary on public television and publishes a monthly journal called Andrews America. Senator Andrews 

is a graduate of Principia College and served as a submarine officer 

in the United States Navy. 

Marti Dinerstein is the President of Immigration Matters, a public policy firm which facilitates debate on U.S. Immigration issues. 

She is a fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies and has published various works in the field of immigration policy. Ms. 

Dinerstein has over 30 years of experience in communications, 

marketing, management, and consulting. She has also served on 

numerous nonprofit and private sector boards. She is a graduate of 

the Columbia University Graduate School of Business and Ohio 

State University. 

Craig Nelsen is Executive Director of Friends of Immigration 

Law Enforcement, an organization for attorneys, law enforcement 

14

officers, legislators and academics concerned about the enforcement 

of our Nation’s immigration laws. Prior to joining Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement, Mr. Nelsen served as Director of Project 

USA. He has been a restaurateur in New York and taught English 

as a second language in China. Mr. Nelsen attended New York 

University and St. John’s College in Santa Fe, NM. 

Thank the panelists once again for being here. Unanimous consent, without objection, you all may present your written testimony 

to the record; and you each have 5 minutes to deliver an oral testimony. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, if you can yield for a comment, 

I want to let the witnesses know that there are two hearings going 

on that I am involved in—the Select Committee on Homeland Security, as we speak—and so I may be exiting. If I am exiting, it is 

just to attend that for a moment. Hopefully I will be able to return. 

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Very good. 

Representative Gutierrez, you have the floor. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Well, thank you and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Jackson Lee and Members of the Subcommittee. It is with great pleasure that I appear before the Subcommittee today to speak about an issue of great importance to me 

and the community that I serve. 

Let me make some general statements, as I know that many people have raised many of the issues that are in my opening remarks. 

Number one, I think it makes it safer for people to live in the 

United States of America. It makes it safer for me to know that 

my neighbor can call the police if somebody is robbing my home, 

if somebody makes attempts against my person. It makes the community more whole. So it does make it safer to live in a community. The fact is, and I think all of the Members of the Committee 

know, that we have, some say 5, some say 7, others scream 10 million undocumented workers in the United States of America. That 

is a fact. 

In the absence, Mr. Chairman, of a program, a piece of legislation, the will and the resources of this Government of ours to deport in a systematic manner 10 million possibly undocumented 

workers in this country, then I think we have a response also to 

say, what are we going to do with them while they are here? 

Because if we do not have a response and we do not show the 

will and the purpose to deport them, which there is none, Mr. 

Chairman, as I have been able to see as of yet, then we are simply 

co-conspirators in their exploitation; and we should work to make 

sure that they live in safer, more humane conditions. 

The fact is that Mexico is a partner of our Nation in the war 

against terrorism. None of those that entered the country illegally 

and attacked this country on September 11 came through Mexico. 

Yes, we know that the ID card, the Matricula ID card is 

tamperproof. It is much more tamperproof than the Illinois driver’s 

license. But, Mr. Chairman, we could bring you testimony of many 

criminals, many criminals in the State of Illinois and throughout 

15

the States of this Nation that carry more than one driver’s license 

with the same photo, with different names, and different addresses. 

If we are not to accept the Matricula Consular, is the next step 

that we are going to take is not to accept a passport issued by the 

Mexican government or a passport issued by any other sovereign 

nation? The fact is that sovereignty is what it is. 

When an American national travels abroad, that government, 

that nation expects us to check into the validity of that person, who 

he is, where he was born, and properly identify that person. 

In Mexico, you don’t expect to get a Mexican ID for an American 

national. You expect to have a passport issued by the Government 

of the United States of America. And, Mr. Chairman, they could 

very well be having those same hearings on American passports 

and bringing in testimony of people who have invalid drivers’ licenses or illegitimately gotten drivers’ licenses or other forms of ID. 

Yeah, they are here. They are working. They are working at the 

worst jobs, the lowest-paid, most-exploited situations in our country. 

You know, all of the Members of the panel, we have all slept in 

a hotel room and we know who made the bed and who cleaned the 

bathroom before we slept in that beautifully made bed and that 

clean bathroom. We have all eaten from a dish, and we know who 

is washing the dishes from which we eat from. We have all walked 

on beautifully waxed and polished floors, and we know who cleaned 

those floors. As a matter of fact, can anybody here say they haven’t 

eaten a grape, an apple, an orange? 

Seventy percent of all of the agricultural workers in the State of 

Washington are undocumented workers. If we say to them, we are 

not going to allow you to send the money back to your loved ones 

in Mexico—because, let’s face it, that is one of the things that 

Matricula Consulars allow people to do. 

But one of the Members of the Subcommittee says that we are 

kind of forcing the banks to use this. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, I doubt that you can get any CEO or anyone from Bank of 

America or any other of the dozen banks in this country—they are 

forcing them to spend tens of millions to garner the assets of these 

individuals into their financial institutions. It makes good sense for 

them to be in these financial institutions for issues of homeland security. 

Why not have people establish a bank account, have that ID, 

know where they live and know what they do with their money? 

I think that helps. I think that helps. 

I think this issue really is one that is kind of underlying the debate we should be having in this country; and that is, what do we 

do in the Nation that needs the work of immigrants, that has in 

the past used the work of immigrants, and that those immigrants 

have helped to foster the great society that we live in today? 

Mexico is our partner. Listen, those millions and millions of undocumented workers, do you know what they do? They go to grocery stores, and they buy food. They rent homes. They buy cars. 

They create hundreds of thousands of jobs for other American citizens. And, Mr. Chairman, they send that money back to their 

moms and dads and their brothers and their wives back in Mexico, 

16

because that is what they do as immigrants, send the money back, 

billions of dollars. 

Because Mexico is our second best trading partner, guess what 

that money means in the hands of those Mexican nationals back 

in Mexico? Jobs for those people who live in the United States of 

America. Because they purchase our goods back in Mexico. So we 

can look at this from a financial point of view. We can look at this 

from a homeland security point of view. We can look at it from a 

safety point of view. 

The fact is that over 800 police departments accept the Matricula 

Consular. They like the Matricula. It gives them something to deal 

with. 

I know we will have a lot more issues to deal with, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for allowing me to come before the Committee. I know that Mr. Gallegly and Mr. Smith and Mr. Berman 

and Ms. Sa ́nchez and Ms. Jackson Lee and Mr. Cannon, all of us 

together, can come together with a reasonable response that takes 

into consideration any fears and trepidations people may have. I 

think that should be the goal; and I will look forward to working 

with you, Mr. Chairman, and the Ranking Member and all of the 

Members of the Committee. 

Thank you so much. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Representative. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gutierrez follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Good afternoon, Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee and members of the Subcommittee. It is with great pleasure that I appear before this subcommittee today to speak about an issue of great importance to me and to the community I serve. 

It is my hope that over the course of this hearing, this subcommittee will be able 

to shine a light on the importance of the Matrı ́cula Consular, debunk the misconceptions surrounding the program and put to rest some of the mischaracterizations of 

its purpose. 

To start, let me talk for a minute about what the Matrı ́cula Consular is—and also 

what it isn’t. 

A Matrı ́cula Consular is a laminated, tamper-proof photo ID that is distributed 

by Mexican consulates to their nationals living abroad. The consulates have been 

issuing this form of identification since 1871. In Chicago, where I live, nearly 

170,000 Matrı ́culas were issued last year and more than one million were issued nationwide. 

The main purpose of the Matrı ́cula is to establish a registry and provide a document that proves the identity of Mexican nationals. 

The Matrı ́cula does not connote any legal status other than Mexican citizenship 

and it cannot be used for travel, employment, or for driving in the United States 

or Mexico. In fact, the Matrı ́cula only attests that a Mexican consulate has verified 

an individual’s identity and their home address in the United States. 

And contrary to what critics may say, qualifying for a Matrı ́cula is not an easy 

process. To obtain a Matrı ́cula, an individual must present:

• A Mexican birth certificate;

• Another official identity document, such as a Mexican voter registration card 

or driver’s license;

• And something that proves the individual’s permanent address in the United 

States, such as a utility bill.

And in an effort to further enhance security features, the Integral Program for 

the Improvement of the Consular Services started issuing a new higher security 

Consular ID in March of 2002. The new initiative is called the Matrı ́cula Consular 

de Alta Seguridad, or high-tech ID Card. 

17

The new ID card incorporates holograms and other embedded designs to make it 

more tamper proof. 

For millions of people, obtaining a Matr ́ıcula represents the first step toward participating in our financial system and for accessing basic services that are available 

to others in the United States, 

such as opening a bank account; purchasing basic utilities, such as phone and television services; gaining access to rental housing; for entering federal buildings; and 

for enrolling children in schools. 

In recent years, municipalities and businesses from Los Angeles to Waukegan 

have begun accepting the Matr ́ıcula. Currently, more than 400 cities accept the 

Matr ́ıcula as a proper form of identification. Today, more than 80 financial institutions accept the Matr ́ıcula to open bank accounts, approximately 825 police departments recognize it as legal identification and 13 states acknowledge it as a means 

to acquire a drivers’ license. 

The Matr ́ıcula card has become an important tool for opening financial institutions to the unbanked. As a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, I know that having fair access to financial services is not simply a convenience—it is crucial. 

When people are denied banking opportunities, they are also denied the confidence that comes with placing their hard-earned wages in financial institutions 

where their money will be safe and where they can earn interest and establish credit records. 

It is a win-win situation. The financial institutions can tap new customers. And 

the customers can gain access to fundamental financial services that were previously unattainable. 

According to a recent General Accounting Office study, which I requested with the 

Chair of the Subcommittee, where I serve as the Ranking Member, found that approximately 55.8 million U.S. adults are currently unbanked. That means that 28 

percent of all U.S. adults today do not have a bank account. 

In addition, a recent study conducted by Bendixen & Associates found that 42 percent of Latin American immigrants in the United States do not have a basic bank 

account. 

The acceptance of the Matr ́ıcula strikes at the heart of this problem. Being able 

to open a bank account helps protect individuals from unregulated check-cashers 

who often charge between 8 and 10 percent interest for every $100 being cashed. 

Research shows that transfer costs for remittances are lowest when they are sent 

through regulated financial institutions, such as banks and credit unions. For Mexicans, who last year alone sent more than $10 billion home, having an account at 

a regulated institution represents the opportunity to wire more money back home 

for their families that need it to pay for daily expenses such as food, medicines and 

education. 

The Matr ́ıcula Consular also means more discretionary income that can be spent 

in local communities and neighborhoods throughout the United States. For Mexico, 

which receives more than one third of its remittances from the United States, wire 

transfers represent a key source of domestic income. 

For thousands of people, the inability to enter the banking system results in a 

higher cost of borrowing, a lack of access to home mortgages, an inability to invest 

in businesses and problems paying bills in an efficient and timely manner. 

In an age of e-banking and 401(k) plans, many immigrants live in an almost ancient and archaic financial system, either getting paid in cash or crowding checkcashing stores every payday to convert checks into cash. 

This translates into immigrants being increasingly susceptible to crime and theft. 

In other words, come payday, many of the region’s Hispanic enclaves become a mugger’s paradise, a community flooded with vulnerable residents walking around with 

large sums of cash. 

Therefore, the Matr ́ıcula Consular represents a strong sense of security for those 

who no longer have to carry their paychecks around with them. Each payday, instead of keeping money under their mattresses, they are able to put it in a bank. 

And instead of carrying $10,000 with them when they travel to Mexico, they send 

it through a wire transfer. At the same time, these individuals are building their 

credit record and are able to save more money for the future. 

For financial institutions, the Matr ́ıcula Consular means a thriving untapped 

market of potential customers who could serve as a vital base of business growth 

that our country so desperately needs. 

In addition to its benefits to our financial markets and the economy, the 

Matr ́ıcula Consular also can play an important role in another pressing issue: 

Homeland Security. 

18

The program helps law enforcement officials by creating an improved system of 

accountability, where people aren’t afraid to come out of the shadows and report 

crimes. 

Personal accountability. Economic vitality. Financial stability. Homeland Security. 

These are just four of the reasons why acceptance of the Matr ́ıcula Consular is 

so important. 

Thank you again, Chairman Hostettler and Ranking Member Jackson Lee, for the 

opportunity to present this testimony today.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Senator Andrews. 

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN ANDREWS, PRESIDENT OF 

THE COLORADO STATE SENATE 

Mr. ANDREWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. I am glad for the opportunity to bring you a perspective from the Colorado General Assembly on this important issue 

and to tell you what we have done about it legislatively just this 

year. 

There is a lot of concern in Colorado about foreign governments 

issuing identity documents to their citizens in this country, not 

that the issuance itself occurs, but our concern is that it seems to 

be occurring in a manner intentionally erasing the distinction between who is here legally and who is here illegally. 

We are concerned that such documents aren’t secure in that they 

don’t necessarily prove the bearer is who he says he is. We are concerned they aren’t verifiable in that they don’t always check out 

that the bearer is in compliance with U.S. Immigration law, as has 

been stated already. 

When accepted by Government agencies—and let’s leave aside 

banks, money transmitters, utilities and others in the private sector. When accepted by Government agencies, these documents, I 

believe, raise three grave public policy concerns: 

First, they do undermine homeland security, because they help 

the bearer blend into American life, even if he may have entered 

this country with intent to do us harm. 

Second, they undermine fiscal integrity for our State and local 

governments, because they give the bearer access in some cases to 

taxpayer resources that were intended only for the use of legal residents only. 

And, third, most importantly, such documents can undermine the 

rule of law itself. They provide a shortcut for individuals who entered this country in disregard of our laws to enjoy the same status 

and benefits as individuals who took the trouble to obey our laws. 

We in Colorado just believe that is wrong, Mr. Chairman. Widespread governmental acceptance of those nonsecure and 

nonverifiable foreign ID cards sends the message that Congress 

isn’t serious when it enacts laws to control our borders. Maybe we 

were just kidding. 

If the State of Colorado or the City and County of Denver allows 

its agencies to accept such documents, we send the message that 

Federal law doesn’t concern us. Secure borders, oh, those are somebody else’s problem. 

Because the Colorado General Assembly believes that secure borders are everyone’s problem, this year we became the first State 

legislature to close the door on nonsecure, nonverifiable foreign ID 

cards for use with governmental agencies. 

19

Again, private sector off to one side, not part of our bill. Our bill 

is Colorado House Bill 1224, the Secure and Verifiable Identity Act. 

It was signed into law a month ago by Governor Bill Owens, after 

months of debate in the Colorado General Assembly. 

Here is what the bill does: It provides that, for identification purposes, State and local agencies in Colorado can only accept secure 

and verifiable documents. It defines those as documents issued by 

a State or Federal jurisdiction in this country or issued by some 

foreign jurisdiction and officially recognized by the United States 

Government. The best example of this is a passport. 

One Member of the Committee suggested we are on a slippery 

slope to where foreign passports can be disallowed. I don’t imagine 

any such circumstance. The bill doesn’t refer specifically to the 

Matricula Consular or to any foreign ID card. It just excludes them 

by its definition of what is secure, what is verifiable. 

For teeth, the bill provides that any official who knowingly violates will forfeit his governmental immunity from lawsuit and liability damages, and that is a strong motivator for compliance. 

There is an exception for peace officers in the normal performance of their duties. This is important. My son is a police officer. 

I know how important it is to law enforcement. I am with you on 

that, Congressman Gutierrez. 

But provided that the law enforcement officer who accepts a nonsecure and nonverifiable card such as the Matricula enters all of 

the information in the criminal justice record, including fingerprints if possible. 

When the bill was in conference, we added a provision that 

would have reported the data for Matricula cards collected by law 

enforcement officers to the INS every 60 days. We were shocked 

that INS officials told Colorado law enforcement, don’t bother, we 

don’t want it. That almost led to the bill being killed in conference, 

until we took that provision out. 

So, to sum up, Mr. Chairman, these ID cards that ignore the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants have been issued by 

the tens of thousands by just one consular office of one country, the 

Mexican consulate in Denver; and a number of other countries are 

doing the same thing from dozens of offices all over the United 

States. Twenty countries are now reportedly about to get into this, 

all of the way from Poland to Argentina. 

In the case of the Mexican consulate in Denver, we know of one 

man who easily obtained three Matricula cards, each bearing his 

picture, issued in three different names. We know there is no attempt to prove an applicant’s legal residency in this country before 

he or she can get the card. 

We know of improper lobbying activities on the part of one consular employee in Denver that led to a formal letter of complaint 

from our governor. 

[3 p.m.] 

Mr. ANDREWS. These nonsecured, nonverifiable identity cards are 

a bad situation, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. It is 

getting more serious every day. Our House bill 1224 is one response. I hope Congress will frame similar reasonable legislation, 

not to say no to all the cards but to make sure we are making a 

bright line between legal and illegal immigrants. 

20

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrews follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN ANDREWS

We in Colorado are deeply concerned about foreign governments issuing identity 

documents to their citizens in this country in a manner that tends to blur the distinction between who is here legally and who is here illegally. 

Such documents are not secure, in terms of proving that a particular individual 

is who he says he is. They are not verifiable, in terms of checking out that the bearer is in compliance with US immigration law. 

When accepted by federal, state, or local government agencies for official purposes, such documents have a negative impact on homeland security, because they 

help the bearer blend into American life even if he may have entered this country 

with intent to do us harm. 

They have a negative impact on fiscal integrity, because they give the bearer access to taxpayer resources which in many cases are intended for the use of legal 

residents only. 

Most importantly, such documents have a negative impact on the rule of law, because they provide a short cut for individuals who have entered this country in disobedience to our laws, to gain the identical status and benefits as individuals who 

took the trouble to obey our laws. That’s wrong. 

Widespread acceptance of these non-secure, non-verifiable foreign ID cards sends 

the message that Congress is not serious when it enacts laws to control our borders. 

It says maybe we were just kidding, we didn’t mean it, because our government 

agencies are willing to look the other way. 

In the case of a state like Colorado or a city like Denver, if we allow our officials 

to accept such cards, it says that federal law is of no concern to us—secure borders 

are someone else’s problem. 

The Colorado General Assembly doesn’t believe that, Mr. Chairman. We believe 

that secure borders and are everyone’s problem. This year we became the first state 

legislature to close the door on non-secure, non-verifiable foreign ID cards. What we 

did should become a model for legislation by many other states and ultimately by 

this Congress. 

Colorado House Bill 1224, the Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act, was 

introduced this January by Rep. Don Lee in the House and sponsored by me in the 

Senate. It passed both houses on May 1 and was signed into law by Gov. Bill Owens 

on May 22. 

The bill provides that for identification purposes, state and local agencies shall 

accept only secure and verifiable documents—which it defines as documents issued 

by a state or federal jurisdiction in this country, or issued by some foreign jurisdiction and formally recognized by the United States government—such as a foreign 

passport. The bill makes no specific reference to the matricula consular or similar 

foreign ID cards—it simply excludes them by the above definition. 

The bill provides that any official who knowingly violates it will forfeit his governmental immunity. An exception is made for peace officers in the performance of 

their duties, provided that when accepting a matricula or other non-secure ID card, 

they enter all information into the criminal justice record, including fingerprints if 

possible. 

This provision led to a disturbing episode while the bill was in conference in April 

2003. We wanted to write as strong a law as possible, without impeding the work 

of law enforcement. My son is a police officer, and I know how they hate needless 

paperwork. But the conference committee did add a federal reporting requirement, 

so that matricula card data would be forwarded in bulk from local police or sheriffs 

to the US Immigration and Naturalization Service every 60 days. 

Law enforcement lobbyists then set out to kill the bill unless that requirement 

was eliminated. They said the INS did not want the data, had no use for it, nowhere 

to even keep it. Mr. Chairman, I was shocked by this. I was offended. I really expected better from our federal immigration authorities, two years after 9/11. But I 

had no choice but to remove the INS reporting requirement from the bill in order 

to save it. 

ID cards that ignore the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants have 

been issued by the tens of thousands by just one consular office of one country, the 

Mexican Consulate in Denver. Mexico has over 40 other offices across the United 

States, doing the same thing. 

At least five other countries are now reportedly issuing or preparing to issue similar cards—ranging all the way from Poland to Peru—as well as Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. 

21

In the case of the Mexican Consulate in Denver, we know of one man who easily 

obtained three matricula cards, each bearing his picture but issued in three different names. We know that no attempt is made to prove an applicant’s legal residency in this country before the card is issued. We know of improper lobbying activities on the part of a consular employee, leading to a formal letter of complaint from 

the governor of our state. 

These non-secure, non-verifiable ID cards are a bad situation, Mr. Chairman—a 

serious problem that is getting more serious every day. Colorado’s House Bill 1224 

is one step toward correcting the problem. I urge the committee to draft federal legislation along the same lines. We owe that to the American people. 

See full text of Colorado House Bill 1224 attached, or online at:

http://www.leg.state.co.us

22

ATTACHMENT


Andrews1.eps
23


Andrews2.eps
24


Andrews3.eps
25

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank you, Senator Andrews, and I can tell 

you that the Chair is very disconcerted by the knowledge that in 

attempting to work with Federal authorities on immigration policy 

with regard to consular ID cards, you were essentially rebuffed. It 

will be a subject of an inquiry that I will have of the new bureau. 

I thank you for that information. 

Ms. Dinerstein. 

STATEMENT OF MARTI DINERSTEIN, PRESIDENT, 

IMMIGRATION MATTERS 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Jackson Lee and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to 

appear before you to discuss whether Government entities and 

businesses should treat the consular card issued by foreign governments as valid identification within the United States. I strongly 

believe that to do so only undermines U.S. Immigration law—I am 

sorry, not only undermines immigration law but is also a potential 

threat to our homeland security. 

The events of 9/11 showed all too clearly that our core identification documents need to be more secure to ensure that only people 

lawfully residing in the U.S. have access to them. However, positive developments in that regard are being undercut by an identity 

card, the Matricula Consular being issued by the government of 

Mexico. Mexico has done this for many years and its purposes have 

been totally benign. It has wanted it for consular registration, and 

no host government, including the U.S., had any problem with it. 

But recently Mexico decided to imbue additional benefits to the 

Matricula cards for the benefit of their citizens residing here illegally, and they wish it to be accepted by U.S. authorities for the 

express purpose of providing a very illegal benefit. 

For Mexico to win widespread acceptance of the Matricula Consular as a substitute for U.S.-issued identification, it had to convince Government authorities that it is a secure identity card. So 

the face of the Matricula was redesigned to make it bilingual and 

to include a local U.S. address. Several features to deter counterfeiting were also embedded. 

However, my research revealed that the Matricula is not a secure 

identity document. The goal of a secured identity document is one 

person, one identity, one card. The Matricula does not meet the latter two standards. To be truly secure, so-called breeder documents 

used to obtain an ID must be matched against some other data 

that corroborates the information. 

A Mexican birth certificate is the principal document being used 

to obtain a Matricula. Press reports indicate that it and other documents are being cross-checked against computerized records in 

Mexico. They are not. The manner in which consular cards are 

being issued basically guarantees that no authentication will take 

place. Matriculas are issued on a same day basis, often from remote locations without the kind of sophisticated communications 

needed to authenticate breeder documents in an online, real-time 

environment. 

The Matricula also fails to meet the standard to ensure that no—

that one person is issued no more than one card, since no system 

26

is yet in place to access data in all 47 Mexican consulates that 

issue Matriculas. 

But even if these significant security shortcomings were to be addressed in future years, there is one profound problem that will 

never go away. Only Mexico has access to the breeder documents 

used to obtain the Matricula and some supplementary information 

that they require that is not displayed on the card. This renders 

U.S. law enforcement impotent to conduct a thorough background 

investigation if a Mexican national whose only identification is a 

Matricula card commits a serious crime while in America. 

Mexico has engaged in a grass roots lobbying campaign that has 

borne fruit. As the Chairman mentioned, this month Mexico announced that the Matricula is accepted by 402 localities, 32 counties, 122 financial institutions and 908 law enforcement offices. 

Mexico’s aggressive lobbying has become a direct challenge to U.S. 

sovereignty. It changes America’s de facto immigration policy, a 

right reserved only to Congress. 

Predictably, the success of Mexico’s efforts has had the effect of 

prompting other countries to follow suit. The governments of El 

Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Poland and Peru have 

begun or are considering issuing cards of their own. More countries 

could follow, including some that the U.S. believes have been harboring terrorists. It is in these governments’ interest for their nationals residing here illegally to remain and to continue remitting 

money back to their home countries often where it is sorely needed. 

It is in America’s interest to control our borders and enforce our 

immigration laws. 

Accepting a consular identity card from any country further 

erodes our ability and incentive to control which foreign nationals 

can enter and live here permanently. The acceptance of consular 

identification cards has profound implications for U.S. immigration 

policy and our homeland security. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dinerstein follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARTI DINERSTEIN

Good afternoon, Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee and members of the Subcommittee. I’m pleased to appear before this subcommittee to speak 

about an issue with important ramifications for homeland security and U.S. immigration policy. 

SECURE IDENTIFICATION DOCUMENTS ARE ESSENTIAL TO HOMELAND SECURITY. 

Before 9/11, America was in many ways an innocent nation. We expedited visas 

to those who wished to study here, made tourist and work visas readily available 

and welcomed those who wished to emigrate permanently. Indeed, we even were 

heading toward a ‘‘don’t ask, don’t tell’’ policy, where people in the country illegally 

were tacitly permitted to remain to make a better life for themselves and their families. 

Post 9/11, we realized that we had been too permissive in our open-handed visa 

policy, negligent about monitoring the timely departure of visa holders and culpable 

in failing to protect our borders end enforce our immigration laws. 

We also received a wake-up call that something must be done to protect America’s 

core identity documents. The American people were shocked to learn that 18 of the 

19 terrorists possessed either state-issued or counterfeit driver’s licenses or ID 

cards, and all 19 had obtained Social Security numbers—some real, some fake. Possession of these documents permitted the hijackers, at least three of whom were 

here illegally on 9/11, to seamlessly meld into our society and freely move throughout the country. 

27

Many states tightened the procedures by which foreign nationals obtain driver’s 

licenses and ID cards and some moved to make legal residence one of the requirements for a license. Congress was quick to call the INS, State Department and Social Security Administration to task and press for immediate programs to rectify 

gaping holes in our issuance of identification documents. 

Indeed, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, passed overwhelmingly by Congress, specifically addressed two areas of weakness with respect to America’s identity documents. 

Concerned that some of the terrorists had obtained commercial driver’s licenses 

to transport hazardous materials, Congress mandated that no commercial license be 

issued without a check of the relevant criminal history databases and, in the case 

of an alien, a determination of his or her legal status in the United States. 

Similarly, Congress directed the Treasury Department, in consultation with regulatory and other agencies, to study and provide recommendations for enhancing the 

ability of domestic financial institutions to verify the identity of foreign nationals. 

Ironically, however, these positive developments are being undercut by an identity 

card issued by the government of Mexico, the specific intent of which is to gain 

privileges and benefits previously reserved for citizens and legal immigrants for an 

estimated five million Mexicans residing illegally in the U.S. 

MEXICO’S CONSULAR ID CARD IS NOT SECURE AND VERIFIABLE. 

Mexico has issued the matricula consular since 1870 to its nationals living abroad 

in case they had need of consular assistance. It’s purpose and use was totally benign 

and of no concern to any host country, including the United States. 

But after 9/11, our tolerance for permitting illegal aliens to reside in the U.S. 

abated considerably, coupled with a new-found determination to increase the reliability of U.S.-issued identification documents. This environment made it likely that 

life would become more difficult for millions of Mexican citizens residing here illegally. But, Mexico needs them to continue to live and work here and send a large 

portion of their earnings back home. Remittances to Mexico totaled $10 billion in 

2002—money that has become essential to its faltering economy. 

So Mexico decided to try to win widespread acceptance of the matricula consular 

as a substitute for U.S.-issued identification. To accomplish this it had to convince 

local, state and federal government agencies and U.S. business entities that the 

matricula is a secure identity document. 

The face of the matricula was redesigned to make it bilingual and to include a 

local U.S. address. Recognizing that America wanted more secure identity documents, Mexico added several features to prevent counterfeiting. However, my research revealed that while those counterfeiting safeguards certainly improve the 

card’s reliability, the matricula is not a secure identity document. 

The goal of a secure ID card is one person, one identity, one card. The matricula 

does not meet the latter two standards. 

‘‘BREEDER’’ DOCUMENTS USED TO OBTAIN THE CONSULAR ID ARE NOT AUTHENTICATED. 

To be truly secure, so-called breeder documents used to obtain an ID must be 

matched against some other data that corroborates the information. 

A Mexican birth certificate is the principal document being used to obtain a 

matricula. Press reports indicate that it or other documents are being crosschecked 

against computerized records in Mexico. They are not. 

The breeder documents are not being electronically scanned at the Mexican consulates that issue matriculas. Instead, paper files are kept. So, there is no computerized data to crosscheck anything with in Mexico. 

Also, the manner in which the Mexican consular cards are issued basically guarantees that no authentication will take place. Matriculas are issued on a same-day 

basis, often from remote locations with no sophisticated communications equipment. 

For example, in April, the Chicago-based Mexican consulate issued 1,500 matriculas 

in only two days at the offices of the Wisconsin Hispanic Scholarship Foundation. 

To authenticate breeder documents in an on-line, real time environment, the following would be needed:

• dedicated data lines and multiple layers of communications security

• almost instantaneous confirmation or declination of the documents

• sophisticated interface programming

• communications technology and support at each consulate

28

The price tag would easily be in the tens of millions of dollars. What is really happening is that Mexico is relying on staff members in the 47 consulate offices to visually authenticate the documents. 

SAFEGUARDS NOT IN PLACE TO PREVENT MULTIPLE ISSUANCE OF MATRICULA

TO ONE INDIVIDUAL. 

Without safeguards to prevent multiple issuance, the matricula also fails to meet 

the standard to insure only one card for one person. 

Concurrent with the issuance of each new matricula, a digital file of the photograph, signature and data elements is created. That file needs to be transmitted either to a central database in Mexico or on some networked basis to all the other 

47 consulates to insure that no more than one card has been issued to that one person. 

In its discussions with law enforcement and motor vehicle officials, Mexico has indicated it was building this network. But it it’s not ready yet. Everyone seems to 

think it will become a reality and it’s just a matter of time. But in this case, timing 

is everything. 

Well over one million matriculas issued before 2002 are still valid and in circulation. They have no security features whatsoever. Mexico issued over one million of 

the improved matriculas in 2002, with no system in place to authenticate breeder 

documents or safeguard against duplicate issuance. 

Fraud is occurring. To use just one example, the INS in Denver arrested a man 

who was carrying three different matriculas. All had his photograph, but three different names. 

UNDERLYING IDENTITY DATA OF MATRICULA HOLDERS BELONGS TO MEXICO,

NOT THE U.S. 

Beyond normal concerns related to issuance of any secure and verifiable identification card is the troubling problem that all of the data collected to issue the 

matricula is owned and controlled by Mexico. 

There is the possibility of graft within Mexico’s 47 consulate offices. No country 

is immune from corrupt employees who sell identity documents for cash. But in 

Mexico corruption is endemic and is common throughout the government. Low-paid 

consular staff might succumb to bribes and provide matriculas to OTMs (Other 

Than Mexicans) engaged in drug or human smuggling or terror financing activities. 

These employees would be covered by diplomatic immunity. 

Finally, there is the profound problem that only Mexico has access to the breeder 

documents used to obtain the matrticula and some supplementary information Mexico requires that is not displayed on the card itself. This renders U.S. law enforcement agencies impotent to conduct a thorough background investigation if a Mexican national whose only identification is a matricula card commits a serious crime 

while in America. Contrast this to the situation after the 9/11 terrorist attacks when 

the U.S. was able to assemble significant information about the hijackers because 

each had to provide information on a U.S. visa and their entrance and exits from 

the country were recorded by customs officials. 

MATRICULA BLURS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LEGAL AND ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. 

Mexico’s strategy is to win acceptance for the matricula through a grassroots lobbying campaign at the local and state level. These efforts have borne fruit. This 

month Mexico announced that the matricula is now accepted by 402 localities, 32 

counties, 122 financial institutions and 908 law enforcement offices. 

Whenever challenged about the propriety of these lobbying activities, Mexico repeatedly emphasizes that a matricula is simply an identity card and does not 

change anyone’s immigration status. Thankfully, that is true—but it comes close to 

achieving the functional equivalent. 

The matricula is changing the lives of undocumented Mexicans, making it far 

more likely that they can remain here undetected and receive a type of immunity—

not just from their illegal presence but for crimes committed on American soil. In 

localities where the matricula is accepted, it:

• has reduced the chances that illegal Mexican aliens will be arrested, jailed 

or deported

• given them entree to mainstream banking services

• provided access to city and state services and privileges, including in-state 

tuition rates denied to military families posted temporarily in a state.

29

• in some states gained them access to exactly the same driver’s licenses as 

those carried by American citizens.

Mexico did not confer those privileges—local governments and entities within the 

United States did. 

MATRICULA HAS BECOME A BADGE OF PROTECTION FOR MEXICAN ILLEGALS. 

Local police in communities with a large number of Mexican illegal aliens have 

been willing to accept the matricula because some identification is better than none. 

The ground rules seem to be that no arrests will be made for minor infractions. This 

means that no background checks are run. No fingerprints are taken. No criminal 

databases are checked. 

For Mexican citizens who posses one, the matricula has become a shield that 

hides any past criminal activity. But criminality is rampant in Mexico and, inevitably crosses our porous border. This is particularly true for drug traffickers, but 

also for money launderers and human smugglers, who have recently been linked to 

organized crime in Mexico. Given the free pass that local police are giving to 

matricula holders, it is highly likely that Mexican criminals, irrespective of their 

legal status, obtain one from their consulate office. 

Mexican illegals also routinely commit crimes related to their illegal status. These 

include fraudulently obtaining U.S. birth certificates, Social Security numbers and 

driver’s licenses; engaging in sham marriages and other strategems to obtain legal 

status; using fake U.S. immigration documents to receive government benefits; repeatedly crossing our border without permission, etc. 

Some local police believe it is not their job to enforce federal immigration law. But 

for the police to ignore federal immigration law is tantamount to subverting it. Foreign residents living here lawfully have U.S.-issued documents. If in accepting the 

matricula, an identity document needed only by illegal aliens, local police are failing 

to conduct background checks, they are abdicating their law enforcement responsibilities and putting their community at risk. 

This point was called into stark relief last month when Eugene, Oregon police 

stopped a Mexican national for a traffic infraction. A background check revealed 

that he had a criminal history including arrests and convictions for drugs, burglary, 

kidnapping and assault. He also was on the Bureau of Immigration and Custom Enforcement’s ‘‘most wanted’’ criminal aliens list, having absconded after being ordered 

deported. Presumably, he would not have been captured by any of the 908 local law 

enforcement offices that are ‘‘accepting’’ the matricula. 

A DRIVER’S LICENSE SERVES AS OUR DOMESTIC PASSPORT. 

All illegal aliens prize a license because it is the most widely accepted identity 

document in America. 

It is an unfortunate reality that in many communities, a substantial percentage 

of the population is Mexican illegals. This makes it difficult for elected local and 

state officials to ignore entreaties that illegals need driver’s licenses to get to work 

in order to support their families. It is a topic that has occupied many state capitals 

in the last two years. Twelve states currently accept the matricula as identification 

to obtain a license. But efforts are unceasing to increase that number. 

In a positive sign, in May the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, with representatives from all 50 states, after careful study made a decision 

that it was ‘‘premature’’ to accept the matricula as part of its list of documents recommended for use by Department of Motor Vehicle employees. 

It is concerned that the matricula lacks standardized issuance procedures, uniform security features and a secure database for verification purposes. In addition, 

AAMVA endorsed a standard that no foreign documents other than passports, in 

conjunction with proper immigration documents, be used to validate legal presence. 

Contrast the responsible stand of AAMVA to protect the security of driver’s licenses with that of a U.S. government agency—the Internal Revenue Service. Most 

states that accept the matricula as ID for a driver’s license do so because the state 

also allows the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) to serve as a substitute for a Social Security number. 

IRS KNOWS THE ITIN IS UNVERIFIED BUT HAS NOT STOPPED ITS USAGE AS

IDENTIFICATION. 

As background, in 1996 the IRS, a division of the Treasury Department, began 

issuing ITINS as a way to encourage illegals, who are not eligible for Social Security 

cards, to comply with U.S. tax laws. In its publications, website and forms, the IRS 

makes clear that the ITIN is ‘‘for tax purposes’’ only. Perhaps because of its perVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:11 Jul 31, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061903\87813.000 HJUD1 PsN: 87813
30

ceived limited purpose as a tax tracking number, the IRS made little or no effort 

to authenticate the documents presented by foreign nationals to obtain the ITIN. 

This laxness led to a stampede of U.S. illegal residents from nations all around 

the world applying for ITINs. The IRS has issued 6 million ITINs since 1996, but, 

strangely, only 2 million were used for the purpose of filing U.S. tax returns. It is 

assumed that individuals who receive an ITIN and do not file taxes are using it as 

official U.S. government identification to obtain bank accounts, government services 

and—ominously—driver’s licenses. 

Belatedly, at the end of 2002 both the Treasury Department and the IRS threw 

up strong warning signals that the ITIN cannot—or should not—be accepted as an 

identification document. Treasury said in its report to Congress on the USA PATRIOT Act that the ‘‘the IRS does not employ rigorous identification verification 

procedures.’’ Similarly, the IRS announced that as of April 15, 2003 it would require 

more identity documentation from ITIN applicants, including proof of their alien 

status. 

In response to a question this week, an IRS spokesman said: ‘‘The ITIN was created solely for tax administration purposes. The ITIN was never intended to be a 

supplemental identification document for purposes other than filing a tax return.’’

However, the IRS has issued no public statement confirming that the foreign documents used to obtain an ITIN are not authenticated and, therefore, the ITIN is not 

a reliable identification document. Such a statement would lead state motor vehicle 

bureaus to exclude the ITIN from their list of acceptable documents. It is highly unlikely that illegal residents would be able to obtain a driver’s license in any state 

based solely on possession of a foreign government-issued consular card. 

THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT HAS TACITLY ENCOURAGED BANKS TO

ACCEPT THE MATRICULA. 

A relatively small number—122 out of over 9,000 federally-insured financial institutions—are accepting matriculas to open accounts. Even this small number is a remarkable occurrence, as all legitimate financial institutions are regulated and must 

meet guidelines set by their regulators to ‘‘know your customer.’’

It appears that banks are accepting the matricula consular because Mexico requested the State and Treasury Departments’ help to help find ways to reduce the 

cost of remitting money to Mexico. It also was interested in U.S. financial institutions undertaking a program to ‘‘bank the unbanked.’’ Since Mexican illegals possess 

none of the usually accepted ID documents, the Treasury Department gave its tacit 

approval for financial institutions to accept the matricula instead. 

In fact, it did so in a report to Congress dealing with the secure identification 

requirments mandated by the USA PATRIOT Act, where it said the ‘‘proposed regulations do not discourage bank acceptance of the ‘‘matricula consular’’ identity card 

that is being issued by the Mexican government to immigrants.’’

This is ironic as Mexican banks do not hold the matricula in high regard as an 

identity document. No major bank headquarters in Mexico lists the ‘‘matricula consular’’ among the several official identification documents they accept to start accounts. In fact, according to a Mexican government press release, as of the end of 

2002, the matricula was being accepted as an identity document for any purpose in 

only 10 of Mexico’s 33 states. 

Especially in the context of the PATRIOT Act and our focus on homeland security, 

it is difficult to comprehend why Treasury would give comfort to an identity card 

being offered by a single foreign government, as it could be predicted that other foreign governments would demand the same treatment. 

ACCEPTANCE OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENT CONSULAR CARDS HAS PROFOUND

IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. IMMIGRATION POLICY AND HOMELAND SECURITY. 

The proliferation and acceptance of foreign government consular cards as a substitute for U.S.-issued identification endangers our homeland security. In addition 

to Mexico, the governments of Guatemala, Honduras, Poland, Peru and El Salvador 

have begun or are considering issuing cards of their own. More countries could follow, including some that the U.S. believes have been harboring terrorists. 

Public opinion polls for decades have shown that while the American public supports legal immigration, it is opposed to illegal immigration. Obviously, the events 

of 9/11 only strengthened the intensity of these opinions. 

The reason why government want acceptance of their consular cards is to make 

it easier for their foreign nationals residing illegally in the U.S. to ‘‘come out of the 

shadows.’’ It is in these governments’ interest for their illegals to remain in the U.S. 

and remit money back to their home countries. 

31

It is in America’s interest to control our borders and enforce our immigration 

laws. Accepting a less than secure identity card from any country further erodes our 

ability and incentive to control which foreign nationals can enter and live permanently in the U.S. It has profound implications for U.S. immigration policy and our 

homeland security.

32

ATTACHMENT


CIS1.eps
33


CIS2.eps
34


CIS3.eps
35


CIS4.eps
36


CIS5.eps
37


CIS6.eps
38


CIS7.eps
39


CIS8.eps
40


CIS9.eps
41


CIS10.eps
42


CIS11.eps
43


CIS12.eps
44

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you Ms. Dinerstein. 

Mr. Nelsen. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG NELSEN, DIRECTOR,

FRIENDS OF IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT 

Mr. NELSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for this opportunity to summarize 

the very serious legal and political reasons why no U.S. Institution 

should accept any consular ID cards, including the Mexican 

Matricula Consular, issued by foreign governments to their nationals illegally residing in the United States. 

First, since the Constitution gives absolute power to Congress 

over all immigration matters. It is unconstitutional for any local or 

State entity to put itself above Congressional prerogatives by 

adopting its own Matricula policy. 

Second, under section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act it is a Federal crime to encourage an alien to reside illegally 

in the United States. Most Americans would agree that a local or 

private policy that explicitly recognizes an identification card carried by illegal aliens, especially for the disbursement of public services or for financial gain, obviously encourages such alien to remain 

illegally in the United States. 

Third, it is our opinion that a public entity exposes itself to civil 

liability suits if it adopts a policy to accept a card. Imagine a scenario in which an illegal alien is stopped by a police officer in a 

city or State that recognizes the Matricula Consular. Say the alien 

presents the card, the officer accepts it and then by policy releases 

the alien back into the general public rather than turning him or 

her over to the proper authorities. If the illegal alien then commits 

a violent crime against an American citizen or a legal resident, the 

victim of the crime may have grounds to sue the city or State for 

knowingly and with reckless disregard contributing to a dangerous 

situation. 

Aside from these serious legal concerns, acceptance of the 

Matricula card is politically objectionable because it reinforces 

widespread flouting of U.S. Immigration laws. In a world in which 

there are nearly 5 billion people living in countries poorer than 

Mexico, the United States must become serious about enforcing our 

laws on immigration. If U.S. Institutions are allowed to accept 

Mexican IDs from illegal aliens, it is not hard to predict that other 

countries will soon follow Mexico’s lead, and some already are. 

American policymakers need to think carefully about where this 

slippery slope is leading us. 

I was once an open borders advocate. In my twenties I even 

wrote an article published in a newspaper in New York in which 

I called for open borders. I also owned restaurants in Manhattan’s 

East Village and I saw nothing wrong if some of the workers 

crossed the border illegally. But my experiences in the restaurant 

industry in New York City and during a 2-year stint living in 

China convinced me that my open borders were shortsighted, selfish and naive. I came to recognize the slippery slope down which 

our country is heading. 

I became so concerned that I did more than just talk. I got out 

of the restaurant business, started an immigration reform organiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:11 Jul 31, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061903\87813.000 HJUD1 PsN: 87813
45

zation to try to help raise awareness of the long-term consequences 

of open borders immigration. 

Polls show that that awareness has been raised. A recent Roper 

poll found that 85 percent of Americans want local police to enforce 

immigration laws. Seventy-five percent of Americans believe persons who open bank accounts should be required to show legal 

presence in the United States. It is therefore unbelievable that, 

contrary to the overwhelming desire of the American people, 800 

or more police departments and a large segment of the banking industry now accept the Matricula Consular from illegal aliens. 

Proposed Treasury regulations recently issued are another affront to the American people. The regulations, if they are allowed 

to stand, will permit U.S. Banking corporations to put profits above 

the public good, and using foreign consular IDs to open accounts 

continues to help illegal aliens remain in the United States. If 

these regulations go into full effect, we will be faced with the remarkable spectacle of having a Government in which one agency, 

the Department of Homeland Security, is charged with deporting 

illegal aliens while another, the Treasury Department, is allowing 

them to open bank accounts. 

Mexico makes the outrageous claim that the Matricula card is 

more secure than American IDs even though there is no way any 

American law enforcement officer or bank officer can verify any of 

the information found on the Mexican ID card. 

On the other hand, by the end of this year, every State in the 

Union will have implemented on its driver’s licenses and State IDs 

the Intelli-Check system, a process by which American law enforcement officers can instantly verify the validity of any identification 

card issued by any other State. 

In other words, while States are moving rapidly to tighten identification procedures in the wake of 9/11, there is a rush by some policymakers and corporate profiteers to actually loosen identification 

standards. 

In closing, while Mexico and Nicaragua, Syria, Pakistan and 

China and every other country in the world have the right to issue 

whatever cards they want to their nationals, there is no reason 

that the U.S. Government should recognize them. In fact, recognition of illegal alien ID cards by U.S. Entities is legally impermissible, is a threat to national security, and is irresponsible public 

policy. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelsen follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG NELSEN

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to address the very important issue of whether 

U.S. institutions should be accepting or recognizing identification cards issued by 

foreign governments to their nationals illegally residing in the United States. 

It is the opinion of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement that no American 

public entity or government agency should accept any foreign— or consular-issued 

ID card for the purpose of disbursing public services normally reserved to American 

citizens, or those legally present in the country. Nor should any private institution 

establish any commercial relationship with foreign nationals based in whole or in 

part on the information contained on such cards. 

The reasons U.S. institutions should not accept foreign consular or similar ID 

cards fall into two categories: First, there are serious legal objections to their acceptance; second, there are serious political objections to their acceptance. While these 

46

legal and political objections hold true for all foreign-issued ID cards, hereafter, I 

will speak specifically of the Mexican matricula consular card, because Mexico has 

been by far the most aggressive foreign nation in issuing the card to its nationals 

living illegally in the United States, and in pressuring local U.S. governments to accept its ID card as a way to provide illegal aliens access to public services. 

There are three legal objections to any policy that sanctions acceptance by U.S. 

institutions of the matricula consular in the United States: Such a policy is a violation of the Constitution, it is a statutory offense, and it exposes public entities and 

private institutions to civil liability risks. 

First, since the Constitution gives absolute power to Congress over all immigration matters, it is unconstitutional for any local or state entity to put itself above 

Congressional prerogatives by adopting its own matricula policy. 

Second, by Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, it is a federal 

crime to encourage an illegal alien to reside illegally in the United States. We think 

most Americans would agree that a local or private policy that explicitly recognizes 

an identification card carried by illegal aliens—especially for the disbursement of 

public services, or for financial gain—manifestly violates that law. 

Third, it is our opinion that a public entity exposes itself to civil liability suits 

if it adopts a policy to accept the card. Imagine a scenario in which, say, an illegal 

alien is stopped by a police officer in a city or state that by policy recognizes the 

Mexican illegal alien ID card. Imagine that the alien presents the card, but, rather 

than delivered to the proper immigration authorities, is subsequently released back 

into the general public. Imagine the illegal alien then commits a violent crime 

against a resident of that jurisdiction. We believe the victim of the crime will have 

grounds to sue the city or state for knowingly, and with reckless disregard for the 

illegal status of the criminal, contributing to a dangerous situation. We believe a 

jury would probably award damages to such a plaintiff. 

In the case of a bank, or other commercial enterprise that profits by accepting a 

matricula card, the enterprise is liable under the Racketeer and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) for damages caused to the bank’s competitors by the illegal activity. A violation of the INA is a predicate offense under RICO. Continuing acceptance 

of the card establishes a pattern of racketeering activity. To succeed in a RICO suit, 

a plaintiff competitor must show that an injury was suffered and that the criminal 

activity was the cause of the injury. A competitor of a bank accepting the matricula 

ID will be able to make such a showing. By unlawfully accepting the matricula ID, 

a bank is gaining additional customers and revenue not available to the law-abiding 

competitor. Since, under proposed new Treasury regulations, it will be easy to document the number of customers that open accounts with a matricula ID alone, the 

damages to the competitor will not be too speculative to determine. This documentation will also show causation, since it will indicate the amount of illegal business 

gained at the expense of competitors. 

Furthermore, aside from these serious legal concerns, acceptance of the matricula

card is simply irresponsible policy because it reinforces widespread flouting of U.S. 

immigration laws, since, as has been openly admitted by all sides, only illegal aliens 

have need of the card. 

In a world in which there are nearly five billion people living in countries poorer 

than Mexico, the United States simply must become serious about enforcing immigration laws. Rather than encouraging foreign nationals to remain illegally in the 

United States, we should be humanely, but firmly, helping them return to their 

home countries. 

If illegal aliens from Mexico are allowed to use Mexican-issued ID cards in the 

United States, it is not hard to predict that other countries will soon follow Mexico’s 

example. Indeed, we have included in our packet for today’s hearing a copy of a 

memo from the government of Nicaragua to our State Department asking State to 

help Nicaragua set up its own matricula policy. The Nicaraguan memo explicitly 

states that it is of no concern to the government of Nicaragua whether those receiving the card are illegal aliens. In other words, Nicaragua is asking our government 

to help Nicaraguans break our laws. American policy-makers need to think carefully 

about where this slippery slope is leading us. If U.S. entities accept Mexican ID 

cards from Mexican nationals illegally in the United States, why not Nicaragua? Or 

Peru, for that matter? Or Iraq? Or China? Or Saudi Arabia? We Americans need 

to ask ourselves what, ultimately, we are to become as a nation: A huge, overcrowded, balkanized aggregate of strangers? A free-for-all of foreigners? A huge, 

cheap labor camp divided into large, unassimilated communities literally identifying 

with foreign, often hostile, nations? 

Mexico deserves special censure for the aggressive way in which it has pushed 

local governments into accepting its illegal alien ID card. Mexico, like the United 

States, is a signatory to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and as such, 

47

has promised not to interfere with the internal political affairs of the United States. 

But, Mexico has openly boasted that its well-coordinated campaign to achieve widespread acceptance in the United States of the matricula card was a ‘‘bottom up’’ way 

to do an ‘‘end run’’ around the Congress of the United States, subvert the laws of 

the American people, and achieve a massive de facto amnesty for millions of their 

citizens illegally residing in the United States. 

We Americans want our immigration laws enforced. A recent Roper Poll found 

that nearly 9 out of 10 Americans want local police to enforce immigration laws. 

Seventy-five percent of us believe persons who open bank accounts in the United 

States should be required to show legal presence. It is unbelievable that, contrary 

to the overwhelming desire of the American people, 800 police departments in the 

United States now accept foreign issued ID cards from illegal aliens, rather than 

enforce immigration law, and our banking industry is rushing to open bank accounts for them. 

Proposed Treasury regulations recently issued are another affront to the American people. The regulations, if they are allowed to stand, will permit U.S. banking 

corporations to put profit above the public good and open bank accounts for illegal 

aliens. If these regulations go into full effect, we will be faced with the remarkable 

spectacle of having a government in which one agency, the Department of Homeland 

Security, is charged with deporting illegal aliens, while another, the Treasury Department, is allowing them to open bank accounts. 

Furthermore, as was demonstrated all too clearly on September 11, 2001, inattention to U.S. immigration laws can have devastating consequences. It is simply a betrayal of the public trust for any Federal agency, or public official, to take any action that makes it easier for foreign nationals, terrorists, or ‘‘garden variety’’ criminals to operate more easily in the United States. 

In closing, while Mexico, Nicaragua, Syria, China, and Pakistan have every right 

to issue whatever cards they want to their nationals, there is no reason the U.S. 

government needs to recognize them. In fact, recognition of illegal alien ID cards 

by U.S. entities is both legally impermissible, and extremely reckless and irresponsible public policy.

48

ATTACHMENT 1


Nelsen1.eps
49


Nelsen2.eps
50


Nelsen3.eps
51


Nelsen4.eps
52


Nelsen5.eps
53


Nelsen6.eps
54


Nelsen7.eps
55


Nelsen8.eps
56


Nelsen9.eps
57


Nelsen10.eps
58


Nelsen11.eps
59


Nelsen12.eps
60


Nelsen13.eps
61


Nelsen14.eps
62


Nelsen15.eps
63


Nelsen16.eps
64


Nelsen17.eps
65


Nelsen18.eps
66


Nelsen19.eps
67


Nelsen20.eps
68


Nelsen21.eps
69


Nelsen22.eps
70


Nelsen23.eps
71


Nelsen24.eps
72


Nelsen25.eps
73


Nelsen26.eps
74


Nelsen27.eps
75


Nelsen28.eps
76

ATTACHMENT 2


Cable1.eps
77


Cable2.eps
78


Cable3.eps
79

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Nelsen. And I want to forewarn the panel that because we are probably going to run up 

against the next set of votes and the end of the legislative week 

that I will hold fairly tightly to the 5-minute rule, even for the 

Chair, if that is possible. 

First of all, Ms. Dinerstein, to clarify the situation with regard 

to consular IDs, the reason why consular IDs exist is for a relationship between the foreign national and the consulate in the country 

in which that foreign national happens to be at that point; is that 

not correct? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. That is absolutely correct. They are issued by 

many, many countries and they do so, as was said, so they can 

keep track of their foreign nationals that are living in a foreign 

country in case the national runs into problems, gets sick, needs 

to be transported home, has an accident. It is to provide consular 

assistance. That is the traditional reason and only reason that they 

have been issued. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And that is why the United States and other—

foreign consulates in the United States do not have jurisdiction 

over the issue of those consular IDs is because of that very unique 

relationship, but restricted relationship and purpose for the consular ID card? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. That is correct. They have nothing to do with 

the United States. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Now you state in your testimony that the fact 

that only Mexico has access to the breeder documents used to obtain the consular ID cards, and specifically the Matricula Consular 

for Mexico and supplementary information that Mexico requires 

that is not on the document itself, quote, this renders U.S. law enforcement, U.S. agencies impotent to conduct a thorough background investigation if a Mexican national whose only identification is a Matricula card commits a serious crime while in America, 

unquote. 

What is the basis for your conclusion? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. There is information on a birth certificate and 

information which the Mexican government collects on its application for a Matricula that is not available to U.S. authorities. For 

instance, Mexico asks for a contact name in Mexico. So it is not unusual if foreign nationals commit a serious crime for them to flee 

the U.S. and return to their home country. 

This is indeed what happened with the woman who was found 

to be the head of the smuggling ring. She returned to Honduras. 

If the local address was available to the U.S., they could then pursue additional lines of inquiry. They are being hampered because 

they do not have full access to that information. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So it is difficult for law enforcement to get the 

necessary information from Mexican authorities? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. They would be dependent upon the cooperation 

of the Mexican consulate to give it to them. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Of a crime that is committed in the United 

States? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. Of a crime that is committed in the United 

States, that is correct. 

80

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Mr. Nelsen, if a suspect stopped in the United 

States were to present a Matricula for identification purposes, what 

would the officer have to do to verify that the Matricula is authentic? 

Mr. NELSEN. If the local consulate agreed to verify the information that was contained on the consular card, he might have that. 

But the unfortunate problem with the Matricula Consular card and 

probably any other consular card is that there is no central database to which even Mexico has access by which authorities, Mexican or American, could verify the information. So he would have 

no way of knowing that the information is correct. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And there is no requirement for the foreign 

consulate to divulge the information that the law enforcement community asks for? 

Mr. NELSEN. None whatsoever. I heard the term reciprocity come 

up a few times in the debate today. With officially recognized IDs 

like passports, there are agreements that countries have to cooperate. The consular ID card is not a part of any agreement, specifically the Vienna Convention, which generally covers consular relations. People today that have been talking about reciprocity saying 

we have to recognize the consular card or else Mexico won’t recognize our passports, they are really missing the point. What they 

are really saying is that if American officials were in Mexico demanding that Mexico provide services through an American consular ID card to American illegal aliens in Mexico, that would be 

a case of reciprocity. There is nothing like that that exists with the 

current situation. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Senator Andrews, in your testimony you state 

that you, quote, know of improper lobbying activities on the part 

of a consular employee leading to a formal letter of complaint from 

the Governor of Colorado, end quote. For what nation’s consulate 

did this employee work? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, this refers to an incident this past 

January. I have the news story in front of me. This was the press 

spokesman for the Mexican consulate in Denver. And our legislature and our Governor generally have excellent relations with the 

Honorable Leticia Calzada, the Consul General, but in this case 

there was a gentleman by the name of Mario Hernandez, of whom 

it was reported by some legislators who asked that their names not 

be divulged that he approached them seeking to influence legislation on such matters as driver’s licenses being issued to illegal 

aliens and in State tuition being extended to illegal aliens residing 

in Colorado. And it was considered serious enough that our Governor Bill Owens wrote a letter to the Consul General asking her 

to clarify whether Mr. Hernandez had acted improperly and to 

render a legal opinion as to whether he ought to be registering 

with our Secretary of State as well as our lobbyists do as well as 

our United States Department of State regulations that might have 

been called in question. The incident then faded away. I think it 

was one of those matters where the Consul’s office and the Governor’s office both agreed to let it drop, but the warning was made 

very clear. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair’s time has expired. I recognize the 

gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

81

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, you mean what you say and 

you do what you say and I will do my very best. I thank you very 

much, Mr. Chairman. I wish the winds of cooperation between 

President Vincente Fox and the President were still blowing because if that were the case we wouldn’t have these hearings because as far as I know in the summer of 2001 we were about to 

consummate a very good partnership, clearing up an enormous 

amount of undocumented aliens and as well creating the kind of cooperation which would have answered Ms. Dinerstein, Mr. Nelsen, 

Senator Andrews and would have kept a smile on Congressman 

Gutierrez’s face, but we would have been able to track down those 

who are, if at all, attempting to do us harm and as well to find 

Honduran smugglers in Honduras or elsewhere. And I hope, Ms. 

Dinerstein, you have a chance to look at the legislation I will be 

filing on smashing the smuggling rings, and we might be able to 

work together. 

We are here today because that was not done. And the one thing 

I would like to get on the record, even if my time expires, is that 

we should not make this a fight between the anxieties that we 

have in our western States between the undocumented individuals 

who happen to come from Mexico and proliferate in those regions. 

I happen to come from Texas. For if we do that, that would be one 

of the most disastrous public relations and foreign policy steps we 

could ever make. And my sensitivity to this hearing is that I am 

hearing Mexico, Mexico, Mexico continuously. 

And so I am assuming that we are not trying to offend the gentleman who was misstepping in Colorado. I hope that we know that 

everyone missteps no matter who they are and I am a little bit sensitive to the tone of some of the witnesses in this room, not intentionally but I think it is important for the record to be made very 

clear. 

And the reason, Mr. Chairman, let me do this. I would like to 

submit into the record a report from the Congressional Research 

Service on this question dated June 18, 2003, which speaks specifically—and I ask unanimous consent for the submission of this document. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It specifically indicates, for example, other 

cases where an individual does not have a passport and humanitarian cases, for example, and that the legislation that we are hearing about would totally knock them out of any kind of utilization 

of a document from their foreign government, aliens applying for 

asylum, aliens applying for temporary protective status, no passports, Cuban nationals arriving in the United States, no passports 

and aliens requesting humanitarian parole. 

Let me ask two quick questions. First of all, Mr. Nelsen, can you 

tell me where is the constitutional position—where is it in the Constitution, the language of immigration in the Constitution that you 

are arguing? I don’t understand it. Mr. Gutierrez, do you find— what is the difficulty if we do a broad brush with this concept of 

voiding these cards out of the Mexican consulates around the Nation because it seems as if we are saying that, and I am not sure 

whether others have creative ideas? What is the hardship of the 

broad brush if you could restate that? 

82

Mr. Nelsen, could you give me a constitutional citation, because 

my knowledge is that we deal with immigration powers federally, 

but I don’t know what the constitutional citation you use. What is 

your constitutional citation? 

Mr. NELSEN. On immigration, the Constitution and the Supreme 

Court has found this over and over, as Mr. Chairman has said, this 

has been well-established for a long time, the Commerce Clause 

gives the Congress absolute power over all aspects of immigration 

policy by the Supremacy Clause. No State or local law can conflict 

with Federal law. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I agree with you on that and the cards don’t 

confer immigration status—they are identification cards. And I am 

just wondering if you could cite for me. 

But let me go to Representative Gutierrez on the hardship. Cite 

the constitutional notation on the ID cards. This is not immigration. This is an ID card. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I think you are absolutely correct that is what 

it is. The argument that is being made here by Members of this 

panel and other Members is that it is an immigration card. It is 

not an immigration card. Doesn’t get you a visa. It doesn’t get you 

a work permit. Doesn’t get you a Social Security card. Doesn’t get 

you any of those things. What it does allow for is a form of identification. The one thing it does allow you to do, because the FDIC 

has said so and because of our Homeland Security Department, it 

allows you to get a banking account. 

And Congresswoman Jackson Lee, if we voided it tomorrow, all 

of these millions of undocumented workers—and let me just state 

for the record, most people in this country entering illegally into 

this country do not enter illegally, they enter legally and overstay 

their visas, number one. And most of them don’t come through 

Mexico. But it seems as though we want to harp and harp and 

harp on one country, on one consular office, and I think that is unfortunate. But you know something, Congresswoman, it is nothing 

new. If this was the 1890’s we would be referring to the Italians 

that the New York Times called unruly and uncivilized. And if this 

were the 1850’s and we were in Boston, we would be talking about 

the menace of the Irish coming over here displacing the only real 

Americans; that is, the English that were here before that. 

This is an old argument that we have heard before, and it is as 

old as the Mayflower, but I know this is a great Nation. Their contributions will be stated here in this country because that is what 

it is, and it is the largest growing minority, according to the Census Bureau. 

What our challenge is if we want national security, you want to 

feel safe, I would feel safer tomorrow knowing that I had the fingerprints, the names, the photos of up to 10 million undocumented 

workers in this country. I would feel safer tomorrow because in the 

absence, Mr. Chairman, of the will and a purpose on the part and 

putting the resources and the purpose of our Government to deport 

them, we all know that this conversation is moot. We can come 

back here next year and there will be just as many of them, if not 

more, in this country because they don’t come here for the 

Matricula. They come here as long as jobs are available to them 

that Americans will not perform. 

83

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. NELSEN. If I might respond to the question or—— Mr. HOSTETTLER. Oh, yes, actually—— Ms. JACKSON LEE. I accepted his answer. You have an additional 

answer? 

Mr. NELSEN. The question you asked me, I think you said that 

immigration—that these cards are about identity and not about immigration and therefore it is not a constitutional matter. Actually 

I think it is. The Federal law we cite says that no local government, no American can actually encourage an illegal American to 

remain illegally in the United States. A Matricula card which gives 

service to illegal aliens does encourage, we are arguing, someone to 

remain illegally in the United States, and therefore it is a violation 

of Federal law. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And may I just conclude. The nexus that you 

make is totally with a lack of understanding as far as I am trying 

to understand you. I am asking for a constitutional nexus to this 

and you are talking about Americans, not the constitutional powers. Now there is a tenth amendment that certain issues are left 

to the States, and that is not the basis upon which I think you can 

make a constitutional nexus. But I will enjoy talking to you in the 

future, and I thank you for your response. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

Arizona, Mr. Flake. 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chair. I thank the witnesses. I had a 

question about—let me say from the outset I think Matricula Consulars are a wonderful thing. I wish there were more of them. I 

wish that there are more out there because I like the identification. 

The question, though, here really is, as I understand it, is whether 

or not the U.S. Government or State and local governments ought 

to rely on that information. That is the real question here. Can we 

rely on that information? Does that have implications for national 

security? 

So that is the real question that I am coming from here. And myself and Congressman Kolbe and Congressman Reyes, as you know, 

and others are working on a temporary worker bill that would 

allow individuals who are here undocumented to come out from 

under the shadows and work in a legal framework and be able to 

come and return home under a legal framework. In that case, a 

document would be issued that would be issued by the U.S. Government and could be relied upon. But the question about what 

banks can and cannot accept, is there not already a form there? 

And I am not arguing here and I think what the banks want to 

accept, whether it is a Matricula or something else, that is fine. Is 

there not a document already called an I–10 form that can be used? 

Ms. Dinerstein, can you explain how that works? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. ITINs were created by the IRS in 1996 to encourage compliance with American tax law for people that were living overseas that owned U.S. securities and owed interest or something, and the IRS decided that the ITIN would also be an appropriate vehicle to use for illegal immigrants, and they only regarded 

it as a tax monitoring number and, therefore, when they sent their 

application form they requested people to send in things like copies 

of birth certificates, etcetera. But the IRS never made any serious 

84

effort to verify the authenticity of those documents because they 

are a tax gathering institution. They are not a document examining 

institution. And I think the IRS was probably totally appalled that 

this became a runaway best seller. And since 1996, 6 million ITINs 

have been issued. And less than 2 million of them have been in any 

way involved with filing U.S. taxes. So what is happening to the 

other 4 million ITINs? And the generally accepted answer is that 

they are being used as a replacement for a Social Security number. 

They are being used for identity purposes. The Treasury Department in its report to Congress on the USA PATRIOT Act went out 

of its way to say that the IRS was not appropriately verifying the 

authenticity of these documents and it could not be relied upon as 

an ID document. 

Mr. FLAKE. Senator Andrews, I commend the State of Colorado 

for addressing the issue. Can you tell me what kind of scenario do 

you envision or can you envision where the U.S. Government or 

State and local government might rely on this form of identification 

and it lead to a breach in national security? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Flake, when I said in my testimony that one 

concern about these nonsecure cards is that they help the bearer 

blend into American life, I think we have heard many vivid examples of that in the discussion of this hearing, bank accounts being 

the most prominent one. But without in any way denigrating individuals from any of the 20 countries issuing or proposing to issue 

those cards in the world of jet travel and the Internet, someone can 

pass through any country of origin and make their way into this 

country. And language and other cultural identities are increasingly blurred, and I can imagine nonsecure consular ID documents—leave Mexico out of it—from many different countries becoming a passport to—quasi-passport not to just financial participation but issuance of a driver’s license. Bogus driver’s licenses 

were used by several of the 9/11 aircraft hijackers. And it is a 

chain of legitimizing someone that broke the law to be here but 

gradually just blends into this vast sea, these 10 million individuals not here with proper legal status that Congressman Gutierrez 

has referred to. 

The bigger the sea of people here illegally and not able to be 

tracked by our Government agencies, the harder it is to find the 

very few bad actors, and we know there are only a very few. But 

the bigger that pool into which they can disappear, the more I believe our national security is at risk. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several people have mentioned today that somehow issuing these consular identification 

cards makes it easier for people to remain in the country, somehow 

making for a safer country. And yet I think we ought to remember 

that 20 percent of all Federal prisoners today are illegally here in 

the country, 20 percent. If we want to do something about the 

crime rate in America, we need to do something about illegal immigration in America. When you look at the 20 percent of Federal 

prisoners who are illegal immigrants, if you look at their proportion 

of the population, that means someone who is in the country illegally is about 10 times more likely to be convicted of a serious 

85

crime than someone who is in the country legally, and we ought 

not forget that. 

And as far as singling out Mexico, we don’t need to be defensive 

about that because Mexico has basically singled herself out. About 

half of all illegal aliens come from Mexico. No other country is particularly close to that, and that just happens to be a fact. It is not 

singling out a country. That is just where the figures are and the 

facts are. 

I was going to ask Senator Andrews about how these documents 

have a negative impact on homeland security as Congressman 

Flake just did. Did you have anything that you wanted to add before your time expired? 

Mr. ANDREWS. I don’t think so, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Dinerstein, thank you for your contribution to today’s discussion when you pointed out that no major bank headquarters in Mexico lists the Matricula Consular card among the 

several official identification documents they accept to start accounts. As I said earlier, that is just incredible that the United 

States banks might accept them but not the Mexican banks. 

And, Mr. Nelsen, thank you for reminding us how strongly the 

American people think about some of these issues. Oftentimes 

those strong feelings are ignored by the media, but you pointed to 

two polls. One is a recent Roper poll that found nearly 9 out of 10 

Americans want local police to enforce immigration laws. You also 

pointed out that 75 percent in another poll believe that those who 

opened bank accounts in the United States should be required to 

show legal residence. So oftentimes you have the media elite and 

others on one side and you have the vast majority of the American 

people on the other side, and I think this may be one of these 

issues. 

And you also pointed out, and I referred to it earlier in my opening statement, that the Treasury regulations permit U.S. banking 

corporations—I want to ask you about this statement—to put profit 

above the public good and open bank accounts for illegal aliens. Do 

you think that some banks might put a few dollars profit ahead of 

homeland security? 

Mr. NELSEN. Congressman Smith, I guess to give the benefit of 

the doubt, perhaps we don’t realize the serious nature of the issue, 

but I think profit motive is clearly taking precedence here and they 

have admitted that. 

Mr. SMITH. I think they are being shortsighted and might be 

tempted to put the profits ahead of what is good for the country 

in the long run. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Smith, I don’t want anybody to have the 

misconception here, but if you get a Matricula Consular you get a 

checking or a savings account. Someone said earlier that we are encouraging illegals, that this against the law, and we just heard 

about—not in my testimony, but Ms. Dinerstein’s testimony—that 

there are approximately 4 million tax ID numbers that are issued 

by the IRS. And according to her testimony, there is no other reason she can figure out other than they are undocumented. So in 

other words, the Matricula Consular plus the IRS, the Internal 

Revenue Service, gets you a checking, a savings account, so we 

might want to look at the IRS officials. 

86

Mr. SMITH. My time is almost up. The point is that a lot of the 

banks are using those cards, either alone or in combination with 

other documents, and you yourself used the word that these were 

used and you encouraged the use by undocumented immigrants to 

use them, and that is a fundamental difference in opinion that I 

think we have. I have to say I think there is a big difference between—you mentioned the Italians in the 1890’s and the Irish in 

the 1850’s, they all came in as legal immigrants as a part of the 

legal immigration process. We are talking about individuals here 

that you also acknowledged that are in the country illegally who 

are undocumented, documented. So I think there is a big difference 

between the two. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the 

panel for your testimony and I would pick up where Mr. Smith left 

off, I think, with regard to the sensitivity with regard to Mexico 

and I point out a few other things. The foreign policy of Mexico has 

been clearly to me the promotion of dual citizenship, the promotion 

of the ability to vote on both sides of the border, in fact the promotion of the elimination of the border between Mexico and United 

States entirely, and that is not something that they have been very 

shy about. They don’t have the same policy on immigration with 

their contiguous neighbors as they do with the United States of 

America. Mexico enforces their southern borders and they encourage immigration into the United States, both legally and illegally. 

The situation with them opposing our policy in Iraq doesn’t sit 

very well with me. The violations of the NAFTA Treaty doesn’t sit 

very well with me. Eighty-five percent of the meth that comes into 

my State, the State of Iowa, comes across the border from Mexico. 

We heard at this very table a couple of weeks ago—excuse me, 

it was in the other room, but it was John Ashcroft, our Attorney 

General, who testified that 85 percent of those who are adjudicated 

deported simply disappear back into the masses and don’t honor 

that deportation. People can be picked up 10 to 12 times by the 

INS or their successor administration and volunteer to go back to 

their home country, and in 85 percent of those adjudicated deported don’t go back. We know that for sure there is not 85 percent 

of those who volunteer to return. Somewhere between 85 percent 

and 100 percent simply disappear back into the masses. 

So I direct my question first to Mr. Nelsen. You made the statement that about 5 billion people on this planet live at a lower 

standard of living. I think what we are talking about here is we 

all have compassion for individuals and we would like to export our 

economy, our way of life and give everybody the same opportunities 

that we have here. But the question more is what does it take to 

sink the lifeboat? And if we have gotten an open borders policy 

with Mexico today, actually across the entire Western Hemisphere 

we have an open borders policy, anyone who wants to—that can 

make a credible allegation of U.S. citizenship and walk across these 

borders. We heard that testimony in this room just several weeks 

ago. 

87

And so my point is this, if we announce to the world that we are 

going to erase our borders and allow people to travel back and 

forth as they please, that is really the question that is at stake 

here, what are the social implications, cultural implications and 

economic implications of such a policy because what we are talking 

about here with the Matricula Consular card is a piece of moving 

toward a policy of opening borders without restriction? 

So first Mr. Nelsen and then Senator Andrews, I would like to 

hear from you on what you think this world would look like if we 

simply followed this thing fast forward, if we erased all borders and 

restrictions? 

Mr. NELSEN. I mentioned in my statement that I went from 

being an open borders advocate in my 20’s to realizing how foolish 

that is after living in China for a couple of years and just realizing 

the sheer magnitude of the numbers of desperately poor people in 

the world. It is hard for the—hard to get one’s mind around a number the size of 5 billion, but it truly is an enormous and destructive 

number. This is one of the reasons that calls for amnesty are so 

irresponsible and destructive. Sometimes every now and then we 

hear about programs that include amnesties or we hear calls for 

blanket amnesties. I think Congressman Gutierrez just made one. 

Last year Representative Gephardt made one. Every time—while 

that plays well in certain constituencies, politically here in the 

United States, it is a huge devastating—sends out a huge cry to 

billions of desperately poor people around the world to go ahead 

and take the chance and try to get into our country illegally in 

hopes of being rewarded some day with an amnesty. 

I think we all know that hundreds of people die every year on 

the borders who are lured across in that way. We think amnesties, 

Matricula Consular cards for Mexico and all the other countries 

that may start issuing theirs, it is a step toward this globalization, 

borderless, nationalist, unnationed world in which economic currents drive human life. It is hard to predict how it would look, but 

we know and we are confident that most Americans oppose that. 

And since it is their country, I think we should listen to them first 

rather than corporations. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. King, in my testimony I mention the concern 

that our law is written about secure and verifiable documents. And 

the simplest way to translate that is you can find out if someone 

is who he claims to be. And thinking about the D.C. sniper case 

that is back in the headlines, we were all mystified and frightened 

for a couple of weeks and suddenly there was a news break and 

these men had been traced to Alabama and then to Washington 

State and then the TV cameras circled in on this stump that had 

been used for target practice on the other side of the United States. 

That is because of traceability of people’s criminal records and their 

movements in our society. 

We all have privacy concerns but we have to be real about the 

danger in our midst. And if the Matricula card or other 

nonverifiable ID cards become common from these 20 countries—

it is not Mexico bashing. Poland is involved—if these cards become 

common then it is like the breakdown of the Soviet economy. Fifteen years ago the joke was we pretend to work and they pretend 

to pay us. In this case I pretend to be someone that I am not by 

88

presenting you this handsome laminated card that has been described and law enforcement pretends to make a record of it, but 

what don’t they do? They can’t transmit it to the INS. The INS has 

said they don’t want it. It is not on the NCIC criminal database. 

Congressman Gutierrez mentioned fingerprints. I would love to 

have fingerprints shared. Mr. Cannon mentioned the sharing of information. If the information was shared so that you get to a 

seamlessly traceable record by which we can find people who are 

the wrongdoers, then we are getting somewhere. That is why we 

have tried to write our law in Colorado with some nuances, with 

some allowances for law enforcement. 

My son the police officer sees these Matricula cards in the tough 

neighborhoods of northeast Denver every day, but we have to find 

a way to get it plugged into a seamlessly traceable system of 

records where privacy is respected, but at the same time where security can be safeguarded. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 

Utah, Mr. Cannon. 

Mr. CANNON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are going in a very 

interesting direction, Mr. Andrews.

Mr. Nelsen, when you say at the end of your testimony you think 

time is coming very soon when we will have a national sort of 

standards for driver’s licenses, you think that will happen by 

when? 

Mr. NELSEN. By the end of this year. There is a system called 

Intelli-Check. I think three States already have it implemented on 

their driver’s licenses or State IDs issued through their Departments of Transportation in which an embedded marker—— Mr. CANNON. I understand where you are going. Let me just say 

that that is not going to happen in Utah. That is not going to happen federally because those are subject—my Subcommittee, the 

Commercial and Administrative Law—and I really don’t like the 

idea of invading America’s privacy with those kinds of standards. 

On the other hand, when you are dealing with a Matricula Consular there are issues that really pertain there. And one of the 

things that my good friend Mr. Smith pointed out is that we have 

a lot of agreement on some of these issues and there are some huge 

chasms that divide us. 

One of the things that unites us, Ms. Dinerstein, you said that 

there are a few bad actors and then Mr. Smith pointed out that is 

probably 10 times the number of people who are bad actors among 

illegal aliens as in the population as a whole. I view that as pretty 

consistent. I happen to agree with that. The problem with our system today is we have 8, probably as a minimum, maybe as many 

as 11 million illegal aliens. Among them, in the shadows where 

they are hiding, there are many criminals, a significantly disproportionate amount, not a huge number, but many bad actors as 

you call them. So the question is what do we do and how do we 

solve this problem, and there are many choices. We could have a 

national—an American national ID and if you don’t have the ID 

you then get ground up in the system. I don’t think that is particularly what we are going to do. 

By the way, Mr. Andrews, I am going to be the guest of your 

Governor tonight. I am going out to your fair State. When you talk 

89

about a secure and verifiable card, I heard from your statement 

you would not mind a consular ID being used as that if it met some 

of the standards that Ms. Dinerstein talked about and that you 

consider essential. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Not at all. I wouldn’t mind it at all, Mr. Cannon, 

if we can weave it into the system, if we could have safeguards despite of who he claims to be. 

Mr. CANNON. I want to move this in a direction. We have an 

issue that is going to come up next week, I think, on the Department of Justice Reauthorization Act, where this issue may be relevant. You agree that if we have standards, do you think it would 

be appropriate for America through our Department of State to negotiate with Mexico on what those standards should be? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Yes, I certainly do. What I am troubled by, 

though, suppose you need a visa stamp on your passport to show 

you legally entered the United States. If we start giving those visa 

stamps to foreign governments inside our borders we just gave 

away the store. 

Mr. CANNON. If I might take a minute because I only have a 

minute left, if you and Ms. Dinerstein would each take a couple of 

minutes to talk about—Ms. Dinerstein, you mentioned that all we 

are using is a birth certificate. It is hard to use that. But are there 

documents out there or trails that we can use to validate a person’s 

identity so that you have one card for one person, and have either 

of you thought about that and what would those standards be? 

Clearly a birth certificate would be one, but are there others? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. There are ways—it would need to be authenticated in Mexico. They would need to corroborate the breeder documents and the only way to do that is to authenticate them in Mexico and that would make it more reliable. 

Mr. CANNON. Let me add one layer here. If the Mexican government were willing to work with us. There are two things that the 

Mexican government can do, tell us who they are and how many 

people are here with these IDs or they can tell us what their process is and allow us to do an audit to assure that that process results in a verifiable single ID for a single individual. If we had a 

process like that in place the Department of State could put together, do you, the two of you think that would change your views 

on the consular ID? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. I am opposed to United States entities accepting a consular ID. I believe that it should be—we should be accepting in this——

Mr. CANNON. Reclaiming my time, when you spoke you said 

there is one profound defect. That is America can’t understand 

what the basis for the issuance of the card was. If you could solve 

that profound defect, if you could do that, would that mean that 

the consular ID would have a place to resolve what we all agree 

is an enormous problem? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. In my mind, no. The profound defect was with 

regard to the reliability and verification and authenticity of that 

document. I still do not believe that we should be accepting in this 

country anything except U.S.-issued identification to foreign nationals proving that they have a legal right to be in this country. 

90

Mr. CANNON. You didn’t quite address the question, and if I 

might have Senator Andrews to respond to that question. 

Mr. ANDREWS. I hear you describing so many modifications and 

restrictions to the Matricula card that it wouldn’t look like the 

Matricula card at all, and so it is tough to answer the question except to say that when you and I get on the plane to go to Denver 

tonight, I don’t want to see people bypassing the metal detector 

and the security check and just walking through a side door where 

they don’t get checked. And right now to me the Matricula card or 

any consular card from Poland or Peru or anybody is a side door 

because somebody can walk up to the consular desk in Denver and 

not be asked if they broke the law to get into this country. 

If there was a way to say no proof of legal residency then you 

don’t get a consular card, the consular card would be like a passport or like a visa and I would have no problem with it. The reason 

that they are being not just issued for 130 years but marketed so 

aggressively in the last year or two is that it is a bypass around 

legal immigration, and that is what bothers me. 

Mr. CANNON. With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, if I might 

have 10 seconds, the bypass happens of people coming across the 

border from all places and the question is how do we deal with 8 

to 11 million people, which include a huge disproportionate number 

of bad actors, and that is the question and that is what we are 

going to have to deal with in a slightly different context in the 

State of Colorado because it is our jurisdiction. 

Mr. ANDREWS. If I may just finish then. If any country’s consular 

card, I don’t care what country, if it was blue when you proved you 

were here legally and orange when you couldn’t prove you were 

here legally, then you are taking your chances when you flash that 

orange card the next time you go anywhere, it would be better. 

Mr. CANNON. Can I ask unanimous consent for another 30 seconds just to point out that——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentleman’s time has expired. We will 

have time for a second round. 

Mr. CANNON. The rest of the Committee may have time for a second round. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. Mr. Chairman, I have a 4 o’clock meeting with 

Senator McCain that I finally got after 3 weeks to talk about immigration issues. Could I have 60 seconds and then I will be permitted to leave? The proponents of Matricula don’t want to ask me 

any questions and the opponents don’t. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. My second round, I will ask questions. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I would like to see the Senator. If I just could 

I would like to summarize very quickly. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Does the gentlelady from Tennessee——

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I will yield for a couple of minutes but it is—

you know, we all have places to go and we are sitting here with 

Blackberries going off and we have a vote coming up at 4 o’clock. 

So very briefly I will yield. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee and she yields to you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I will yield to you. 

Mr. GUTIERREZ. I appreciate it. 

91

Listen, the Matricula should not be a get out of jail card and I 

don’t think it is. And I think if a police officer finds someone doing 

something illegal they should be arrested and prosecuted. And I 

don’t get what the Matricula does to stop that prosecution. They 

should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If we want 

secure borders and we have millions of undocumented workers and 

we should get rid of the bad apples, then we should have people 

come forward and have a way of registering them; that is, getting 

their fingerprints, finding out their work history, finding out if they 

have ever been involved with the law and if they have, so we can 

have hard working, tax paying—since 4 million have taxpayer IDs 

from the IRS—and law-abiding working people that are undocumented and bring them into the fold and we can get rid of the bad 

actors. 

I want to thank the Committee, and I thank the gentlelady. I 

said I needed 60 seconds. And I know that we have many, many 

things to do. On a serious note no one has—and I know you will— I assure you when we get together, I am sure we will have that 

conversation and discussion. Thank you all for having me here this 

afternoon. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentlelady is recognized. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

our panel for your patience and for allowing us to be up and down 

and to visit with you today. I thank you, too, for submitting your 

statements in advance so we can prepare. I am going to kind of follow along where Mr. Cannon was and Mr. Andrews, or Senator Andrews, speak with you. 

I am new in Congress to this year. I came out of the Tennessee 

Senate. And in Tennessee we have wrestled with an issue where 

illegal aliens could sign a document that they never had a Social 

Security number and receive a driver’s license which I think, as 

Ms. Dinerstein quoted in her testimony, that it is a passport to 

American society. It is something that concerned me greatly, and 

I worked diligently in Tennessee to close that loophole. And I have 

read with interest what you all did in the Colorado Senate, and I 

wanted to know if there was one activity or one occurrence that 

triggered the action and the movement of this bill? 

Mr. ANDREWS. Mrs. Blackburn, it was the cumulative concern 

that these cards are proliferating from many countries but in Colorado it happened to be our proximity to Mexico and the activity of 

the Mexican consulate to issue these things by the tens of thousands. There were actually waiting lines. People couldn’t get them 

fast enough and there were no questions asked between the legal 

and the illegal resident. 

I am aware of Tennessee’s driver’s license policy. I arranged for 

passage of a bill in Colorado a year ago that ended reciprocity 

where any other State’s driver’s license could be exchanged for a 

Colorado driver’s license, no questions asked, because there were 

concerns about Tennessee and other States that gave these to illegal residents of the United States. And knowing the tragic role that 

driver’s licenses played in 9/11, we didn’t want Colorado anywhere 

near that. 

Our bill closing the door on the nonsecure foreign issued ID card 

that passed this year didn’t come from any one shocking incident. 

92

It just came from the sense of mounting concern that we are turning a blind eye to the rule of law, that it didn’t matter if you snuck 

into this country or came here obeying the rules. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I found it very interesting, Ms. Dinerstein, 

that you had commented that Mexican banks do not accept the 

Matricula Consular. I missed the explanation as to why that is, if 

you do not mind repeating that for me. 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. I wish I could. I don’t know why Mexico doesn’t. 

I do know that Mexico has far, far better identification than the 

Matricula. They were—they spent a lot of money in the early 

1990’s to make their voter registration card a very good ID card because there had been a lot of fraud in their elections. And those 

cards contain fingerprints as opposed to—Congressman Gutierrez 

seems to be under the impression that fingerprints are contained 

on the Matricula. They are not. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you very much. Let me ask you this. 

And you and Mr. Nelsen may be able to answer this for me. If an 

individual—would there be reason for suspicion that a person, an 

individual was illegally in the country, if they only had the 

Matricula Consular card as a form of ID? And I am saying this if 

a bank—if an employer were to see that, would that be a reason 

for suspicion? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. Yes. All employers are supposed to request a 

Social Security card. If I can just speak personally, if I am in a position where I am being asked to present ID to board a plane, because I have been pulled over for a traffic infraction or for whatever reason, I am going to give the best piece of ID I have to whoever is requesting it, and therefore, if the only piece of ID that is 

being presented is the Matricula, I think that a reasonable person 

could conclude that that individual does not have any U.S.-issued 

ID and is here illegally. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I have some questions on technology but I 

know we are short on time, and I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. We will go for another 

round of questions if the panel can abide by that, and once again 

we will hold to the 5 minutes. 

I would just like to once again bring us back to the focus of this 

hearing and, as was stated in the memorandum that was given to 

the panel members, the reason for the hearing is to discuss the 

issuance, acceptance and reliability of consular ID cards. 

Is it the understanding, Mr. Nelsen, and your understanding, 

Ms. Dinerstein, that the issuance of the consular ID cards are 

issued by consulates of foreign nations in the United States? Is it 

your understanding that that is the case? 

Mr. NELSEN. Yes, that is true. 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. That is correct. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And the acceptance of consular ID cards are essentially to be accepted by consulates in foreign nations in the 

United States? 

Mr. NELSEN. Do you mean by other nations? 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The reason why—the people that accept—the 

people that accept the consular ID cards with regard to identification are whom—who cares about the identification traditionally 

should care about the identification that is on a consular ID card? 

93

Mr. NELSEN. Only the issuing country historically. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. At the consulate essentially? 

Mr. NELSEN. Yes. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Not a bank, not a local housing entity, not anyone. The reason why consular ID cards traditionally exist is for acceptance of consulates, for the identification of a foreign national? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. That is exactly right. The host country has 

never been involved whatsoever with anything to do with a consular card until quite recently, a year-and-a-half to 2 years ago. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And so we want to make sure that the reliability of that process is between the foreign national and the national Government in the form of a—— Ms. DINERSTEIN. I don’t frankly care how reliable it is or it isn’t 

if it is being issued by a foreign government and the foreign government is the only one that has anything to do with it. Why I care 

about the reliability of it is at this point the United States entities 

are being asked to accept it, and I care a lot now about the reliability. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. If we talk about a card or a mode of identification that steps out of what we know is traditionally the consular 

ID card, we are no longer talking about a consular ID card, correct, 

in the traditional sense? If we talk about biometrics, verifiability 

or whatever other characteristic of a form of identification, we are 

no longer talking about a traditional consular ID card, am I correct 

in that? 

Mr. NELSEN. I think that is correct. It has become something like 

the Mexican green card. Basically, it is a green card issued by Mexico. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Or Poland or Guatemala or whoever is doing 

that. I think that is an important point to make, about the reason 

for this hearing is, because we are talking about—we are talking 

about IDs that are being used for purposes outside of their traditional views. And that is the concern, because there are essentially 

two people in America today, two different types of people in America today, there are citizens and there are noncitizens. Because article 1, section 8, clause 4 of the Constitution says that, to reiterate, Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of 

naturalization, that we are dealing with fundamentally, an issue of 

naturalization, a subset of that, which is immigration. 

And so that is the Federal Government’s role. And when people 

come here that are not citizens, it is the Federal Government’s obligation and prerogative, solely, to deal with issues of naturalization, 

a subset of that which is immigration. 

And so I just wanted to get us all on track, maybe back to the 

record as to why we are here today. And the concern that many 

of us have that a form of identification that was traditionally held 

as a means of identification between a foreign national and their 

foreign mission in the United States, is not that any more. And 

other countries—and because one country has set a precedent, that 

country happens to be Mexico, it could be someone else, and other 

countries are wishing to follow that precedent. 

And that is why we are here. Senator Andrews. 

Mr. ANDREWS. If I might just add, Mr. Chairman. The analogy 

occurs to me, I belong to the Rotary Club. The Rotary Club is in 

94

more countries of the world than even the United Nations. I have 

got a Rotary Club membership card. It is good when I go to any 

Rotary Club in this country or any other. 

But, it is of no use or shouldn’t be, for me to prove to any government in this country or any other country that I am not using an 

alias, and I am not breaking their laws. And, you have put your 

finger on it. The problem that has arisen with the consular cards 

in the last couple of years is that so many governmental and private entities in this country are now willing to say, you show me 

a card from a consulate, and I will assume you are not using an 

alias, and you are not breaking our laws. 

And those two assumptions are what I have said on other questions a few minutes ago, it concerned us in Colorado so very much, 

that is why I said it is like the police pretend to believe that I am 

who I claim to be. But all they are doing is pretending, because I 

am giving them something that could be phony. And they are not 

bothering to find out if it is phony. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes 

the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

There is clearly a difference of opinion in this room. The good 

news is that we have had this hearing. And I would like to associate myself with, I think, the line of reasoning and the line of 

questioning that my good friend from Utah was expressing when 

he kept trying to probe the witnesses as to what changes would 

make them happy. 

And because I could not seemingly hear from them any answers 

or solutions, again, I go back to the point whether or not this is 

just either bashing immigrants, generally speaking, and bashing 

those that come from Mexico. 

I would like to put into the record, Mr. Chairman, an article that 

I am going to applaud from the Rocky Mountain News, Wedding 

Bells Are in the Cards. Now, I probably will get chastised for the 

proponents of the cards, because they are not understanding what 

I am saying. I am consistent. 

These cards are not to be and are not used for immigration status. There is a separation of powers. The 10th amendment leaves 

to the State what it desires to do, and leaves to the Federal Government, its responsibilities. Immigration is a responsibility of the 

United States Federal Government. It is a power that one can detect, read, associate under the Constitution. 

But, identification issues and a State’s desire to accept identification is their prerogative. It is administrative in my interpretation. 

It is not a Constitutional Act. So we understand that a Ms. Garcia 

and a Mr. Ramos attempted to get married, and they went to the 

Denver Clerk and Recorders Office. They came away disappointed 

and discouraged, possibly after this law. I guess this is June 17, 

2003, how apropos, I was celebrating my 30th wedding anniversary 

on that day, the very young woman that I am. And I was married——

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And the record so reflects that. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I was married as a baby bride, not even a 

child bride. So my sympathies to this couple that could not get 

95

married. But, Mr. Ramos had a Matricula Consular card and an 

expired Mexican passport. He was rejected. 

And Ms. Garcia, who had the proper identification, was okay. 

Well, I would argue, rightly so, to a certain extent, because there 

may be questions of immigration status. I am not sure questions 

were asked by the clerk, but if it had to do with status, and then 

that State made a determination that status had not been shown, 

Federal status had not been shown. If that was the question, if 

there was not provisions that said, we just need ID. 

But the only reason I use that as an example is so that my good 

friends will know where I am going on this point, is that if it was 

that you have rules in Colorado that you can only marry people 

with documentation as to immigration status, then you rightly did 

not accept the card, and if you were basing that on Federal law. 

And so it worked. And I don’t know the State laws, what questions were being asked by the clerk. The card was only—if you only 

have requirements of ID, then have you a problem with this. But 

I applaud it if it had to do with status, because that is my argument, this is an identification card. 

And so I don’t know where this hearing will take us, but I would 

like to join in the words of the Congressman from Utah and ask, 

Mr. Chairman, that we try to provide guidelines, and we work to 

fix it. But if you broadly eliminate the utilization of this card, you 

are broadly, first of all I think, interfering with Federal law, when 

we should engage the State Department on the devastating damage, because on a humanitarian basis all of the asylum seekers will 

be without passports, and they will be walking around with nothing, to our disadvantage. 

In the Homeland Security hearing I just came from, these were 

my pronounced words: We are not secure. Period. But, this process 

does not aid in security. Because what you are doing is, maybe 

what we should do, Ms. Dinerstein, is require fingerprints. I have 

not probed that with the consulars, because they interact with the 

State Department. But, I think they have done what they have 

tried to do, to make a card that cannot be counterfeited or 

smudged, and that is an improvement for us. 

It is also an improvement that if they go and open a bank account, and there is identification, then if they are money 

launderers, that is an improvement for us. I will raise this question, last question, Mr. Chairman, and say this: Mr. Berman, who 

had another meeting on my side of the aisle and is very knowledgeable on these issues, begged us not to allow ideology to overtake 

common sense. 

So we need to be able to reform or fix, but not to eliminate or 

undermine. Senator Andrews, you were attempting to respond, because—and I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to put this article in the record from the Rocky Mountain 

News dated June 17, 2003. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Senator Andrews. 

Mr. ANDREWS. Congresswoman, I compliment you on your research, and I am flattered that you would enter an article from my 

hometown paper into the record, that is this week. And 30 days 

ago, Mr. Ramos and Ms. Garcia could have shown up to the Denver 

96

County Clerk and obtained that marriage license on the strength 

of the Matricula. 

What has changed in the last 30 days is that Colorado House Bill 

1224 was signed into law in the meantime, and the Denver County 

Clerk is attempting to comply, and in this case, I believe, properly 

complied with this new State law. 

Had the gentleman presented a valid Mexican passport, then I 

assume that the marriage license would have been issued. And the 

intent of the law is, to this small extent, operating because, I believe the Colorado General Assembly was listening to our constituents, and we were seeking to require valid ID that would reassure 

State agencies someone wasn’t breaking the law, being in this 

country illegally, before they could obtain various State and local 

government services, even something like a marriage license. 

So the new bill took effect here, and the new bill seems to be 

working as we hoped it would work. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I conclude by simply saying, 

that that is where we have the conflict. And I will have to read 

that bill. Because if they were rejecting it because he did not have 

proper ID, I consider that a legitimate role of the State. If they are 

trying to make an assessment of his immigration status, the card 

did not confer status. And I would raise the question of whether 

or not we are taking this card and penalizing it as an ID card, because we are saying that it is a card to equal status, and that is 

not what it is. 

We should let it stand on what it is, Mr. Chairman, an ID card. 

And as it relates to immigration status, that is our responsibility, 

and we then need to fix whatever has to be fixed to make those 

cards viable. 

I yield back, and I thank the Senator. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes, and that will put us 

10 minutes to the end of the vote. Mr. King. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I was prepared in our second round to address my question to 

Representative Gutierrez. Reading through his testimony, he states 

that 13 States acknowledge the Matricula card as a means to acquire a driver’s license. I would appreciate it if my office could receive that list of those States. I would be very interested in that. 

I would point out that that number is very close to the same 

number of States that require citizenship before one can vote. And 

I don’t have that list at my disposal, but even though there is a 

Federal requirement for citizenship in a local election, the States 

under the 10th amendment have that jurisdiction. 

And only about 13 or 14 States have taken the trouble to legislate the obvious, that casting a ballot is an exercise in citizenship. 

It should require citizenship to cast a ballot at any election in this 

country, in my opinion. The States have not moved forward on 

that. 

But I point that out as a kind of an interesting coincidence. But, 

I will say that when the Matricula card is used as a driver’s license, and that driver’s license is used as identification, and a person goes in any one of those other States, other than those 13 or 

14 that require citizenship, and casts a ballot, then, in fact, they 

97

have opened the door to citizenship of the United States through 

the Matricula card—and it is controlled by the Mexican Consulate. 

So that is what we are talking about here. And I posed the question earlier to the gentleman, and I will pose it now to the lady. 

And I am still interested in the broader subject matter here—the 

steps that we take that cheapen citizenship and open our borders, 

move us in a direction of open borders. 

And if we are going to recognize where we are going as a Nation, 

we have to find a way and have this open debate across this country, and fast forward ourselves into what are the results of an open 

borders policy, because we know what incrementalism is. It is a designed and calculated method to open borders, bring down barriers. 

And some people believe in a one-world government. I happen to 

believe that almost all of the blessings that humanity has contributed to, with the help of God, came from sovereignty of the Nation, 

and being able to have solid policies that are consistent, so that our 

currency is solid and our culture is consistent as well. 

So, Ms. Dinerstein, can you then speculate what this world looks 

like if we fast forward down this path of open borders and one 

world. What does the United States look like in 50 years or a hundred years in your mind’s eye? 

Ms. DINERSTEIN. I think what it would be like is something very 

dissimilar to what is it today. And part of that is that the United 

States is the most technologically advanced country. The most entrepreneurial country. The country, you know, to our detriment 

now with respect to the Middle East, is viewed as so dominant in 

world affairs that we have now, it is coming back and biting us. 

The people that are sort of compelled to come here are by their 

nature the poorest people. The people who have no opportunity in 

their own countries at all. Their own countries don’t educate them. 

They don’t provide them jobs. And, therefore, were there to be open 

borders, there would be a wave of people so grateful for the opportunity to come to this country that it would overpower us really. 

They are hard working, but their skill level is such that they 

can’t earn a decent living, and, therefore, they would become a public charge. You know, I just—it is a very interesting question. I sort 

of haven’t gone there in my thinking because it is a little upsetting. 

Mr. KING. I would state that I am surprised that of the three testifiers here on this panel that I have asked that question to, that 

you don’t seem to have explored that out to the end, a generation 

or two down the road. I suspect that most of this Nation has not 

done that either. 

So we are dealing with minutia policy, short-term vision here, instead of applying the long-term effect of what it is that we might 

be doing. And I think, though, that Mr. Nelsen did make some 

comments with that regard on our shortsightedness. I think that 

we might need to be much more farsighted in our policy that we 

establish, and know where it fits in the long scheme. 

I thank you all very much for your testimony. And thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentleman yields back his time. I want to 

thank the witnesses for appearing today and for your testimony, as 

well as your responses to our questions. 

98

We will leave the record open for 7 days for any additional information that the Members of the Subcommittee or witnesses may 

want to submit. 

And I will also want to mention that we will be having a second 

hearing on consular identification cards next week on Thursday, 

June 26th, at 11 a.m. In this room. We will be holding a hearing 

on the Federal Government’s response to the issuance and acceptance in the U.S. of consular identification cards. 

At that hearing the Subcommittee will review the steps that Federal agencies have taken to review, regulate and oversee the 

issuance of consular ID cards in the U.S., as well as foreign government lobbying efforts to seek acceptance of the cards by States, localities and businesses in the United States. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I associate myself with your 

remarks on the appreciation to the witnesses. I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to submit into the record acceptance of Mexican 

Consular IDs is not only legal, it improves public safety and enhances the economy prepared by MALDEF. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The business before the Subcommittee being 

complete, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(99)

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

THE ISSUANCE AND ACCEPTANCE IN 

THE UNITED STATES 

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION,

BORDER SECURITY, AND CLAIMS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:11 a.m. in Room 

2237, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John N. Hostettler 

(Chair of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

Today, the Subcommittee is holding its second hearing on consular identification cards, cards issued by foreign agents in the 

United States. In order to devote as much time as possible to this 

important topic, we have postponed Subcommittee action on four 

private bills until the week of July 14. 

A few points became clear from the testimony at that hearing 

that was previously held last Thursday. The first point is that 

issuance of consular cards in the United States is not a new phenomenon. In fact, consular cards have been issued for approximately 130 years. Those cards have traditionally been issued by 

consular officials to nationals abroad to allow those nationals to 

seek their home country’s assistance when they need help—for example, when they are injured or arrested. 

Historically, therefore, the intended recipient of a consular card 

issued by a foreign government in the United States is the foreign 

government itself, not our Government and certainly not a locality 

in the United States. The second point is that while the issuance 

of consular cards is a fairly old process, attempts by foreign government agents to lobby States and localities to accept the cards are 

not. None of the witnesses at last week’s hearing and no information that has come to the Subcommittee suggests that any foreign 

country issuing consular cards ever attempted to convince States or 

localities to accept those cards for domestic identification purposes 

before 2001. 

Therefore, in the 130-year history of foreign government issuance 

of consular cards, foreign governments have only lobbied localities 

to accept those cards for the past 2 years. A third point about 

which there is little disagreement is that foreign governments are 

allowed to issue consular identification cards in the United States. 

Even those critics who believe that consular identification cards are 

100

insecure and unreliable believe that foreign countries have the 

right to issue them to their nationals. Critics do oppose, however, 

efforts by foreign government agents to lobby State and local officials in the United States to accept the cards. It is only in the context of such foreign government lobbying and domestic acceptance 

of consular cards that the security, reliability and verifiability is a 

concern for our country. 

A fourth point is that consular cards do not convey any immigration status. None of the foreign governments that issue consular 

cards that the Subcommittee has examined appear to have any interest whatsoever in whether an applicant for the card is in our 

country lawfully; rather, it appears that those countries acknowledge the fact that most of the aliens applying for those cards in our 

country are here illegally and need the card because they have no 

form of lawful identification. In fact, some have argued that if an 

alien’s only identification is a consular card, the alien is most likely 

illegally in the United States and should be arrested by the immigration authorities and removed. 

A fifth point is that no domestic government entity in the United 

States at the present time regulates the issuance of consular cards 

or the lobbying efforts of foreign governments to convince States 

and localities to accept those cards. On a similar point, it is apparent that no domestic government entity in the United States has 

access to the databases of cards that have been issued by foreign 

government agents in the United States, even where those agents 

have lobbied States and localities to accept the cards. 

It is against this backdrop that the Subcommittee calls this hearing today. It has been approximately a year and a half since foreign agents began a widespread effort in the United States to lobby 

States and localities to accept consular cards for domestic identification purposes. The Subcommittee is interested in determining 

what steps the Federal Government has taken in response to those 

efforts. The Subcommittee is also interested in determining what 

the Federal Government has done to investigate complaints that 

foreign governments have been lobbying States and localities to accept cards that are not secure and that are not reliable and that 

are susceptible to fraud. 

Finally, the Subcommittee is interested in determining what the 

Federal Government’s policy is with respect to domestic acceptance 

in the United States of consular cards. It is clear that the United 

States Government must play some role in this process, be it regulating domestic acceptance of consular cards or, at a minimum, providing guidance to States and localities that have been lobbied by 

foreign government agents to accept those cards. 

For more than 6 months, the Subcommittee has been closely following the efforts of various Federal Government agencies—departments, excuse me, and agencies—to establish a uniform policy on 

and consider a response to the local acceptance of consular identification cards. We are still waiting for that policy to be issued. 

While that process has been ongoing, foreign government agents 

have continued to lobby localities to accept consular cards for local 

identification purposes. The Subcommittee has been told that some 

of those localities have come to the Federal Government looking for 

guidance but that no guidance was forthcoming because the FedVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:11 Jul 31, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061903\87813.001 HJUD1 PsN: 87813
101

eral Government has failed to agree on a policy for accepting consular cards. 

Because the Federal Government has been silent on this issue, 

localities have had to decide on their own whether to accept consular identification cards based on the information that was available to them, information provided by interested and concerned 

citizens and the statements of the lobbying foreign governments 

themselves. In the absence of Federal guidance, many localities 

have decided to accept those cards while the Federal Government 

has been assessing what its position on the acceptance of the cards 

should be. 

In fact, on Monday, Indianapolis, IN, to accept the Mexican identification card known as the Matricula Consular. The fact that so 

many localities have made the decision to accept consular cards for 

domestic identification purposes without guidance from the Federal 

Government is a source of concern, particularly in light of testimony that this Subcommittee received at last week’s hearing. 

Marty Dinerstein, who appeared before the Subcommittee last 

week, explained why secure documents are essential to homeland 

security. She recounted the shock felt by the American people when 

they learned that 18 of the 19 September 11 hijackers, cold-blooded 

murderers of innocent men, women and children, possessed Stateissued or counterfeit driver’s licenses and ID cards. 

Witnesses at that hearing told the Subcommittee, however, that 

consular identification cards, the acceptance of which has skyrocketed since September 11, 2001, are not secure. Witnesses also 

argued that consular identification documents are not reliable; that 

there is no assurance that the document accurately identifies the 

bearer of the card. In particular, the Subcommittee has been told 

that the breeder documents used to obtain consular cards are not 

authenticated. The lack of such authentication is an issue, because 

reports indicate that counterfeit birth certificates are readily available. 

As Steve McCraw notes in his testimony, Mexican birth certificates, for example, are easy to forge and are a major item on the 

project list of the fraudulent document trade currently flourishing 

across the country and around the world. At that hearing last 

Thursday, Ms. Dinerstein also told the Subcommittee that there 

are no safeguards in place to prevent the multiple issuance of 

Matriculas to a single individual. There appears to be substantial 

merit to this claim. This Subcommittee has received credible reports that aliens have been arrested carrying multiple consular 

identification cards bearing their own pictures but with different 

names. Of particular note is a memo sent by the Border Patrol 

agent in charge in Riverside, California, to the sheriff of San 

Bernardino County, who was considering allowing his deputies to 

accept the Matricula. The Patrol agent in charge explained that his 

office had arrested many Mexican aliens who had, in their possession, multiple valid Matriculas in different names. 

These arrestees, including one known alien smuggler with an extensive criminal history, found in a house with 25 smuggled aliens 

who had seven Matriculas in his possession, each bearing his picture and each with a different name. This claim is also borne out 

in the FBI’s testimony. 

102

Witnesses at the June 19 hearing also identified other issues 

raised by local acceptance of consular cards for issues that were unrelated to the reliability and security of the cards. Witnesses explained how local police acceptance of consular cards leaves a local 

police officer wholly reliant on a consular official, an agent of a foreign country, to verify the authenticity of the card or to gain access 

to any of the background information submitted with the card. 

As Ms. Dinerstein stated, ‘‘this renders U.S. law enforcement 

agencies impotent to conduct a thorough background investigation,’’ if such a card is presented to a police officer. Witnesses at that 

hearing also discussed the fact that the documents could hide possible criminal and terrorist activity. Senator Andrews from Colorado put it best when he compared local acceptance of consular 

cards to people at an airport bypassing the metal detector and the 

security check and just walking through the side door. 

To understand the potential criminal and national security risks 

that consular identification cards pose, it is important to note the 

critical work that the State Department’s consular officers do at 

our consulates abroad. They review the background of aliens who 

are seeking visas to come to the United States. They work to ensure that aliens are not admitted to the United States if they have 

committed crimes in their home countries. In certain cases, they request additional guidance from other U.S. agencies to ensure that 

an alien seeking admission will not pose a terrorism risk to the 

American people. 

It is also important to note the important role that inspectors at 

our ports of entry play in protecting our national security. Those 

inspectors closely examine identification documents from aliens 

seeking admission at the ports of entry. They check databases of 

known criminals and security risks. They evaluate whether an 

alien may be inadmissible on any ground. They screen those who 

want to come to our country. 

No background checks are run, however, when an alien applies 

for a consular identification card. No investigation is undertaken to 

assess the possible risk that an alien poses a risk to the American 

people. In the best-case scenario, an alien applying for a consular 

identification card fills out a form and presents identification documents to the consular officer. That is it. No criminal grounds for 

denial; no risk assessments. The foreign government’s only interest 

is the welfare of the alien, not the wellbeing of the American people. 

Witnesses at last week’s hearing also explained how local acceptance of consular cards undermines our nation’s immigration policies. Acceptance of consular cards by States and localities provides 

cover for aliens in the United States. It allows aliens to bypass the 

system that Congress had established to allow aliens to come lawfully to the United States and enjoy the freedoms and blessings 

that our country offers. 

It gives a document to undocumented aliens. I question whether 

the States and localities that have agreed to accept consular cards 

for domestic identification purposes would have made that choice 

if they were aware of these issues. I doubt that States and localities would have taken the chance of accepting the cards if they believed that acceptance could expose their citizens to aliens who 

103

pose an unchecked criminal or national security risk. I also doubt 

that they would have deliberately made a decision that could have 

been at odds with our nation’s immigration laws or that would 

have been unfair to the thousands of aliens who wait patiently 

abroad to enter our country legally. 

Because the Federal Government has failed to formulate a policy 

on domestic acceptance of consular cards and because the Federal 

Government has failed to undertake an investigation into the liability and security of those cards, States and localities have been 

placed in a position in which they have had to take those chances 

and make those decisions however. 

I would like to make one last point before we continue. Testimony for this hearing was due at 11 a.m. on Tuesday. This deadline was set to allow Members sufficient time to prepare for this 

hearing. Testimony was not received, however, until yesterday 

evening. This is unacceptable. This Subcommittee has not only the 

authority but also the duty to oversee the implementation of our 

immigration laws and policies. Late submission of testimony 

hinders the Members of this Subcommittee in preparing for oversight hearings and in fulfilling that duty. I expect all testimony 

from all witnesses to be submitted in a timely manner. I especially 

expect testimony from Federal Government witnesses to be submitted in accordance with the time frames set by this Committee. 

I have on many occasions expressed my willingness to ensure 

that the three Federal departments represented today have sufficient resources to carry out their immigration responsibilities. This 

Subcommittee’s relationship with each of your departments is a 

two-way street, however. I expect in return that each of your departments and this Administration will be responsive to this Subcommittee in a timely manner. And I realize the three witnesses 

before us today had very little to do with the timeliness of the submission of your testimony, but if you could take that message back 

for us, we would surely appreciate it. 

I now turn to Representative Howard Berman, who is serving as 

Ranking Member today, for an opening statement that he would 

make. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A little while ago, 

the Ranking Member, Sheila Jackson Lee, asked me if I would sit 

in as long as I could this morning because of her obligations on the 

Homeland Security Committee, where she also serves. I would like 

initially permission for her statement to be included in the record. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Without objection. 

Mr. BERMAN. The Chairman has given a very extensive, thorough 

opening statement, and while there are points in that opening 

statement that I agree with, there are a number I question. But 

rather than—I did not take notes as he spoke and have not had 

a chance to read his testimony, understanding that he is not obligated to give me his testimony on Tuesday at noon. Rather than 

hit and miss, I would just make a couple of points. I would bring 

into question the assertion that the only interest of the consulates 

that provide these cards is in helping the alien. If the implication 

of that is that the consulates are knowingly giving cards to people 

who are not the people that they claim they are, and the consulate 

is not doing anything to verify whether or not that person is the 

104

person that he or she asserts he is; I do not believe that. I do not 

believe that is true of the consulate in Los Angeles in my area. I 

am sure it is not, and I do not think we should attribute motives 

to institutions of our neighbor Mexico or any other government 

without a more fundamental foundation being laid for making that 

kind of conclusion about motivations. 

Secondly, there are non-State institutions in this country that 

have concluded that these identifiers are accurate enough to give 

them the assurance to do things like cash checks and handle 

money for an individual that if they did not would otherwise force 

that person to go to loan sharks and usurious check cashing institutions to make any financial transactions. 

By and large, the banking institutions in this country are not 

frivolous about the kind of identification that they will use to assure that the individual is who he or she says he is. I am sure mistakes happen, but I would not be so quick to challenge the security 

of these cards, and it is unclear to me exactly why these cards are 

any less secure than the passports that we commonly, in the Federal Government commonly accepts as secure identifiers to justify 

all kinds of privileges. 

To the extent that one has questions, and I listened with interest 

to the Chairman’s citation regarding some specific incidents, and I 

think they are worth following up on, but to the extent one has 

doubts about the security of those documents, one could also have 

doubts about the security of passports. 

And the final point is September 11. The vast majority of the terrorists who engaged in that conduct were here on visas issued by 

United States Government agencies. They were not here based on 

illegal entry and then obtaining identifiers from their government’s 

consulates in this country. And so, I think we should be careful 

to—we had serious problems in dealing with watch lists and integration of different agency functions which must be corrected. But 

to sort of deflect that issue and take the emotionality of that issue 

and apply it to the issue of these consulate-issued identifiers I 

think creates an impression which is not very fair. 

And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, 

for an opening statement. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman, thank 

you once again for having a hearing on a very timely subject and 

also, thank you for your very strong opening statements. 

Just a couple of comments: one is in regards to one of our witnesses, Mr. Verdery, who was simply sworn into his present position yesterday at the Department of Homeland Security and is testifying today. He is off to a fast start and for that reason probably 

ought to be entitled to at least one pass on one question. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Not necessarily. [Laughter.] 

Mr. SMITH. The other, Mr. Chairman, is that unfortunately, I 

have two other Committees that are meeting and are marking up 

legislation, so I will not be necessarily able to stay for all of the 

testimony, but I hope to shuttle back and forth. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I thought it might be of interest to the Members of the SubVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:11 Jul 31, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061903\87813.001 HJUD1 PsN: 87813
105

committee as well as perhaps to our witnesses, the results of several public opinion polls that have been conducted in just the last 

several months and that I have put together and I thought might 

be relevant today. 

This is a Roper Poll just a couple of months ago. The question 

was how serious of a national problem do you think illegal immigration into the United States is? Eighty-six percent of the American people thought that illegal immigration was a serious problem. 

On another question, again, the same Roper Poll, 85 percent of the 

American people agree with this statement: Congress should pass 

a law requiring State and local governments and law enforcement 

agencies to apprehend and turn over to the INS illegal immigrants 

with whom they come into contact. And a third question, I will not 

go into a lot of them; a lot of the questions dealt with both illegal 

and legal immigration, but a third question dealing with illegal immigration was this: that 83 percent of the American people agree 

that the Federal Government should strictly enforce present laws 

calling for heavy fines for employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. 

Now that question, I think, can be related to the use of the 

Matricula cards by banks, because they are basically employers 

giving recognition to individuals who are in the country illegally. 

Mr. Chairman, these percentages, 86 percent, 83 percent, are astronomical in almost any context when you ask the American people how they feel about issues. And I think the point here is simply 

to point out that there are a number of interest groups, many editorial writers and not a few politicians and perhaps a few individuals associated with the Administration who are simply on the 

wrong side of the vast majority of the American people. And I think 

we ought to keep that in mind as we go forward with hearings and 

legislation. 

Mr. BERMAN. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SMITH. I will be happy to yield to my friend from California. 

Mr. BERMAN. I question the methodology of the poll, because I 

would have a hard time believing that there are 14 percent of the 

American people who are not against illegal immigration. 

Mr. SMITH. Does that mean you would have said you thought illegal immigration was a serious problem? You would have voted 

the way the American people would have? 

Mr. BERMAN. If voting the way you vote is the way most of the 

American people would have voted on some of these issues, perhaps 

not. [Laughter.] 

But I would certainly answer affirmative to the question that I 

think illegal immigration is a serious problem and has to be dealt 

with. 

Mr. SMITH. To reclaim my time, I read the questions. I thought 

they were accurate and objective questions. And it is reassuring to 

me if the gentleman from California seemed to agree with most of 

the American people on these poll results. But I appreciate his 

comments and yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from 

California, Ms. Sa ́nchez, for an opening statement. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Chairman Hostettler and Acting Ranking Member Berman. 

106

I am not going to make a long statement this morning, since I 

was able to speak at last week’s hearing on this topic. I just want 

to emphasize a few points that I made then. 

Consular identification cards have been used for over 100 years. 

And recently, however, people have begun raising concerns about 

the use of these cards. And frankly, it is not exactly clear to me 

why. For example, I have heard it argued that people use them so 

that they can skirt immigration laws. But the reality is that these 

cards do not establish any kind of immigration or other benefits. 

They merely are used to allow foreign visitors to this country to establish their identity. 

Others have argued that the consular ID cards are not secure 

documents, but my understanding, based on information that I 

have, is that they are more secure than many types of ID, including U.S. passports. I would agree that it may be possible for someone to make a false consular ID card, but my question to those who 

are concerned about it is what document in existence today is impossible to forge? It seems to me that there is a great deal of fuss 

being made about cards that, in essence, are just helping police and 

other officials do their jobs. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and I hope that at 

the end of the day, we will be able to agree that the use of consular 

ID cards actually works to enhance the security of this nation, not 

to break it down. 

Thank you, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. 

Flake, for an opening statement. 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the Chairman. I spoke also at the last hearing. 

I just want to say that consular IDs, as have been mentioned, 

have been around for 100 years. They are in use. I think it is a 

great thing. I am glad they are out there. I am glad that identification exists to this extent. I do have issues, though, with whether 

or not the Federal Government should accept them for identification, and the fact that they are not secure is a concern to me. I 

have legislation of my own on driver’s licenses. Many of the terrorists, as has been mentioned, came here with a temporary visa and 

were able to get long-term driver’s licenses. In my own State of Arizona, they issue driver’s licenses for up to 44 years. If you are 16; 

you are here; you can get it until you are 60. 

A lot of States are going that direction, where you have a driver’s 

license that is good for a number of years. If you are here on a temporary visa, you can go in and get a driver’s license that lasts a 

lot longer than your temporary visa. My legislation would say that 

your driver’s license can last no longer than your temporary visa, 

the expiration date. 

This is in a similar vein to the legislation that Representative 

Gallegly has. It simply says that the Federal Government should 

not use this for secure identification. And that is my position. I 

look forward to this testimony this morning. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Gallegly, for an opening statement. 

107

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe it is important to respond to a number 

of the arguments that have been made by supporters of the foreign 

consulate cards being used for legitimate ID. Supporters of these 

cards claim that the consular cards have been used for over 130 

years, as Representative Sa ́nchez just mentioned. And that is true. 

However, while issuing them has been a routine activity for 

many countries, there has always been an assumption that the 

cards were issued to people who were legally in the host country. 

In addition, no country I am aware of has ever accepted foreignissued consular cards for identification purposes or domestic services. 

In March of 2002, the Government of Mexico began issuing the 

cards wholesale to illegal immigrants in the United States. According to published statements by the Mexican officials, they have 

issued more than 1.2 million cards in the past year alone. The Government of Guatemala, likewise, has started to issue consular 

cards to illegal immigrants, and other countries have announced 

their intent to do so, including Brazil, Poland, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Haiti. 

In the case of Nicaragua, the government officials there have 

stated that they are modeling their program after Mexico’s. All of 

this, Mr. Chairman, is unprecedented. It is also true, as stated by 

consular card supporters, that all six of these countries are well 

within their rights to issue the cards, and many showed good faith 

by working with the State Department to develop the program. 

The problem is that our Government’s own failure to act responsibly in the interests of the safety of our citizens. The only people 

who need these cards are illegal immigrants, sometimes criminals 

or maybe terrorists. The State Department, foreign governments 

and the supporters of these cards do not deny that illegal immigrants are the principal beneficiary of these programs. Yet, the 

State Department representatives acknowledged in Congressional 

briefings that they had an active dialogue with Mexico in designing 

its program, and a U.S. Embassy cable from Managua explicitly 

asked the State Department in Washington for guidance regarding 

the implementation of Nicaragua’s consular card program. 

Supporters of the consular cards also state that those who need 

these cards are not terrorists but hard-working and undocumented 

immigrants who work in the lowest-paying jobs in our agriculture 

and hotel industries. That card only allows them to bank and send 

money back to their relatives. While it is correct that the overwhelming, almost total number of those seeking cards, are not terrorists, it is equally true that the terrorist states are certainly 

watching this program to see how it may be exploited. 

Within the next few years, six countries could be 60. Are we willing to accept consular cards from the Saudis, from the Syrians, 

from Colombia, who are also seeking low-paying jobs. The truth is 

that Poland, Mexico, Nicaragua, and other countries that are trying 

to expand their consular programs in the United States are doing 

so in an effort to force a de facto amnesty for their nationals illegally in the country and allow them to receive services to which 

they are not entitled, among which is the ability to use cards to 

108

board commercial airliners, Mr. Chairman, a dramatic step back toward the type of security we had prior to 9/11. 

In a recent cable from the U.S. Embassy in Managua to the State 

Department, a U.S. official noted that the Nicaraguan Government 

wanted its nationals to have the cards to open bank accounts, obtain utility service and possibly get driver’s licenses. As we all 

know, 9/11 terrorists used driver’s licenses as their key to operate 

freely in the United States, and under the Nicaraguan law, a person needs no documentation to prove identity; only two witnesses 

to vouch for them with no one vouching for the vouchers. 

Mr. Chairman, the current consular programs are direct assaults 

on this country’s sovereignty. Issuing consular identification cards 

to illegal immigrants undermines the immigration enforcement 

policies of the United States, and it weakens the security and puts 

Americans at great peril. Supporters have stated that there is no 

political will to deport illegals in this country and that these people 

should be integrated into our community, perhaps through the distribution of consular cards. To that, I say the desire of Americans 

to never repeat 9/11 is will enough to eliminate this program. 

I have authored and introduced an Identification Integrity Act of 

2003 with the exceptions of passports, which are issued under 

strict guidelines provided by the Government, it would prevent the 

Federal Government’s recognition of foreign-issued IDs. This legislation has now almost 100 cosponsors, and the price, Mr. Chairman, is far too high not to end this practice. 

I would just like to conclude by saying that one of my very good 

friends on the other side of the aisle, a Democrat from California, 

said to me that he was very puzzled at why people would spend 

money to buy a consular card that does nothing more than proves 

they are an illegal immigrant. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

Now, at this time, I would like to introduce our panel of witnesses: Steve McCraw is the assistant director of the Office of Intelligence for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Throughout his 

20-year career with the FBI, Mr. McCraw has served in numerous 

supervisory positions, including director of the Foreign Terrorist 

Task Force. Prior to his appointment to the FBI, Mr. McCraw was 

a State trooper for the Texas Department of Public Safety and 

taught political science at the university level. Mr. McCraw holds 

a master’s and an undergraduate degree from West Texas State 

University. 

Roberta S. Jacobson is the acting deputy assistant Secretary of 

State for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. Ms. Jacobson 

joined the Department of State as a Presidential Management Intern in 1986. She has also served at the State Department as deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru; director 

of the Office of Policy Planning and Coordination in the Bureau of 

Western Hemisphere Affairs and Coordinator for Cuban Affairs 

within the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs. She was also at 

the National Security Council. Ms. Jacobson holds a master’s of 

arts in law and diplomacy from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and a bachelor’s degree from Brown University. 

109

C. Stewart Verdery, Jr. is the Assistant Secretary for Border and 

Transportation Security Policy and Planning at the Department of 

Homeland Security. He was confirmed to this position last Friday. 

Prior to coming to DHS, Mr. Verdery was the senior legislative 

counsel for the Government Affairs and Public Policy Office at 

Vivendi, Universal Entertainment, Universal Music Group, and 

Vivendi Universal. Before he joined Universal, he was general 

counsel to the United States Senate Assistant Republican Leader 

Don Nickles of Oklahoma. Mr. Verdery also served as counsel to 

two Senate Committees and to Senator John Warner. He received 

his undergraduate degree from Williams College and his law degree from the University of Virginia. 

Elizabeth Davison is the director of the Department of Housing 

and Community Affairs for Montgomery County, Maryland. She is 

an urban economist who has spent her 30-year career in both the 

private and public sector. Prior to joining the county, she was vicepresident of Hammer, Siler, George Associates and Real Estate Research Corporation. Ms. Davison received her undergraduate degree from George Washington University; her graduate degree from 

Washington University in St. Louis and has attended the Kennedy 

School of Government at Harvard University. 

Once again, I want to thank all of the witnesses for your appearance today. Without objection, your full testimony will be entered 

into the record, and if you can limit your comments to 5 minutes, 

we would most surely appreciate it. 

Mr. McCraw, you have the floor. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN McCRAW, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 

Mr. MCCRAW. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman, if I may, with me today is Robert Matamoros, who is 

the unit chief for the money laundering unit. If you have questions 

relating to money laundering in that regard, he is behind me, sir. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCRAW. And thank you for the opportunity to be here. 

Good morning to you, sir, and to the rest of the Committee. The 

one thing I would like to do is since my full testimony is going to 

be placed in the record is just dispense with it at this time and just 

discuss the issue a little bit with your permission, Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Yes. 

Mr. MCCRAW. As you are aware—certainly, everyone is aware—

terrorism is the most important thing that the FBI does and the 

Department does right now. The President directed and charged 

the FBI and the Department to make it a number one priority. It 

is. And with the support of Congress, that is what we are doing. 

The issue of a fictitious or a fraudulent consular ID, years ago, 

pre-9/11, we would simply view it in the context of a criminal matter. It would not be something that the FBI would be overly concerned about, other than the fact that they could be exploited by 

criminals, as they often do with fictitious IDs. 

In the post-9/11 era, I mean, the FBI is charged with assessing 

threats and vulnerabilities. And clearly, this is a threat and a vulnerability. And as long as terrorists—and it was a very good point. 

110

The 19 hijackers, in fact, used their own names. And even though 

they obtained, you know, State ID cards, they did use, in fact, their 

own identifications, even if they overstayed their visas. However, 

you know, it is absolutely prudent that we in the FBI and the Department and also other Government agencies look at in terms of 

their adaptability. 

Our number one threat is clearly Al Qaeda. They are consistent; 

they are patient; and clearly, they are adaptable. And frankly, any 

ability to get fictitious identification, they are going to exploit. Specifically, and coming from my latest assignment at the San Antonio 

Division of the FBI, which had 650 miles of the border, our concern 

there and concern nationwide in the FBI has been the number of 

countries that have a strong Al Qaeda presence that are exploiting 

the tri-border area and utilizing long-established and very well-disciplined alien smuggling organizations in Mexico to transit individuals, foreign nationals, through Mexico and into the United States. 

It was a concern when I was there; it is still a concern with us. 

Of course, a part of the process is fictitious IDs. And anywhere, 

an average price, perhaps $10,000, even greater that Mexican alien 

smuggling organizations use and charge to transit these individuals, these foreign nationals, into the United States. So naturally, 

the threat that we see is in terms of them having legitimate identification in the United States; utilizing either forged consular ID 

cards or utilizing fraudulent ones because of birth certificates that 

were obtained without the proper or at least the type of authentication that we would like to see is a concern to us. There is no question about it. 

One quick example to further exploit or expand upon some of the 

written testimony is, as alluded to, the foreign national from the 

Middle Eastern country. It was an Iranian arrested by the Texas 

Department of Public Safety officer on February 23 of 2003. He 

was arrested along with four individuals. The only thing that was 

noted—in fact, the trooper called and was supported by legacy INS, 

Border Patrol agents showed up there; is that the Iranian had a 

Matricula Consular identification on his body. And through their 

investigation, they determined that he obtained it through his 

girlfriend, who got a fraudulent birth certificate through her father 

in Mexico and who was able to convert that into a State ID in California in the consular office in San Bernardino. 

Now, I mentioned four other instances in there, and I am not 

saying there are not other documents in the same category. In fact, 

we are concerned about all documents that are vulnerable, not just 

this particular one. But right now, we do have concerns about it 

because of what we have seen in recent months and over the last 

2 years. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCraw follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEVE MCCRAW

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is pleased to have the opportunity 

to appear before you today to discuss the important issue of consular ID cards. The 

Department of Justice and the FBI have been charged by the President, with the 

support of Congress, to protect the American people from the continuing threats of 

111

terrorism and the crimes associated therewith. It is in the context of our post-9/11 

world that we present our views and concerns to the Subcommittee today. 

Over the past two years, we have all seen a dramatically increased effort to promote and utilize consular ID cards as forms of identification for foreign nationals 

who are present in the United States. The Government of Mexico has been particularly aggressive in marketing the use of its consular ID card, the Matricula Consular. As a result of the extensive efforts to promote the use of the Matricula Consular, a number of other foreign countries are now considering the issuance of their 

own consular ID cards. The crucial element in the acceptance of any consular ID 

card is the ability to verify the actual true identity of the bearer of the card. In today’s post-9/11 world, this element is all the more important because, in order to 

protect the American people, we must be able to determine whether an individual 

is who he purports to be. This is essential in our mission to identify potential terrorists, locate their means of financial support, and prevent acts of terrorism from occurring. 

Since Mexico’s Matricula Consular is currently the predominant consular ID card 

in existence, I will focus my comments today on this particular card. It is believed 

that consular ID cards are primarily being utilized by illegal aliens in the United 

States. Foreign nationals who are present in the U.S. legally have the ability to use 

various alternative forms of identification—most notably a passport—for the purposes of opening bank accounts, gaining access to federal facilities, boarding airplanes, and obtaining a state driver’s license. In addition, foreign nationals who are 

present in the United States, either legally or illegally, have the ability to obtain 

a passport from their own country’s embassy or consular office. 

The U.S. Government has done an extensive amount of research on the Matricula 

Consular, to assess its viability as a reliable means of identification. The Department of Justice and the FBI have concluded that the Matricula Consular is not a 

reliable form of identification, due to the non-existence of any means of verifying 

the true identity of the card holder. The following are the primary problems with 

the Matricula Consular that allow criminals to fraudulently obtain the cards:

First, the Government of Mexico has no centralized database to coordinate the 

issuance of consular ID cards. This allows multiple cards to be issued under the 

same name, the same address, or with the same photograph.

Second, the Government of Mexico has no interconnected databases to provide 

intra-consular communication to be able to verify who has or has not applied 

for or received a consular ID card.

Third, the Government of Mexico issues the card to anyone who can produce 

a Mexican birth certificate and one other form of identity, including documents 

of very low reliability. Mexican birth certificates are easy to forge and they are 

a major item on the product list of the fraudulent document trade currently 

flourishing across the country and around the world. A September 2002 bust 

of a document production operation in Washington state illustrated the size of 

this trade. A huge cache of fake Mexican birth certificates was discovered. It 

is our belief that the primary reason a market for these birth certificates exists 

is the demand for fraudulently-obtained Matricula Consular cards.

Fourth, in some locations, when an individual seeking a Matricula Consular is 

unable to produce any documents whatsoever, he will still be issued a Matricula 

Consular by the Mexican consular official, if he fills out a questionnaire and satisfies the official that he is who he purports to be.

In addition to being vulnerable to fraud, the Matricula Consular is also vulnerable 

to forgery. There have been several generations of the card; and even the newest 

version can be easily replicated, despite its security features. It is our estimate that 

more than 90 percent of Matricula Consular cards now in circulation are earlier 

versions of the card, which are little more than simple laminated cards without any 

security features. 

As a result of these problems, there are two major criminal threats posed by the 

cards, and one potential terrorist threat. 

The first criminal threat stems from the fact that the Matricula Consular can be 

a perfect breeder document for establishing a false identity. It is our understanding 

that as many as 13 states currently accept the Matricula Consular for the purpose 

of obtaining a drivers’ license. Once in possession of a driver’s license, a criminal 

is well on his way to using the false identity to facilitate a variety of crimes, from 

money laundering to check fraud. And of course, the false identity serves to conceal 

a criminal who is already being sought by law enforcement. Individuals have been 

arrested with multiple Matricula Consular cards in their possession, each with the 

same photograph, but with a different name. Matching these false Matriculas are 

112

false driver’s licenses, also found in the criminals’ possession. Such false identities 

are particularly useful to facilitate the crime of money laundering, as the criminal 

is able to establish one or more bank accounts under completely fictitious names. 

Accounts based upon such fraudulent premises greatly hamper money-laundering 

investigations once the criminal activity is discovered. As the Subcommittee is well 

aware, the FBI is particularly concerned about fraudulent financial transactions in 

the post 9/11 environment, given the fact that foreign terrorists often rely on money 

transferred from within the United States. 

The second criminal threat is that of alien smuggling, a crime that has resulted 

in many deaths within the past year. Federal officials have arrested alien smugglers 

who have had as many as seven different Matricula Consular cards in their possession. The cards not only conceal the identity of the smuggler, they also serve as a 

magnet for the victims who are enticed to entrust their lives to the smugglers, believing that the Matricula Consular that awaits them will entitle them to all sorts 

of benefits within the United States. 

These criminal threats are significant, but it is the terrorist threat presented by 

the Matricula Consular that is most worrisome. Federal officials have discovered individuals from many different countries in possession of the Matricula Consular 

card. Most of these individuals are citizens of other Central or South American 

countries. However, at least one individual of Middle Eastern descent has also been 

arrested in possession of the Matricula Consular card. The ability of foreign nationals to use the Matricula Consular to create a well-documented, but fictitious, identity in the United States provides an opportunity for terrorists to move freely within 

the United States without triggering name-based watch lists that are disseminated 

to local police officers. It also allows them to board planes without revealing their 

true identity. All of these threats are in addition to the transfer of terrorist funds, 

mentioned earlier. 

In addition, it is important to note that the White House Homeland Security 

Council is currently chairing an interagency working group that is developing recommendations on Federal policy for Federal acceptance of these cards as well as 

guidance to state and local governmental agencies on acceptance. The interagency 

group is examining policy for acceptance of all consular identification cards. They 

are also specifically examining counterfeit and fraud concerns with the Mexican consular identification card that would impact its acceptance for identification purposes. The Department of Justice is an active participant in that group. 

The events of 9/11 forever changed our world. As unpleasant as it may be, we 

must face the realities of our current world as they relate to protecting the people 

of the United States. This requires continual vigilance—particularly when it comes 

to being able to detect and deter those who might abuse the system to directly cause 

harm, or those who might aid and abet the financing of terrorist operations. Thank 

you.

STATEMENT OF ROBERTA S. JACOBSON, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS 

Ms. JACOBSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Hostettler, Mr. Berman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before 

you today to discuss foreign consular identification cards. My name 

is Roberta Jacobson. I am currently acting deputy assistant secretary for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, and in that 

capacity, I am charged with overseeing our bilateral relations with 

Mexico and Canada. 

Before addressing the issue of the Federal Government’s and in 

particular the Department of State’s response to consular identification cards, I want to emphasize that it is our top priority to ensure the safety and security of the United States and its citizens. 

The events of September 11 and the possibility of future terrorist 

attacks resonate throughout the Department and have significantly 

affected how we do business. 

Since the start of our deliberations on this issue, safety and security have been material to the development of a policy on the 

113

issuance of foreign consular identification cards. Safety and security are also central themes in the bilateral relationship with Mexico. Every day, I witness the strong spirit of cooperation that exists 

between the United States and Mexico to improve the security not 

only of the United States but all of North America. 

Indeed, just last month, in Washington, Mexican Foreign Secretary Derbez affirmed that security and counterterrorism represented the number one priority for Mexico in its bilateral relationship with the United States. 

Mr. Chairman, the Administration has not taken an official position on the issuance or acceptance of foreign consular ID cards. 

State and other Executive Branch agencies are working to establish a comprehensive Federal Government policy on consular identifications, a policy that will affect documents now being issued or 

that may be issued in the future by any nation to its nationals in 

the U.S. 

The need for a Government-wide policy became evident as Mexico and other countries have become more active in issuing or exploring the possibility of issuing such documentation and as questions about acceptance of foreign consular identification cards were 

raised. Beginning last year, the Department of State chaired an 

interagency group tasked with developing that policy. Earlier this 

year, the Homeland Security Council assumed the leadership of the 

interagency process, and we continue to support this endeavor. 

All of us involved in drafting the policy are aware of the intense 

interest and desire for a final product that will address the many 

aspects of the issue. Any policy on the issuance and more importantly the acceptance of foreign consular identifications must address questions of security, reciprocity and protection for Americans abroad, our international treaty obligations, law enforcement 

and State and local legislation. Topics that were discussed while 

the Department chaired the interagency process included the effect 

of foreign consular identification cards on homeland security; the 

rights and privileges granted to the United States as well as other 

countries under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, U.S. 

obligations regarding consular protections, foreign policy goals, 

questions of federalism and the regulation of financial services. 

The complexity and diversity of the issue, which extends well beyond the purview of the Department of State, argues for a thorough 

development of any policy and underscores the need for a coordinated approach. In addition to concerns about national security, 

the State Department has two additional interests in the development of any policy on consular identification cards. The first is the 

impact of a policy on the Department’s ability to carry out its responsibilities in consular affairs both domestically and abroad. On 

the domestic front, the Department views consular identification 

cards as a possible tool for facilitating consular notification by accountable law enforcement officials. 

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires that a 

foreign national who is arrested or otherwise detained in the 

United States be advised of his or her right to request the appropriate consular officials be notified of the detention without delay. 

The issue of consular notification is a serious one for the Department, and we are working assiduously to assure U.S. compliance. 

114

Because foreign consular identification cards are a means to 

identify an individual as a foreign national, the bearer’s possession 

may alert responsible law enforcement authorities to the need to 

provide notification. The Department also believes that the U.S. 

Government must carefully avoid taking action against consular 

identification cards that would foreclose our options to document or 

assist Americans overseas. The Department itself issues 

documentations other than passports for U.S. citizens abroad and 

at times issues similar identity cards or travel documents. 

Should a foreign country decide to limit acceptance of such documentation or other traditional documentation such as State-issued 

IDs or driver’s licenses, the actions of American citizens abroad 

could be seriously restricted. The Department’s goal is a single, 

uniform policy that is applicable to all countries that issue consular 

identifications. While the Mexican card has recently been highlighted, it is not a new program, as you have stated. The Vienna 

Convention on Consular Relations, to which we are a party, allows 

for sending states to perform consular functions to help assist and 

protect their nationals. 

What has clearly changed is the scope of the Mexican program 

and the Government of Mexico’s vigorous efforts to secure acceptance of the card by local governments and financial institutions at 

a time of heightened security concerns. 

Given these changes, we have contacted the Government of Mexico to learn more about the technical nature of the card, and we 

have found the Embassy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be 

responsive to our requests for information about the issuance process, security features and card production. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this 

testimony, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions you 

have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERTA S. JACOBSON

Chairman Hostettler, Ms. Jackson Lee, and members of the Subcommittee, I am 

pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Foreign Consular Identification Cards. 

My name is Roberta S. Jacobson, and I am currently the Acting Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of State for the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, and in that capacity, I am charged with overseeing the United States’ bilateral relations with Mexico 

and Canada. 

Before addressing the issue of the federal government’s and, in particular, the Department of State’s response to consular identification cards, I want to emphasize 

that our top priority is ensuring the security and safety of the United States and 

it’s citizens. The events of September 11 and the possibility of future terrorist acts 

resonate through the Department and have significantly affected how we do business. Since the start of our deliberations, safety and security have been material to 

the development of a policy on the issue of foreign consular identification cards. 

Safety and security are also central themes in the bilateral relationship with Mexico. Everyday I witness the strong spirit of cooperation that exists between the 

United States and Mexico to improve the security of not only the United States, but 

all of North America. Indeed, just last month in a speech in Washington, Mexican 

Foreign Secretary Derbez affirmed that he understood and accepted that security 

and counter terrorism represented the number one priority for Mexico in its bilateral relationship with the U.S. 

Mr. Chairman, the Administration has not taken an official position on the 

issuance or acceptance of foreign consular identification cards. State and other executive branch agencies are working to establish a comprehensive USG policy on foreign consular identifications, a policy that will affect documents that are being 

115

issued now or may be issued in the future by any nation to its nationals in the 

United States. The need for a government wide policy came evident as Mexico and 

other countries have become more active in issuing—or exploring the possibility of 

issuing—such documentation and as questions about acceptance of foreign consular 

identification cards were raised. Beginning last year, the Department of State 

chaired an interagency group tasked with developing that policy. Earlier this year, 

the Homeland Security Council assumed the leadership of the interagency process. 

The Department continues to fully support this endeavor. All of those involved in 

drafting this policy are aware of the intense interest and desire for a final product 

that will address the many aspects of this issue. 

Any policy on the issuance and, perhaps more importantly, acceptance of foreign 

consular identifications must address questions of security, reciprocity and protection for Americans abroad, USG international treaty obligations, law enforcement, 

and state and local legislation. Topics that were discussed while the Department of 

State chaired the interagency process included: the effect of foreign consular identification cards on homeland security; the rights and privileges granted the United 

States as well as other countries under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR); USG obligations regarding consular protections; foreign policy goals 

and objectives; questions of federalism; and the regulation of financial services. The 

complexity and diversity of the issue—which extends well beyond the normal purview of the Department of State—argues for prudence and thoroughness in the development of any policy and underscores the need for a coordinated, interagency approach. 

In addition to concerns about national security, the State Department has two additional interests in the development of any policy that addresses foreign consular 

identification cards. The first is the impact of a policy on the Department’s ability 

to carry out its responsibilities in the area of consular affairs, both domestically and 

abroad. On the domestic front, the Department views foreign consular identification 

cards as a possible tool for facilitating consular notification by accountable law enforcement officials. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) requires 

that a foreign national who is arrested or otherwise detained in the United States 

be advised of his or her right to request that the appropriate consular officials be 

notified of the detention without delay. The issue of consular notification is a serious 

one for the Department, which is working assiduously to ensure U.S. compliance. 

Because a foreign consular identification card is a means to identify an individual 

as a foreign national, a bearer’s possession of this card can alert responsible law 

enforcement authorities to the need to provide consular notification. 

The Department also believes that the U.S. Government must also carefully avoid 

taking action against consular identification cards that foreclose our options to document or assist American citizens abroad. The Department itself issues documentation other than a passport for U.S. citizens abroad and at times occasionally issues 

similar identity cards or travel documents. Should a foreign country decide to limit 

acceptance of such documentation or other traditional documentation such as state 

issued identifications or driver’s licenses, the actions of American citizens abroad 

could be seriously restricted. 

The Department’s goal is a single, uniform policy that is applicable to all countries that issue consular identifications. While the Mexican card has recently been 

highlighted, the Mexican ‘‘matricula consular’’ is not a new program. Mexico has 

issued cards to its citizens in the United States for more than 100 years. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which we are party, allows for sending 

States to perform ‘‘consular functions’’ to help, assist, and protect their nationals. 

What has changed is the scope of the Mexican program and the Government of 

Mexico’s vigorous efforts to secure acceptance of the card by local governments and 

financial institutions at a time of heightened security concerns. 

Given these changes, we have contacted the Government of Mexico to learn more 

about the technical nature of the card. We have found the Mexican Embassy and 

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to be very responsive to our requests for information 

about the issuance process, security features, and card production. 

I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to present this testimony 

today, and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that the Committee may 

have at this time.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Ms. Jacobson. 

Mr. Verdery? 

116

STATEMENT OF C. STEWART VERDERY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PLANNING, BORDER AND TRANSPORTATION SECURITY DIRECTORATE, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. VERDERY. Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Acting 

Berman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have 

this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss foreign consular identification cards. My name is Stewart Verdery. I am the 

assistant secretary for policy and planning in the Border and 

Transportation Security Directorate, known as BTS, within the Department of Homeland Security. 

I have had the pleasure of working with many of you while a 

staffer in Congress and in private practice, and I am looking forward to continuing those relationships in my brand new capacity. 

The Department of Homeland Security and the policy office within BTS in particular has been involved in the interagency process 

led by the Homeland Security Council to develop a comprehensive 

United States Government policy on foreign consular identification 

cards. Historically, various forms of these cards have been utilized 

by many countries for a variety of purposes. Foreign consular ID 

cards do not establish or indicate lawful U.S. immigration status 

and should not be viewed as valid for that purpose. Nor do they 

establish a foreign national’s right to be or to remain in the United 

States. 

Immigration status of an alien in the United States can only be 

determined by reference to documents issued by the United States 

Government or, in the case of some nonimmigrants, to a U.S. Government annotation in the alien’s passport. In addition, the Federal 

Protective Service within the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, which is also part of BTS, does not accept the 

Matricula Consular or other foreign consular identification cards as 

identification for entry into secure Federal buildings. 

In recognition of our national security requirements and interests 

and given the expanding use of these ID cards, it is clear that we 

need to develop a Federal policy on the acceptance and use of these 

cards for other purposes as well as guidance to State and local government agencies and appropriate private entities such as banking 

institutions that require identification. That work is being done 

through the interagency process which I and other witnesses have 

referred to, and I am confident that such a policy will be developed 

expeditiously. 

The interagency group is also specifically examining counterfeit 

and fraud concerns with the Mexican consular identification cards, 

the Matricula Consular. These cards have been issued by Mexican 

consulates to Mexicans living abroad and have been in existence in 

various forms since the 19th Century. A foreign government may 

issue documents to its nationals. However, given the increase in 

the volume of requests for these cards in the past year or so and 

in light of the heightened security concerns in the post-9/11 environment, we are concerned at DHS about the use and acceptance 

of these cards. 

We believe that individuals have been able to obtain multiple 

cards under multiple names, an occurrence which poses a significant security issue and impacts the reliability as valid forms of 

117

identification. Another concern is the extent to which consular 

identification cards are used as breeder documents; that is, to more 

easily gain access to other documentation such as driver’s licenses. 

We are concerned that foreign consular identification cards fraudulently obtained could aid criminal activity such as money laundering by facilitating the creation of false identities. 

We at DHS and within the United States Government need to 

examine and are examining not only the security features of these 

cards but also the security of the issuance process and the documented requirements for obtaining them. The Bureau of Customs 

and Border Protection, known as BCBP, also one of the bureaus 

within BTS, has disseminated an intelligence alert that contains 

background information about the consular identification cards, including an example of a Matricula Consular. 

BCBP requires reporting on the interdiction of individuals who 

have been caught carrying multiple cards. Further, they are working closely with other BTS agencies to coordinate any information 

or intelligence arising from such cases. Our goal is to develop a 

uniform and sound policy which will define legitimate uses for foreign identification cards while ensuring that the security of our nation is not compromised. 

In developing a policy, we should ensure that foreign consular 

identification cards are not being used as a means for avoiding the 

immigration laws of the United States. 

Again, I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity 

to present testimony on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you might 

have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Verdery follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. STEWART VERDERY, JR. 

Chairman Hostettler, Ranking Member Jackson Lee, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss Foreign Consular Identification Cards. 

My name is Stewart Verdery, and I am the Assistant Secretary for Policy and 

Planning in the Border and Transportation Security (BTS) Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security. 

The Department of Homeland Security, and the policy office in BTS in particular, 

has been involved in an interagency process led by the Homeland Security Council 

to develop a comprehensive U.S. Government policy on foreign consular identification cards. 

Historically, various forms of consular identification cards have been in use by 

many countries for a variety of purposes. Foreign consular ID cards do not establish 

or indicate lawful U.S. immigration status and should not be viewed as valid for 

that purpose, nor do they establish a foreign national’s right to be or remain in the 

United States. Immigration status of an alien in the United States can be determined only by reference to documents issued by the U.S. Government or, in the case 

of some non-immigrants, to a U.S. Government annotation in the alien’s passport. 

In addition, the Federal Protective Service within the Bureau of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement does not accept the matricula consular as identification for 

entry into secure Federal buildings. 

However, in recognition of our national security requirements and interests, and 

given the expanding use of consular identification cards, it is clear that we need to 

develop Federal policy on the acceptance and use of these cards for other purposes, 

as well as guidance to state and local government agencies and appropriate private 

entities such as banking institutions. That work is being done through the interagency process to which I referred. I am confident that such policy will be developed 

expeditiously. 

118

The interagency group is also specifically examining counterfeit and fraud concerns with the Mexican consular identification cards. The matricula consular, issued 

by Mexican consulates to Mexicans living abroad, has been in existence in various 

forms since the 19th century. A foreign government may issue documents to its nationals. However, given the increase in the volume of requests for these cards in the 

past year, and in light of heightened security concerns in the post 9/11 environment, 

we are concerned about the acceptance and use of these cards. We believe that individuals have been able to obtain multiple cards under multiple names, an occurrence which poses a significant security issue and impacts their reliability as valid 

forms of identification. 

Another concern is the extent to which consular identification cards are used as ‘‘breeder documents,’’ that is, to more easily gain access to other documentation, 

such as drivers’ licenses. We are concerned that foreign consular identification cards 

fraudulently obtained could aid criminal activity—such as money laundering—by facilitating the creation of false identities. We need to examine not only the security 

features of these cards but also the security of the issuance process and the documentary requirements for obtaining them. 

The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (BCBP) has disseminated an intelligence alert that contains background information about the consular identification 

cards, including an example of a matricula consular. BCBP requires reporting on 

the interdiction of individuals who have been caught carrying multiple cards. Further, they will work closely with other BTS agencies to coordinate any information 

and intelligence arising from such cases. 

Our goal is to develop a uniform and sound policy which will define the legitimate 

uses for foreign consular identification cards while ensuring that the security of our 

nation is not compromised. In developing a policy, we should ensure that foreign 

consular identification cards are not being used as means for avoiding the immigration laws of the United States. 

I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to present this testimony 

and I would be pleased to respond to any questions that the Committee may have.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. Verdery. 

Ms. Davison? 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH DAVISON, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND 

Ms. DAVISON. Thank you very much, Chairman Hostettler; Acting Ranking Member Berman and other Members of the Committee. For the record, my name is Elizabeth Davison, and I am 

the director of the Department of Housing and Community Affairs 

for Montgomery County, Maryland, adjacent to the District of Columbia. 

And I am here really presenting the views of our County Executive, Douglas Duncan, on the use of the Matricula Consular or the 

ID cards that are issued by the Government of Mexico for over 100 

years and most recently also by the Government of Guatemala to 

citizens of their countries who are living in the U.S. 

Montgomery County has a very large base of Hispanic residents. 

According to the Census of 2000, there were over 100,000 Hispanic 

residents. That is about 12 percent of our county, which is a county 

of roughly 900,000 population; clearly, it is a very large community. 

Many of these residents are legal; many of them have passports. 

But an increasing number do not. And clearly, with that number, 

it is very difficult for the county to deal with tens of thousands of 

people with no documentation; no identity. Our County Executive, 

Douglas Duncan, recently announced that Montgomery County will 

accept the Matricula Consular as identification for all county services. And I do want to stress that this initiative was not based on 

these foreign governments lobbying the County Executive. This 

came up because I heard news reports about these cards; talked 

119

with our County Executive after doing some research with some 

other local governments about how they used them and what they 

were. 

I also went to the Mexican Consulate here in Washington, DC 

with one of my Hispanic staff members; saw the operation; asked 

them questions about how did this work; how did they determine 

people’s identity. And so, we did see firsthand how this operation 

was conducted. 

At that point, we then contacted some of the other Hispanic governments, South American, Central American, to find out what 

they were doing. Because this seemed like a way that we could 

work with this population and have a little bit more, I guess, assurance of who the people were. While the county local government 

does not have a role in immigration, we do have a role in public 

safety, public health, education, and other basic local services. That 

is really the major reason why we have determined to accept these 

cards. 

Why are there benefits to having these cards from a local government’s point of view? Let me go through several reasons. First of 

all, with the banks that have been accepting these cards, it then 

becomes a first step to establishing credit. And credit is an extremely important thing in this society. We found without credit or 

without a bank account that this population becomes a target for 

crime, including muggings, and many of the apartment complexes 

which house these immigrants find that they have a very high 

break-in rate, because thieves know that there is cash perhaps hidden in a drawer or perhaps in a mattress, the same way that they 

know that these residents are likely to be carrying cash because 

they cannot put it in a bank account. 

Also, without a credit rating, it is becoming increasingly difficult 

in this metropolitan area and I am sure in others to be able to rent 

an apartment, because they do a credit check on you. If you cannot 

get access to one of the apartment complexes run by a major management company, you are much more likely to go to an unlicensed, unregulated apartment complex, sometimes with unscrupulous landlords; other times with landlords who just think they are 

doing you a favor. 

We have had experiences; perhaps you saw in the local press last 

year a family that was burnt alive because they were in an illegal, 

unlicensed basement apartment with no means of egress. My department inspects apartments, but we cannot look in every single 

house in Montgomery County to see if there is an illegal basement 

apartment, and increasingly, both the combination of the high price 

of housing; the scrutiny of credit checks and other background 

checks, and if you do not have credit, you cannot pass a credit 

check. 

Fourth reason that the county needs to know who a person is is 

to establish whether they are a resident of Montgomery County. 

We pride ourselves on a very high level of local government services, but we clearly cannot provide those services to anybody who 

shows up who may—I have gotten calls from people in Arlington 

County when they heard we were giving away free fire detectors 

because of these fires, wanting us to send them to their address in 

Arlington County. Obviously, we got wise to that one, but if someVerDate 0ct 09 2002 12:11 Jul 31, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\IMMIG\061903\87813.001 HJUD1 PsN: 87813
120

one presented themselves at our office one of these ID cards with 

a local address, we would at least have some verification of them 

being a citizen. We cannot not plow a street when it snows if we 

think that there are people who are citizens of foreign countries living there. Our services are provided to all residents, whether they 

are legal, illegal; whether they are citizens or not citizens. 

Fifthly, when you have people who do not have access to bank 

accounts, they often end up using check cashing services, often 

which charge very high fees and also create a very run-down and 

unsavory appearance in our business districts. We have been working very hard, spending a lot of money to improve areas like Silver 

Spring, which I think is fabulous now; other areas like Wheaton, 

Long Branch, other parts of our community. The more there are 

these check cashing services, payday loan joints, the worse our 

business districts look and the more run-down they become. 

We have also found that there are many unscrupulous and predatory businesspeople who target this population. We recently found 

out about a travel agent called Tiva Travel who had taken large 

amounts of cash from many people for trips home during the 

Christmas holidays but failed to actually make the reservations 

and buy the tickets. Many of the people who did not have bank accounts gave the cash, multiple thousands of dollars. In addition to 

being out that cash, they did not get their trip home. 

If they had a credit card, they could have put this on a credit 

card and would have been protected. So we are finding that this 

practice of not being able to have access to a bank account is creating predatory business practices. And lastly, obviously, with 

homeland security, it is important for people to know who we are 

dealing with. During the sniper shootings in Montgomery County 

and throughout this region, there were some witnesses who were 

afraid to come forward because they were afraid they would be deported. There are other situations of witnessing crimes where, 

without some identification, we do not know who they are; they are 

afraid of coming forward. 

In closing, I would just like to say our County Executive was concerned that without any kind of Federal policy in this area that it 

was being left to Montgomery County or other local counties to 

make up a foreign policy, in effect. And so, we have decided to accept these cards, because we cannot have tens of thousands of people with no kinds of identification, and we are actively promoting 

other governments of Central and South America to use these 

cards. 

Thank you very much. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Davison follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH B. DAVISON

Good Morning. For the record, my name is Elizabeth B. Davison, Director of the 

Department of Housing and Community Affairs for Montgomery County Maryland. 

I am here to present the views of our County Executive on the use of the Matricula 

Consular, or ID cards that are issued by the Government of Mexico for over 100 

years, and most recently by the government of Guatemala to citizens of their countries who are living in the U.S. 

Montgomery County Maryland has a large base of Hispanic residents, over 

100,000 according to the US Census 2000. This is about 12 percent of the close to 

900,000 population of the county. With such a large base of Hispanics from many 

121

countries, it is becoming increasingly important that they have identification. Certainly many do have passports or are American citizens with Social Security cards 

and other identification, but an increasing number do not. 

Our County Executive, Douglas Duncan recently announced that Montgomery 

County will accept the Matricula Consular as identification for all County services. 

It is of course important that these cards be authentic. The County is in this position because these people are residents, and a local government must deal with 

them as they have an effect on our community. We do not have a role in immigration, but we do have a role in public safety, public health, education and other basic 

local services. 

Because of this need to document who people are, we have been working over the 

last year with several Latin American and Central American Consulates to issue 

these cards, since many of our residents are not from Mexico or Guatemala. 

There are many reasons why having a document such as the Matricula Consular 

is important.

1. Several banks have been accepting this card as an ID in order to open a 

bank account, which is the first step to establishing credit.

2. Without a bank account, this population becomes a target for crime, including muggings and break ins to apartment complexes because they are known 

to carry large amounts of cash;

3. Without a credit rating, it is increasingly difficult to rent an apartment, 

making it more likely they are living in unlicensed and unregulated living 

arrangements which may be unsafe. People have died in fires in this kind 

of living situation, which is a great tragedy for them and their relatives and 

associates.

4. The County needs to know if a person is a resident of the County in order 

to provide them County services. This identification carries a local address. 

Montgomery County services are very good, but clearly we need to be sure 

that the person who is requesting those services is indeed a resident of the 

County.

5. The non banked population often ends up using check cashing operations, 

and other very costly and often not legitimate services. These in turn create 

a run down appearance in our business districts, leading to further decline 

in these areas.

6. Other predatory business people target this population and can thrive on the 

proceeds. Recently my staff uncovered a travel agent who was taking people’s 

money for plane tickets to their home countries over the holidays, and in 

many cases accepted cash, but did not provide authentic tickets. If these people had paid with a credit card, they would not have lost the many thousands of dollars that they did.

7. As homeland security becomes more important, we need for people to have 

identification that is valid, which we understand the Matricula Consular to 

be, since the governments of the issuing countries check very carefully to establish the identity of the person before issuing the card.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to share our views with your committee 

on this issue which is very important to our community in Montgomery County, 

Maryland.

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Ms. Davison. 

The panel will now turn to a period of 5-minute questions per 

Member. Ms. Davison, my first question is to you. When Montgomery County employees, in the course of their jobs, confront a 

consular ID card, confront an individual who puts forward a consular ID card for identification, and your employees contact the 

consulate, and they ask for the status of the alien, how often do 

they determine that the alien is in the country illegally? 

Ms. DAVISON. Well, we do not do that. I mean, we do not ask if 

people are legal or illegal. Sometimes, we will need to have some 

identification just to know who the name of that person is and that 

they are a resident of the county. That is as far as we go with 

checking their identification. 

122

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And you are familiar with the traditional purpose of the consular ID card, as testified by Ms. Jacobson, in that 

a Government official in the United States generally contacts a 

consulate to—and that is the purpose of a consular ID card. But 

you do not do that in Montgomery County? 

Ms. DAVISON. No, we are just trying to determine if they are residents of the county. And if they have no ID, we do not know. If 

they have this card which does have a local address, we can determine that they are residents of the county. Our services are not 

based on whether someone is here illegally or legally or whether 

they are a citizen of the U.S. or they are not. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And that is a point in your testimony that you 

make when you say it is not your role to deal with immigration 

law, which is intriguing to me, because right after that, you mention—let me quote it correctly here—‘‘that we have been working 

over the last year with several Latin American and Central American consulates.’’ And in your oral testimony, you say that was actually initiated by your office. 

Ms. DAVISON. That is right. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I am intrigued, as Montgomery County does 

not feel that it is their obligation to deal with Federal immigration 

law, how do you make the distinction with regard to dialogue with 

foreign governments on issues whose jurisdiction is international 

agreements, such as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations? 

How do you draw the distinction between not dealing with Federal 

immigration law but initiating conversations, dialogues with foreign governments? 

Ms. DAVISON. Well, as I said, we are kind of left in a situation 

where we have a large number of people that we need to know who 

they are. Our conversations with these consuls have been to try 

and find out if they are thinking of issuing them; just what the status of it was and telling them that we would accept the card if they 

did that. Clearly, it does not go any further than that kind of discussion. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. McCraw, in your testimony, you state that individuals have 

been arrested with multiple Matricula cards which bear the individual’s picture but a different name. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. In what ways could the possession of multiple 

consular ID cards assist a criminal to engage in money laundering? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Well, one of the ways is to get multiple bank accounts, and in terms of void and in terms of suspicious activity reporting; and a number of reasons in terms of when you are a criminal, hiding your identity is important, especially if you are dealing 

with the money laundering side of it but also in terms of, in today’s 

society, and as Ms. Davison pointed out, you know, you need identities to get certain types of services, whether it is apartment services or banking services. And it is very important to us, looking 

from a national security standpoint or working a criminal case to 

make sure that that individual that we go back and we track and 

we trace is, in fact, that same individual. And it certainly increases 

the ease of actually linking individuals to terrorism and also to 

other criminal acts. 

123

And so, it is critically important that we do it one way or the 

other. Certainly, when you have something that is being used that 

is systemically flawed, and there are a number of things that are 

a problem with it. And believe me, we do not—the FBI and the Department, we do not—certainly, I would like to say that the Government of Mexico has been tremendous in terms of working with 

us in terrorism along the border. 

This has nothing to do with that. It just has to do with this particular card. And there are four vulnerabilities that we see with 

this particular card that are in my testimony. And the first thing 

is that there is no database, centralized database. The databases 

are not interconnected. And the fundamental flaw is the authentication is, in fact, birth certificates. And we have problems with 

that even in the United States. And when we are able to seize, you 

know, large loads of these documents, and we know that these documents are out there, and we have got examples in terms of how 

they can get it, then, it makes it much more difficult to make sure 

that that individual is who he or she says they are. 

Moreover, it is a breeder ground for additional documents. If individual governments allow it to be, you know, what we view as a 

problematic document to be valid, then, of course, they can produce 

and get driver’s licenses and State IDs from there, which means, 

you know, you can continue on. And if you have seven different 

ones, then, you can get seven different driver’s licenses, and you 

can have seven different bank accounts. And you can continue to 

hide behind this. 

I did not mean to continue on, but those are the problems, as we 

see it. Again, we are assessing the vulnerability of that particular 

card as it relates to a threat. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Thank you, Mr. McCraw. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Berman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank all the witnesses for their useful testimony on this issue. 

Mr. McCraw, let me read you something from—it is a report by 

the Migration Policy Institute. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Focused specifically on local law enforcement, it essentially concludes that they are among the most enthusiastic 

backers of the consular IDs and cites reasons why. Police departments welcome the cards for the following reasons: when the police 

stop someone without identification on a minor charge, they are 

forced to hold them overnight when a citation would otherwise suffice. Resources are also wasted; people without identification are 

also more likely to flee when stopped by the police. The Matriculas 

make it easier to identify dead or unconscious people. By facilitating the use of banks, the cards help immigrants avoid carrying 

or stockpiling large amounts of cash, which makes them targets for 

robbery and home invasions; in some cases, the police themselves 

have asked local banks to accept the Matricula. Having identification encourages people to report crimes and to come forward as witnesses. It allows police to keep better records. 

Now, I would be interested in your comments on that. And the 

more general comment: I think it is a mistake for people—I think 

124

one can conclude that these cards are a good thing, even accepting 

what has been assumed by many that large numbers of undocumented people are getting these cards or that that is the primary 

motivation for at least some people to get the card; that there are 

two different issues here: how to deal with stopping illegal immigration and, in a country which has anywhere from 6 million to 10 

million—who knows exactly?—undocumented immigrants, what is 

the role of this card? 

Why is law enforcement better off with people having no identification card than this identification card, even with the limits that 

there may be on the extent to which that identification card reflects the true name and address? And then, I have one follow-up 

question. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Well, I think you make some very good points, and 

I think Ms. Davison made some very good points. And from a 

former State trooper having the same dilemma, although a couple 

of decades ago, it was always problematic when you come in contact with no ID, and you have no basis to do anything. So clearly, 

something was always better than nothing, and I understand that. 

Mr. BERMAN. I appreciate that admission. It does not mean this 

is foolproof. It does not mean this cannot be phony, but by and 

large, something is better than nothing. 

Now, your first reason for concern, I am curious about in terms 

of—well, the databases. Compare with me. Let’s take Mexico. The 

question of getting a passport, which is by and large accepted as 

a pretty darn good identifier, versus one of these cards. What is the 

nature of the database that is used in Mexico to issue a passport 

that makes it so much more likely to be valid? In other words, we 

are not talking about phony passports here; we are talking about 

real passports issued to people; makes the passport so much better 

than this card in terms of the databases used? 

Mr. MCCRAW. You bring up a good point, you know, passport, 

you know, from our standpoint is a better document. It is scrutinized more. The State Department has controls for standards. I 

know they are working toward a number of different things. 

Mr. BERMAN. How does the State Department control Mexican 

passports? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Well, there are some agreements, and certainly, 

INS—excuse me; I have not changed with the initials—but legacy 

INS will work on it; maybe next two or 3 years, they will get it 

right. 

They know; those inspectors are trained in what to look for in 

terms of forged documents as they come through in terms of passports. At least from the forgery standpoint, and I think there are 

some universal standards——

Mr. BERMAN. Well, forgery——

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes. 

Mr. BERMAN. But I am talking here about a valid passport issued 

by the Mexican Government. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes. 

Mr. BERMAN. It is not a forgery. 

Mr. MCCRAW. No, sir. 

Mr. BERMAN. The question is, is it being issued to that person? 

125

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, and I cannot answer your direct question. I 

do know that we have not seen the trend of criminals utilizing 

fraudulent or forged passports, Mexican passports, in the U.S., not 

compared to the trends I discussed in my written testimony. You 

know, we are just describing a vulnerability right now, and I understand. 

Mr. BERMAN. But on the basic question, is it fair to say that you, 

at this point, could not tell me why the database used by the Mexican Government for the issuance of passports——

Mr. MCCRAW. No, sir. 

Mr. BERMAN.—is totally different than the database used by the 

consulates to issue the consular ID cards? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Sir, I could not even tell you if they had a database——

Mr. BERMAN. All right. 

Mr. MCCRAW.—from the State Department for the passports. 

Mr. BERMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Gallegly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this has been a 

very informative hearing so far. 

Mr. McCraw? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I read your testimony before I got here this morning, and you have talked about the vulnerability of the Matricula 

Consular to forgery and so on and so forth. You also in your testimony refer to several generations of this card, saying that there 

have been some integrated security in recent cards, although 90 

percent of the cards that are out there are the older generation 

which are very vulnerable to counterfeit, forgery and so forth. 

You also mention in your statement that it is your understanding 

that as many as 13 States currently accept Matricula Consular for 

the purposes of obtaining a driver’s license as a breeder document. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Could you just follow up with that a little bit and 

give us a little bit better understanding of why we are concerned 

about this as a breeder document? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Well, because once you have it, you know, once you 

have established—in the United States, it is one of the documents 

recognized for you to fly; a bank account; a number of different 

functions once you have a State either ID or a State driver’s license. So any document that will allow you to get that, of course, 

is important, the source documentation. So if we take it back to the 

Matricula Consular, and if there is a flawed process, and we perceive there are vulnerabilities in it, then, the driver’s license—it 

does not matter what the State does in terms of the precautions 

they place on that driver’s license. They can have all of the safeguards in the world, and they can scrutinize all they want. But if 

they are depending upon the breeder document, and that breeder 

document is flawed, then, of course, that driver’s license or that 

State ID is going to be flawed as well. 

126

Mr. GALLEGLY. And 90 percent of these are really blatantly 

flawed because of the vulnerability with absolutely minimal validity to start with for the——

Mr. MCCRAW. They are very susceptible——

Mr. GALLEGLY. To forgery. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms. Jacobson, who needs Matricula Consular in 

the United States other than an illegal immigrant? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I do not know that I could speak to exactly who 

else might use them but——

Mr. GALLEGLY. But you say that is the principal beneficiary? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I really do not know that. We have not studied 

that. But Mexican citizens living in the United States are asked to 

register at consulates for purposes of being notified by their Government. Matriculas Consular, unlike passports, would have a local 

address so that the consulate could contact them. So there are 

other purposes for which they are issued, primarily the fact that 

they have the residence on them. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Ms. Jacobson, you have said that you have been 

involved in discussing with the Mexican Government, and they 

have been very cooperative and sensitive to our concerns about forgery and validity of these documents, and they want to work with 

us on that. Is that correct? They want to work with us to make 

sure that the document is secure? 

Ms. JACOBSON. As secure as possible, right. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Do you think the Mexican Government, after Mr. 

McCraw’s testimony that 90 percent of these documents are the 

earlier generation that they would be prepared to invalidate that 

90 percent? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I am not entirely sure about the 90 percent figure; I have heard——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, do you think they would be prepared——

Ms. JACOBSON. I understand. 

Mr. GALLEGLY.—with their spirit of good faith to invalidate all 

of those documents that do not possess the security issues that the 

latest generation have? 

Ms. JACOBSON. What the Mexican Government has told us is 

that they are very interested in replacing those old cards, in part 

because they believe that the old card——

Mr. GALLEGLY. Well, they are interested in doing it, but what are 

they going to do about it? 

Ms. JACOBSON. They are beginning to work on a plan to replace 

all of the old cards. Since March 2002, they have issued only the 

new cards. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But do they have a program that, effective September 12 or whatever, those are invalid? 

Ms. JACOBSON. It is my understanding that that is what they are 

working on now. They have not announced one yet. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. We have a very limited amount of time, and I appreciate your succinct answers. 

Ms. Davison, who needs Matricula Consular other than illegal 

immigrants? 

Ms. DAVISON. I do not know. 

127

Mr. GALLEGLY. Is public housing and public benefits in Montgomery County, do you have an overabundance of public housing 

and really limited demand, or do you have a demand equal to the 

amount of services you are able to provide? 

Ms. DAVISON. In terms of public housing, we have a little bit 

more trouble filling that up than some others, partly because it is 

not as well maintained as some of the private sector housing, because the Federal Government has cut back on that money. But we 

do have a need for affordable housing. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. For the record, you have stated that you have absolutely no discretion or care to be concerned whether a person gets 

public benefits in Montgomery County whether they are illegally in 

the United States or not; is that correct? 

Ms. DAVISON. Our services are available to anyone who is a resident of the county. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Is it also true that Montgomery County last year 

got $1,102,029 in SCAP funds from the Federal Government? 

Ms. DAVISON. I do not know. That is not my area of authority. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The Federal Government has provided certain 

funds to Montgomery County; is that correct? 

Ms. DAVISON. Certainly, yes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I see my time has expired. I yield 

back. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Sa ́nchez, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all 

of the witnesses for providing your testimony here today. 

Mr. McCraw, can you provide specific data on the number of 

cases successfully brought against individuals for using fraudulent 

consular ID cards? And how would this number compare with 

fraudulent use in the United States, say, of driver’s licenses for underage drinkers or fraudulent U.S. passports used abroad? 

Mr. MCCRAW. I do not have any statistics on that. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Would you consider Matricula Consulares acceptable as long as you were satisfied that they were as fraud-proof as 

possible? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Absolutely; if they were fraud-proof—we are looking at it from a vulnerability standpoint. If they were fraud-proof, 

and they could be authenticated, absolutely, and we did not have 

this trend; I mean, we only care from the standpoint of national security, not how it is used or not used. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Have you had an opportunity to review the multilevels of security features on the Mexican consular ID card? 

Mr. MCCRAW. The new one, I have seen documents, and I have 

been advised that they have improved dramatically over the first 

generation. And although there is a study that exists that says 

they can be still forged, they have dramatically improved since the 

first iteration. I think we are on the third generation now. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. To your knowledge, is there any document in the 

U.S. or other foreign country that could not be forged? 

Mr. MCCRAW. There are all varying degrees of forgery. It is a 

constant—you know, nothing is perfect, and I am sure, as I have 

128

testified earlier, that where there are vulnerabilities, they will be 

exploited. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. Jacobson, could the failure to accept the safe and fraud-proof 

Mexican consular ID violate the Vienna Convention on Consular 

Relations? And if we were to violate the Vienna Convention that 

was signed by the U.S. back in 1963 and that guarantees that consulates can provide services to their nationals living abroad, what 

remedies would Mexico have for a violation of that? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I am going to answer the second question first, 

if I might, because I do not know what remedies the Government 

of Mexico would have, and I would be happy to look into that. But 

on the first point, the fact is that, as you know, we have not prohibited use of the Matricula Consular nor have we accepted them. 

What the Vienna Convention says is that consulates have a right 

to issue—to carry out functions that help, assist or protect its nationals in the receiving state. And one of those functions may be 

to identify their nationals, as we do overseas when we issue identification papers or ask people to register with U.S. consulates. 

But the Vienna Convention does not say that governments in the 

receiving state must accept those cards nor that they, you know, 

should prohibit them. It is silent on that subject. It is the right of 

the foreign government to issue them, but it makes no mention of 

responsibility of a party to the treaty to accept them. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Mister—sorry; I am probably going to mispronounce your name—Verdery, is that correct? 

Mr. VERDERY. Perfect. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. If, as has been stated by some of the Members of 

the Subcommittee, in fact, that the majority of people who use consular ID cards or the only reason for using them would be that you 

are in the country illegally, I guess I am trying to understand why 

would somebody create a fraudulent consular ID card which does 

not confer any type of immigration status? Would it not make more 

sense for folks to create false green cards or passports instead? 

What would be the advantage of creating a falsified consular ID 

card versus other types of identification that could confer immigration status? 

Mr. VERDERY. Well, this is somewhat of a guess, but I think the 

answer would be that these are easier to forge. I know that the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement forensics lab has 

done an examination of comparing the Matricula Consular security 

features to the Mexican passport features and has found that the 

passport has much more security, even under the new card that is 

being issued. So my answer would be that I think it would be easier to forge those than the other types of documents you discussed. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. So, again, if Matricula Consulares were as fraudproof as possible, would you then say that it would be acceptable 

to accept them in the United States? 

Mr. VERDERY. I could not give you that policy on behalf of the 

Administration today, but obviously, it would be a clear factor in 

our review of them if they were more fraud-proof. That would be 

a good thing. But I could not give you that determination today. 

Ms. SA ́ NCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

129

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. Blackburn. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all 

very much. 

Mr. McCraw, I enjoyed reading your testimony prior to coming 

here, and I thank you for submitting that to us. I come from Tennessee. I am a freshman legislator. I have been in the State Senate. I led the fight to close the loophole illegal aliens were using 

to get valid Tennessee driver’s licenses and therefore access State 

services. And I agree with many of the points that you have made. 

Ms. Jacobson, I would like to begin my questioning with you if 

I may, please, ma’am. I find it very troubling that the Administration has taken no official position on the issuance or acceptance of 

the foreign consular identification cards, and I think in the world 

in which we live, that is troubling, and I wanted to see if you had 

any idea when you felt that the Administration would develop a position on this. 

Ms. JACOBSON. Well, I think that on that issue, Congresswoman 

Blackburn, I can speak for the three agencies here and all of the 

others involved in the interagency process that we really do desire 

to complete the process as quickly as possible. We realize there is 

a great need for a clear policy, and so, it will be done as expeditiously as possible, but I am afraid I cannot give you a date. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So there are no ongoing discussions of when a 

policy will—there is no target for when a policy will be achieved? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I think we would not want to set a target that 

might actually, you know, delay implementation or a policy. We 

just want to do it as quickly as possible. I do not know that there 

is a target date. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Let me ask you this: when is the Office of Foreign Missions going to demand that these consulates link their 

databases and address the concerns that Mr. McCraw brought out 

in his testimony? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I think that the Office of Foreign Missions at the 

State Department has not determined that we have the ability to 

demand of the Mexican Government a particular way in which they 

set up issuance of the cards. However, in our discussion with the 

Mexican Government, we have made very clear that among the 

concerns that all of the agencies of the Federal Government have 

is the ability to get multiple cards. And we have been told by the 

Mexican Government that they are greatly concerned with that 

issue. They are currently implementing linkage of databases and 

that the consulates should be fully connected to check those records 

by the end of this year. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. How responsive is the Mexican Government to 

your expressed concerns of the problems that we have with this 

card? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Well, so far, I would say our evaluation has been 

that they have been quite responsive, increasing the levels of security on the card, as Mr. McCraw has mentioned; beginning a plan 

to replace the cards that are not that highest quality; continuing 

to improve the features, not stopping just with the six or seven 

that are in the current card but looking ahead to more. So they 

have been trying. 

130

Mrs. BLACKBURN. All right; thank you, ma’am. 

Mr. Verdery, who needs a Matricula Consular card other than an 

illegal alien in the United States? 

Mr. VERDERY. Well, if I might answer your question in the reverse, if you are here legally in this country, you would either have 

a passport with a visa; you would have a Border Crossing Card if 

you were a frequent traveler that is basically the equivalent of a 

visa, or you would have a Permanent Residency Card. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Can you answer for me the question—we found 

out in a hearing last week that banks in Mexico do not accept the 

Matricula Consular card as positive identification. Can you answer 

for me why that is? Our witnesses last week were unable to answer 

that question for me. I would like an answer to that one. 

Mr. VERDERY. Well, unfortunately, I have to join that crowd. I 

am not aware of the specifics of why the Mexican banks do not accept the card, if that is actually the fact. But we would be happy 

to look into that and get back to you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Okay; thank you. 

Ms. Davison, thank you for being with us. I am sure you are familiar with the Foreign Missions Act, and the Senate report on 

that act states that the Office of Foreign Missions has responsibility for ensuring the national security interest of the United 

States, taking into consideration when foreign governments seek to 

operate missions in the United States. In light of the fact that the 

19 September 11 hijackers were aliens in the United States, do you 

believe that controlling immigration is a national security interest 

of our country? 

Ms. DAVISON. Well, unfortunately, I am not familiar with the act 

that you cited. I do think that it is important for the Government 

to control immigration, yes. It is also up to local governments to 

deal with the people who are here. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Now, let me you ask you this: were you aware 

that banks in Mexico do not accept the Matricula Consular cards 

as identification? 

Ms. DAVISON. I do not know whether that is true or not. I am 

not aware of that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair now will entertain a second round of questions, and 

I will begin my questioning at this time. And before I go to the 

questions, I would just like to point out a few things. 

The context of this hearing is knowing that consulates have 

issued consular ID cards for over 100 years in this country. That 

is not contested. That is, we are not trying to stop that. In fact, we 

cannot stop that according to the Vienna Convention mentioned 

earlier. What we are concerned about is the fact that they are 

being utilized in a manner that is irregular and does not comport 

with the traditional usage of the consular ID card, especially the 

fact that there is this effort afoot for ID cards to be used by local 

governments. 

And I would like to highlight a fact that has been alluded to or 

been discussed or the idea of the passport, the Mexican passport 

being on the same level with regard to being tamper-proof and 

verifiable and credible as a Mexican Matricula, for example. In 

131

fact, in a report dated April 23 of this year, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Forensic Document Laboratory assessed how the security features of the most recent version of the 

Mexican Matricula rate in comparison to those of the Mexican 

passport. The Forensic Document Laboratory concluded that the 

present version of the Mexican passport, ‘‘contains many more components and features that make it a much more secure document,’’ end quote, finding that the, quote, ‘‘overall complexity of the passport makes it a more difficult document to counterfeit or alter.’’ The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency of the United States Federal Government, has already determined that in the case of the consular ID card issued by the Mexican Government, namely the Mexican Matricula, is far less 

verifiable and is a much easier document to counterfeit or alter. So 

I just wanted to make those points for the record. 

I would also, Ms. Jacobson, like to ask you a question in regard 

to Article 55.1 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 

which states, and I quote: ‘‘Without prejudice to their privileges 

and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying consular 

privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of 

the receiving state. They also have a duty not to interfere in the 

internal affairs of that state,’’ end quote. 

Ms. Jacobson, do you believe that in lobbying U.S. States and localities to accept their consular cards for identification purposes, an 

action that would appear to only benefit essentially illegal aliens 

in the United States, that foreign countries are encouraging those 

countries to violate U.S. immigration policy, and to follow onto 

that, are they not also violating the terms of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations with regard to the interference of internal affairs of the United States? 

Ms. JACOBSON. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I am going to answer 

as much as I can of that question not being a lawyer from our legal 

advisor’s office. I do have someone here from the legal advisor’s office who may have a bit more to add to fully complete our answer. 

One of the things I would note is that the Vienna Convention 

also, in Article 38, talks about the ability of consular officials in receiving nations, that is, those in the United States, to interact with 

local officials and the national government to take actions to, as we 

have discussed before, help, assist or protect their citizens in that 

country. And so, we have, up until this point, viewed the lobbying 

effort by the Mexican Government as consistent with their efforts 

to promote the Matricula, which would help them help, assist or 

protect their citizens in this country. 

Now, that is promoting of Mexican citizens in this country getting a Matricula Consular, not necessarily speaking to the acceptance of that card by State, local or Federal authorities in this country. That is the provision of the card, not the acceptance of it, as 

I stated earlier. I do not know, Carol, whether there is anything 

further you would like to say. 

Okay; sorry. In addition, I think one of the main purposes that 

we have always been comfortable with foreign governments lobbying our State and local authorities is that we actively seek to do 

the same overseas. We want the ability to be able to contact and 

lobby national and local officials in foreign governments to pursue 

132

our interests and protect our citizens, and as you know, diplomatic 

international law is based highly on reciprocity, and that is not a 

benefit that we would like to see infringed overseas. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So it is the testimony of the Department of 

State that the Department of State lobbies local entities abroad to 

allow a consular ID card for the purposes of a driver’s license, 

housing, and other State benefits? 

Ms. JACOBSON. We lobby local officials on all sorts of issues. I do 

not believe we lobby them on their driver’s licenses or housing 

privileges, but we certainly would contact local authorities in terms 

of accepting our documentation for services overseas. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. For services, for all types of services? 

Ms. JACOBSON. No, for services we believe our citizens might be 

entitled to, services that we might provide to our citizens, that that 

document be accepted or departure from the country, for example, 

if people are being evacuated that they be allowed to do so based 

on a document we would give them; functions of that sort. I do not 

believe that we would necessarily be lobbying for things like driver’s licenses or housing. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I yield myself an additional minute, because I 

want to make this clear, because we are looking at an issue of traditional usage of a consular ID card versus a new usage of a consular ID card, and as well as—let me ask you this: does the United 

States Government determine if the U.S. citizen abroad is legally 

in the country when they ask for a consular ID card? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I do not believe so. I can ask my experts, but I 

believe we offer support and assistance to any U.S. citizen overseas. That is our job. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. And you issue them a consular ID card. 

Ms. JACOBSON. We may in certain circumstances, yes, absolutely. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. So you do not issue consular ID cards in every 

circumstance? 

Ms. JACOBSON. No; I mean, it would depend on the circumstance 

as to whether that document was really needed and they did not 

have another one that could be used. But certainly, if they did not 

and were in need of a document that would allow them to travel, 

re-enter the United States, et cetera, we would, and we have. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. Right; I thank the gentlelady. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Berman, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Jacobson, are you telling me that our U.S. embassies abroad 

do not consider themselves responsible for enforcing those countries’ immigration laws? 

Ms. JACOBSON. We certainly consider ourselves to be in compliance with the foreign country’s immigration laws, and we certainly——

Mr. BERMAN. No, the embassies do not take on the responsibility 

of enforcing the foreign country’s immigration laws? 

Ms. JACOBSON. We do not, sir. 

Mr. BERMAN. I am shocked! [Laughter.] 

Do you find it that we may be going down a slippery slope to the 

extent that we focus our attentions in trying to prohibit or constrain a foreign government’s ability to lobby either Federal or local 

133

officials on particular policies that it might end up on the fundamental principle of reciprocity restraining us from our ability to 

use our diplomatic personnel to lobby for what is determined to be 

in the interests of the United States? Do you see a slippery slope 

there? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I do not know, Congressman, if I would call it a 

slippery slope, but I think that is the one thing that the State Department brings to the table in these kinds of discussions. That is 

precisely a perspective that we have to offer, which is that every 

time we take actions affecting the activities of foreign governments 

in the United States, we must be cognizant of the implications that 

those actions could have on our activities overseas to protect our 

citizens. That does not mean we will not take such actions. We just 

need to be aware. 

Mr. BERMAN. I remember the State Department asking me to 

lobby local officials in India to site an Enron power plant near 

Bombay. I mean, you know, the Administration——

Ms. JACOBSON. We do lobby overseas. 

Mr. BERMAN. The Administration actively—and every Administration actively has—economic, political, intelligence, military interests in what goes on in countries. 

Ms. JACOBSON. And consular. 

Mr. BERMAN. And lobbies and asks other representatives of the 

U.S. Government to engage on those issues with those foreign governments, be they national or local. Is that not true? 

Ms. JACOBSON. I do not know that we always ask others to do 

that. We certainly do it ourselves. 

Mr. BERMAN. Well, when you can hook others to do it, you try. 

I have no further questions. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

At this time, the Chair recognizes that Mr. McCraw has been 

very patient but has another appointment that he needs——

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask you to give me 30 

more seconds? I totally forgot the one question I wanted to ask Mr. 

McCraw. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, sir? 

Mr. BERMAN. As I hear what is said here, the issue is not—if you 

could really get to the security of these cards, if you could really 

get to the security of these cards and strengthen that, that the real 

concerns that the FBI has and others might have, to the extent you 

enhance that security and the inability to forge that document, the 

problems with that document diminish and evaporate; is that a fair 

conclusion? 

Mr. MCCRAW. That is; in fact, Mr. Berman, you nailed it. If we 

can eliminate the fraudulent part on the front end and the forgery 

on the other end, and that is why in the testimony we referred to 

the passport. There is a higher standard, according to the Department of—what is it now?—Immigration and Customs Enforcement; 

their laboratory analysis, you know, concluded that it is a much 

more—— Mr. BERMAN. Their conclusion was about not whether it was 

easier to get a passport; it was that it was harder to forge—— Mr. MCCRAW. Correct. 

134

Mr. BERMAN.—a passport. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Correct. 

Mr. BERMAN. And as you make that card more secure—no one 

has laid a foundation for me that it is harder for the actual person 

to get a passport than it is to get one of these cards. 

Mr. MCCRAW. That is correct; it is just that we do not see a trend 

that that is being the level that we are with the Matricula Consular. The one thing that I did say to you, Mr. Berman, and I 

apologize. I left the impression that the FBI may not be concerned, 

and I was about, you know, no document is better than some document. And the problem with that is I think that is true. I think 

that there are many good arguments, as Ms. Davison pointed out 

and others have pointed out, you know, that there is some value 

to it; even yourself in terms of a law enforcement officer. 

But the slippery slope I am concerned with is that it breeds— once you have it, once you have that fictitious ID to start with and 

are able to build additional IDs, up to 7, 10, 15, it is very problematic from a security standpoint. 

Mr. BERMAN. Fictitious ID? 

Mr. MCCRAW. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BERMAN. So if it is an authentic ID, producing breeder documents is not a law enforcement concern. 

Mr. MCCRAW. Exactly. 

Mr. BERMAN. Okay. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. 

Gallegly, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before Mr. Berman leaves, could I just ask him—he made a 

statement about the situation in Bombay. For the record, did that 

lobbying start with the previous Administration? 

Mr. BERMAN. As a matter of fact, it did. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. BERMAN. Goes to show. [Laughter.] 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. If the gentleman will yield. 

Mr. BERMAN. But in all fairness, I do not believe the State Department in the previous Administration was familiar with the auditing and accounting practices of that particular company at the 

time they asked me to do that. [Laughter.] 

Mr. GALLEGLY. I appreciate it. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. McCraw, thank 

you for——

Mr. MCCRAW. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members of 

the Committee. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER.—being here. 

Mr. MCCRAW. I appreciate it. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. You are excused. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Thank you very much, and I want to thank Mr. 

McCraw, and I would urge my colleagues who have not read his 

complete testimony to please do so. I think it is very telling. It is 

very articulate, and I think it is a very important part of the substance of this hearing. 

Ms. Davison, after hearing the FBI’s testimony—I do not know 

whether you had the opportunity to read the testimony of Mr. 

135

McCraw, but after hearing his testimony, do you believe that Montgomery County should continuing accepting Matricula Consular? 

Ms. DAVISON. Yes; I did have the opportunity to read his testimony this morning. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Do you believe they should still continue to accept 

Matricula Consular? 

Ms. DAVISON. Yes, I do. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay; do you believe that the county, your county, has a duty not to contravene or subvert immigration laws? 

Ms. DAVISON. Certainly. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would your assessment of those that are using 

Matricula Consular as the only identification that they have—obviously, if that is the only thing they can present you with, and your 

argument for the use of it is they have nothing else; is that correct? 

Ms. DAVISON. Often, that is the case, yes. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Would you believe that there is a high probability 

that those that have that as the only form of identification are illegally in the country? 

Ms. DAVISON. Probably a number of them are; that is correct 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay; having said that, do you also—on record, 

I believe, and correct me if I am wrong—that any person who has 

a Matricula Consular receives all of the same benefits that any 

American citizen would receive; is that correct, as far as housing, 

other social benefits? 

Ms. DAVISON. No; there are some Federally-subsidized programs 

that the county offers where there are specific regulations. I mean, 

there could be additional qualifications for participation. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. What about housing? 

Ms. DAVISON. Well, in housing, most of what we do is actually 

county-funded. We do have some public housing, and I do not operate that. We have a separate housing authority. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay. 

Ms. DAVISON. So I am not sure about the qualifications for that. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But there is a chance that with only Matricula 

Consular, they could receive public housing, because if that——

Ms. DAVISON. I do not know. I doubt that, but I do not know. I 

would have to check with the Housing Opportunities Commission. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. The issue of accepting Matricula Consular for the 

purposes of opening bank accounts, Ms. Jacobson, I think you were 

the only one who did not get the question. Were you aware that 

the Mexican Government themselves will not accept the Matricula 

Consular for the purposes of identification to open bank accounts 

in their own country, yet they are heavy lobbying the U.S. for the 

U.S. to do that when they will not do that themselves? 

Ms. JACOBSON. It is my understanding, Congressman, that it is 

not accepted widely in Mexico because it is not designed to be used 

by Mexicans, so it is simply not a common card for Mexicans to 

use. They are not familiar with it. They have other forms of domestic ID. It is also my understanding that an increasing number of 

Mexican banks in the northern part of the country do accept the 

card, as they begin to actually see it. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. But I would like to try to get back to that issue 

that we talked about on the first round relative to the cooperation 

of the Mexican Government. Do we have any specific, concrete, 

136

iron-clad understanding or agreement with the Mexican Government to invalidate the 90 percent plus or minus of the Matricula 

Consular documents that the FBI identified as really impossible to 

verify as legitimate documents? 

Ms. JACOBSON. All I can tell you, Congressman, is that the Foreign Minister has told the Secretary of State that they are planning to do that. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. They do not have a date? To date, it is kind of 

happy talk? 

Ms. JACOBSON. They do not have a date. They have not given us 

a date. 

Mr. GALLEGLY. Okay; thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Mrs. 

Blackburn, for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Verdery, you have mentioned in your testimony the concern 

over our national security requirements and interests, and then, 

you go on and mention the need to develop some policies and also 

some guidance to our State and local governments on the acceptance of the Matricula Consular and other forms of identification 

from foreign governments. 

If you would please list for me or give me an idea of what you 

envision as being the guidance. What are the type programs that 

you would see implemented? What are the type instructions or 

rules that you would see given to our State and local governments 

for recognizing fraudulent or forged documents for developing a 

way to understand what true identification is? 

Mr. VERDERY. Well, your question goes to the heart of the matter 

that is being looked at in the public policy review process that is 

undergoing, in the interagency process at the Homeland Security 

Council, and so, the specifics as to what the guidance might look 

like at the end of the day to State and local governments is still 

under development. I assume it will end up including things such 

as, you know, what type of security checks should be reviewed; concerns we have about creating identities, multiple identities; concerns about our general enforcement of immigration laws. 

As you know, the Department has not only the antiterrorism 

mission that has been assigned to it by Congress, but the BTS also 

has the responsibility, through the Bureau of Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement and the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, to enforce our immigration laws. And so, we have obviously 

concerns—any concerns that the cards would raise in terms of enforcement of immigration laws is also something that should be on 

the table in terms of our guidance. But that guidance is under development, and I could not give you any more specifics on it than 

that. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. If it were up to you or in your opinion, would 

you put the Matricula Consular card on a list of recommended documents that State and local governments accept for positive identification? 

Mr. VERDERY. That is not up to me is the short answer, and so, 

you know, that is really a decision that would be made through the 

137

Homeland Security process, and for our Department, Secretary 

Ridge would make that recommendation to that process. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Do you think that accepting the Matricula 

Consular card makes it more difficult for our State and local law 

enforcement agencies to know the true identity of a person? 

Mr. VERDERY. Well, it is clear that there are two sides of the coin 

on this. I forget which Member asked Mr. McCraw—Mr. McCraw 

read a report in about some police agencies believing that it was 

helpful and that it provided identification for people who might not 

otherwise have identification; it might allow people to come forward during criminal investigations and the like. So you would 

have to balance those pro-law enforcement benefits, so to speak, 

with the problems of multiple identities being created to allow organized criminal activity, money laundering, terrorist activity. 

So those are kind of the law enforcement pros and cons that are 

being weighed in this homeland security process undergoing at the 

Administration as we speak. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. I thank the gentlelady. 

I have a question or two remaining for the witnesses. I appreciate your forbearance. 

But Mr. Verdery, in our post-September 11 world, it is crucial 

that every step be taken to protect the American people from further possible attacks, especially in relation to airline travel. Is it 

true that anyone in possession of a Mexican consular ID card can 

board an airliner today with no questions asked and it be received 

as a Government-issued ID? 

Mr. VERDERY. It is my understanding that those cards are being 

accepted by TSA when a person arrives in an airport to board a 

plane just as any other official Government ID would be accepted, 

again, to prove that the person is who they say they are. Of course, 

it should be remembered that this is in terms of a screening process, that anybody who raises particular concerns would then go to 

secondary screening. But yes, the ID would be accepted as any 

other Government ID. 

Now, I should add, though, that that policy that has been in 

place is part of the review that is going on at the Homeland Security Council, and so, that is on the table as well. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. It is part of the interagency discussion that is 

going on? 

Mr. VERDERY. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HOSTETTLER. All right; I thank you very much. 

I thank the panel of witnesses very much for your time and your 

testimony and your service to us. I would remind the record that 

the record will stay open for seven legislative days for any Member 

who wishes to make an addition. 

The business before the Subcommittee being completed, we are 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:59 p.m., the Subcommittee adjourned.] 

(139)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

It is unfortunate that the Matricula Consular card has become an immigration 

issue. The Matricula is not issued as an immigration document, and it has no immigration purpose. The Government of Mexico has been issuing Matriculas at their 

consulates around the world for more than 130 years. The consulates do this to create an official record of its citizens in other countries. The Matricula is legal proof 

of registration with a consulate. This registration facilitates access to protection and 

consular services because the certificate is evidence of Mexican nationality. Last 

year alone, more than a million of these cards were issued to Mexican citizens living 

in the United States. It does not provide immigrant status of any kind, and it cannot be used for travel, employment, or driving in the United States or in Mexico. 

The Matricula only attests that a Mexican consulate has verified the individual’s identity. 

The Matricula, however, does have some non consular uses. For instance, because 

it is an identification card, it provides Mexican nationals in the United States with 

access to banking services. Without an acceptable identification card, many Mexican 

nationals in this country cannot open checking or savings accounts or use any other 

banking services. In 2002, Latino immigrants sent more than $30 billion to their families in Latin 

America. The cost of making such transfers is much higher if the person making 

it has to use a money transmitting business such as Western Union or MoneyGram 

instead of a regulated financial institution such as a bank or a credit union. Moreover, the banks and credit unions want the Latino banking business. United States 

banks plan to spend at least $8.5 billion through 2005 to attract Hispanic customers. 

The availability of banking services is a safety issue too. Latinos are more likely 

to be victims of violent crime than any other racial or ethnic group. Much of this 

crime relates to the perception of criminals that because Latinos do not have bank 

accounts, they carry large amounts of cash. As a result of this problem, police departments across the country support the use of the Matricula to enable Latinos to 

use mainstream financial institutions as a means of reducing crime and violence. 

In an attempt to assist efforts to destroy the financial networks that support AlQaeda and other terrorist organizations, the Committee on Financial Services enacted legislation to reform money laundering laws. The enacted provisions were incorporated into the USA PATRIOT Act. 

Customer identification provisions in this Act have a direct impact on the use of 

the Matricula as a legitimate form of identification to allow consumers to open bank 

accounts. Specifically, Section 326 of Title III adds a new subsection that requires 

the Secretary to prescribe regulations setting forth minimum standards for financial 

institutions that relate to the identification and verification of any person who applies to open an account. These regulations permit banks to accept identification 

cards issued by foreign governments from customers opening new accounts, including the Matricula. The regulations went into effect on June 9, 2003, but anti-immigrant groups and some state and federal officials have expressed opposition to the 

regulations. Consequently, there will be further consideration of the regulations, including an additional comment period. 

Congressman Elton Gallegly has introduced a bill that would make it more difficult for Mexican citizens in the United States to use a Matricula card. His bill, 

the Identification Integrity Act, H.R. 687, would prohibit the federal government 

from accepting identification documents issued by a foreign government, except for 

a passport that is accepted for such purpose. I have many concerns about this bill. 

140

It seems to me that the unintended consequences of such a law far outweigh any 

good that Mr. Gallegly thinks the bill would achieve. 

For instance, certain classes of aliens applying for humanitarian relief are not required to be in possession of a valid passport and typically will not have one in any 

event. This includes many aliens who are applying for asylum; aliens applying for 

Temporary Protected Status; Cuban nationals who arrive in the United States; and 

aliens requesting humanitarian parole. If the government cannot accept identification documents issued by a foreign government, how will people seeking such humanitarian relief establish their identities if they do not have passports? 

Similarly, what will happen in the cases of aliens who have been exempted by 

law, treaty, or regulation from being required to carry a passport? At the very least, 

this presents difficult questions of international law. 

Many people are included in this category, such as, Canadian nationals, except 

after a visit outside the Western Hemisphere; Mexican nationals in possession of a 

border crossing card with a biometric identifier who are applying for admission as 

temporary visitors from contiguous territory; alien employees entering pursuant to 

the International Boundary and Water Commission Treaty between the United 

States and Mexico; citizens of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated 

States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau, in accordance with the Compacts 

of Free Association between these entities and the United States; certain aliens in 

transit through the United States; and aliens entering from the U.S. insular areas 

of Guam, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Island. 

If laws are to be enacted to prevent Mexican nationals from using the Matricula 

in our country, they need to be much narrower than a provision that simply would 

prohibit the federal government from accepting identification documents issued by 

a foreign government. 

Thank you.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELTON GALLEGLY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, Mexican consulates began mass distribution of matricula consulars—identification cards issued by the Mexican government to illegal immigrants 

in the United States—just more than a year ago. They gained favor among illegal 

immigrants when banks began to accept the cards as legitimate identification to 

open bank accounts. Then local governments began to accept them as legitimate 

identification as well. Attempts are now being made the accept these cards at the 

federal level. 

Let me clear about one point, the only people who need these cards are illegal 

immigrants, criminals, and terrorists. 

If we accept identification issued by Mexico as legitimate in the United States, 

where does it stop? And what protections do we have against terrorists taking advantage of the program when we’ve turned over to foreign governments our sovereign right to identify people within our borders? 

Mexico, Poland, Nicaragua, and other countries trying to expand their consular 

ID programs in the United States are doing so in an effort to force a de facto amnesty for their nationals illegally in this country and to allow them to receive services to which they are not entitled. 

And, while it’s correct that the vast majority of those seeking the cards are not 

terrorists, it is equally true that terrorists are certainly watching this program to 

see how they may exploit it. Are we willing to accept consular cards from illegal 

Saudi Arabians, Egyptians or Colombians? 

Equally disturbing is that our government is actively supporting these programs. 

State Department representatives admitted in a congressional briefing that the department helped Mexico design its program. And a U.S. embassy cable from Managua explicitly asks the State Department in Washington for guidance regarding the 

implementation of Nicaragua’s consular card program. 

Giving up our sovereign rights during a time of war is foolhardy and irresponsible. 

To combat this threat to our security, I have authored and introduced the Identification Integrity Act of 2003. With the exception of passports—which are issued 

under strict guidelines provided by the U.S.—it would forbid the federal government’s recognition of foreign-issued IDs. 

The price is just too high not to end this practice now.

141

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVE KING, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

Chairman Hostettler, Thank you for holding this hearing today. I have serious 

concerns about the acceptance of consular identification cards issued by foreign governments, including the ‘‘Matricula Consular’’ card issued by the government of 

Mexico. Other governments are also considering offering similar cards. 

My first question that occurs to me, is why would a Mexican national in the US 

need or want such a card? Legal aliens in the United States already possess all of 

the necessary documents issued by our government. In additional, Mexican nationals can obtain a passport from their government, a highly-secure and internationally 

accepted form of identification. It appears to me that only illegal aliens would need 

to carry such cards for identification purposes—issuance and acceptance of these 

cards encourages people to flout our immigration laws. I am also concerned that acceptance of this card, which is not as secure as a passport, will severely hamper 

the ability of the government to track money laundering, or accurately identify people who use the cards to open accounts. 

Acceptance of the Matricula Consular card is a serious issue of national security. 

These cards are known by federal law enforcement officers to be insecure. Illegal 

aliens are often apprehended with multiple cards under multiple names. It is my 

understanding that according to some estimates, more than a million cards have already been issued in the U.S. with little or no regard for source documents, identity 

confirmation with Mexican public records, or even reliable record keeping as to the 

names printed on the cards. 

Given our concern about national security, it is clear that the ‘‘Matricula Consular’’—or any other identification card susceptible to fraud issued by a foreign government—should not be recognized or accepted as a secure identification document 

by any federal agency or in any program or activity falling under federal regulatory 

jurisdiction. 

I look forward to hearing from the witnesses here today, on this important issue 

of vital national security.

142

LETTER FROM THE FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM (FAIR)


Fair1.eps
143


Fair2.eps
144

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REPORT SUBMITTED BY REP. JACKSON LEE


Memo1.eps
145


Memo2.eps
146


Memo3.eps
147

ARTICLE FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS SUBMITTED BY REP. JACKSON LEE


Art1.eps
148


Art2.eps
149

CABLE FROM STATE DEPARTMENT


Cable1.eps
150


Cable2.eps
151


Cable3.eps
152

ARTICLE FROM ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ANDREWS


Art3.eps
153


Art4.eps
154

MALDEF STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REP. JACKSON LEE


Mald1A.eps
155


Mald1B.eps
156


Mald1C.eps
157


Mald1D.eps
158


Mald1E.eps
159


Mald1F.eps
160


Mald1G.eps
161


Mald1H.eps
162


Mald1I.eps
163


Mald1J.eps
164


Mald1K.eps
165


Mald1L.eps
166

MALDEF STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY REP. STEVE KING AS REBUTTAL TO STATEMENT

SUBMITTED BY REP. JACKSON LEE


Mald2A.eps
167


Mald2B.eps
168


Mald2C.eps
169


Mald2D.eps
170


Mald2E.eps
171

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE, A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

The subject of this hearing is the federal government’s response to the issuance 

and acceptance of the consular identification cards issued by foreign governments. 

We all know, however, that only one consular identification card is of concern at 

this hearing. That card is the Matricula Consular that the Government of Mexico 

has been issuing at consulates around the world for more than 130 years. 

The Mexican consulates issue these cards to create an official record of its citizens 

in other countries. The Matricula is legal proof of such registration. This registration facilitates access to protection and consular services because the certificate is 

evidence of Mexican nationality. It does not provide immigrant status of any kind, 

and it cannot be used for travel, employment, or driving in the United States or in 

Mexico. The Matricula only attests that a Mexican consulate has verified the individual’s identity. 

I am only aware of one federal agency that has taken a position on consular identification cards in its regulations, the Department of Treasury. In regulations promulgated pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, the Treasury Department set forth 

minimum standards for financial institutions that relate to the identification and 

verification of any person who applies to open an account. 

These regulations specifically address the use of government-issued documents as 

evidence of nationality or residence. The regulations permit the acceptance of government-issued documents evidencing nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard. 68 Federal Register § 103.121(b)(2)(iii)(4). 

In view of the fact that the Matricula is an acceptable identity document under 

Treasury Department regulations promulgated pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Act, 

it is not apparent why the card should be rejected by any other government agency. 

Opponents of the Matricula will argue that the document is not secure. I disagree. 

I am confident that the Matricula is a secure form of identification. The person requesting a Matricula must produce an original birth certificate and an official Mexican identification card such as a passport or a federal electoral card, and his photograph will be taken by the consulate office, on the consulate premises. 

In addition, the Matricula has been modernized with the use of new technologies 

to improve its security features. The Mexican government uses security standards 

in making the Matricula that are similar to the ones used by the United States Government in its own official documents. 

It has visible security features such as green security paper with the official Mexican seal printed in a special security pattern, and a colored hologram with a seal 

that appears over the holder’s photograph and changes color from green to brown. 

It also has security features that are visible only under fluorescent light. The fluorescent light reveals the letters ‘‘SRE’’ across the front of the card. An infra red 

band appears on the upper back of the card. 

In case this is not enough, there are security marks visible only with the use of 

a special decoder. The decoder reveals the word ‘‘Mexico’’ printed on the left side 

of the card, next to the holder’s photograph. ‘‘Matricular Consular ID Card’’ is printed at the bottom. And, ‘‘SRE’’ is printed three times on the right side. 

In addition to hearing about the federal government’s response to the Matricula, 

we need to learn how local governments are responding to it, which is why I invited 

a representative from the Government of Montgomery County, Maryland, to speak 

at this hearing. 

Montgomery County Maryland has many Hispanic residents. County Executive, 

Douglas Duncan, recently announced that Montgomery County would accept the 

Matricula Consular as identification for all County services. I am anxious to hear 

about why Montgomery County adopted this policy. More Mexican nationals will be 

affected by the practices of state and local government than by the practices of our 

federal government. 

Thank you.

172

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY REP. HOSTETTLER TO ROBERTA S. JACOBSON, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE BUREAU OF WESTERN HEMISPHERE AFFAIRS


Reply1.eps
173


Reply2.eps
174


Reply3.eps
175


Reply4.eps
176


Reply5.eps
177


Reply6.eps
178


Reply7.eps
179


Reply8.eps
180


Reply9.eps
181


Reply10.eps
182


Reply11.eps
183


Reply12.eps
184


Reply13.eps
185


Reply14.eps
186


Reply15.eps
187


Reply16.eps
188


Reply17.eps
189


Reply18.eps
190


Reply19.eps
191


Reply20.eps
192


Reply21.eps
193


Reply22.eps
194


Reply23.eps
195


Reply24.eps
196


Reply25.eps
197

Æ


Reply26.eps