7 ms·

U.S. banks may soon collect citizenship data from customers

116 points by clumsysmurf 6mo ago

bix6 6mo ago
I don’t really understand this. We already run KYC / AML. Is that not good enough for some reason?
- pjc50 6mo ago
  Banks are to be ICE now.
  - JuniperMesos 6mo ago
    Basically this. Banks are already deputized into being de facto law enforcement by some of the KYC/AML checks they are mandated to do, and anti-immigrationists want this remit to include checking if someone is in the US illegally trying to use a bank.
- gib444 6mo ago
  That's covered in the article
  - bix6 6mo ago
    Is it really though? > But that doesn’t satisfy Bessent. “Why can unknown foreign nationals come and open a bank account?” To do business obviously. Are you seriously telling me the government, armed with Palantir, can’t already flag money laundering? Why is an “unknown” in the country in the first place given this admin’s extremely hostile view towards immigrants?
- busterarm 6mo ago
  People seriously underestimate how much easier it is to open a bank account in the US compared to most other countries. Especially with how many states give out government-issued IDs to non-residents/non-citizens (16 states + Washington DC). It's estimated that between $250 billion and 500 billion is laundered through US banks every year, though some portion of that is via correspondent banking and not just individual account money muleing. And this just collects that information. It doesn't actually stop people from opening these accounts or shut them down.
  - giantrobot 6mo ago
    The money laundering won't go away. It'll just move to administrations-approved money laundering vehicles like crypto. And needlessly disrupt or ruin the lives of millions. Neat.
    - hrimfaxi 6mo ago
      What's the solution, no laws? Since laws just shift the venue for the crime in your view?
  - bonsai_spool 6mo ago
    > It's estimated that between $250 billion and 500 billion is laundered through US banks every year, though some portion of that is via correspondent banking and not just individual account money muleing. The money laundering is not happening through consumer deposit accounts (I've never heard your term money mueling and it's almost definitely not people moving $10,000 at a time if that's what you are suggesting). It is wanton disingenuity to think that the goal of this rule is prevention of money laundering.
    - busterarm 6mo ago
      I didn't say that was the goal. I explicitly said that it wouldn't do anything about it. Just that it happens. And absolutely it happens, particularly with networks of accounts connected to China. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. FinCEN has been publicly chasing this down for years. Although hawala networks are also a big source of that not mainly personal banking. Also you're missing the forest for the trees here. Money laundering will most often happen through business bank accounts but a large number of business account holders also have personal accounts at the same bank and link them out of convenience. Personal ID is also required to open a business bank account. This requirement will likely apply to those as well.
      - bonsai_spool 6mo ago
        > Also you're missing the forest for the trees here I see what you're saying - I am just trying to convey that the $250 billion dollars being laundered is commercial. It's hard to imagine how anyone can come close to those figures by using consumer accounts, linked or not.
- giantrobot 6mo ago
  The goal is to de-bank any opposition to the government. It starts with an easy out group like immigrants. Then more and more groups will get de-banked or otherwise disenfranchised.
  - cucumber3732842 6mo ago
    It starts with an even easier out group like "actual criminals or other groups that are fairly strongly hated by a lot of people". The groundwork for this crap was laid in the 1870s when they were going after the klan, the 1920s bootleggers, then the 1940s-50s mobsters, 1980s drug traffickers, 2000s terrorists, etc, etc. Every step of the way people cheered. Of course some people looked at the "hurricane cone" of public policy at the time and said that we were not on a good path. Of course they were ignored.
  - gadders 6mo ago
    [flagged]
    - scuff3d 6mo ago
      Holy crap, it's been a long time since I saw that dopey Obama/tea-party line. Fox News bullshit from the past seems down right quaint by today's standards
      - gadders 6mo ago
        It's a fact though, so label it how you like but it happened.
        lamasery 6mo ago
        You're gonna want to look into the context and framing. Elements connected to what you claimed are "fact". The framing is very much not.
        scuff3d 6mo ago
        If you still believe that nonsense after all these years nothing I can say that'll change your mind. This is one of the all time greatest examples of "lying with facts". It's technically correct, the IRS absolutely singled out a bunch of non-profits due to administrative fowl ups, but trying to say Obama "targeted" the Tea Party intentionally was so hilariously stupid I'm amazed anyone bought it.
- 0xy 6mo ago
  It's because certain banks like Bank of America will explicitly take business from undocumented immigrants, knowingly so. As a quick example, I know for a fact they accept expired visas as ID proof to open an account.
nemomarx 6mo ago
> Banks are required to collect information through “know your customer” rules, but have pushed back against this plan. But Bessent told CNBC, “If Treasury and the banking regulators say it’s their job, it’s their job.” Well I can't see this ending well. It's either more invasive KYC or it's a push towards debanking people out of favor with the government again.
- lazide 6mo ago
  A number of countries require this info already - it is a stretch for the US, but relatively common overall. It’s probably both of what you’re worried about. Notably, it’s likely a reaction to the original ‘no gun stores, no porn, etc’ rules which banks have defacto had for awhile.
  - em-bee 6mo ago
    worse they are requiring this data on behalf of the US to assert that they have no obligation to pay US taxes.
    - fakedang 6mo ago
      Incorrect, banks in other countries require this data solely because the US is the only country that taxes its citizens even outside its borders. Compliance with FATCA is the only reason why most banks literally have a checkbox in their application forms specifically to state that you do not hold US citizenship in any form. Some Swiss banks even outright forbid US clients. Dealing with FATCA is just another logistical nightmare for most banks.
      - lazide 6mo ago
        Not just because of either - many countries tax and treat citizen/permanent resident accounts wildly differently than non-citizen and non permanent resident accounts. India has a whole swath of different account types based on this criteria, with wildly different rules. China too.
fred_is_fred 6mo ago
I am surprised that this isn't already part of KYC.
- lamasery 6mo ago
  We don't really have a standard way to definitively say "I am a citizen" in the US. It's all kinda ad-hoc, like most of the rest of our ID system. Closest thing's a birth certificate[EDIT: or naturalization papers, of course, for immigrants], I guess, but that's a pain in the ass for anyone who's had a name change (lots of married women, notably) because then they need more documents. Having a social security or other tax-related ID has sufficed for banks so far, which doesn't guarantee the holder is a citizen but does demonstrate enough relevant "status" with the government for banking to probably go smoothly. Digging ourselves deeper into our already awful decentralized partially-privatized (the CRAs, mostly) identification system by expanding the set of things we have to prove in even more circumstances is not a good thing.
  - busterarm 6mo ago
    I needed my birth certificate to open my first bank account. Although that's because I was a minor.
    - toast0 6mo ago
      I've opened several bank accounts for my child. All they needed was the social security number and my photo id (and maybe my social security number too).
      - busterarm 6mo ago
        You're trying to correlate events that are decades apart, in a thread where we're literally discussing a single administration's change in policy...
  - aboardRat4 6mo ago
    >We don't really have a standard way to definitively say "I am a citizen" in the US. In most countries of the world, the best way to prove your citizenship is to apply for a visa. That is you world apply for a US visa and get an official rejection, because US citizens don't need/cannot get a visa, and the rejection document would be the proof of citizenship.
zulux 6mo ago
Pretty normal in other places: Most banks in Japan are for Japanese customers. Foreign users have quite a few hoops to jump through.
- yeahwhatever10 6mo ago
  Like most things on HN it's only ever a moral panic when the U.S. (or U.K.) does it.
  - busterarm 6mo ago
    And most HN users bashing the practice will defend the practice when another country does it.
  - bee_rider 6mo ago
    It seems predictable that people on a mostly English-speaking forum will be most concerned with stuff that the US and UK are doing.
    - alephnerd 6mo ago
      Most HN users aren't even posting during Anglophone hours though [0]. Based on the style of English as well as the type of post content, HN engagement seems to be increasingly filled with DACH and CEE residents during American mornings (which is ironic as YC doesn't follow GDPR and retains full rights to use HN comments as they so wish in perpetuity). [0] - https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-index/hacker-news https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-index/hacker-news
      - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
        > during Anglophone hours though I suspect I mostly post outside American working hours because I am (a) working then and (b) a night owl.
        alephnerd 6mo ago
adolph 6mo ago
An interesting aspect to changes like this is that they demonstrate the silos and fissures between various government functions. There isn't already a standard intra-government API that for an identify returns the relationship person has to the US government (i.e. citizen, legal resident, visa like student or H1B?
- cucumber3732842 6mo ago
  Just because you own a supercar doesn't mean you daily drive it. That stuff most certainly exists. It's just not for cog #897345673847456 to use in an above the table on the record capacity as part of their run of the mill daily job duties.
- nemomarx 6mo ago
  What input would you use? There's no unified government ID. You could probably look up a name and birth date and establish if a citizen exists with that information, I guess. You could check social security (which I'm not sure definitively indicates status) and see the same for that. But it's a very messy system in general. My name is actually different in a few government databases - in one I have two middle names, in the other two last names. Just random clerical stuff like that is common.
  - justin66 6mo ago
    If there's not a table somewhere maintained by the US government that associates social security number with citizenship status, that's because a choice was made by the government not to do that. It would be a simple enough thing to do. (yes, checking against name / DOB / ssn always has some inherent messiness to it)
    - nemomarx 6mo ago
      It's definitely a choice, because we've avoided having a real standardized identity system run by the government for so long. But there are reasons for people to oppose it on both sides of the aisle (states rights, immigration views, anti federalism, libertarians) so it's a pretty hard task. Maybe this admin could try it as an immigration security measure and get some support that way but I have my doubts.
kylehotchkiss 6mo ago
So can they stop being so anal about “home addresses” so people traveling abroad for a few months don’t have to stress?
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > can they stop being so anal about “home addresses” so people traveling abroad for a few months don’t have to stress? P.O. or private mail box.
  - PretzelPirate 6mo ago
    I'm not who you replied to. Banks are cracking down on PO boxes and CMRAs as the residential address for their clients. It's fine as the mailing address, but people who travel abroad full time may not have a permanent residential address. Right now, you can choose to use a friend/family address, or you can pay a company to provide a residential address for you. We should be able to say "I have no permanent residential address since I'm travelling, please send all mail to this CRMA.", but that isn't a supported scenario today. This all gets complicated for full-time US travellers abroad who may spend all year outside of the country, but they still have to have domicile in some state even when they don't have a permanent address in any state.
  - lamasery 6mo ago
    I looked into some of this stuff when we were moving across the country and temporarily had no actual permanent address (living out of AirBnBs) including no home under contract, and it would have been very nice to set up a PO Box and local bank account. I couldn't figure out a way to do it. Even looking at services aimed at people living in RVs didn't seem like it was going to work. For one thing, I couldn't get a PO Box without a home address, LOL.
  - kylehotchkiss 6mo ago
    That's a great way to get your bank account shut down and your balance mailed to your last known residential address. Patriot act paranoia.
  - 6mo ago
jmclnx 6mo ago
I cannot get to that link, here is another one. The main part to remember is "may". The cost of this process could prevent the order from being issued: https://www.businessinsider.com/banks-requirement-citizenship-data-executive-order-2026-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/banks-requirement-citizenshi... An interesting quote: > Dissuading people from banking was "one of the more predictable outcomes," Braunegg said, adding that could include people ... and dual citizens who are "wary of cross-border reporting."
josefritzishere 6mo ago
This seems to be a debanking scheme. Debanking schemes are just a way to steal peoples savings of course. Deutsche Bank did the same from 1933 to 1945 in Germany.
- josefritzishere 6mo ago
  Minus points? We would all be wise to learn from history. https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Publication_OP_2003-01.pdf https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Publication_OP_2003-01.pdf
guywithahat 6mo ago
Which is how most of the world does it. What is interesting is that in 2023 the CFPB/DOJ started threatening to sue banks if they relied on immigration status/duration of stay to approve loans, which was generally regarded as threatening banks not to consider immigration status for loans. There is a risk that if they use this information the next president in the white house may try to sue them, however if they don't use immigration information then they'll be left stranded with a bunch of bad loans. It's probably better that they have this information but it is a bit of a lose-lose
- ravenstine 6mo ago
  > Which is how most of the world does it. That's not persuasive. America does a lot of things different from most of the world, and they're not inherently wrong for doing so. The rest of your comment makes an interesting point, though.
bradley13 6mo ago
The US forced stuff like this - and much more - on other countries, with FATCA. Just one example: Foreign banks must report all financial activities of Americans to the US. An American official wad asked in an interview if the US would then report financial activities of non-Americans to their home tax authorities. The answer was "lol, no, that would be too much effort". I am having a moment of Schadenfreude...
- aboardRat4 6mo ago
  >US forced "Forced"? You're _way_ everestimating US influence. Most countries not just "collect citizenship data", they require you to have a valid non-expired ID, valid non-expired residential registration, a fresh digital photo, verified phone number and a valid tax number. All of that without any US interference.
  - randerson 6mo ago
    I'm an immigrant to the US who still has a bank account in my home country. After I told that bank I'd moved abroad, they required me to fill out paperwork for FATCA and give them my US SSN. I also have to self-report all foreign accounts and their balances to the IRS. The penalties for not doing so are severe.
  - mapt 6mo ago
    My crude understanding is that in the 90's, the US controlled basically all the world's large-scale financial clearing network, and after 9/11 declared a holy war against anything that didn't provide visibility to US intelligence (like the surviving medieval Middle Eastern 'Hawala' banking system) and the ability for the US to sanction it on a fine-grained basis. Since that time, we have grabbed on tighter and tighter, and are finding that the world is starting to seek out a less politically volatile patron for a financial system.
    - SauciestGNU 6mo ago
      It's pretty wild, I work in finance and hawala was specifically called out in my anti money laundering training. Really seems like cultural chauvanism and thinly veiled racism to eschew an entire traditional monetary support system.
b8 6mo ago
I already have to upload my real ID and had to hop on a video call to show my face + ID for one bank.
runako 6mo ago
Since others are not saying it, enforcing this will immediately cause havoc as any number of citizens do not have ready access to any document proving citizenship. (Non-US people note that this is likely a major difference between the US and your country. The US does not compulsorily provide proof of citizenship to its citizens that can be used at places where one is typically asked to prove one's citizenship.) Bessent notes here that Real ID would not be considered valid ID for this purpose, which sounds like it will have the same problems as the SAVE act. This could mean debanking anyone who has changed their name and does not have a notarized copy of the name change certificate, and most people who do not drive. (I am not sure how it would handle minors, who generally do not have any photo ID. Would they have to come in to provide ID when they turn 18?) The underlying idea is fine, but it creates problems when combined with the reluctance to issue any kind of national ID.
- pjc50 6mo ago
  > enforcing this will immediately cause havoc as any number of citizens do not have ready access to any document proving citizenship Yes, that is obviously the intention of this system.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > that is obviously the intention of this system I'm genuinely unsure which way the partisan tilt would lean on American citizens who get unbanked.
    - pjc50 6mo ago
      > which way the partisan tilt would lean on American citizens who get unbanked. Obviously the court of Fox public opinion would examine their social media to determine if they're woke or Hispanic before deciding this.
    - bediger4000 6mo ago
      If they don't have documentation, are they citizens?
alibarber 6mo ago
Having opened accounts in two different European countries, the more surprising thing here for me is that the US banks _didn’t_ already do this.
0xbadcafebee 6mo ago
Don't let commenters convince you this is normal. This is a concerted effort by Republicans to win the midterm elections. It's a very old Republican tactic: disenfranchise poor ethnic communities that would vote Democrat. > The planned EO is one more plank in President Donald Trump’s broader effort to tie his immigration policy to collection of information in the United States, including for voting and Census efforts. As usual for a Republican agenda, it hurts the economy in order to achieve its ideological goals. > In addition to legal questions, some policy experts and banks have warned about damage to the economy if people are denied access to the banking system and deposit accounts, as well as potentially big increases in administrative costs for banks. [...] Allowing noncitizens, including undocumented immigrants, to legally open bank accounts using documentation, such as an ITIN, means they can pay taxes and avoid being part of the “unbanked” existing in a purely cash economy. Being unbanked is often associated with less ability to move up the social ladder and contribute to economic growth.
- ImJamal 6mo ago
  How is this not normal? Don't most / all European countries require the same?
  - lo_zamoyski 6mo ago
    Apparently, European ID practices are racist, contemptuous of the poor, etc...
    - alexb_ 6mo ago
      Yes. "Other people do it" does not make it any less anti-foreigner.
  - 0xbadcafebee 6mo ago
    It turns out that most of the world is not Europe. We have our own system, evolved over a century, responding to events in this country. Abruptly changing that system creates real harm to a gigantic population. We don't have a national ID system, and we have millions of undocumented immigrants, as well as millions of African Americans who have been systematically oppressed in order to elevate the interests of a white majority. (that's not an opinion, it's a fact; our Supreme Court literally wouldn't let southern states change election laws without checking with them, because southern states wanted to eliminate most black people from voter roles) 21 million adults in this country lack a driver's license. Of those the largest groups are Black and Hispanic populations. 11 million more without IDs are undocumented immigrants. That's 32 million people disenfranchised and unbanked. A larger population than most EU countries, without a vote or a bank account. IF you introduced a national ID system, and got every single American on it, then this wouldn't be an issue, because everyone could still vote and bank. But that's not what they want. They want 32 million people to suffer. That's why this is wrong, regardless of what's common in Europe.
gla67890543 6mo ago
This data collection is not for immigrants. most people they just come, work and leave. Sooner or later all those Maga clowns understand, this is all about controlling them.wait for the results until they integrate everything into Palantir.
exabrial 6mo ago
I think bank's KYC is fine, and I have no issues with making this more strict. After Equifax hired a music major for their Chief Security Officer and leaked everyone's information for free, I had someone open a bank account in my name. Luckily I caught it and got it shut down. I was not reimbursed by Equifax for the giant pain in the ass this was.
Grappelli 6mo ago
[flagged]
negura 6mo ago
avoiding this is one of the use cases for cryptocurrencies
chrismcb 6mo ago
Personally I think the American banking system is garbage. The technology is awful. But the government requirements are too onerous and potentially unconstitutional. The government doesn't need to know who I am, the bank doesn't need to know the customer.

116 points by clumsysmurf 6mo ago

bix6 6mo ago

I don’t really understand this. We already run KYC / AML. Is that not good enough for some reason?

pjc50 6mo ago
Banks are to be ICE now.
- JuniperMesos 6mo ago
  Basically this. Banks are already deputized into being de facto law enforcement by some of the KYC/AML checks they are mandated to do, and anti-immigrationists want this remit to include checking if someone is in the US illegally trying to use a bank.
gib444 6mo ago
That's covered in the article
- bix6 6mo ago
  Is it really though? > But that doesn’t satisfy Bessent. “Why can unknown foreign nationals come and open a bank account?” To do business obviously. Are you seriously telling me the government, armed with Palantir, can’t already flag money laundering? Why is an “unknown” in the country in the first place given this admin’s extremely hostile view towards immigrants?
busterarm 6mo ago
People seriously underestimate how much easier it is to open a bank account in the US compared to most other countries. Especially with how many states give out government-issued IDs to non-residents/non-citizens (16 states + Washington DC). It's estimated that between $250 billion and 500 billion is laundered through US banks every year, though some portion of that is via correspondent banking and not just individual account money muleing. And this just collects that information. It doesn't actually stop people from opening these accounts or shut them down.
- giantrobot 6mo ago
  The money laundering won't go away. It'll just move to administrations-approved money laundering vehicles like crypto. And needlessly disrupt or ruin the lives of millions. Neat.
  - hrimfaxi 6mo ago
    What's the solution, no laws? Since laws just shift the venue for the crime in your view?
- bonsai_spool 6mo ago
  > It's estimated that between $250 billion and 500 billion is laundered through US banks every year, though some portion of that is via correspondent banking and not just individual account money muleing. The money laundering is not happening through consumer deposit accounts (I've never heard your term money mueling and it's almost definitely not people moving $10,000 at a time if that's what you are suggesting). It is wanton disingenuity to think that the goal of this rule is prevention of money laundering.
  - busterarm 6mo ago
    I didn't say that was the goal. I explicitly said that it wouldn't do anything about it. Just that it happens. And absolutely it happens, particularly with networks of accounts connected to China. Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. FinCEN has been publicly chasing this down for years. Although hawala networks are also a big source of that not mainly personal banking. Also you're missing the forest for the trees here. Money laundering will most often happen through business bank accounts but a large number of business account holders also have personal accounts at the same bank and link them out of convenience. Personal ID is also required to open a business bank account. This requirement will likely apply to those as well.
    - bonsai_spool 6mo ago
      > Also you're missing the forest for the trees here I see what you're saying - I am just trying to convey that the $250 billion dollars being laundered is commercial. It's hard to imagine how anyone can come close to those figures by using consumer accounts, linked or not.
giantrobot 6mo ago
The goal is to de-bank any opposition to the government. It starts with an easy out group like immigrants. Then more and more groups will get de-banked or otherwise disenfranchised.
- cucumber3732842 6mo ago
  It starts with an even easier out group like "actual criminals or other groups that are fairly strongly hated by a lot of people". The groundwork for this crap was laid in the 1870s when they were going after the klan, the 1920s bootleggers, then the 1940s-50s mobsters, 1980s drug traffickers, 2000s terrorists, etc, etc. Every step of the way people cheered. Of course some people looked at the "hurricane cone" of public policy at the time and said that we were not on a good path. Of course they were ignored.
- gadders 6mo ago
  [flagged]
  - scuff3d 6mo ago
    Holy crap, it's been a long time since I saw that dopey Obama/tea-party line. Fox News bullshit from the past seems down right quaint by today's standards
    - gadders 6mo ago
      It's a fact though, so label it how you like but it happened.
      - lamasery 6mo ago
        You're gonna want to look into the context and framing. Elements connected to what you claimed are "fact". The framing is very much not.
      - scuff3d 6mo ago
        If you still believe that nonsense after all these years nothing I can say that'll change your mind. This is one of the all time greatest examples of "lying with facts". It's technically correct, the IRS absolutely singled out a bunch of non-profits due to administrative fowl ups, but trying to say Obama "targeted" the Tea Party intentionally was so hilariously stupid I'm amazed anyone bought it.
0xy 6mo ago
It's because certain banks like Bank of America will explicitly take business from undocumented immigrants, knowingly so. As a quick example, I know for a fact they accept expired visas as ID proof to open an account.

nemomarx 6mo ago

> Banks are required to collect information through “know your customer” rules, but have pushed back against this plan. But Bessent told CNBC, “If Treasury and the banking regulators say it’s their job, it’s their job.” Well I can't see this ending well. It's either more invasive KYC or it's a push towards debanking people out of favor with the government again.

lazide 6mo ago
A number of countries require this info already - it is a stretch for the US, but relatively common overall. It’s probably both of what you’re worried about. Notably, it’s likely a reaction to the original ‘no gun stores, no porn, etc’ rules which banks have defacto had for awhile.
- em-bee 6mo ago
  worse they are requiring this data on behalf of the US to assert that they have no obligation to pay US taxes.
  - fakedang 6mo ago
    Incorrect, banks in other countries require this data solely because the US is the only country that taxes its citizens even outside its borders. Compliance with FATCA is the only reason why most banks literally have a checkbox in their application forms specifically to state that you do not hold US citizenship in any form. Some Swiss banks even outright forbid US clients. Dealing with FATCA is just another logistical nightmare for most banks.
    - lazide 6mo ago
      Not just because of either - many countries tax and treat citizen/permanent resident accounts wildly differently than non-citizen and non permanent resident accounts. India has a whole swath of different account types based on this criteria, with wildly different rules. China too.

fred_is_fred 6mo ago

I am surprised that this isn't already part of KYC.

lamasery 6mo ago
We don't really have a standard way to definitively say "I am a citizen" in the US. It's all kinda ad-hoc, like most of the rest of our ID system. Closest thing's a birth certificate[EDIT: or naturalization papers, of course, for immigrants], I guess, but that's a pain in the ass for anyone who's had a name change (lots of married women, notably) because then they need more documents. Having a social security or other tax-related ID has sufficed for banks so far, which doesn't guarantee the holder is a citizen but does demonstrate enough relevant "status" with the government for banking to probably go smoothly. Digging ourselves deeper into our already awful decentralized partially-privatized (the CRAs, mostly) identification system by expanding the set of things we have to prove in even more circumstances is not a good thing.
- busterarm 6mo ago
  I needed my birth certificate to open my first bank account. Although that's because I was a minor.
  - toast0 6mo ago
    I've opened several bank accounts for my child. All they needed was the social security number and my photo id (and maybe my social security number too).
    - busterarm 6mo ago
      You're trying to correlate events that are decades apart, in a thread where we're literally discussing a single administration's change in policy...
- aboardRat4 6mo ago
  >We don't really have a standard way to definitively say "I am a citizen" in the US. In most countries of the world, the best way to prove your citizenship is to apply for a visa. That is you world apply for a US visa and get an official rejection, because US citizens don't need/cannot get a visa, and the rejection document would be the proof of citizenship.

zulux 6mo ago

Pretty normal in other places: Most banks in Japan are for Japanese customers. Foreign users have quite a few hoops to jump through.

yeahwhatever10 6mo ago
Like most things on HN it's only ever a moral panic when the U.S. (or U.K.) does it.
- busterarm 6mo ago
  And most HN users bashing the practice will defend the practice when another country does it.
- bee_rider 6mo ago
  It seems predictable that people on a mostly English-speaking forum will be most concerned with stuff that the US and UK are doing.
  - alephnerd 6mo ago
    Most HN users aren't even posting during Anglophone hours though [0]. Based on the style of English as well as the type of post content, HN engagement seems to be increasingly filled with DACH and CEE residents during American mornings (which is ironic as YC doesn't follow GDPR and retains full rights to use HN comments as they so wish in perpetuity). [0] - https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-index/hacker-news https://huggingface.co/datasets/open-index/hacker-news
    - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
      > during Anglophone hours though I suspect I mostly post outside American working hours because I am (a) working then and (b) a night owl.
      - alephnerd 6mo ago

adolph 6mo ago

An interesting aspect to changes like this is that they demonstrate the silos and fissures between various government functions. There isn't already a standard intra-government API that for an identify returns the relationship person has to the US government (i.e. citizen, legal resident, visa like student or H1B?

cucumber3732842 6mo ago
Just because you own a supercar doesn't mean you daily drive it. That stuff most certainly exists. It's just not for cog #897345673847456 to use in an above the table on the record capacity as part of their run of the mill daily job duties.
nemomarx 6mo ago
What input would you use? There's no unified government ID. You could probably look up a name and birth date and establish if a citizen exists with that information, I guess. You could check social security (which I'm not sure definitively indicates status) and see the same for that. But it's a very messy system in general. My name is actually different in a few government databases - in one I have two middle names, in the other two last names. Just random clerical stuff like that is common.
- justin66 6mo ago
  If there's not a table somewhere maintained by the US government that associates social security number with citizenship status, that's because a choice was made by the government not to do that. It would be a simple enough thing to do. (yes, checking against name / DOB / ssn always has some inherent messiness to it)
  - nemomarx 6mo ago
    It's definitely a choice, because we've avoided having a real standardized identity system run by the government for so long. But there are reasons for people to oppose it on both sides of the aisle (states rights, immigration views, anti federalism, libertarians) so it's a pretty hard task. Maybe this admin could try it as an immigration security measure and get some support that way but I have my doubts.

kylehotchkiss 6mo ago

So can they stop being so anal about “home addresses” so people traveling abroad for a few months don’t have to stress?

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> can they stop being so anal about “home addresses” so people traveling abroad for a few months don’t have to stress? P.O. or private mail box.
- PretzelPirate 6mo ago
  I'm not who you replied to. Banks are cracking down on PO boxes and CMRAs as the residential address for their clients. It's fine as the mailing address, but people who travel abroad full time may not have a permanent residential address. Right now, you can choose to use a friend/family address, or you can pay a company to provide a residential address for you. We should be able to say "I have no permanent residential address since I'm travelling, please send all mail to this CRMA.", but that isn't a supported scenario today. This all gets complicated for full-time US travellers abroad who may spend all year outside of the country, but they still have to have domicile in some state even when they don't have a permanent address in any state.
- lamasery 6mo ago
  I looked into some of this stuff when we were moving across the country and temporarily had no actual permanent address (living out of AirBnBs) including no home under contract, and it would have been very nice to set up a PO Box and local bank account. I couldn't figure out a way to do it. Even looking at services aimed at people living in RVs didn't seem like it was going to work. For one thing, I couldn't get a PO Box without a home address, LOL.
- kylehotchkiss 6mo ago
  That's a great way to get your bank account shut down and your balance mailed to your last known residential address. Patriot act paranoia.
- 6mo ago

jmclnx 6mo ago

I cannot get to that link, here is another one. The main part to remember is "may". The cost of this process could prevent the order from being issued: https://www.businessinsider.com/banks-requirement-citizenship-data-executive-order-2026-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/banks-requirement-citizenshi... An interesting quote: > Dissuading people from banking was "one of the more predictable outcomes," Braunegg said, adding that could include people ... and dual citizens who are "wary of cross-border reporting."

josefritzishere 6mo ago

This seems to be a debanking scheme. Debanking schemes are just a way to steal peoples savings of course. Deutsche Bank did the same from 1933 to 1945 in Germany.

josefritzishere 6mo ago
Minus points? We would all be wise to learn from history. https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Publication_OP_2003-01.pdf https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/Publication_OP_2003-01.pdf

guywithahat 6mo ago

Which is how most of the world does it. What is interesting is that in 2023 the CFPB/DOJ started threatening to sue banks if they relied on immigration status/duration of stay to approve loans, which was generally regarded as threatening banks not to consider immigration status for loans. There is a risk that if they use this information the next president in the white house may try to sue them, however if they don't use immigration information then they'll be left stranded with a bunch of bad loans. It's probably better that they have this information but it is a bit of a lose-lose

ravenstine 6mo ago
> Which is how most of the world does it. That's not persuasive. America does a lot of things different from most of the world, and they're not inherently wrong for doing so. The rest of your comment makes an interesting point, though.

bradley13 6mo ago

The US forced stuff like this - and much more - on other countries, with FATCA. Just one example: Foreign banks must report all financial activities of Americans to the US. An American official wad asked in an interview if the US would then report financial activities of non-Americans to their home tax authorities. The answer was "lol, no, that would be too much effort". I am having a moment of Schadenfreude...

aboardRat4 6mo ago
>US forced "Forced"? You're _way_ everestimating US influence. Most countries not just "collect citizenship data", they require you to have a valid non-expired ID, valid non-expired residential registration, a fresh digital photo, verified phone number and a valid tax number. All of that without any US interference.
- randerson 6mo ago
  I'm an immigrant to the US who still has a bank account in my home country. After I told that bank I'd moved abroad, they required me to fill out paperwork for FATCA and give them my US SSN. I also have to self-report all foreign accounts and their balances to the IRS. The penalties for not doing so are severe.
- mapt 6mo ago
  My crude understanding is that in the 90's, the US controlled basically all the world's large-scale financial clearing network, and after 9/11 declared a holy war against anything that didn't provide visibility to US intelligence (like the surviving medieval Middle Eastern 'Hawala' banking system) and the ability for the US to sanction it on a fine-grained basis. Since that time, we have grabbed on tighter and tighter, and are finding that the world is starting to seek out a less politically volatile patron for a financial system.
  - SauciestGNU 6mo ago
    It's pretty wild, I work in finance and hawala was specifically called out in my anti money laundering training. Really seems like cultural chauvanism and thinly veiled racism to eschew an entire traditional monetary support system.

b8 6mo ago

I already have to upload my real ID and had to hop on a video call to show my face + ID for one bank.

runako 6mo ago

Since others are not saying it, enforcing this will immediately cause havoc as any number of citizens do not have ready access to any document proving citizenship. (Non-US people note that this is likely a major difference between the US and your country. The US does not compulsorily provide proof of citizenship to its citizens that can be used at places where one is typically asked to prove one's citizenship.) Bessent notes here that Real ID would not be considered valid ID for this purpose, which sounds like it will have the same problems as the SAVE act. This could mean debanking anyone who has changed their name and does not have a notarized copy of the name change certificate, and most people who do not drive. (I am not sure how it would handle minors, who generally do not have any photo ID. Would they have to come in to provide ID when they turn 18?) The underlying idea is fine, but it creates problems when combined with the reluctance to issue any kind of national ID.

pjc50 6mo ago
> enforcing this will immediately cause havoc as any number of citizens do not have ready access to any document proving citizenship Yes, that is obviously the intention of this system.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > that is obviously the intention of this system I'm genuinely unsure which way the partisan tilt would lean on American citizens who get unbanked.
  - pjc50 6mo ago
    > which way the partisan tilt would lean on American citizens who get unbanked. Obviously the court of Fox public opinion would examine their social media to determine if they're woke or Hispanic before deciding this.
  - bediger4000 6mo ago
    If they don't have documentation, are they citizens?

alibarber 6mo ago

Having opened accounts in two different European countries, the more surprising thing here for me is that the US banks _didn’t_ already do this.

0xbadcafebee 6mo ago

Don't let commenters convince you this is normal. This is a concerted effort by Republicans to win the midterm elections. It's a very old Republican tactic: disenfranchise poor ethnic communities that would vote Democrat. > The planned EO is one more plank in President Donald Trump’s broader effort to tie his immigration policy to collection of information in the United States, including for voting and Census efforts. As usual for a Republican agenda, it hurts the economy in order to achieve its ideological goals. > In addition to legal questions, some policy experts and banks have warned about damage to the economy if people are denied access to the banking system and deposit accounts, as well as potentially big increases in administrative costs for banks. [...] Allowing noncitizens, including undocumented immigrants, to legally open bank accounts using documentation, such as an ITIN, means they can pay taxes and avoid being part of the “unbanked” existing in a purely cash economy. Being unbanked is often associated with less ability to move up the social ladder and contribute to economic growth.

ImJamal 6mo ago
How is this not normal? Don't most / all European countries require the same?
- lo_zamoyski 6mo ago
  Apparently, European ID practices are racist, contemptuous of the poor, etc...
  - alexb_ 6mo ago
    Yes. "Other people do it" does not make it any less anti-foreigner.
- 0xbadcafebee 6mo ago
  It turns out that most of the world is not Europe. We have our own system, evolved over a century, responding to events in this country. Abruptly changing that system creates real harm to a gigantic population. We don't have a national ID system, and we have millions of undocumented immigrants, as well as millions of African Americans who have been systematically oppressed in order to elevate the interests of a white majority. (that's not an opinion, it's a fact; our Supreme Court literally wouldn't let southern states change election laws without checking with them, because southern states wanted to eliminate most black people from voter roles) 21 million adults in this country lack a driver's license. Of those the largest groups are Black and Hispanic populations. 11 million more without IDs are undocumented immigrants. That's 32 million people disenfranchised and unbanked. A larger population than most EU countries, without a vote or a bank account. IF you introduced a national ID system, and got every single American on it, then this wouldn't be an issue, because everyone could still vote and bank. But that's not what they want. They want 32 million people to suffer. That's why this is wrong, regardless of what's common in Europe.

gla67890543 6mo ago

This data collection is not for immigrants. most people they just come, work and leave. Sooner or later all those Maga clowns understand, this is all about controlling them.wait for the results until they integrate everything into Palantir.

exabrial 6mo ago

I think bank's KYC is fine, and I have no issues with making this more strict. After Equifax hired a music major for their Chief Security Officer and leaked everyone's information for free, I had someone open a bank account in my name. Luckily I caught it and got it shut down. I was not reimbursed by Equifax for the giant pain in the ass this was.

Grappelli 6mo ago

[flagged]

negura 6mo ago

avoiding this is one of the use cases for cryptocurrencies

chrismcb 6mo ago

Personally I think the American banking system is garbage. The technology is awful. But the government requirements are too onerous and potentially unconstitutional. The government doesn't need to know who I am, the bank doesn't need to know the customer.