In early October of 2002, Denver Mayor Wellington Webb, without debate and public comment, ordered various City and County departments to accept the Mexican matricula consular ID card as valid identification. The Denver-based Mexican consulate had already issued 8,000 of the $29 cards between June and October, amounting to one every five minutes during normal office hours.

U.S. Congressman Tom Tancredo, an outspoken critic of illegal immigration, said, "The only people who benefit from having such an ID are those who have come illegally and have broken our laws. It is ludicrous to believe that this method is a legitimate way of proving identity. Frankly, it's a complete farce, and it's far too risky for our city government to be accepting such flimsy identification cards during a time when our nation is vulnerable to future terrorist attacks."

Mayor Webb asserted the Mexican consulate imposes a "high degree of proof of identification" to issue the card. Mayor Webb also said, "The nice thing about having the card that's given out by the Mexican consulate is you have a way to determine which ones (Mexicans) are here legally, because they're the ones who get the card, the others do not." Nothing could be more deceiving. (See the guest opinion Lo, the emperor's Mexican ID card).

CAIRCO's Mike McGarry remarked in a November 22, 2002 Denver Post story: "Who would have a Matricula card? By definition, they are almost all going to be illegal aliens. The mayor is asking us to give full faith and credit to an amazingly corrupt government. It's absurd that we would put our security and our document integrity in their hands. These are phony, sham cards."

Colorado activity against the Matricula Consular ID card

1. CAIRCO took the following actions:
   • On October 31, 2002, CAIRCO hand-delivered a letter of intent to Denver Mayor Wellington Webb. For more information, see:
      
     Press release, October 31, 2002.
      
     Open records request to the City and County of Denver.
      
     CAIRCOLetter to U.S. Attorney.
      
     Notification of INS regarding enforcement of clear violations of U.S. immigration law in a Denver-based hiring hall.
   • An independent group of citizens in Boulder took action against that city's possible action to accept matricula consular ID cards.
      
     A letter of objection was filed with the Mayor and City Council of Boulder, Colorado at the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, stating "Your actions may possibly put you, and elected and appointed officials, and public servants, in legal jeopardy both personally and professionally."
      
     A substantial letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
      
     In addition, the letter was filed with the city's liability insurance company, since it is likely that the city's policy does not cover personal liability arising from accepting the matricula consular ID card.
      
     An open records request was filed on January 16, 2003.
2. Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement (FILE), based in Washington, DC, wrote letters to numerous City and County and other municipalities throughout Colorado, insisting that they stop accepting the matricula consular card.
    
   Increasing use of the card amounts to a "stealth amnesty" for illegal aliens, and that local governments are essentially determining immigration policy, which is in fact under constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government.
    
   FILE was instrumental the effort to initiate Colorado HB-1224, which was signed into law in May, 2003 - see below.
    
3. Colorado Representative Don Lee and Senator John Andrews announced their sponsorship of a bill (The Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act) that would make illegal the accepting of the Mexican matricula consular ID card and other "unsecured" IDs. See CAIRCO's press release.
    
   The bill was amended by the Senate and iterated through a House-Senate Conference Committee to develop final wording. See CAIRCO's letter to Senator Andrews and Representative Lee, co-sponsors of the bill, regarding the amendment.
    
   This bill was signed into law on May 22, 2003. To view the history of the bill, go to the Colorado Government legislative information site and enter "1224" as the bill number. (A new browser window will open).
    
   See testimony by CAIRCO co-director Fred Elbel and testimony by CAIRCO spokesperson Marlene Guerrero. Also see former Governor Dick Lamm's letter of support for HB-1224.
4. On January 30, 2003, Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) introduced H.R. 502 - legislation requiring that identification used to obtain federal public benefits or services, including law enforcement services, meet restrictions ensuring that it is secure and verifiable. This bill would prohibit any federal agency, commission, or other entity within any branch of the federal government from accepting, recognizing, or relying on any identification document not issued by a federal or state authority or issued without verification by a federal law enforcement, intelligence, or homeland security agency. (See this article for more information).
5. The General Services Administration has suspended recognition of identification cards issued by the Mexican government to its nationals in this country. (See this article for more information).

Video of matricula ID card debate

On January 8 & 9, 2003, CAIRCO proudly cosponsored syndicated columnist and investigative journalist, Michelle Malkin in various appearances including a public debate and discussion: The Mexican "matricula consular" ID card: Safe or Sorry?.
CAIRCO produced a video tape of this lively, informative and very timely debate. We encourage you to order the debate video and get it as much exposure as possible, including showing it to elected officials!

We distributed the video to public access television stations throughout Colorado. If you would like a professional quality format of this video for broadcast, please contact us.

Excerpt of testimony given by CAIRCO co-director Fred Elbel

Talking points from testimony given to Colorado House IT Committee on HB 1224 on February 10, 2003

• The Mexican matricula consular ID card is a complete farce. It's issued by a corrupt government sneaking around behind closed doors to get our cities to accept the card - without citizen input.
• It's a back door attempt at a stealth amnesty. Roberto Rodriguez Hernandez, director of the Mexican card program was quoted as saying "It's necessary to push the need for an amnesty at all levels."
• This card is not a secure document. The Denver Mexican consulate has issued cards at the rate of one every five minutes. The documents upon which the card depends - including a Mexican birth certificate - are about as easy to forge as homework.
• Only illegals need this card. Nearly one million cards were issued last year and more than 42,000 Mexicans in Colorado now have cards.
• Mexican President Fox couldn't get new amnesties after September 11, so he began lobbying U.S. cities and banks to accept the cards.
• No major bank in Mexico accepts the card to open an account. And the cards are recognized as IDs in only 10 of Mexico's 32 states and districts.
• Now, Guatemala, Honduras, Poland, Peru and El Salvador, aware of Mexico's success, have begun or are considering issuing cards of their own.
• Insurance companies probably won't cover liability associated with the card. So if a city accepts the card and a citizen is injured by an illegal alien, the citizen could likely sue individual city council members.
• The author of a new Center for Immigration Studies report IDs for Illegals stated: "Mexico's marketing of its consular cards is a direct challenge to U.S. sovereignty."
• "The matricula card is making the Mexican consular office one of the largest vendors of fraudulent document documents in the country. No politician or professional law enforcement officer faithful to his or her oath of office would promote or condone acceptance of the matricula as a form of officially sanctioned identification." - Federation for American Immigration Reform's Law Enforcement Advisory Council Jim Dorcy, a 30-year veteran of the Border Patrol, INS, Department of Justice Inspector General's Office, and expert in fraudulent documents and government ethics.
• It's absurd that we would put our security and our document integrity in the hands of a foreign government.
• The FBI and the Justice Department testified in the U.S. Congress that accepting the matricula card and similar IDs posed a dangerous threat because they are issued on the strength of unsecured documents and because of the absence of verifiability.
• Jorge Castaneda, the former Foreign Minister of Mexico, testified before a Senate Committee on July 13, 2005 that Mexico cannot verify the true identities of people to whom it has issued Matricula consular ID documents.

Additional Matricular Consular ID information

See CAIRCO's catalog of articles on the matricula card - these contain useful background information.

Also see these two articles border security issues: Afghanistan Illegal Surfaces Locally and 'Arab terrorists' crossing border.

See the new Center for Immigration Studies report IDs for Illegals - Mexico's Matricula Consular Facilitates Illegal Immigration.

A December, 2002 Denver Channel 7 poll shows that out of 3271 voters, 87% think the city of Denver should not recognize Mexican ID cards for legal, and illegal, aliens as legitimate identification.

Article: Abolishing America (contd.): Mexico Ceded Right To Say Whom U.S. Can Deport, By Allan Wall, on the very informative VDARE website.

Issue brief: The Mexican Matricula Consular Should Not Be Accepted for Official Purposes, by FAIR.

Mexi-Sham ID FAQ from American Patrol website.

Good background information on Immigration and the Law.

Consular ID Cards in a Post-9/11 World - Testimony of Steve McCraw, Assistant Director of The Office of Intelligence, FBI Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims on Consular ID Cards, June 26, 2003

Matricula toolkit for activists in other states

We have been quite successful in opposing the efforts of the Mexican government to influence Colorado cities and municipalities. We have put together an activist toolkit for you to use. This toolkit explains what we have done and offers tips and techniques to achieve success. More information.

CAIRCO's three main arguments against accepting the matricula consular card

1. It is a sham card, issued on the strength of unverified, dubious documents by agents of a corrupt foreign government. The U.S. Government has done an extensive amount of research on the Mexican Matricula Consular card to assess its viability as a reliable means of identification. The ID card does not reliably identify its holder. The Mexican government makes no attempt, nor does it have the capacity, to verify the documents required to issue the card, thus rendering the card worthless. The Department of Justice and the FBI have concluded that the matricula card is not a reliable, and is therefore a dangerous, form of identification, due to the non-existence of any means of verifying the true identity of the card holder.
    
   However, that hasn't stopped Mexican officials from continuing to misrepresent the value of the card. In an Associated Press story, Mexico's Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez was reported to have said said, "The new IDs have all the safety elements of the most secure documents in the United States and Mexico," adding that Mexico conducts thorough background checks to verify that none of the migrants has a criminal record or represents a security threat.
    
   Hoping to convince California to officially adopt the matricula card, Derbez said, "I'm convinced that once we have demonstrated this (to California), the concerns will be resolved" and it could lead to legislation requiring acceptance of the IDs statewide."
2. Handing over the integrity of our ID-issuing responsibilities to foreign countries sets a dangerous precedent, especially since the Mexican government is one of the most corrupt in Latin America. Just recently, a former Mexican consul was arrested for helping a smuggling ring move Arab illegals into the US. In Denver, INS officials arrested one man who was in possession of three matricula cards, each with a different name but with his picture on each. The same consulate issued all three. Other countries (Honduras, Peru, Poland etc.) are now demanding the same privileges for their illegals residing in the US.
3. Polls show Americans in huge percentages and across racial, class and ethnic lines do not want accommodations, including the ID card, made to the presence of illegals; they want illegals repatriated. In addition, there is a body of legal opinion that convincingly argues that accepting the card violates several federal statutes, including those statues that define immigration-related matters as the exclusive prerogative of the federal government.

Frequently Asked Questions on the Matricula Consular

Below are CAIRCO'S responses to the some of the typical questions and claims made on behalf of accepting the card.

Prepared by Mike McGarry

Toolkit for activists in other states

We have been quite successful in opposing the efforts of the Mexican government to influence Colorado cities and municipalities. We have put together an activist toolkit for you to use. This toolkit explains what we have done and offers tips and techniques to achieve success. See Matricula ID activist toolkit.

This activist toolkit is designed to help you expose and halt the Mexican government's meddling in the political affairs of U.S. cities and municipalities.

The Mexican consulate operates by quietly lobbying cities to adopt the matricula consular ID card without public discussion and citizen input.

We have had great successes in Colorado opposing the Mexican government's attempts to have the matricula counsular ID card accepted as legitimate ID. This activist toolkit is an outline of our efforts in Colorado. We encourage you to adapt our approach to your circumstances, where applicable.

Please let us know what you have found to work in your own states.

In a nutshell:

Here are detailed action items:

1. Speak to your local governmental entities
    
   Call your city and county to find out if the matricula card is a pending issue. If it is, speak to your council members, supervisors and commissioner at their regularly scheduled meetings. Council meetings typically occur every two weeks. Citizens generally are allowed three to five minutes each to speak to the council, and often the proceedings are televised. It is helpful have 2 to 4 speakers, each presenting a slightly different aspect of the topic.
    
   Respectfully demand the city or county not accept this and other non-secure ID cards. (See our talking points). Point out that there are serious legal consequences to accepting this card, including the fact that they can be individually sued for personal assets. Give them each a handout stating:
   • Colorado passed a state law HB03-1224 against accepting the cards.
   • A summary of our talking points.
   • Public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans are against giving accommodations to illegals.
   • The Center for Immigration Studies backgrounder IDs for Illegals - The 'Matricula Consular' Advances Mexico's Immigration Agenda.
   • Very important: copy and edit the substantial letter, listed in the next section, that explains how accepting the matricula card has serious legal consequences.

   You can also mail your city and county public officials a letter explaining possible violations of the law if they were to officially accept the ID card. Below, in the next section, is a substantial letter that explains how accepting the card has significant legal consequences.
    
   Also check surrounding cities to see if the card is pending and if so, speak to their city councils. Contact your local politicians, including the Mayor, Chief of Police, Governor, and District Attorney. Tell them about the Matricula section of the CAIRCO website and that Colorado has set a precedent making accepting the cards illegal.
    
   Most Chiefs of Police belong to a Police Association. Tell your Chief of Police about the website and what Colorado has done. That will help spread information through the association network.

2. File legal documents
    
   "Nothing succeeds like success!" Please copy our letters, substitute the names of recipients and mail them out on your own letterhead to your own city. You can do this in 10 minutes.
    
   U.S. Code Title 8, says that it is clearly a felony and illegal in every state to hire, harbor, or transport illegal aliens.
    
3. A substantial and very powerful letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
    
   This letter documents the legal consequences of accepting non-secure ID cards for illegal aliens, including Federal statutory violation, constitutional grounds, and civil liability exposure.
    
   Copy and edit this letter and send it to your local officials who are considering accepting the bogus, non-secure matricula consular ID card.
    
   See our legal section for a full listing of letters and legal documents.
4. File an open records request for information
    
   Many states have open records laws patterned after the federal Freedom of Information Act. (In Colorado it is known as the Open Records Act, Colorado Revised Statute 24-72-201) Generally, the law will require production of all information from a governmental entity that is not privileged information. Here is an example of one of the open records request submitted by CAIRCO, in this case to the City and County of Denver.
    
   The value of open record requests is manifold. It puts officials on notice that you know your rights and you are watching the actions of public officials. All too often they have been getting away with doing anything they please, behind closed doors and out of citizen earshot. You might find documents showing your local politicians are acting illegally or unethically. Results from our open record requests have produced embarrassing emails between public officials that make for interesting letters to the editor. You never know what you will turn up. File a request every month if necessary.
5. Hold a press conference
    
   Let the press know what is going on and that you represent the majority opinion on the issue as shown in numerous polls. Schedule a press conference on the steps of your city hall. Send a press release to your newspapers, TV and radio stations a day before your conference and then ask if they received the release and if they will be sending someone to cover the event.
    
   Very important: give them something to "sound bite" and photograph. We got broad TV and print coverage when we held our press conference on the steps of the City and Country Building of Denver. We told the press we would be reading our letter to the Mayor of Denver citing criminal and civil violations of U.S. Code for the Mayor's action of officially ordering city departments to accept the matricula card. We also told the press that we would be handing the Mayor our letter as part of the press conference.
6. Call in to talk radio shows
    
   Contact your local talk radio hosts. Ask them to do a segment on the matricula consular ID card. Ask if you may be an in-studio guest. When you talk, mention www.CAIRCO.org (several times) and tell people to see the "matricula toolkit" section of the website.
    
   If you can't get a dedicated time segment, organize call-ins at opportune times to raise the issue and alert listeners to what is happening in your area and state.
7. Arrange a public debate
    
   If you are willing to put in some hard work, you can organize a public debate on the card. We were particularly successful with our debate: The Mexican "matricula consular" ID card: Safe or Sorry?. Be sure that you contact the media and issue press releases well in advance of the debate.
    
   Send the press release to all your key cities and counties, inviting their council and board members along with their police chiefs and sheriffs. Send notices to all your state representatives. (We were lucky to have had in attendance at our debate the assistant to the president of the Colorado Senate along with a Representative of the Colorado House. Those elected officials are now sponsoring a bill, HB-1224, the Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act, in the Colorado legislature to make it illegal to accept the matricula. We are very optimistic it will become law.) Feel free to contact CAIRCO for more information on how to organize a public debate.
8. Use our video
    
   CAIRCO edited and produced a 57 minute video of our important, timely and provocative debate on the matricula consular ID card with guest columnist Michelle Malkin. We distributed the video to public access and government access television stations across Colorado. In doing so, we gained much more exposure to the issue than the debate alone could have obtained.
    
   This video is applicable to all cities and states, not just Colorado. Show the video to others in your area, including elected officials, and to distribute it to your public access TV stations. (If you would like a professional quality format of this video for broadcast, please contact us).
9. Take aggressive action
   • An independent group of citizens in Boulder, Colorado has taken strong action against that city's possible action to accept matricula consular ID cards.
      
   • A substantial letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
      
   • A letter of objection was filed with the Mayor and City Council of Boulder, Colorado at the November 19, 2002 City Council meeting, stating "Your actions may possibly put you, and elected and appointed officials, and public servants, in legal jeopardy both personally and professionally."
      
   • A substantial letter of objection was filed with the Denver INS Director and Denver U.S. Attorney asking for an investigation of the City and County of Boulder's acceptance of the Mexican ID card and other activities.
      
   • And most interesting, a letter was filed with the city's liability insurance company, since it is likely that the city's policy does not cover liability arising from accepting the matricula consular ID card. In other words, if the city accepts the matricula consular card and a citizen is injured by an illegal alien, the citizen can sue the city and individual city council members. This is because the city's liability policy specifically excludes protection from illegal actions on the part of insured parties.
10. Coordinate with other organizations
     
    Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) can also offer advice on how to deal with the card.
     
    NumbersUSA.com has periodic faxes that you can send to elected officials on the card and is also a resource on the issue.
11. Work to get a state law passed

    We did it in Colorado! Colorado Representative Don Lee and Senator John Andrews sponsored a bill (the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act) that made illegal the accepting of the Mexican matricula consular ID card and other "unsecured" IDs.  
    Call your state senators and representatives to discuss the issue and encourage them to initiate legislation to halt acceptance of the matricula consular ID card.
     
    When the bill enters committee, appear before the committee and give public testimony.

March 26, 2003
 
Senator John Andrews
Colorado Senate
 
Sir:
 
We at Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform (CAIR) [now known as CAIRCO] wish to express our appreciation of your dedicated efforts on the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act, HB-1224. We are deeply concerned about Colorado's and our nation's future and it is evident that you clearly share this concern with your efforts to pass this bill. We respect and appreciate your wisdom and vision in promoting this bill.
 
We understand that the machinations of politics are never simple, and that it is often difficult to enact legislation that is effective while addressing the concerns of all constituents and interested parties. As such, we understand the reasons the bill was amended by the Senate.
 
Nevertheless, we respectfully disagree with the Senate version of the amendment for a number of reasons. The amendment allows police officers to accept non-secure foreign ID cards. In addition, it allows for pregnant mothers and presumably those who simply claim they are pregnant to obtain a full range of services over and above free medical services with non-secure foreign ID cards. The Senate amendment in our opinion, presents a gaping hole in the bill that virtually nullifies the original intent of the bill.
 
Because of our concern about the efficacy of the Senate amendment, several of us with CAIR have called House and Senate members to respectfully express our concern. We are also aware that news of the bill and amendment has spread across the internet. We understand that others, including individuals from outside of Colorado, have contacted members of the House and Senate, issuing out of frustration harsh diatribes against those allowing the bill to be amended. We apologize for any such calls, although we must clarify that those making such calls are not at all affiliated with CAIR.
 
The vast majority of Americans and Coloradans are very concerned about the consequences of high levels of legal and illegal immigration. (One such consequence is that U.S. population will double this century, practically within the lifetimes of children born today. Colorado will double even sooner). We at CAIR share this concern and believe our effectiveness is in educating others about the consequences of inordinately high levels of legal and illegal immigration, and in working with elected officials to enact legislation to address this pressing issue.
 
We applaud your concern about this issue and your leadership efforts to enact legislation as embodied in HB-1224. We encourage you to strive to make this bill as effective as possible in its final form. Again, we sincerely thank you for your efforts and for listening to our concerns.
 
Sincerely,
 
Fred Elbel
co-Director, CAIR - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform
 
copy: Representative Don Lee

This letter (prepared prior to enactment of HB-1224 - the Colorado Secure and Verifiable Identity Document Act of 2003) documents the legal consequences of accepting non-secure Matricula Consular and other ID cards for illegal aliens, including Federal statutory violation, constitutional grounds, and civil liability exposure. The letter emphasises the following points and references existing case law:

• Immigration and Nationality Act

  Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides criminal penalties for any act that "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law."[2]

  "Encourage" and "induce" include actions that permit illegal aliens to be more confident that they could continue to reside with impunity in the United States, or actions that offer illegal aliens "a chance to stand equally with all other American citizens."[3]

  To prove that a state or local government agency "encouraged or induced" illegal Mexican aliens, all the government needs to establish is that the agency knowingly helped or advised the aliens, or emboldened them, or made them more confident in their continued illegal residence in the United States.[4]

  The courts have held that INA §274 is to be broadly construed both as to those persons subject to criminal liability under the statute,[5] and as to the types of activities covered therein. [6]

   

• Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

  Furthermore, Section 401 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996[7] (as amended by the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)[8] prohibits non-qualified (illegal) aliens from receiving most "Federal public benefits." Any policy that accepts the matricula consular for the purpose of providing city and County services explicitly violates this provision of federal law insofar as the services to illegal aliens are paid for with federal and public funds.

   

• Constitutional Grounds

  The courts have long recognized that by Article I, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the Commerce Clause), Congress has "plenary power" over all aspects of immigration law, including "the right to provide a system of registration and identification" for aliens, because "the entire control of international relations" is invested in the national government.[9]

  Courts have repeatedly held that no governmental authority may establish any policy that relates to immigration other than Congress and authorized federal agencies, and that the "(p)ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power."[10]

  Thus, a local governmental public policy to accept an official foreign national identification document issued to aliens present in the United States in violation of Federal law improperly annexes powers to any public entity that are rightfully those of Congress and the policy is therefore unconstitutional.

  In a Supreme Court decision striking down a Pennsylvania alien registration statute, it was held that the "Federal Government...is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties [, and that o]ur system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference."

  The Court ruled that "where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation ... states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations."[11]

  Therefore, no public entity, specifically a City and County, as defined above, may make any rule, regulation or policy that speaks to the presence in the community of foreign nationals, and, thus, a "matricula consular policy" is preempted on constitutional grounds.

  A "matricula consular" policy adopted by local governmental authorities has also been determined unconstitutional specifically in relation to public benefits because it violates "the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens."[12]

   

• Civil Liability Exposure

  Entering the United States without inspection (illegal entry) is a criminal offense under 8 U.S.C. 1325. Providing public services to such an alien in "knowing and reckless disregard" of the alien's illegal status amounts to aiding and abetting a crime, and is a criminal violation in and of itself. By the INA §274(a) aiding and abetting statute,[13] the distinction is eliminated between principles and accessories in alien smuggling crimes. And courts have held that aiding and abetting also relates to conduct while the illegal alien is in the United States.[14]

  Aiding and abetting an illegal entrant in his continued illegal residence in the United States constitutes a dangerous and unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public, since, among other reasons, unlike legal entrants, an illegal entrant is not subject to a criminal background or health check before entering the United States.

  When such aid is administered via official acceptance by any public entity of the matricula consular, by which possession any public entity, or any person acting under the authority of any public entity, would or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that the person holding the card is an illegal alien, the public entity, or its officers, can be said to be negligent.

  For these reasons, official acceptance of the matricula consular by any city or county, and any of its elected or appointed officials (e.g., Mayor, Police Chief, Sheriff, etc.) can be said to be dangerous and negligent, and, therefore, the public entity, and its officers or representatives, may not enjoy sovereign immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act-especially since the grant of governmental immunity in Colorado is to be strictly construed and its waiver is to be liberally or deferentially construed.[15]

References:

[2] 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)
[3] U.S. v. Oloyede, 982 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1992)
[4] U.S. v. He, No. 00-2574 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2001)
[5] U.S. v Zheng, No. 01-15551 (11th Cir. Sept, 2002)
[6] Patel v Ashcroft, No. 01-3365 (3rd Cir. June, 2002)
[7] Public Law 104-193
[8] Public Law 104-208
[9] Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
[10] De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976)
[11] Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S., at 66 -67
[12] Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (USSC+)
[13] 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II)
[14] U.S. v. Mussaleen, 35 F.3d 692 (Cir. 2nd (N.Y.),1994.
[15]Springer v. City and County of Denver, 990 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000).

June 12, 2003

Secretary Colin L. Powell
United States Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Powell:

The attached document indicates that our U.S. Embassy in Managua is requesting direction from you as to how they should proceed in the effort to aid the government of Nicaragua in the development of ID cards modeled on the matricula consular issued by the Mexican government. Mexican officials have publicly stated that this endeavor is part of a strategy to obtain a de facto amnesty for people living here illegally.

I realize that any foreign government has a right to issue identification cards to its citizens. That is not in dispute. However using their consular offices here as lobbying agents to help undermine our immigration laws is an outrage and the State Department's apparent acquiescence in this endeavor is even more incredible.

We anticipated and cautioned you in a letter on January 10 that unless you acted to discourage the acceptance of Mexican government's ID cards, other governments would follow suit. That is now happening. If you do not take steps to halt our cooperation and support of this practice, our country will see a virtual tidal wave of such cards issued to illegal alien by their embassies and consulates in the U.S.

There are several aspects of the matricular consular cards now issued by foreign governments that are extremely troubling. I have two questions:

1. What guidelines will you offer to our Embassy staff in other nations when those governments request our assistance in developing similar cards for their nationals living in the United States? Will our embassy staff be offering advice and assistance to the governments in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Iran if they seek to give documents to their nationals living in this country "regardless of the individual's legal status"?

2. How can this memo from Managua (attached) be interpreted as anything but aiding and abetting attempts by foreign governments to provide their nationals living illegally in the U.S. with documentation that would ease their entrance into American society?

In my previous communication of January 10, I asked if you have approved of this activity on the part of State Department staff. If you do not, what do you intend to do to stop it?

Mr. Secretary, this is an issue of enormous significance that has massive implications for our nation. In mid-May the Department of Homeland Security sent to the White House a Draft Policy Statement on the matricula consular cards. That Draft Policy Statement, which was the product of an interagency working group that included the State Department, expressly prohibits all federal agencies from accepting the cards or cooperating in their use by foreign nationals.

There are two very good reasons for opposing the use and proliferation of these identification cards. First, our acceptance of the cards, or our cooperation in their manufacture or distribution, provides tacit approval and encouragement for increased illegal immigration into the United States. This is true because no one needs these cards except persons residing here illegally. The second reason for rejecting these documents is that the process for verification of identify of the individual obtaining the card is very questionable. The only identification document issued by a foreign government our government should accept is a valid passport.

The State Department's current policy of ambiguity on this matter is interpreted as tacit approval by foreign governments. This will very likely have disastrous consequences for our nation. If the Administration has agreed to cooperate with this activity, the American people have a right to know. If it has not, please advise us of the steps being taken to halt it.

Thank you for your timely response.

Sincerely,

Tom Tancredo

Member of Congress

herry L. Jackson
Clerk and Recorder
Denver City and County Building
1437 Bannock Street, Room 281
Denver, CO 80202
 
November 12, 2002
 
Dear Sherry Jackson:
 
Please consider this to be a written request for records pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, Colorado Revised Statutes 24-72-201. I make this request on behalf of the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, a Colorado nonprofit corporation.
 
I am respectfully requesting records relating to:
 
1. The decision by Mayor Webb to officially accept the "matricula consular" ID card and the Mayor's order that various City departments accept the card as valid identification, and
 
2. The decision by Mayor Webb to designate $15,000 from a federal grant, as reported to us in August by Andy Hernandez, to help fund a job center, a "hiring hall", which we believe provides jobs for illegal aliens.
 
The two above enumerated actions on the part of Mayor Webb were the subject of a letter we hand delivered to the Mayor's office on October 31, 2002. An unsigned copy of that letter is herewith attached.
 
Accordingly, I ask that you produce the following documents:
 
Copies or originals of all writings made, maintained or kept by the City and County of Denver and/or the Mayor's office relating directly or indirectly to the above enumerated actions. The Colorado Open Records Act defines "writings" to include "photographs, tapes, recordings, digitally-stored data, including electronic mail and other documentary materials, in addition to books, papers and maps...." (Emphasis added)
 
Please include copies or originals of any and all writing specific to the above enumerated actions involving the Mexican government and/or that government's agents or representatives. Please include copies or originals of any and all writings involving nonprofit organizations and/or charities and their agents or representatives specific to the above enumerated actions. Please include in our requests copies or originals of any and all writings not specifically detailed herein relating to the above enumerated actions but which a reasonable person would include. Please do not include redundancies.
 
Thank you for your cooperation. We look forward to receiving the requested records within the 10-day statutory time limit.
 
Sincerely,
 
Mike McGarry
 
Spokesperson, Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform

This section contains legal information pertaining to use of bogus Matricula Consular ID cards (which are now illegal in Colorado). We are not attorneys and this should not be construed as legal advice. However, it is pertinent to states that still allow the Matricula cards to be used for identification.

Immigration and Nationality Act

Section 274 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides criminal penalties for any act that "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law."²

"Encourage" and "induce" include actions that permit illegal aliens to be more confident that they could continue to reside with impunity in the United States, or actions that offer illegal aliens "a chance to stand equally with all other American citizens."³

To prove that a state or local government agency "encouraged or induced" illegal Mexican aliens, all the government needs to establish is that the agency knowingly helped or advised the aliens, or emboldened them, or made them more confident in their continued illegal residence in the United States.⁴

The courts have held that INA §274 is to be broadly construed both as to those persons subject to criminal liability under the statute,⁵ and as to the types of activities covered therein.⁶

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

Furthermore, Section 401 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996⁷ (as amended by the Illegal Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996)⁸ prohibits non-qualified (illegal) aliens from receiving most "Federal public benefits." Any policy that accepts the matricula consular for the purpose of providing city and County services explicitly violates this provision of federal law insofar as the services to illegal aliens are paid for with federal and public funds.

Constitutional Grounds

The courts have long recognized that by Article I, Sec. 8 of the U.S. Constitution (the Commerce Clause), Congress has "plenary power" over all aspects of immigration law, including "the right to provide a system of registration and identification" for aliens, because "the entire control of international relations" is invested in the national government.⁹

Courts have repeatedly held that no governmental authority may establish any policy that relates to immigration other than Congress and authorized federal agencies, and that the "(p)ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power."¹⁰

Thus, a local governmental public policy to accept an official foreign national identification document issued to aliens present in the United States in violation of Federal law improperly annexes powers to any public entity that are rightfully those of Congress and the policy is therefore unconstitutional.

In a Supreme Court decision striking down a Pennsylvania alien registration statute, it was held that the "Federal Government...is entrusted with full and exclusive responsibility for the conduct of affairs with foreign sovereignties [, and that o]ur system of government is such that the interest of the cities, counties and states, no less than the interest of the people of the whole nation, imperatively requires that federal power in the field affecting foreign relations be left entirely free from local interference."

The Court ruled that "where the federal government, in the exercise of its superior authority in this field, has enacted a complete scheme of regulation ... states cannot, inconsistently with the purpose of Congress, conflict or interfere with, curtail or complement, the federal law, or enforce additional or auxiliary regulations."¹¹

Therefore, no public entity, specifically Boulder City and County, as defined above, may make any rule, regulation or policy that speaks to the presence in the community of foreign nationals, and, thus, a "matricula consular policy" is preempted on constitutional grounds.

A "matricula consular" policy adopted by local governmental authorities has also been determined unconstitutional specifically in relation to public benefits because it violates "the exclusive federal power over the entrance and residence of aliens."¹²

Civil Liability Exposure

Entering the United States without inspection (illegal entry) is a criminal offense under 8 U.S.C. 1325. Providing public services to such an alien in "knowing and reckless disregard" of the alien's illegal status amounts to aiding and abetting a crime, and is a criminal violation in and of itself. By the INA §274(a) aiding and abetting statute,¹³ the distinction is eliminated between principles and accessories in alien smuggling crimes. And courts have held that aiding and abetting also relates to conduct while the illegal alien is in the United States.¹⁴

Aiding and abetting an illegal entrant in his continued illegal residence in the United States constitutes a dangerous and unreasonable risk to the health and safety of the public, since, among other reasons, unlike legal entrants, an illegal entrant is not subject to a criminal background or health check before entering the United States.

When such aid is administered via official acceptance by any public entity of the matricula consular, by which possession any public entity, or any person acting under the authority of any public entity, would or should have known in the exercise of reasonable care that the person holding the card is an illegal alien, the public entity, or its officers, can be said to be negligent.

For these reasons, official acceptance of the matricula consular by any city or county, and any of its elected or appointed officials (e.g., Mayor, Police Chief, Sheriff, etc.) can be said to be dangerous and negligent, and, therefore, the public entity, and its officers or representatives, may not enjoy sovereign immunity under the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act-especially since the grant of governmental immunity in Colorado is to be strictly construed and its waiver is to be liberally or deferentially construed.¹⁵

References

2. 8 U.S.C. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)
3. U.S. v. Oloyede, 982 F.2d 133 (4th Cir. 1992)
4. U.S. v. He, No. 00-2574 (7th Cir. Apr. 2, 2001)
5. U.S. v Zheng, No. 01-15551 (11th Cir. Sept, 2002)
6. Patel v Ashcroft, No. 01-3365 (3rd Cir. June, 2002)
7. Public Law 104-193
8. Public Law 104-208
9. Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893)
10. De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976)
11. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S., at 66 -67
12. Graham v. Department of Pub. Welfare, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (USSC+)
13. 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)(II)
14. U.S. v. Mussaleen, 35 F.3d 692 (Cir. 2nd (N.Y.),1994.
15. Springer v. City and County of Denver, 990 P.2d 1092 (Colo. App. 1999), rev'd on other grounds, 13 P.3d 794 (Colo. 2000).