Morning, Manny,

This ain't going to be a popular comment on a Latino site, and I struggled for quite awhile in determining whether I should even post it. But, seeing as you welcome open dialogue...here goes nothing...

As someone who spent many years conducting money laundering investigations, most of the items you've mentioned about identification have long been in place in other venues. For example, even though I've been close friends with my financial advisor for many decades, I had to give him a copy of my driver's license, as all investors do, no matter of their color. If regulatory agengies conduct surprise audits of financial advisors or sales offices (as they often do) the advisors damn well better be able to produce copies of each client's drivers license and every tiny piece of minutia about the client's overall finances.

In contrast to the legislation you've quoted, it wasn't an attack on the little guys, or vulnerable immigrants. In fact, the regulators are more interested in the big-buck clients, who have lots of activity taking place in their investments, with money moving from institution to institution, and large amounts flowing in and out of their holdings. (In most instances, there were very good explanations for the money movement, such as farmers who received cash payments for their crops, and later needed to pull the money to cover operating expenses.)

While I strongly agree with you about the medical services, and the treatment of U.S. born children, I just wanted to mention that the addendums related to personal identification - whether right or wrong, and albeit, seeming to have quite the "big brother" undertone to them - are in alignment with long-term regulations in the financial industry.

Just wanted to throw that out there for your consideration.

good day!
-a
anomalous | 02.20.07 - 6:46 am | #

Isn't our state great? Somebody save from this place.
XP | Homepage | 02.20.07 - 1:53 pm | #