Order Code RL32094
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Consular Identification Cards:
Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, the
Mexican Case, and Related Legislation
Updated September 30, 2003
Andorra Bruno
Analyst in American National Government
Domestic Social Policy Division
K. Larry Storrs
Specialist in Latin American Affairs
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Consular Identification Cards:
Domestic and Foreign Policy Implications, the
Mexican Case, and Related Legislation
Summary
The current debate about consular identification cards in the United States has
centered around the matrícula consular, the consular card issued by the Mexican
government to its citizens in the United States when they register with a consulate.
For this reason, this report focuses mainly on the Mexican matrícula consular.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Mexico redesigned and added new
features to the matrícula consular to make it a more useful and secure document.
In recent years, and especially since September 2001, Mexican consulates in the
United States and other interested parties have worked to gain acceptance of the
matrícula consular as identification for a variety of purposes, with considerable
success. A U.S. federal government interagency working group is in the process of
developing recommendations for a federal policy on acceptance of consular
identification cards and guidance to state and local government agencies and other
entities on acceptance.
The matrícula consular raises a number of controversial questions for U.S.
domestic and foreign policy. With respect to domestic policy, supporters argue that
acceptance of the card is necessary in a post-September 11, 2001 America, where
photo identification is required to conduct daily business. They maintain that the
card is a secure, reliable, fraud-resistant document that improves public safety and
homeland security. Opponents argue that the matrícula consular is needed only by
aliens who are illegally present in the United States and serves to undermine U.S.
immigration law. They assert that the card is not secure and that its acceptance
threatens public safety and homeland security.
In the area of foreign policy, supporters maintain that U.S. acceptance of the
matrícula consular for various purposes has improved the bilateral relationship with
Mexico. They also argue that U.S. entities should accept the card to ensure that U.S.
documents are accepted abroad. In their view, consular cards help U.S. officials to
notify consulates of the detention of foreign nationals, and thereby improve the
likelihood that U.S. citizens under arrest abroad will have the benefit of consular
notification and protection. Opponents contend that regulation of the matrícula
consular is required to achieve the important U.S. goals of immigration control and
defense against terrorism. They do not agree that placing restrictions on foreign-
issued cards in the United States would necessarily lead foreign states to restrict U.S.-
issued documents, because these documents facilitate tourism and other business.
Legislation related to consular identification cards is before the 108th Congress.
The House-passed Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY2004-FY2005 (H.R.
1950) contains provisions to restrict the issuance of such cards by foreign missions.
Other pending measures concern acceptance of consular identification cards by U.S.
federal entities (H.R. 502, H.R. 687), and acceptance of the cards for banking
purposes (H.R. 773, H.J.Res. 58).
This report will be updated as legislative
developments occur.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Evolution of the Matrícula Consular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Acceptance of the Matrícula Consular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Domestic Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Public Safety and Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Foreign Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Bilateral Relations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Reciprocal Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Consular Notification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Legislation in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Measure to Restrict Issuance of Consular Cards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards by U.S. Federal Entities . . . . 11
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards for Banking Purposes . . . . . . 11

---

Consular Identification Cards: Domestic
and Foreign Policy Implications, the
Mexican Case, and Related Legislation
Introduction
It is fairly common practice for the embassies and consulates of foreign states,
including the United States, to encourage their citizens abroad to register with the
consulates. By so registering, these citizens can receive standard consular services,
be notified if necessary, and be located upon inquiry by relatives and authorities.
Consular registration is recognized and has been protected under international law
for many years, most recently by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of
1963.
The current debate about consular identification cards in the United States has
centered around the matrícula consular, the consular card issued by the Mexican
government to its citizens in the United States when they register with a consulate.
For this reason, this report focuses mainly on the Mexican matrícula consular.
Guatemala, however, also issues such cards, and other nations, including El Salvador,
Honduras, Peru, and Poland, are reportedly considering issuing consular
identification cards as well. Furthermore, some related legislation before the 108th
Congress, discussed below, would apply to consular identification cards generally.
Evolution of the Matrícula Consular
According to the Mexican Embassy, Mexico has been issuing consular
identification cards since 1871. In recent years, however, demand for the cards has
grown. The number of cards issued has increased significantly under the
administration of Mexican President Vicente Fox, which has emphasized service to
citizens abroad, and since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, when identity
documents became increasingly necessary in the United States.
Following the September 2001 attacks in the United States, Mexico redesigned
and added new features to the matrícula consular to make it a more useful and secure
document. Among the new additions are the bearer’s U.S. address, the telephone
number of the local Mexican consulate, and several security features designed to
make the cards tamper-proof and non-duplicable.1 The new verison of the card,
1 The security features include numbered telsin paper, laminated plastic pouches, ultraviolet
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
which the Mexican government calls the “high security consular card,” first became
available in the United States in March 2002. To obtain a matrícula consular,
according to Mexican officials, an applicant must present a birth certificate or other
document demonstrating Mexican citizenship, an identification document with a
picture, and proof of a local address by some means, such as a utility bill.2 According
to the Mexican Embassy, about 1,440,000 high security cards had been issued by
May 30, 2003, although some of the recipients were exchanging old cards for the new
ones.
Acceptance of the Matrícula Consular
In recent years, and especially since September 2001, Mexican consulates in the
United States and other interested parties have worked to gain acceptance of the
matrícula consular as identification for a variety of purposes. These efforts have met
with considerable success. According to testimony presented at a June 2003 House
hearing, the matrícula consular is now accepted as valid identification by 402
localities, 32 counties, 122 financial institutions, and 908 law enforcement offices.3
It is also accepted by numerous telephone and utility companies, hospitals, and video
stores, among other establishments. In addition, the matrícula consular reportedly
can be used to help obtain a driver’s license in about a dozen states.
Some entities, however, have decided against accepting the cards. Citing
security concerns, the New York City Police Department has declined to recognize
the matrícula consular. The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles has also
refused requests to add the matrícula consular to its list of acceptable identity
documents for obtaining a driver’s license. In Colorado, a recently enacted law states
that public entities can accept only identification documents that are issued by a state
or federal jurisdiction or that are recognized by the U.S. government.
At the federal level, the Treasury Department, along with other agencies, issued
final regulations on May 9, 2003, setting forth the identifying information that banks
had to obtain, at a minimum, from a customer prior to opening an account.4 Section
1 (...continued)
Foreign Ministry logo on the pouch, infrared band over a bi-dimensional bar code, one-of-
kind Advantage Seal, and micro-text visible only with special lenses.
2 Critics charge that consular officials have wide discretion in deciding which documents
to accept and can issue cards to applicants without any documents.
3 See testimony of Marti Dinerstein, citing the Mexican government as the source of
information.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security and Claims, oversight hearing on The Issuance, Acceptance,
and Reliability of Consular Identification Cards, June 19, 2003.
4 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Federal Reserve System, Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation, National Credit Union Administration. Customer Identification Programs for
Banks, Savings Associations, Credit Unions and Certain Non-Federally Regulated Banks.
Federal Register, vol. 68, no. 90, May 9, 2003, pp. 25089-25113.
For additional
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
326 of the USA PATRIOT ACT (P.L. 107-56) directed the Treasury Department to
prescribe such regulations. Under the May 2003 regulations, the required customer
information includes an identification number.
For non-U.S. persons, this
identification number can be one or more of four specified numbers, one being the
“number and country of issuance of [a] government-issued document evidencing
nationality or residence and bearing a photograph or similar safeguard.”5 The rule
became effective on June 9, 2003, and banks must be in compliance by October 1,
2003. In an October 2002 report to Congress also mandated by Section 326 of the
Patriot Act, which referenced the regulations in proposed form, the Treasury
Department specifically addressed the matrícula consular. A footnote in the report
stated: “Thus, the proposed regulations do not discourage bank acceptance of the
‘matricula consular’ identity card that is being issued by the Mexican government to
immigrants.”6
Following publication of the final rule in May 2003, the Treasury Department
re-opened the question of accepting certain forms of foreign government-issued
identification to verify customer identity. On July 1, 2003, it published a notice of
inquiry in the Federal Register requesting additional input on this issue, as well as
on recordkeeping provisions.7 In the notice, it posed a series of questions about
whether the regulations should preclude financial institutions from accepting certain
forms of foreign government-issued identification. The notice further indicated that
after the comments had been considered a determination would be made about
whether to propose amendments to the May 2003 regulations. On September 18,
2003, the Treasury Department announced that after reviewing over 34,000
comments, it had decided not to recommend any changes to the rules.8
4 (...continued)
information on this subject, see CRS Report RS21547, Financial Institution Customer
Identification Programs Mandated by the USA PATRIOT Act, by M. Maureen Murphy.
5 Ibid., p. 25109. According to the section-by-section analysis of the rule: “Treasury and
the Agencies emphasize that the final rule neither endorses nor prohibits bank acceptance
of information from particular types of identification documents issued by foreign
governments. A bank must decide for itself ... whether the information presented by the
customer is reliable.” Ibid., p. 25098.
6 U.S. Department of the Treasury, A Report to Congress in Accordance with §326(b) of the
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept
and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA PATRIOT ACT), Oct. 21, 2002. p. 16 (footnote
17).
7 U.S. Department of the Treasury, “Customer Identification Programs for Financial
Institutions,” Federal Register, vol. 68, no. 126, July 1, 2003. pp. 39039-39041.
8 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Public Affairs, Treasury Announces Results
of PATRIOT ACT Section 326 Notice of Inquiry, Sept. 18, 2003.
Available at
[http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/js743.htm], visited Sept. 23, 2003. On the question
of accepting foreign government-issued identification documents, the press release stated:
“Treasury concluded that the risk-based approach taken by the final rules, combined with
the ability to notify financial institutions if concerns arise with specific identification
documents, provide an ample mechanism to address any security concerns.”

---

CRS-4
Further developments on the acceptance of consular identification cards are
possible.
A federal interagency working group chaired by the White House
Homeland Security Council, with representatives from various executive branch
agencies, is in the process of developing recommendations for a federal policy on
acceptance of these cards and guidance to state and local government agencies and
other entities on acceptance.
Domestic Policy Implications
The acceptance of the matrícula consular for various purposes by the Treasury
Department and by local governments and other public and private entities in the
United States has raised a number of controversial questions for U.S. domestic
policy. The possible domestic policy implications — as well as foreign policy
implications — were discussed at two June 2003 oversight hearings on consular
identification cards held by the House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on
Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.9
Domestic policy questions about
acceptance of the matrícula consular fall mainly in the overlapping areas of
immigration, public safety and law enforcement, and homeland security.10
Immigration
In important respects, the debate over the matrícula consular is a debate about
how to address the issue of unauthorized immigration to the United States. Those
who support domestic acceptance of the matrícula consular emphasize that the card
is issued solely for identification purposes and does not confer any type of legal
immigration status on the bearer. They maintain that acceptance of the card is
necessary in a post-September 11, 2001 America in which photo identification is
required to conduct daily business. Some supporters address the unauthorized
immigration issue more directly, arguing that it is time to acknowledge that there are
millions of unauthorized aliens living and working in the United States and to take
steps to more fully integrate them into society.
Opponents of domestic acceptance of the matrícula consular argue that the card
is needed only by aliens who are illegally present in the United States and do not
possess other acceptable identification documents. They maintain that the matrícula
consular helps unauthorized Mexicans live and conduct business in the United States
by, for example, enabling them to open bank accounts. In so aiding illegal aliens,
9 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border
Security, and Claims, oversight hearing on The Issuance, Acceptance, and Reliability of
Consular Identification Cards, June 19, 2003 (hereafter cited as House Judiciary, Issuance,
Acceptance, and Reliability of Consular Identification Cards.); U.S. Congress, House
Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims,
oversight hearing on The Federal Government’s Response to the Issuance and Acceptance
in the U.S. of Consular Identification Cards, June 26, 2003. (Hereafter cited as House
Judiciary, The Federal Government’s Response.)
10 Policy questions in the area of banking and finance are covered in this report only to the
extent that they relate to these three areas.

---

CRS-5
opponents charge, the card effectively confers quasi-legal status on them in
subversion of U.S. immigration law.
They view efforts to gain widespread
acceptance of the card as part of a larger strategy to legalize the status of
unauthorized Mexicans in the United States. More broadly, opponents argue that
acceptance of the matrícula consular has negative implications for the country’s
ability to set future immigration policy.
Public Safety and Law Enforcement
Public safety and law enforcement figure prominently in the debate surrounding
domestic acceptance of the matrícula consular. Supporters argue that the card is a
secure, fraud-resistant document that reliably identifies the bearer. Mexican officials
maintain that the documents presented to obtain the card are properly authenticated.
With respect to verifying birth certificates, the primary document used to obtain a
matrícula consular, the Mexican Embassy has said that consular staff work closely
with document registries in Mexico when they have any doubts about the legitimacy
of a birth certificate.
Supporters take the position that acceptance of the matrícula consular by law
enforcement agencies improves public safety by, for example, helping police officers
identify witnesses, victims, and suspects. If individuals do not possess acceptable
identification, they explain, law enforcement agencies must expend time and
resources to try to identify them.
Supporters also maintain that aliens with
identification are more likely to report crimes and cooperate in police investigations.
Supporters further argue that acceptance of the matrícula consular by entities
other than law enforcement agencies has public safety benefits. As an example, they
cite acceptance of the card by financial institutions to open bank accounts. They
maintain that individuals who are able to deposit their money in banks do not have
to carry around large amounts of cash or keep large sums in their homes and, thus,
are less likely to become crime victims.
Opponents of domestic acceptance of the matrícula consular challenge the
assertion that the card is a secure document. They argue that despite its fraud-
resistant features, the card is not secure because the underlying documentation used
to obtain it is not properly authenticated. They express particular concern about the
Mexican birth certificate, which, they say, is easily forged. Opponents of domestic
acceptance of the matrícula consular assert that the authentication process relies on
visual inspection of documents by Mexican consular personnel, which, they claim,
is inadequate. They also argue that there is no mechanism to prevent the issuance of
multiple cards to the same person. They cite cases in which a single individual has
been found with multiple cards, each containing the individual’s photograph but a
different name.
Opponents argue that acceptance of the matrícula consular by law enforcement
agencies threatens public safety. They maintain that in cases of minor infractions,
police departments that recognize the card are not conducting background checks or
taking fingerprints of card holders. Given this practice, opponents argue, the card
helps conceal past criminal activity. They further speculate that the acceptance of the

---

CRS-6
matrícula consular by the police will encourage drug traffickers and other criminals
to obtain the cards.
The potential use of the matrícula consular to establish false identities is of great
concern to opponents. They argue that cards issued to individuals under false names
can be, and have been, used to obtain driver’s licenses and other documents in those
names to create multiple identities. According to opponents, individuals can use
these false identities to facilitate criminal acts, such as money laundering and alien
smuggling, and to avoid detection by authorities.
Homeland Security
Supporters of domestic acceptance of the matrícula consular argue that the card
improves homeland security by enabling the authorities to easily and accurately
identify Mexican nationals in the United States. They maintain that individuals who
are isolated and marginalized pose a greater potential security threat than those who
are known. They emphasize that Mexico is not a terrorist-supporting country and
that Mexicans come to the United States to work, not to commit terrorist acts.
Opponents argue that domestic acceptance of the card threatens homeland
security. According to June 2003 congressional testimony by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), “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 in the United States without triggering name-
based watch lists.” The FBI also expressed concern about the possible use of false
identities to transfer funds to support terrorist acts.11 In arguing against acceptance
of the matrícula consular on security grounds, opponents state that the lax issuance
procedures have enabled non-Mexicans, including at least one known individual of
Middle Eastern descent, to obtain valid cards.12 They further contend that accepting
the Mexican consular card sets a dangerous precedent, since other less friendly
countries may decide to issue consular identification cards to their nationals in the
United States.
Foreign Policy Implications
The foreign policy implications of the matrícula consular may be viewed under
three main headings: the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship, reciprocity of treatment
of citizens abroad, and consular notification in law enforcement situations.
11 See House Judiciary, The Federal Government’s Response, hearing testimony of Steven
McCraw, Assistant Director of the FBI’s Office of Intelligence.
12 In his testimony, Steven McCraw mentioned the arrest of an Iranian man attempting to
enter the United States from Mexico who was carrying a matrícula consular card identifying
him as a Mexican citizen.

---

CRS-7
Bilateral Relations
During the recent Mexican presidential campaign, the major candidates
discovered that the status of Mexican migrants in the United States was one of the
top concerns among the Mexican people. A large portion of the population has a
relative in the United States, and there is widespread concern about the plight of
migrants who die enroute, or are exploited in some way in the United States.
As a result, when President Fox of the conservative National Action Party
(PAN) was elected in July 2000 and inaugurated in December 2000, he began
pressing proposals with the United States for legalizing undocumented Mexican
workers in the United States through amnesty or guest worker arrangements, while
offering improved relations in other areas, including trade, drug control, and foreign
policy cooperation. When President Bush met with President Fox in mid-February
2001, the two Presidents agreed to hold cabinet-level negotiations to address
migration and labor issues between the countries. When President Fox visited
Washington, in early September 2001, the Presidents pledged to reach agreement as
soon as possible on a range of issues, including border safety, a temporary worker
program, and the status of undocumented Mexicans in the United States. However,
following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, many policymakers called for tighter
border controls, and the migration talks stalled, despite assertions in a presidential
meeting in Monterrey, Mexico, in March 2002, and in the cabinet-level Binational
Commission meetings in November 2002 that the talks would continue.13
Given the lack of progress on the bilateral migration talks, some observers have
argued that the Mexican government’s campaign to issue consular identification
cards was a way to provide limited benefits to the migrant population in the United
States, giving them access to banking services, permitting them to transfer money to
Mexico at cheaper rates through established institutions, and permitting them to have
more normal access to regular activities in the United States. Supporters of the
matrícula consular argue that by improving the lives of Mexican citizens the card has
improved the relationship between the United States and Mexico, despite falling
short of the desired migration agreement. They cite improved bilateral cooperation
in many areas, most notably in enhanced Mexican efforts to control drug trafficking
activities, to cooperate on border control plans, and to deploy soldiers to secure
access points to the United States during the war in Iraq, although Mexico favored
a more multilateral approach to that problem. These supporters argue that restricting
the issuance and acceptance of the identity cards might have an adverse effect on the
bilateral relationship between the countries. Opponents of the matrícula consular
may acknowledge that the card has improved bilateral relations to some extent, but
they argue that regulations covering issuance and acceptance are required to achieve
the more important U.S. goals of control of immigration policy and defense against
a possible threat of terrorism.
They argue that Mexican officials have been
inappropriately involved in the domestic affairs of the United States when they have
promoted acceptance of the card.
13 For more information on the bilateral relationship, see CRS Report RL31876, Mexico-U.S.
Relations: Issues for the 108th Congress, by K. Larry Storrs.

---

CRS-8
Reciprocal Treatment
As indicated above, it is traditional practice for consulates abroad, including
U.S. consulates, to register and maintain some record of their nationals abroad for the
purpose of notifying and protecting them. This practice is recognized and protected
under international law through the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of
1963, which provides that states will accord this right to each other on a reciprocal
basis.14 In addition, it is traditional practice for many institutions in one country to
accept the official documents of another country for a variety of transactions, such
as accepting a U.S. driver’s license for driving automobiles in Mexico.
According to Roberta Jacobson, the Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
for Western Hemisphere Affairs, in testimony at a June 2003 House Immigration
Subcommittee hearing on consular identification cards, the Department of State
“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,” she
counseled, “the actions of American citizens abroad could be seriously restricted.”15
Proponents of the matrícula consular argue that the United States should accept
the card, so that the U.S. government will receive reciprocal treatment in the issuance
of identification cards abroad, and Mexico and any other foreign state will recognize
the documents of U.S. citizens for a variety of activities. Critics of the matrícula
consular rarely comment on this aspect, but may argue that U.S. documents would
continue to be recognized by foreign states, even if U.S. acceptance of the matrícula
consular were to be restricted, because they facilitate tourism and the transaction of
highly-desired business.
Consular Notification
In her June 2003 testimony, State Department official Jacobson mentioned
another benefit of consular identification cards, namely that they facilitate the
notification by U.S. law enforcement officers of foreign consulates when foreign
nationals are detained for suspected illegal activity. The Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations provides that foreign nationals who are arrested or detained have
a right to protection and assistance from their own consulates. It establishes that the
detaining state is required to inform the detainee of his or her right to request that the
relevant consular officials be notified of the detention without delay. Consular
notification is relatively easy when the detainee is carrying a card that identifies him
as a national of another state, but it is difficult, and not always achieved, when the
detainee lacks any documentation, and his identity, relatives, and nationality are
14 For further information on this subject, see CRS Report RS21627, Implications of the
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations upon the Regulation of Consular Identification
Cards, by Michael John Garcia.
15 See House Judiciary, The Federal Government’s Response, hearing testimony of Roberta
S. Jacobson, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Western
Hemisphere Affairs.

---

CRS-9
unknown and often withheld out of fear. According to Ms. Jacobson, consular
notification is a very serious issue for the Department of State, and it is “working
assiduously to ensure U.S. compliance,” in part so that U.S. consulates will be
informed when U.S. citizens are detained abroad.
Consular notification is a major issue for the Mexican government. For years,
Mexican officials have been complaining about Mexican citizens who they claim
were executed or who are awaiting execution in the United States without the benefit
of consular assistance and adequate defense because the consulates were never
notified. In mid-August 2002, President Fox was reported to have cancelled his
August 26-28 trip to Texas and his meeting with President Bush in Crawford to
protest the execution by Texas authorities of convicted police killer Javier Suarez
Medina despite Mexican claims that he was a Mexican citizen who was never
afforded Mexican consular assistance. In January 2003, Mexico brought a case
against the United States in the International Court of Justice on behalf of 54
Mexican citizens sentenced to death in the United States, charging that U.S. officials
have violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by systematically failing
to inform Mexicans of their right to consular assistance under the treaty. U.S.
officials argued that the sheer number of Mexican nationals in prison and the
multiplicity of local law enforcement agencies make it difficult to comply in all
cases. In early February 2003, the International Court ordered the United States to
take all measures necessary to prevent the approaching executions of three Mexican
citizens pending the final judgment of the Court to be issued at a later date.16
Proponents of the matrícula consular argue that consular identification cards
make it easier for U.S. law enforcement officials to notify consulates of the detention
of foreign nationals, and thereby improve the likelihood that U.S. citizens under
arrest abroad will have the benefit of consular notification and protection. In the case
of Mexico, achieving a better record on consular notification would remove a major
irritant in the bilateral relationship. Opponents of consular identification cards would
argue that there should be other means and other indications of identity that would
permit law enforcement officials to adhere to the consular notification obligations,
without establishing a system, which, in their view, provides non-legislated
immigration benefits.
Legislation in the 108th Congress
Legislation related to consular identification cards is before the 108th Congress.
One measure to place restrictions on the issuance of these cards has been passed by
the House.
The other pending measures concern acceptance of consular
identification cards by U.S. federal government entities, and acceptance of the cards
for banking purposes.
16 International Court of Justice, Press Release 2003/9, Case Concerning Avena and Other
Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Feb. 5,
2003.

---

CRS-10
Measure to Restrict Issuance of Consular Cards
On July 15, 2003, the House approved an amendment sponsored by
Representatives John Hostettler, Elton Gallegly, and Thomas Tancredo to restrict and
set conditions on the issuance of consular identification cards by foreign missions in
the United States. In floor action on the “Foreign Relations Authorization Act for
FY2004-2005" (H.R. 1950), the House voted, 226 to198, to accept House
Amendment No. 246, which was added to the bill as Section 232. The amendment
would establish a series of restrictions on the issuance of consular identification cards
by foreign missions. It would direct the Secretary of State to issue regulations
requiring foreign missions to: (1) notify the Secretary of each consular identification
card issued in the United States, including the name and address of each recipient;
(2) issue cards only to bona fide nationals of the country; (3) maintain complete and
accurate records of all cards issued and do so in an automated system that can be
accessed to prevent duplicate or fraudulent issuance; (4) require card recipients to
notify the mission of any change of address; and (5) make available the records of all
cards issued for audit and review at the request of the Secretary. If the Secretary of
State determined that a foreign mission had violated these regulations and that such
violation threatened national security or facilitated fraudulent or criminal acts, the
Secretary would notify the relevant government that the mission must suspend
issuance of consular identification cards until it was in compliance. If the foreign
mission failed to suspend issuance of the cards, the State Department would cease
issuance of immigrant or non-immigrant visas, or both, to nationals of that country
until the mission was in compliance with the regulations.
Supporters of these proposed restrictions argue that foreign governments have
been issuing consular identification cards in the United States for purposes other than
those intended by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, namely to
circumvent U.S. immigration law, and that the issuance of the cards should be subject
to U.S. regulation. They argue that the cards are not a reliable form of identification
because the Mexican government has no automated and secure system to assure that
the cards are not forged or shared, or issued to more than one individual or to
individuals relying on fraudulent documents. They further argue that the cards are
susceptible to being used to establish false identities that may facilitate money-
laundering, alien smuggling, and terrorist activity.
Opponents of the proposed restrictions argue that the restrictions are directed
against consular identification cards in general, the Mexican matrícula consular in
particular, and persons of Hispanic heritage. They argue that the requirements,
especially the requirements that the records be given to the United States and be
subject to audit by the United States, pose unreasonable restrictions on a foreign
government’s right under the Vienna Convention to register and monitor its nationals
abroad. They further argue that the penalties for non-compliance are extremely
onerous. To the extent that the issuance of the matrícula consular has been viewed
as improving Mexico-U.S. bilateral relations, the House-passed restrictions would
likely be seen as harming the bilateral relationship. The restrictions would also be
viewed by opponents as making consular notification more difficult, and raising the
possibility that reciprocal action by other nations might harm the U.S. government’s
ability to register and monitor U.S. nationals abroad.

---

CRS-11
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards by U.S. Federal
Entities
Two bills would restrict acceptance of consular identification cards by federal
entities. H.R. 502, introduced by Representative Tancredo, would prohibit entities
of the federal government, in providing federal public benefits or services that require
the recipient to produce identification, from accepting any identification document,
unless the document was issued by a federal or state authority and subject to
verification by the federal government. H.R. 502 has been referred to the House
Committees on Government Reform, House Administration, and Judiciary, and to
the Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security.
H.R. 687, introduced by Representative Gallegly, would prohibit federal
employees from accepting, for purposes of establishing identity, forms of
identification issued by foreign governments. The bill would exempt passports from
the prohibition if federal law authorized passports to be used for a specific purpose
on the date of enactment. H.R. 687 has been referred to the House Committees on
Government Reform, House Administration, and Judiciary, and to the Judiciary
Committee’s Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.
Measures on Acceptance of Consular Cards for Banking
Purposes
Two measures concern acceptance of consular identification cards for banking
purposes. H.R. 773, introduced by Representative Ruben Hinojosa, would direct the
Treasury Secretary to prescribe regulations authorizing financial institutions to accept
a matrícula consular issued by the Mexican government as a valid form of
identification for opening an account.
Among the findings in the bill is the
following: “Accepting matricula consular as a form of identification allows Mexican
immigrants to enter the financial mainstream and provides banks and other financial
institutions with a new, fast-growing market.” H.R. 773 has been referred to the
House Financial Services Committee and its Subcommittee on Financial Institutions
and Consumer Credit.
H.J.Res. 58, introduced by Representative Tancredo, would disapprove and
rescind the final Treasury Department regulations issued on May 9, 2003 (discussed
above).17 One “whereas” clause states that the Treasury Department rules “permit
financial institutions to accept certain unverifiable forms of identification from ‘non-
United States persons’ in direct violation of the clear intent of Congress ... [in] the
USA PATRIOT Act,” while another states that “there is abundant evidence of the
non-verifiable and unreliable nature of identification documents issued by foreign
governments to foreign nationals residing within the United States, including the
‘Matricula Consular’ card.”
H.J.Res. 58 has also been referred to the House
Financial Services Committee and its Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and
Consumer Credit
17 H.J.Res. 58 references final rules issued by the Treasury Department on Apr. 30, 2003.
In a telephone conversation on Aug. 20, 2003, however, Representative Tancredo’s office
confirmed that the date should read “May 9, 2003.”

---