By Paul A. Ibbetson
Friday, March 9, 2007
Recent revelations have brought to the forefront financial institutions, namely Bank of America Corp, among others, that have for some time now been implementing a banking policy which allows illegal aliens with no financial background nor the customary customer identification, such as a social security number, to attain checking accounts, and after a short probationary period, credit cards (NewsMax, Bank of America Offers, 2007). These banking policies have come under attack from illegal immigration opposition groups and there have been reports that legitimate Bank of America Corp customers may close their accounts as a sign of protest to what CNN's Lou Dobbs called an "outrageous" credit card program (NewsMax, Bank of America Defends, 27, 2007). Border security advocate and potential presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo (R, Co) brings forth the most fundamental problem that irresponsible banking procedures create today. That is, potentially unrestricted money flow to a phantom population. Tancredo states, "After September 11th, we were told that money was the lifeblood of terrorists, and that we should do everything possible to block their access to financial resources," (NewsMax, Bank of America Defends, 25, 2007). Tancredo's statement is prudent as it touches a component of the larger problem that has brought forth the rise in opposition to the actions of Bank of America. It would appear that with a minimal amount of logical application one can reasonably conclude that due to the nature of the war on terror, of which a component is the reality of potential terrorist cells within the country, to fail to identify people within our borders to which U.S. financial institutions are actively giving credit, is of a great danger to the country and shows an overabundance of bad judgment. However, for those of us that endorse the capitalistic free market system, we must investigate further before placing final judgment on financial institutions that simply incorporate unpopular if not unwise business decisions.
William Gheen, director of the National Illegal Immigration Boycott Coalition would touch upon the question that most fundamentally addresses the issue of how Bank of America Corp, and its equivalents should be handled. While lamenting his anger over the actions of Bank of America, actions which have sparked his group to collect over 11,000 petition signatures condemning their actions, Gheen in exasperation brings the most salient question to bear by saying, "What Bank of America is doing is illegal, or should be" (NewsMax, Bank of America Defends, 6, 2007). It is Gheen's question to the legality of Bank of America's banking procedures that I wish to address today. Is what the Bank of America doing illegal or simply a business choice that many within the country disagree with? To answer this question one has to go no further than section 326 of the Patriot Act. Section 326 of the Patriot Act obligates the Secretary of the Treasury to create and maintain uniform standards for all financial institutions which include banks, credit unions, security dealers, etc. The goal of section 326 is to deter illegal funds being transferred to terrorist organizations as well as to serve as a deterrent to many white collar crimes. Checking Accounts, credit card applications and altering existing credit card accounts fall under section 326 of the Patriot Act. Institutions now give notice of section 326 of the Patriot Act on all documents that pertain to these transactions.
All institutions are required to verify the identity of all patrons opening accounts as well as insure the maintenance and up keep of all records. Additionally, institutions are required to maintain the identity of patrons to a level that will allow identifications of those who may appear on any provided list of terrorist suspects or members of terrorist organizations (EPIC, 2001). The most common collected information by institutions includes name, date of birth, address, social security number, and drivers license (Merrimack, 2007). If patrons do not have a social security card, additional government documents are required and the patrons are then subjected to a higher level of scrutiny. Failure to seek, collect, and maintain identifying information on all customers by financial institutions is a violation of section 326 of the Patriot Act. In some financial institutions the mandates of section 326 are coined as the "Know Your Customer Rules". Is there any question as to whether Bank of America really knows the customers that it gives credit to? I think the answer is that they definitely do not. It would appear that the opposition to the practices of Bank of America stated by Tancredo, Dobbs, and Gheen are not only morally and logically supported, but also legally valid.
PaulA. Ibbetson is a published author and lecturer on the Patriot Act. He is aformer Chief of Police of Cherryvale, Kansas, and is currently completing hisPhD. in sociology at Kansas State University. Paul is the author of the book"Living under the Patriot Act: Educating a Society" that will be available for purchaselate January 2007 from www.patriotactresearch.com as well as other major bookoutlets. Paul is a regular writer for the Conservative Crusader as well as several other online websites.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement