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

The U.S. predominantly compels banks through FATCA. If a bank wants to do business in America, it has to follow FATCA for Americans abroad. There is, of course, some regulatory co-operation. But to my knowledge, most countries don't directly transmit these data to the U.S.–the banks have to report it instead.

The correct analogy would be a foreign country requiring U.S. banks to send them data on their own citizens abroad. Which, I think, e.g. India could probably do.

"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.

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.

Endless waste of time, red tape, administratrivia...

All for exactly nothing.

Yes, that is obviously the intention of this system.

It's very dark. I tend to be libertarian about these things and feel like it's none of the government's business. Get a warrant and do your investigations if you want to prove someone is a foreigner up to no good. There is no real problem unless you're xenophobic or racist.

So I don't agree the "underlying idea is fine" at all. This is a step further though, by putting an administrative and financial burden on people to have a bank account.

The fact this is normal in other places in the world doesn't make it ok to me either — two wrongs don't make a right. And in any event many other places are more socialized than the US, so there isn't the same kind of burden on many places as there would be in the US. It would be one thing if the administration were bending over backwards to provide public healthcare, expand education and public research, but they're doing the opposite.

You are required to prove your citizenship to the government (by proxy of your bank or otherwise). The government lacks a unified document of identity which would by law act as a proof of citizenship, and reserves its right to call any other document it is issuing to be “insufficient”.

    - can't get a job without a local bank account
    - can't get a bank account without a residential address
    - can't get a (rented) residential address without proof of employment
    - getting a local phone number may also depend on / be required for any of these steps

Any policy that suddenly pulls the rug on them is notable precisely because we created the problem (or not-a-problem, depending on your leanings) in the first place.

I spent most of my time in Texas using either my passport or my old forms of ID because my schedule never aligned with the DMV and I didn't have a driver's license to surrender.

There's a large portion of citizens here that would not have valid or current identification in order to open up an account nor the means to immediately obtain it.

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.

As a quick example, I know for a fact they accept expired visas as ID proof to open an account.

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.

The live update would add an extra element of terror to the system, of course.

Edit: actually the UK system is pretty much this, except it's a token rather than an API, presumably to prevent you looking up random people without their consent: https://www.gov.uk/prove-right-to-work/get-a-share-code-onli...

Note that is for right to work, not right to reside, neither of which is the same thing as eligible for a bank account.

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.

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.

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.

P.O. or private mail box.