Forcing banks to collect citizenship data will hurt law-abiding Americans

There are recent reports that the Trump administration is considering issuing an executive order or Treasury Department action requiring banks to collect customer nationality information. This can include collecting documents such as passports for existing customers, not just new account holders. This is not “tightening the rules”. It’s a sweeping expansion of federal data collection that would raise costs for banks and customers, shrink access to basic banking services and push more activity into the shadows.

The intent may be to address Illegal immigration Tighten enforcement, but this approach treats banks as an alternative to an effective immigration system. Washington’s struggle to consistently enforce immigration policy does not justify shifting the burden to financial institutions and law-abiding Americans. Expanding government access to private financial relationships is not a solution to immigration failure. Immigration policy reform is. Offloading implementation costs onto banks is just another way politicians shift blame and hide the price.

Banks are already operating under serious identity verification mandates. Federal Customer Identification Program requirements under 31 CFR 1020.220 require banks to collect identifying information and use risk-based procedures to verify identity so that they can form a “reasonable belief” that they know a customer’s true identity. Identity verification is already the law. This proposal adds a separate new layer: the broad classification of citizenship.

That means Unexpected costs imposed on people who already comply with the law. Banks will need new systems, new staff training, new suppliers, new audits, and new processes for handling exceptions for customers who cannot meet the new requirements immediately. Compliance costs do not stay with the bank. It shows up in higher fees, fewer low-cost accounts, and worse service.

It also means more friction just to participate in the modern economy. A “nationality information” mandate would make it more difficult for people to open accounts and could impose sweeping new documentation obligations on existing customers. Simply put, this is a regulatory landmine. When regulators increase penalties for mistakes they make, banks are forced to become more conservative about who they can serve and to do so at a higher cost.

And this is how bank breakups get worse. President Trump’s executive order — Ensuring Fair Banking for All Americans — sought to address the root cause of this very problem by undoing government regulatory overreach that led to account closures at financial institutions across the country. A new nationwide citizenship data mandate will only reinforce the same dynamics that force banks to close accounts rather than risk exposure to compliance errors.

now, Privacy problem. This proposal would require financial institutions to collect and transfer large amounts of highly sensitive personal information. The larger the data set, the larger the goal. More assembly and more transport creates more points of failure along with increased risk of hacking, internal misuse, and mission creep. Once the federal government builds the pipeline, it will not be limited to the original justification.

Senate Republicans push to deport fraudsters and strip them of their citizenship amid Minnesota scandal

Conservatives have for years opposed government interference in personal finance matters, including… States that force private disclosure To the government. The battle over beneficial ownership reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act is a recent example of how quickly “fighting crime” justifications can transform into a widespread surveillance architecture. Requiring banks to collect citizenship information on hundreds of millions of customers would amount to a broader expansion of federal data collection than small businesses are being asked to accept.

The burden will not be distributed equally. Many Americans do not have passports or easy access to official documents. The Washington Post reports that nearly half the population lacks a passport, and banking industry experts warn that this requirement could restrict access to financial services and push people toward more expensive options. Older adults, rural residents, and low-income individuals are most likely to fall into these gears. For rural communities, the challenge is worse because documentation offices and support services are far away and difficult to reach.

Click here for more Fox News opinions

This leads to the most devastating outcome of all: forcing people out of traditional banking. When compliance barriers rise, people don’t stop earning, spending and saving. They go around the system. This means more cash-based activities and more informal transactions, making it more difficult to detect financial crimes and reducing transparency. That’s why heavy financial mandates often backfire. It can push legitimate activity away from institutions where patterns can be observed, and toward channels where law enforcement officials see little, not more.

Click here to download the FOX NEWS app

This is not an argument for weak enforcement of the current law. It is an argument for Executing the implementation the right wayusing targeted tools that target bad actors, not building an ever-expanding ledger through the all-encompassing banking system. Banks exist to protect deposits and allocate capital, not to become a nationwide citizenship checkpoint.

If Washington wants a safer and more lawful system, it must start with policies that increase compliance when it matters and reduce compliance burdens when it does not matter. This proposal does the opposite: it punishes conformists, expands government reach, and makes the system less transparent by alienating people from it.

Related article