Wikipedia

Talk:Matrícula Consular

Latest comment: 6 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified (January 2018)

This article is totally one-sided, it needs to be more balanced.

    • I'll do you one better...whoever wrote this article needs to be monitored by the Wiki-powers that be. The article's tone borders on racism. I've seen with my own eyes that the Mexican consulates here in the US take document authenticity seriously. Simply put, this isn't the proper forum for xenophobic anecdotes, and pertaining to the specific complaint registered in this article, it's still relatively easy to obtain fake American documents as well.
    • The article needs to be re-written, however, a few of the comments above need to be researched to determine their place, or lack thereof, in this article. For starters, it is irrelevant to this article as to whether or not American documents can be forged. This article is not about American documents, it is about one specific type of document. Second, one person's experience with the Mexican consulates in the U.S. does not constitute credible research. I happen to live in an area with a high Mexican immigrant population, and my experience is that they are disruptive to peace and civility, non-conforming to the laws of decency, and lack work inituitive. Obviously this does not reflect all, or even the majority of the Mexican immigrants here in American, and does not belong in any article. This does not mean that I am "racist" against the Mexican population, it just shows my experience.
    • Also, while the article only appears to give one side of an argument, I see no tone of racism. What I see is someone who likely subscribes to the ideologies of those who are fed up with illegal immigration in America. There is no place for that in this article, but that does not indicate racism. I don't agree that the sexes should integrate into each others private organizations, such as the boy scouts, girl scouts, or a men's only or women's only institute, but I am not sexist...I just happen to appreciate traditions that don't degrade those of different credentials.
    • CALLING SOMEONE A RACIST IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN EASY WAY OUT OF A LEGITIMATE DEBATE. IT HAS BECOME RIDICULOUS HOW OFTEN THIS TERM IS USED BY THOSE THAT CAN NOT CREATE A RATIONAL ARGUMENT. I ALSO FIND IT INTERESTING HOW BEING A RACIST IS APPARENTLY ONLY APPLICABLE TO CERTAIN PEOPLE BUT NOT TO OTHERS. OPPOSE "ILLEGAL" IMMIGRATION AND YOU'RE CALLED A RACIST, YET WHEN GROUPS LIKE LA RAZA MAKE COMMENTS AS THEY DID IN THE NOVEMBER WASHINGTON RALLY, THEY GET A FREE PASS.
    • If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.
    • I came to Wikipedia in response to Jorge Castaneda's new book Ex Mex. This article is most disappointing. This is not the place for an immigration debate (although I have taken on the unwelcoming). The article should be replaced in its entirety. Tarvid (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds balanced to me

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article sounds balanced to me. All it says is that there is controversy in the issuance of the card. There is controversy. Obviously we wouldn't be having these discussions.

    • It was reordered and cleaned up a bit, but it remains listed as a pov section because the research quoted is entirely one sided. It's like saying all licences are fraudulent because one person managed to fake one. It comes down to ordering of evidence to favor one side of an argument. The very defination of POV.

This article is VERY one sided, and makes it seem that the Mexican consulates just issue id cards randomly to anyone who wants one. First of all, if you go to the Mexican consulate with someone that wants a Matricula card, you will find that they are VERY particular about being able to prove who you are to get one. They also verify documents as well as any DMV in the US. Also, in the US they will not accept the IDs our consulats issue abroad to open an account or prove identity either. Its an ID card for use in foreign countries ONLY. I'm sure it's just as open to forgery and alteration as our state issued IDs (I used to work for a polic department, and believe me, the state issued ones are forged all the time). It's mandatory in this country that you carry some form of ID for a multitude of reasons, if we had some way to issue IDs for foreign born citizens then we wouldn't have this problem. And regardless, when it comes to immigration there will always be debate. Cartel employees will always be able to get fake documents, no matter what country they go to. Native born criminals here find a way to get authentic state IDs here also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.148.7 (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Matricula Consular cards are not valid identification as mentioned

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Matricula Consular card is not recognized by the Mexican Government as valid identification in Mexico, and can not be used to open a bank account in Mexico, so why is it valid identification to open a bank account in the United States? Condemning the article on the Matricula Consular cards being issued in the U.S. as racist is a dishonest characterization of the security issues being presented.

Nevertheless there are benefits to having a form of identification, which is not government controlled, or ID, which is completely defined by its creator. Incidentally such identification could have a complete and fully verified credit history, to provide as good a level of security as any conventional identification system. This concept was described in detail in Scientific American about 10 years ago.

It is also well known that 10’s of millions of illegal aliens are using false identification to obtain jobs and help create citizenship for themselves in the U.S., and that the United States Government and its banks are complicit in these efforts to facilitate the repopulation of the United States. The vital statistics and demographic data are irrefutable on this matter; so naturally someone is going to mention the obvious, and evidentially they are going to be attacked for mentioning factual information. Nevertheless slander is not a valid form of criticism to target the suppression of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VAv (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC).Reply

Would the author of the above statement please provide a reference for the claim that "The Matricula Consular card is not recognized by the Mexican Government as valid identification in Mexico, and can not be used to open a bank account in Mexico." I am not going to claim it is not true but I would like some evidence that it is before I take it on face value.

I believe the reasoning is that Mexicans in Mexico don't need the Matricula, because it is intended ONLY for America. The statement that the card is not recognized by the Mexican Government would be true, simply because they are Mexican and they are in their own country. I don't know what Mexican Banks require for identification, but I doubt they would want an instrument meant for the United States! Perhaps reading what the FBI has to say might give you something to understand the problem.

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress03/mccraw062603.htm


A bank employee's point of view

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am employed by a bank that currently accepts the Matricula Card as a valid form of identification. Just to clarify what seems to be overlooked by this article as well as other comments, this form of identification is only ONE form of identification accepted by banks opening accounts for non-US citizens. Presenting this card alone will not get a person anywhere in terms of opening a bank account.

Most banks with which I have worked, as well as the bank for which I am currently employed, require two forms of identification for non-US citizens opening bank accounts in the United States. A visa is not an acceptable form of identification. Most non-citizens opening bank accounts provide a passport, and still need one more form of government issued identification. This seems to be ideal for those individuals as it is an easily available form of government issued ID which can assist banks in validating the information which is provided on their passport.

Perhaps banks in Mexico will not open bank accounts with the Matricula Card used as identification, but neither will US banks if this is the only form of identification an individual provides. One form of identification is required for U.S. citizens opening a bank account in the US, while two forms are required of non-US citizens. The Matricula Card can only be accepted as an additional form of identification to supplement the customer's passport or other verifiable documentation.

72.88.105.40 03:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can we get banks to associate non-resident accounts with an ITIN? Tarvid (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Leave personal opinions and feelings out. If this article is supported by solid references, and facts, then leave it well enough alone. There are millions of articles that I do not personally like, but if it is fact, or part of our history, then I respect it. Things can not always be sugar coated to our liking. Two forms of identification are required at FDIC banks. I do not know about Credit Unions. Kbehnsch (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

NPOV

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I have placed a NPOV tag on this article,because of the inadequately sourced claims of its insufficiency and propensity to fraud. A balanced international view of this is necessary, using both US and Mexican sources. DGG (talk) 08:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

DGG, can you be more specific about what why you believe the sources questioning the this id's "insufficiency and propensity to fraud" are inadequate. I had originally found this to be the case and had spent a bit of time (before you placed this NPOV) gathering more resources that do cite the this from the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the FBI (as citations in this article now reflect). I also provided an external link to a Mexican Consulate in the U.S. explaining this id. Obviously, the security concerns our expressed by the U.S. government and not the Mexican government, and I have not found any statements by the Mexican government regarding the U.S. security concerns.

It does seem a bit odd that it's being used instead of the Mexican passport and primarily issued within the U.S. If a passport is lost or stolen, it's standard practice for Consular Offices to assist its citizens in a passport reissuance. The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 defines the Consular's function as "issuing passports and travel documents to nationals of the sending State, and visas or appropriate documents to persons wishing to travel to the sending State;" It doesn't say that say Consular functions include creating non-passport identification for non-travel purposes.

Rigimoni (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Removed NPOV tag. DGG's and others' concern that claims of a "propensity to fraud" are inadequately sourced has been addressed with documentation from several government departments. In so far as DGG's complaint that the page lacks a "balanced international view", this is not an NPOV issue but rather Anglo-American focus and systematic bias.

Rigimoni (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This sentence makes no sense!

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

"In a letter to the Homeland Security Secretary, the U.S. House Chairmen of the Homeland Security Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, & Intellectual Property wrote that..."


I'm going to try and find out who "wrote that".

"In a letter to the Homeland Security Secretary, the U.S. House Chairmen of the Homeland Security Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and {the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, & Intellectual Property} wrote that..."

Okay, I don't think that "the Internet" or "Intellectual Property" wrote anything directly, so I can group those with the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts

"In a letter to 1{the Homeland Security Secretary}, 2{the U.S. House Chairmen of the Homeland Security Committee}, 3{the Judiciary Committee}, 4{the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security}, and 5{the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, & Intellectual Property} wrote that..."

Okay, #1 was the subject of the letter. However, given the commas, the target of the letter could be all 5, and they left out the author.

Assuming 1-4 actually wrote the letter, could we re-write it a little more clearly?

"In a letter to the Homeland Security Secretary by the U.S. House Chairmen of the Homeland Security Committee, the Judiciary Committee, the Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, and {the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, & Intellectual Property}, it was written that..."98.127.168.159 (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

That is an excellent suggestion. I've made this change. Thanks! — Huntster (t @ c) 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

It should also be noted that this reference (made in 2003) is most likely to the earlier "low-security" Matricular Consular card. The cards and process have been heavily redesigned since then. Later quotes on the "higher-security" cards give a reference to a "Dustin Inman Society" page, where D.A. King has edited a Matricular Consular card image with his face and name (there were protests by the Mexican government when the page came out initially that he was committing fraud), probably not being likely that he completely counterfeited the entire card physically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.113.120.42 (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Matrícula Consular. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matrícula Consular. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Matrícula_Consular&oldid=1203920874"